Let's make DCS more beginner-friendly.

[ALFA-62]

Hi ED team,
I'm coming to you with a few module suggestions and changes that I believe could be beneficial. Namely:

• Adding/creating several WWII aircraft from 1944 that took part in the battles over Normandy.

• Creating a lower-quality version of the Normandy map, either for free or at half price, so that new pilots who are just getting into DCS and are interested in WWII have a lower entry barrier.

• Developing a few low-fidelity WWII aircraft to reduce the entry barrier for newcomers — for example, these aircraft could be priced similarly to Flaming Cliffs jets or at half the price of high-fidelity WWII modules. This would make it easier for new players to immerse themselves in the WWII atmosphere and potentially grow our community of WWII and combat flight sim enthusiasts.

• The same approach could be applied to the Cold War era — a low-fidelity Cold War map at half the regular price to lower the entry barrier and make it easier for newcomers to enter the Cold War setting. I’d also consider developing a few low-fidelity Cold War aircraft, such as the Mirage F1, Mirage III, British Jaguar, Dassault Super Étendard, MiG-21, MiG-23, and perhaps a few American and British aircraft. I’m not saying all of them need to be made, but at least 4–6 aircraft could make a significant difference.

[cfrag]

On 6/9/2025 at 12:03 AM, ALFA-62 said:

suggestions and changes that I believe could be beneficial.

Beneficial in what way? The title reads "beginner-friendly", the contents focus on WW II aircraft, which are decidedly not beginner friendly to fly. 

On 6/9/2025 at 12:03 AM, ALFA-62 said:

• Adding/creating several WWII aircraft from 1944 that took part in the battles over Normandy.

And that makes DCS more beginner-friendly because...? Also, keep in mind that in DCS, we look at geological timescales for new aircraft - "several" aircraft equates to 10 years+

On 6/9/2025 at 12:03 AM, ALFA-62 said:

Creating a lower-quality version of the Normandy map, either for free or at half price

Uh. Normandy and Channel are dead last when it comes to players, at least on servers. Last week-end I counted 3 players total for Normandy and Channel (ok, dead last is Falklands with 0, and 1 for Iraq. I consider both maps dead, along with "Halfghanistan"). So how is creating a worse version from one of the most unpopular maps (by server player count) going to make DCS more beginner-friendly?

On 6/9/2025 at 12:03 AM, ALFA-62 said:

Developing a few low-fidelity WWII aircraft to reduce the entry barrier for newcomers

So those "several WWII aircraft" you talked about were full fi? ED wants to make money. Iconic planes make money: Hornet, Tomcat, Fat Amy. The others - not so much. Creating several warbirds in lo- and hi-fi? Unlikely to the extreme to become funded. And it's still a mystery how adding aircraft - any type - makes DCS more beginner friendly.

Making DCS more beginner friendly IMHO would be things like

• A UX/UI that is usable
• Make it easy to view and get into your aircraft, and especially reduce the pain to configure your hardware for your aircraft
• Provide some decent tutorials 
• Make it easy to create a quick engagement (the new QAG isn't there yet. Not by a long shot)
• Make it easy to create missions (Mission Editor really isn't there yet, not by a couple of light years)
• Make it easy to discover (find, download, manage/update, remove) new content, especially user-created content like missions, liveries, mods
• Much better improved multiplayer support: find who is online, join them, invite them etc, create groups, arrange meetings etc.

There are tons of things to improve DCS's decidedly callous approach to welcoming new players. Adding new planes or maps seems not to be among them for me.

Edited Tuesday at 11:27 AM by cfrag

[upyr1]

On 6/8/2025 at 5:03 PM, ALFA-62 said:

Hi ED team,
I'm coming to you with a few module suggestions and changes that I believe could be beneficial. Namely:

• Adding/creating several WWII aircraft from 1944 that took part in the battles over Normandy.

• Creating a lower-quality version of the Normandy map, either for free or at half price, so that new pilots who are just getting into DCS and are interested in WWII have a lower entry barrier.

• Developing a few low-fidelity WWII aircraft to reduce the entry barrier for newcomers — for example, these aircraft could be priced similarly to Flaming Cliffs jets or at half the price of high-fidelity WWII modules. This would make it easier for new players to immerse themselves in the WWII atmosphere and potentially grow our community of WWII and combat flight sim enthusiasts.

