MP and Mods - Balance vs Realism

[A.S]

Guys, you are really drifting in hyper-restriction fears here.

Graphics.cfg and that what it can do is really minimal...

 

There are other files way more crucial!

(modellod.txt for example ...well most know how to make jets look huuuge over miles i assume..that cheat is leaked already

here we have to think about a good modellod.txt file, considering if the new one ine 2.0 is good or not (oversized values again))

 

Besides haze, LOD, visib-range or values like

 

FogParam1 = x;
FogParam2 = x;
ObjectFogMultiplier = x;
   noisemax = x;
   noisemin = x;
}
NoiseStrip
{
   min = x;
   max = x;

lod = x.;

 

found in graphics.cfg...and modified by many (what i saw) are really really a miniaml risk and in my view even irrelevant.

 

Lack of SA (Situation Awareness) might be due to the fact, that many approach BVR from a visual aspect...target-fixated (<< general term btw) and as a visual hunt for "dots"....

You dont fly BVR hunting pixels or missiles trails...if you do so...you have bigtime missed something in understanding BVR combat/concept/doctrine/geometry

 

Its not starwars and dodge-tomatoes flying....

You dont understand me here? Ok, what you do night, or really bad weather? I tell you what....excaclty the same if you have done it right in first place (day).

..thats my serious opinion on that.....

 

anyways ...graphics.cfg shouldn´t be a "oh oh" watch out file.

Edited December 9, 2009 by A.S

[104th_Crunch]

Well, mostly servers have day missions. Being able to see a dot out further then your radar is an unfair advantage. Anyway, we are off topic again, but I am glad we are discussing LO security somewhere!

[Panzertard]

Well, mostly servers have day missions. Being able to see a dot out further then your radar is an unfair advantage. Anyway, we are off topic again, but I am glad we are discussing LO security somewhere!

 

Yes, I think thats where we end up in the grand scale of things.

a) Anti-cheat / security

b) which files to allow to modify

c) what features to allow modification of - and who should be able to decide whats okai or not. (Ex. Server-admins)

 

And further - which tools & mechanisms can be improved to get there. :)

[Breakshot]

@Breakshot... this LOD value in Graphics.cfg doesn't actually do anything other then have higher level of detail in 3D model at further distance, this actually reduces visibility of aircraft at distance... the very rudimentary LOD is easier to see, which is what's seen at further out as dots.

 

I use LOD of 3 because when I am at bases the shelters have nice detail and I don't see the change to lower level LOD, but this does impact performance.

 

I think changing textures etc is not too bad, but changing performance and cofig data in these LUA files is what's needed... and of course Export.lua but need to wait till FC 2.0 comes out to see how all this fits in.

 

Not entirely so, that value increases the distance at which the first LOD (the dot) appears... the higher the value the further away that dot appears... providing of course u have the "Objects" parameter also set a high value...

 

I agree with AS regarding the Standard graphics.cfg settings... Perhaps the server can check if the user has default LOW/MED/HIGH visibility settings, and if so, then its ok... So that only 3 possible settings can then apply...

 

About modellod.txt, that ofcourse we gonna put as one of the "integrity check files" :)

 

However i do hope ED fixes some of their LOD bugs, like the Su-27/33 disappearing at close ranges... or the Mig being almost "invisible" compared to all other AC... etc etc

Edited December 10, 2009 by Breakshot

[Kuky]

Not entirely so, that value increases the distance at which the first LOD (the dot) appears... the higher the value the further away that dot appears... providing of course u have the "Objects" parameter also set a high value...

 

er... not so... the distance at which you can see anything is set here:

 

near_clip = 0.1;

middle_clip = 2;

far_clip = 80000; (distance at which you can see terrain)

structures = {80, 8000}; (structures)

trees = {100000, 11000}; (trees)

dynamic = {300, 10000}; (no idea)

objects = {5000, 50000}; (aircraft, ships, ground units)

mirage = {3000, 10000}; (trains and civil traffic)

surface = {20000, 50000}; (no idea)

lights = {100, 10000};

lod = 3;

 

the Object = 50000 line (default is 80000) is distance at which you will see the rudemntary 3D object of aircraft for example... and changing the LOD value will not make it visable further. The LOD will only let you see higher poly 3D object further out

Edited December 10, 2009 by Kuky

[Breakshot]

Like I said, LODs work in conjunction with "Object" line... but give it a shot, run a test and set LOD to 0.5 and see the difference in "entry" ranges...

