Testing Question

[Lanzfeld]

Getting a new system soon and DCS BS is one of the things I am going to enjoy to the hilt!

 

I do have a few questions though for those that are into this sim.

 

I have watched all the training videos on starting the helo and it seems very realistic. I see how you can test almost all the systems before you use them and I like this however I was wondering if the program ever simulates a broken system at startup? The devs seemed to have put ALOT of work into making the startup and testing as real as possible so it would seem a waste of all that programming if there is never anything wrong with the aircraft on the ramp. I fly jets for a living and I test to see if all the systems work every flight but if there was a 0% chance of a system not working then I would not waste the time testing so I imagine that is what would happen in the game if there are no random failures.

 

More questions to follow.

[EtherealN]

The devs seemed to have put ALOT of work into making the startup and testing as real as possible so it would seem a waste of all that programming if there is never anything wrong with the aircraft on the ramp.

 

Unless part of the point of it is to allow it to be used as a proceedure trainer. ;)

 

But no, there are no random failures.

 

Personally I usually use the abbreviated procedure anyhow, since most often time is a factor. That does away with most of the tests.

[Lanzfeld]

Thanks for your response.

 

Well I was worried that there was no random failures built in there. The devs work would have been so much more usefull if they would have a random failure built in to each system. I mean that was quite a bit of programming to put all those tests in there.

 

Like you said, a good PT but most guys skip it after doing it once.

[EtherealN]

Like you said, a good PT but most guys skip it after doing it once.

 

Not the Russian Army Aviation people. ;)

(If you dig you might be able to find a special about the sim on RT with Russian Army Aviation personnel using it for training.)

 

The coming DCS:Warthog will be similar - the groundwork for it's A10C simulation was the A10C DTS produced for the ANG to do conversion training. Obviously, there's a lot of things that don't translate directly, but it would be extra work to remove those features - and why spend extra work to remove a feature that people enjoy? :)

[Lanzfeld]

Ahhh... got you now. The testing was in there for military application and they just didnt remove it. Makes sense.

 

Still....a small and realistic chance of random failure in each system would be so great it makes my head spin as to why they didnt put it in there. All the ground work is already there!!!!

[EtherealN]

I suspect a lot of people would end up frustrated by it. :P

 

But it's not impossible - with a scripted engine to launch the missions you can give it a small chance to place a failure into the temp.miz file, though not all failures can be simulated (f.ex, there's no way to get a random chance of cockpit lights failing and so on).

[Lanzfeld]

Make it an option then for the people who dont want it.

[sobek]

There was a thread about this actual topic, and IIRC, random failures were not integratet because after all this is a game. For most people playing this sim, spare time is short, so sitting on the ramp and doing all the tests just to find an error after 5-10 min ramp start would be just too frustrating and basically, a waste of time, because it would render you impossible to finish the mission (in case of a severe failure at least).

[Lanzfeld]

I think it would be fun to dispatch after finding a minor problem and just "making do" with what you have for the war effort.

 

And again...make it an option. All the work that went into the systems testing and have no random failures is like constructing a 10,000 foot concrete runway in your backyard and then buying a cessna 152 to fly off of it.

[EtherealN]

Depends on what the contract paying for development said. ;)

 

But yes, I agree that it would be nice - just like it would be nice with persistent damage between missions. (Say, incorrect handling of the APU could over several missions cause it to start malfunctioning and so on.) But all features mean added costs, and remember that each commercial license barely pays for a single hour of an engineers time when other costs like equipment and so on are factored in, so it would have to be features that have a reasonable expectation of translating into additional sales that cover the additional costs.

[JimMack]

Getting a new system soon and DCS BS is one of the things I am going to enjoy to the hilt!

 

I do have a few questions though for those that are into this sim.

 

I have watched all the training videos on starting the helo and it seems very realistic. I see how you can test almost all the systems before you use them and I like this however I was wondering if the program ever simulates a broken system at startup? The devs seemed to have put ALOT of work into making the startup and testing as real as possible so it would seem a waste of all that programming if there is never anything wrong with the aircraft on the ramp. I fly jets for a living and I test to see if all the systems work every flight but if there was a 0% chance of a system not working then I would not waste the time testing so I imagine that is what would happen in the game if there are no random failures.

 

More questions to follow. [/ QUOTE]

 

In the mission editor you can set up failures. see attached

[bfeld]

Hello,

 

reading some similar threads concerning this topic I think some of the posters aim at failures other than those in the mission editor.

 

I think system checking is a good example, as I wrote in another thread. When I do the startup, I do the full startup. But checking the indication lamps is always a little weird, knowing that no lamp will ever fail.

 

Of course it might be frustrating but on the other hand, I would really like to decide whether to start with the broken lamp or to get a new helo. Even if the probabilty of a lamp failure would be low (like 1.0e-9 or less), it would give me a better feeling when checking the lamps :)

 

Bye, bfeld

Edited February 25, 2010 by bfeld

[Lanzfeld]

This was my original point. Knowing that nothing is broken at startup then there is NO point in testing anything. With all that great programming already in there the devs should add random failures as an option.

[AlphaOneSix]

This was my original point. Knowing that nothing is broken at startup then there is NO point in testing anything. With all that great programming already in there the devs should add random failures as an option.

 

Well at the end of the day, the purpose of this game is entertainment. If you find that checking everything in accordance with the startup checklist is not entertaining, then you shouldn't be doing it. If, like many people here, you are very much entertained by the process of running through all of those checks, then you should do them.