• The same approach could be applied to the Cold War era — a low-fidelity Cold War map at half the regular price to lower the entry barrier and make it easier for newcomers to enter the Cold War setting. I’d also consider developing a few low-fidelity Cold War aircraft, such as the Mirage F1, Mirage III, British Jaguar, Dassault Super Étendard, MiG-21, MiG-23, and perhaps a few American and British aircraft. I’m not saying all of them need to be made, but at least 4–6 aircraft could make a significant difference.

This is why I was saddened when MAC got canceled. While I agree with the general idea of the post. I really don't want to see more FC modules unless there is a good reason. If you could release a module now and the FF version would take another year then I would understand that. I would much rather give every module an FC style easy mode, ED might also incorporate an AI trainer which starts adding system complexity.   

[SharpeXB]

41 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Normandy and Channel are dead last when it comes to players, at least on servers. Last week-end I counted 3 players total for Normandy and Channel (ok, dead last is Falklands with 0, and 1 for Iraq. I consider both maps dead, along with "Halfghanistan"). So how is creating a worse version from one of the most unpopular maps (by server player count) going to make DCS more beginner-friendly?

I wouldn’t use server popularity as an indicator of map quality or appeal. Server missions simply run the lowest common denominator for maps by necessity to get the most players. By that logic Caucuses is the “best” DCS map 90% of DCS players have never played online. The WWII maps aren’t used much online because WWII itself is a minority niche within DCS. Honestly both those WWII maps are gorgeous and well done.

On 6/8/2025 at 5:03 PM, ALFA-62 said:

Creating a lower-quality version of the Normandy map, either for free or at half price, so that new pilots who are just getting into DCS and are interested in WWII have a lower entry barrier.

The trouble here is making extra maps would still cost money but at a lower quality level they wouldn’t sell very well. If anyone has trouble running maps they can just turn down their graphic settings, that’s what those are for. 

On 6/8/2025 at 5:03 PM, ALFA-62 said:

Developing a few low-fidelity WWII aircraft to reduce the entry barrier for newcomers — for example, these aircraft could be priced similarly to Flaming Cliffs jets or at half the price of high-fidelity WWII modules. This would make it easier for new players to immerse themselves in the WWII atmosphere and potentially grow our community of WWII and combat flight sim enthusiasts.

Not a bad idea. It’s been suggested before and it didn’t seem like there was much interest. Who knows if that might change now that they’ve decided to increase the roster of FC3 level aircraft i.e. FC4

[Thamiel]

5 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

90% of DCS players have never played online.

I keep hearing that mantra over and over again, it almost sounds like an urban legend.

[Hiob]

12 minutes ago, Thamiel said:

I keep hearing that mantra over and over again, it almost sounds like an urban legend.

I don't know about the exact figure. But the ballpark is certainly correct. Just have a look at the server population at any given time and compare that to the player numbers on steam (which are probably 50% of all players only, given how many players are skipping steam for ED directly).

[buceador]

14 minutes ago, Thamiel said:

90% of DCS players have never played online.

76.4 percent of statistics are made up on the spot! 

However... I think ED have stated in the past that the majority of DCS users are SP.

[The_GhostRider]

I for one have been playing since the Flanker days and have never once played online, so we're out here

[Canada_Moose]

2 minutes ago, The_GhostRider said:

I for one have been playing since the Flanker days and have never once played online, so we're out here

Same here

[Rudel_chw]

10 minutes ago, buceador said:

76.4 percent of statistics are made up on the spot! 

 

 couldn't agree more, its an amazing fact.

10 minutes ago, The_GhostRider said:

I for one have been playing since the Flanker days and have never once played online, so we're out here

 

On my case, I did flew multiplayer for about a year, even got to install a dedicated server ... but after a while all the flaws of social gaming convinced me that I'm better off playing SP only and I'm much happier now  

[cfrag]

6 minutes ago, Hiob said:

I don't know about the exact figure. But the ballpark is certainly correct

I seem to recall a post by some ED people citing a 10%-12% online figure, probably 1-2 years ago. Given DCS's atrocious online experience (compared to other games that allow online play), that is hardly surprising to me. On-line play does seem to be in decline for DCS, even though some companies (e.g. Fox3) have taken much of the pain of hosting DCS out of the equation (I'm publicly hosting 2 DCS servers for the community).