 

Anyway it doesnt matter... but setting LODs too high is def something that should NOT be allowed beyond the default levels...

Edited December 10, 2009 by Breakshot

[159th_Viper]

Graphics.cfg will be a tough one as it needs to be locked IMO......

 

Would be a Sad Day indeed if it has to come to that :cry:

 

No offence intended, but the Default Graphics.cfg file looks like a Dog's Breakfast - at least on my install.

 

Contemplating the scenario where I have to attend to a Server that enforces the default graphics.cfg file leaves me Green.......

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I voted for realism. Balance can be accomplished by a mission design.

 

In a recent NATO use of military, the NATO side had 10 times more aircraft in theater. NATO flew over 22 000 sorties and with all of that , some 16 or 17 mobile ground targets were destroyed.This is a clear indication that "mission design" can create a balanced game play.

[Case]

I voted for realism. Balance can be accomplished by a mission design.

 

In a recent NATO use of military, the NATO side had 10 times more aircraft in theater. NATO flew over 22 000 sorties and with all of that , some 16 or 17 mobile ground targets were destroyed.This is a clear indication that "mission design" can create a balanced game play.

You might have mistaken realism for reality here ;)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

You might have mistaken realism for reality here ;)

I tried to make a point that a balanced game play can be achieved in realistic environment. And I was giving an example of real event that occurred recently to show that even in a vastly disproportional ratio of opposing forces, there could still be a balance in a game play.

 

On top of that, Flaming Cliffs simulate very strong armed forces where technology among opposing forces is not that far apart. Again, pointing out that realism is my preference when it comes to a simulation such as Flaming Cliffs.

[Pilotasso]

You try make too much of the same old point, give you opinion and let the mission designers do their job.

[mikoyan]

Supose that ED decides to set a time frame for the next DCS series.

If the designers set a time frame, lest say 1986. We would have lots of migs-25 and 23s plus some mig-29s and su-27s. The migs and sukois would have the r-27s and the r73s with its heltment mounted sight. On he other side we would have f-16 and f-15 with no amrams, AIM7 and AIM9S without off bore-insight capability. After a few weeks we would hear the f-15 fanboys complaining saying that the reds are over modelled: the mig-29 has tooooo much power blabla bla (even thoug the real mig-29 has a great wieght trust ratio only surpassed by newer jets like the eurofighter and f-22)because they have better weapons and their airplanes have better performance.

Then the ammram would be introduced but the red side would complain saying that the r-77 is part of the su-27 and mig-29 arsenal, just because you don't see the ifing r-77 hanging on active duty airplanes it does not mean that it is not available or it is not on full production bla bla bla.

Then the devs would do a patch and would include the r-77 to level up the battlefield...but people is going to start saying that the r-77 is overmodelled, because there is no way that such a draggy (latice wings) missile can be better than the amram bla bla bla.....

 

but.. wait if we are on a 1986 time frame how are we going to be able to fly the ka-50? or the updated a-10 .... so at the end ed would say: lets just model and spesific model of each aircraft. And agin for n~ times we would see people not happy with their favorite aircraft

soooooooo in other words there would be a coldwar of FANBOYS ALL OVER AGAIN :lol:

 

So my petition to ED, to finally achieve world peace of the simulators. Please please pleaseeeee

 

 

 

Model the f-22 for the next DCS series, which let me remind you, owns everything even the enterprice from star-trek and the UFOS please! pleeese:thumbup: ohhh almost forgot, if the f-22 is not possible then, model the f-16 because it owns everything, well almost everything. It owns everything with exception of enterprise and the UFOS, so as long as you are on the f-16 and avoid going out of the orbit you will be ok.