In the context of this thread, all this IMHO is immaterial, though. OP suggests adding some air frame and maps to make DCS more beginner-friendly, a non-sequitur in my mind. In my mind, it's neither the planes nor maps that make DCS inaccessible to neophytes.

[Rudel_chw]

1 minute ago, cfrag said:

OP suggests adding some air frame and maps to make DCS more beginner-friendly, a non-sequitur in my mind.

 

I agree.

[BIGNEWY]

5 minutes ago, cfrag said:

I seem to recall a post by some ED people citing a 10%-12% online figure, probably 1-2 years ago. Given DCS's atrocious online experience (compared to other games that allow online play), that is hardly surprising to me. On-line play does seem to be in decline for DCS, even though some companies (e.g. Fox3) have taken much of the pain of hosting DCS out of the equation (I'm publicly hosting 2 DCS servers for the community).

In the context of this thread, all this IMHO is immaterial, though. OP suggests adding some air frame and maps to make DCS more beginner-friendly, a non-sequitur in my mind. In my mind, it's neither the planes nor maps that make DCS inaccessible to neophytes.

you have an opinion and that is fine, but MP isn't in decline, it is pretty steady. 

The fact is single player is just way more popular. 

thanks

[SharpeXB]

52 minutes ago, Thamiel said:

I keep hearing that mantra over and over again, it almost sounds like an urban legend.

This is where that’s from. ED themselves, it’s the first question answered. Not hard to believe if you see the numbers who are on multiplayer, I hope those few dozen people aren’t the majority. That’s nothing against DCS, combat flight sims just don’t lend themselves to MP very well, they’re all mostly SP

 

Edited Tuesday at 01:17 PM by SharpeXB

[cfrag]

Just now, BIGNEWY said:

but MP isn't in decline, it is pretty steady. 

That is indeed good news, thank you BN. That being said, I don't see the numbers (I am hosting 2 servers through the kind people at Fox3). So if (as I'm hoping) you are phenomenally successful at SP, with steadily increasing player numbers, keeping online players steady does mean a relative decline. I dearly hope that on-line play picks up soon. If not, I will at least retire one of my hosted servers. To increase on-line play I'd love to see a better, tighter integration into the main game, and a massive upgrade of the UX/UI. I have already posted many suggestions in this regards, and I'm sure that you have forwarded some of them to the team. 

Here's to great DCS success - online and SP.

[Bob_Petuss]

On 09.06.2025 at 01:03, ALFA-62 said:

 

It seems to me that new and more convenient training missions will be more useful for beginners.

[Tom Kazansky]

2 minutes ago, Bob_Petuss said:

It seems to me that new and more convenient training missions will be more useful for beginners.

+1

[BIGNEWY]

We all know DCS has a huge learning curve and that is a challenge in itself, so its important to have engaging content as well as the learning aspect of DCS with training missions. 

Onboarding of new people to DCS is important, its something we have discussed a lot internally and have some plans for the future that will hopefully make the new user experience a more pleasant one. When we can share news about that we will. 

please feel free to add more ideas in this thread, we are always looking for new ideas. 

thanks

 

[Canada_Moose]

The training campaigns really help improve familiarity with aircraft modules (Iron Flag etc) Harrier training missions from Baltic Dragon is very well done.

I would say using the campaign creators (ED could outsource) to create even more 'basic' training platforms would be a good idea. 

I don't think more 'dumbed down' modules is a good use of time or resources. Starts sounding more like War Thunder at that point.

[Hiob]

I think the most likely reason for the small online player community is the commitment necessary to be "somewhat" successful. At least for serious gameplay. The hurdle to have some fun is certainly higher than for fps shooter or other popular online games.

Another factor may be that the demographic for DCS is certainly different than for the most popular PvP online games. It is not only the commitment to a steep learning curve but also a question of available time.

[Dragon1-1]

Just go and hire BD and Reflected to make training material for the free modules (modern and historical, respectively).  Those two know how to make training fun. Couple that with a free or at least cheap FF jet trainer (for WWII, TF-51 would do) and the initial hurdles become much lower.