Edited December 11, 2009 by mikoyan

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

You try make too much of the same old point, give you opinion and let the mission designers do their job.

How did you vote go and why? I voted for realism and I cited why I did it.

[Pilotasso]

so did I but you have the bad habit of making claims while in need of some glasses. :)

[ChegLock]

Realism - my choice!!!

[Lange_666]

I, as one of the few, voted for game balance.

 

Why?

 

Simply because of all the crap talk above is not needed if there is game balance.

Who cares if a certain missile can shoot 5 inches further then in real life?

Who cares if a certain airplane can carry a pound of fuel extra?

On what information is this based?

Are we all real military pilots? Nope, far from.

Are we all experts in weapons performance reality? Nope, far from.

Are we all using the same hardware and the same game settings? Nope far from.

 

So what the crap are we talking about?

 

Time to get a life and build some fun into it instead of getting frustrated about reality/realism!!

[GGTharos]

I, as one of the few, voted for game balance.

 

Why?

 

Simply because of all the crap talk above is not needed if there is game balance.

Who cares if a certain missile can shoot 5 inches further then in real life?

Who cares if a certain airplane can carry a pound of fuel extra?

 

Guess.

 

On what information is this based?

We have some pretty darned good, authentic sources. :)

 

Are we all real military pilots? Nope, far from.

Are we all experts in weapons performance reality? Nope, far from.

Are we all using the same hardware and the same game settings? Nope far from.

 

So what the crap are we talking about?

 

Time to get a life and build some fun into it instead of getting frustrated about reality/realism!!

Ok, so you'll play HAWX, not a simulation, right? :)

[EtherealN]

Awh, that's a bit harsh GG. :P

 

But Lange:

"Are we all real military pilots? Nope, far from."

No, but some users are. And some of the Q/A team are and/or were.

 

"Are we all experts in weapons performance reality? Nope, far from."

Some of the people involved are - be it in the ED team or as consultants. Some titles in the credits given for DCS:BS development:

 

Honored military pilot.

Sniper Pilot.

Candidate of military science.

Class 1 pilot of army aviation.

Pilot-instructor.

Hero of Russia

(Section 15 page 6)

 

So even if I myself am not a subject matter expert, I know quite well that ED has the resources to make some good realism.

 

In the end, if you want balance I can give you both balance and realism at the same time. It's actually quite easy: Make a realistic simulator of, say, the MiG 29. Then make a map of 8 MiG 29's versus 8 MiG 29's. Voila - you have both. :)

 

Or maybe 8 MiG29's vs 4 F15.

 

Realism is achieved through simulator design.

Balance is achieved through mission design.

Edited December 12, 2009 by EtherealN

[Lange_666]

GGTHaros, don't make me laugh man!

 

So you play a simulation right?

 

Let me ask a few questions:

- Do you press HOME to start your engines?

- Or you might be a real sim fan who presses ALT-HOME and SHIFT-HOME to start either the left "and" right engine separatly? Like in real life?

- Ever tossed the Master-Arm switch on the A-10? There is one you know!

- Ever waited for the heatseakers to spool up? Not in this "simulation"!

 

I could go on for hours like this, so you play HAWX too, just like me!

 

And oh...if you have some pretty darned good authentic resources, then why the developers don't have them? Even more, why did non of the developers of the last 14 years of simulation didn't have them and everybody on this forum seems to have them?

And if they had them, why didn't they implement it correctly in the first place?

I just wonder... (maby to keep this forum alive, i don't know)

 

PS: on a side note, switching to Falcon 4.0, just tell me why there are so many versions all telling me they (and only they) have the real stuff? Guess they all had access to that same authentic source you are talking about right?

 

And mind you, Falcon 4.0 is so much more of a simulation then LockOn will ever be. Why i play LockOn then? Because it's more fun at the moment. Realism...my ass!

Edited December 12, 2009 by Lange_666

[GGTharos]

Developers have them too. The whys have to do a lot more with programming, timing, and potentially other factors that have nothing to do with code.

 

You seem to have missed the point entirely - see, just because a simulation doesn't simulate a complete system, doesn't mean it cannot be improved.

[EtherealN]

Okey Lange, calm down.

 

And oh...if you have some pretty darned good authentic resources' date=' then why the developers don't have them?[/quote']

 

Note that ED and TFC are military contractors that aside from commercial products produce training simulators used by military forces.

 

Even more, why did non of the developers of the last 14 years of simulation didn't have them and everybody on this forum seems to have them?

And if they had them, why didn't they implement it correctly in the first place?

 

Because not everyone wants to have 45 steps on an abbreviated startup procedure, as is the case with DCS:BS. And of course because doing a full study simulation of several aircraft at singular game price is just not economically feasible.

 

But you'll note that this developer named Eagle Dynamics and TFC made a couple simulators like DCS:BS (used by russian army aviation) and the A10C DTS for the US ANG as well as an AC130 IR operator DTS. I suspect they know something or other if air forces are paying them. ;)

 

Guess they all had access to that same authentic source you are talking about right?

 

They have acces to the F16 Block 52 MLU manuals. I do too. Try google. :)

Edited December 12, 2009 by EtherealN

[RvEYoda]

GGTHaros, don't make me laugh man!

 

So you play a simulation right?

 

Let me ask a few questions:

- Do you press HOME to start your engines?

- Or you might be a real sim fan who presses ALT-HOME and SHIFT-HOME to start either the left "and" right engine separatly? Like in real life?

- Ever tossed the Master-Arm switch on the A-10? There is one you know!

- Ever waited for the heatseakers to spool up? Not in this "simulation"!

 

I could go on for hours like this, so you play HAWX too, just like me!

 

And oh...if you have some pretty darned good authentic resources, then why the developers don't have them? Even more, why did non of the developers of the last 14 years of simulation didn't have them and everybody on this forum seems to have them?

And if they had them, why didn't they implement it correctly in the first place?

I just wonder... (maby to keep this forum alive, i don't know)

 

PS: on a side note, switching to Falcon 4.0, just tell me why there are so many versions all telling me they (and only they) have the real stuff? Guess they all had access to that same authentic source you are talking about right?

 

And mind you, Falcon 4.0 is so much more of a simulation then LockOn will ever be. Why i play LockOn then? Because it's more fun at the moment. Realism...my ass!

 

I often quote Falcon for many of its features, but it has some real quirks where lockon

actually performs more realistically. ( Also falcon has many many aeras where it outperforms

lockon :) ). But that is not the point : Lockon is not aimed for "flip-all-switches"

realism.

 

Not all data is available to developers 5 yrs ago. Also because it is not aimed for

an in depth full detail simulation of a specific aircraft, you must put into math that they must

decide on what level of realism to chose. There may not be enough time to implement

mechanics for all systems, and you must chose an approximation.

 

But if there is data on new systems that can be somewhat easily implemented and inserted

into lockon to improve overall realism, then what is wrong with doing it ?

 

Also one more important thing that people always forget

 

data does not equal model

 

and

 

will inserting this data into our current model provide better results?

 

If it doesn't, they need to rethink the model to fit the new realistic data, and this can

simply be too time consuming sometimes. Then you must leave that data out.

 

You can have 99% accurate data but if your model is F = Math.random(); then you wont

get very realistic results. Most falcon versions share many common data. They do however

in many cases have different models for using that data.

 

Now the goal IMO should be to create such a model which actually will replicate real life data

(without knowing the original data), not just use it as input. This would be really cool if done.

Edited December 13, 2009 by =RvE=Yoda

[Lucas_From_Hell]

GGTHaros, don't make me laugh man!

 

So you play a simulation right?

 

Let me ask a few questions:

- Do you press HOME to start your engines?

- Or you might be a real sim fan who presses ALT-HOME and SHIFT-HOME to start either the left "and" right engine separatly? Like in real life?

- Ever tossed the Master-Arm switch on the A-10? There is one you know!

- Ever waited for the heatseakers to spool up? Not in this "simulation"!