[SharpeXB]

I think flight sim MP is less popular simply because you need to stay connected for so long compared to typical games. And you can’t pause the game like you can in SP or do some sort of quick mission scenario. There’s not much you can do about that. Typical games can be played online in short sessions but a flight sim pretty much means taking off and landing the plane. More popular “Air shooter” games are really FPS games with 3rd person airplanes that start in the air.

Then in general there are hardware limitations like needing joysticks or head tracking. Flying games in general have the problem that your “free look” is constrained by the airplane controls, not easily separated like in an FPS game. This makes them not fun generally unless you have head tracking. But a sim really mandates a cockpit view and thus head tracking. Although this can actually be had for free it’s just another hurtle. 

Edited Tuesday at 02:17 PM by SharpeXB

[cfrag]

25 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

There’s not much you can do about that. Typical games can be played online in short sessions but a flight sim pretty much means taking off and landing the plane.

With the advent of Foothold and similar sandboxes, this is no longer true; it is indeed a content issue, and classic, multi-hour engagements are only enjoyable for a small section of players, while MP sandbox play can attract a much greater variety of players. If DCS added more and better support for this inside its scripting environment (there is a lot of untapped potential here: more/better support for C/SAR, Transport, Logistics, better scripting for fuel, unit damage and drone control, etc), mission creators can cater to that need, and the MP community can grow hopefully disproportionally. A typical Foothold session lasts 45 minutes, which is still long in MP circles but significantly easier to swallow than 1 hour briefings followed by 3 hour missions that can't be interrupted. And yes, even with Foothold-style missions, real save and continue is a must in MP, hopefully it will arrive some day. 

Let's hope that content creators soon receive better, and more flexible tools that can help creating more popular MP missions.

[SharpeXB]

9 minutes ago, cfrag said:

With the advent of Foothold and similar sandboxes, this is no longer true; it is indeed a content issue, and classic, multi-hour engagements are only enjoyable for a small section of players, while MP sandbox play can attract a much greater variety of players. If DCS added more and better support for this inside its scripting environment (there is a lot of untapped potential here: more/better support for C/SAR, Transport, Logistics, better scripting for fuel, unit damage and drone control, etc), mission creators can cater to that need, and the MP community can grow hopefully disproportionally. A typical Foothold session lasts 45 minutes, which is still long in MP circles but significantly easier to swallow than 1 hour briefings followed by 3 hour missions that can't be interrupted. And yes, even with Foothold-style missions, real save and continue is a must in MP, hopefully it will arrive some day. 

Let's hope that content creators soon receive better, and more flexible tools that can help creating more popular MP missions.

There are no doubt some online games that feature long sessions but it’s still a limiting factor. Combine that with the other restrictions like hardware and learning curves and the result is a very sparse game. I’ve never seen a CFS game with more than a few dozen people on the entire planet playing it a one time. And DCS adds even more complexity. And the trouble with such small numbers compounds on itself. It means all of MP is concentrated on just a few servers maybe even just one when you filter that by era or style etc. So if your preference isn’t available then MP is just not an option. For example, currently there are no populated modern PvP servers. Which is just amazing. The only option is Cold War. So if you want to do anything like that your only option is SP. Then sometimes the only server that has any players on it can decide to do something dumb and either you deal with that or don’t play. Again you’re just stuck with whatever the one sever owner does and they dictate gameplay for the entire game. The end result is that SP is just a better quality experience. 

[SharpeXB]

PS as far as realistic sim gameplay is concerned, multiplayer cannot offer that. The only game mode you get is lone wolf air quake action. Real world-ish combat is always a team effort. You’d have a squadron or groups. Ground attack which is a big part of the DCS lineup is impossible without fighter cover, etc. You can only get such numbers and cooperation using AI in SP. Yes it’s possible to have groups online but the logistics of making that work isn’t practical for most people. So if you want a realistic mission for your P-47 that means an entire group of fighters escorting dozens of B-17s over France being attacked by waves of Focke Wulfs, not taking off all by yourself on a big empty map and hunting for the four other enemy players out there. This is all likely a big reason most players are SP