 

I could go on for hours like this, so you play HAWX too, just like me!

 

And oh...if you have some pretty darned good authentic resources, then why the developers don't have them? Even more, why did non of the developers of the last 14 years of simulation didn't have them and everybody on this forum seems to have them?

And if they had them, why they didn't implement it correctly in the first place?

I just wonder... (maby to keep this forum alive, i don't know)

 

PS: on a side note, switching to Falcon 4.0, just tell me why there are so many versions all telling me they (and only they) have the real stuff? Guess they all had access to that same authentic source you are talking about right?

 

And mind you, Falcon 4.0 is so much more of a simulation then LockOn will ever be. Why i play LockOn then? Because it's more fun at the moment. Realism...my ass!

 

Lange, quick and simple question here: are you drunk?

 

Ever heard of DCS, mate? Well, maybe you could do some search instead of pissing others off here. Most of us already switch the f*ing "Master Arm" on in DCS: Black Shark. As we don't have any A/C modeled to this level in Lock On, it's impossible to do it there. However, in DCS: A-10C, we WILL switch the Master Arm on.

 

About F4, it being more fun at the moment (something I deeply disagree) doesn't make it a better simulation - can make it a better GAME, but simulations are rated by realism, rather than "fun".

 

About the question this is all about, I'd go realism all the way. Balance can be archieved by TACTICS. Actually, that's what this is all about, in the end. No aircraft is invencible - not even the F-22 (no discussions about it here, please). Some are harder to shot down, or to even detect, but impossible is something that doesn't exist in a real conflict. And I think this is the aim of simulators: as the name says, SIMULATE real life conflicts and environments. AIM-120 is fairly better than Russian missiles today? Yes. Russian aircraft can easily outmaneuver most of NATO inventory? Yes. So, want to beat Ivan? Get him before he closes in and make he spell "AMRAAM". Feel like kicking Uncle Sam's butt today? Sure, drag him into a close fight and write him a guide entitled "73 Ways of Killing YOU with an R-73". You see? There's balance. Tactics, tactics and more tactics...

[Lange_666]

@GGTharos: no i didn't miss the entire point, i'm spot on from my point of view.

 

@ EtherealN: don't worry, i'm calm. You should see me when i'm pissed (or better not...LOL).

I'm fully aware of the position ED and TFC take in the military and simulation world.

 

What you guys didn't pick out of my text was that i pointed (try to point might be a better description) the finger to the fact that everybody seems to know better then the developers (ED/TFC in this case) when it comes down to realism. Just follow the discussions about realism and you know what i'm talking about.

One of the reason i voted for game balance is the fact that this realism discussion goes on and on after every release of a new sim or patch and never ends simply because there's no direct solution. And if it were...it would not please 90% of the community because they have another opinion on what this realism should be.

Don't get me wrong, i'm for realism too (i play them "always" at full realism) but as i said, you will never please everybody since everybody has another idea on how realism is implemented or on how to implement realism (for that reason i pointed to Falcon, it's a good example).

That's why, when it comes to multiplayer, i'm for game balance over realism since you can't achive full realism anyway. It's not because you have to take a step down on realism that you directly have a game instead of a simulation. The moment you start playing the simulation in multiplayermode, it becomes a game! And there, game balance is the keyword (for me anyway).

 

Ever noticed the fact that most people always simply pick that side in the game on which they have the most chance of winning? And that they do everything what the game allows them to do to achive that, even if they have to set their realism aside? Game balance is the keyword...again.

 

 

@ Yoda: Good way of putting it.

 

@ Lucas: impossible that i'm drunk, i don't drink (i'm not Russian)...:D

BTW: i bought Black Shark the moment it came out so... yes, i know what DCS: Black Shark is...:music_whistling:

About tactics and mission design i agree but for that...you need at least some game balance to start with because otherwise even tactics and mission design will not help entirely.

Edited December 13, 2009 by Lange_666

[Vekkinho]

Like I said, be it a game or real life...

 

make it as it should be and we'll create the "balance".