 

Random failures aren't completely random. That is, things don't fail randomly, by and large. They fail after some time frame of use (mean time between failures), or perhaps through misuse/abuse. Failures due to abuse are generally modeled in the game (at least, the things that are possible to abuse, such as the engines). Failures that "just happen" as in real life are not modeled because the chance of them happening is so infinitesimally small, that the code required to create the failure is simply not justified.

 

An example: A light burns out in the cockpit...a warning light maybe. Well, there are two bulbs in each caution light, so do we need to write code that makes one half of the indicator dim by a small amount? But lets say it's something else...how much time is on that particular part? Well since you just started the mission, the aircraft is brand new, along with all the parts, right? Persistent airframes are not coded into the game, and again, coding for it is simply not justifiable when comparing the cost of additional code and the benefit from having that code in the game. If the part is mission critical, then you either won't fly without it, or you'd have it replaced before you went to fly. If your ABRIS (or any other critical component) fails, you will either not fly at all, or a new ABRIS will be installed (either from inventory or from controlled exchange with another aircraft that is broken or otherwise not flying).

 

Finally, for the time being, we must all realize that the game title is Digital Combat Simulator, not Digital Maintenance Simulator. It pains me to say that, sometimes, since I am very much interested in the maintenance side of things, but I also want to see these games created in something resembling a timely manner.

 

Besides, who knows what the future holds, perhaps it will be possible in the future for the community to create a mod that allows for this kind of thing.

[Lanzfeld]

Good post AlphaOneSix,

 

However I think that you are overthinking the random failures I am talking about. All they have to do is put a very small % chance that a light or other system will break during the mission and at what time it will break. Most things will have .1 % chance (1 in 1000). It doesnt matter if that number is accurate as all we care about is that it CAN fail. The rivit counters can bitch about the % later.

 

I fly for a living and things do, indeed, fail randomly. All the time actually. And things do break when they are new as you probably know about the "U" shaped curve (things break when they are new or old but not so much in between).

As I said. All the work the devs did in testing ability with no fail chance is like building that 10,000 foot concrete runway and then using it for just a cessna 152.

[AlphaOneSix]

I agree with what your saying regarding real life stuff, but completely disagree that implementing the tests were a waste.

 

Let's take the free turbine overspeed test, for example. You are saying that it was a waste of time to for the developers to implement that test, since there is no chance of a failure in the free turbine overspeed sensors. But what if you want to learn how to do the test? In other words, the procedures are implemented so that we can learn the procedures. The fact that the item under test cannot fail is beside the point. The point is learning the procedure. That's what most people are interested in.

 

Also, it was a waste of time to implement the lamp test, since all the lights always work. Well what if you are interested in learning the procedure that real Ka-50 pilots go through when they go fly? Don't they do a lamp test? Then shouldn't I be able to do a lamp test? The fact that no lights will be fail is beside the point. The point is that I get to pretend to be a real pilot doing the real check.

 

I've flown in a few simulators (UH-60, AH-64, UH-1, Mi-17), and we always went by the checklist when starting everything up, including all of the tests. Your argument is that, in a simulator, when you know everything will test good, it's a waste of time to do the test. My argument is that is not the case at all, when the whole point is not to actually detect an error, but rather to learn a procedure.

[Lanzfeld]

No. In a real simulator...even the tests can fail. You do it in the sim to learn proceedures (like you said) AND to see if it is working.

 

I am not saying it was a waste of time, I am saying how much better it would be if there was a chance all your tests pay off. Right now most guys skip all this because there is no point. Make the failures optional and everyone is happy!

 

As a PT. Fine. But we are missing out on even more realism.

[EtherealN]

Well Lanzfeld here's the thing:

 

People impressed by being able to perform a complete startup checklist including all tests - lots. Ergo, it's worth the development time.

People that want things to fail randomly - you.

 

Basically, if the feature takes a total of 120 hours to code, test, debug, they have to know that the feature creates at least 120 new customers. The first item meets that challenge even though the amount of hours is massive (the reactions from my RL flight instructors have been examples of the wow factor in that), the second does not. Ergo - the 10k feet runway is profitable, the Boeing isn't. ;)

 

So basically, "mak[ing] the failures optional and everyone is happy" isn't quite true, because the ED finance department will be talking to the owners about serious waste of resources. :P

 

And, still, this is a Digital Combat Simulator. The point isn't to sit and finackle with every detail in the bird (even though it is more detailed than any simulator ever released to the consumer market, let's remember that), the point is to get airborne and find something to kill. Hopefully something that will not make our CO's form a court martial as well. I'd rather the engineers get to spend extra time working on AI and features that actually impact the object of the simulation - utilizing the bird in combat.

[GGTharos]

I think the best way to put this is like this:

 

Random equipment failures are a pretty low priority item since it is not much requested (by either us or the military customer), and in particular because there are a large number of much higher priority requests.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Can't you set random failures for most key systems in the mission editor, anyway?

 

Those are the only ones you'd actully care for in flight, the rest will just irritate you, in the worst case.

 

'Oh noes, my windshield wiper failed!' won't ruin your day. Same applies for 'OMFG, HMS stopped working!' and etc.

 

Nadia whispering that engine 1 is gone for good, on the other hand...

 

And if you need it to fail (?), set it through the mission editor and be happy :)

 

Of course, it's just a matter of taste, but IMHO, it's worthless setting random failures just to risk having that 2 hour mission gone because of a "Blue Screen" in some random system.

[EtherealN]

Actually, a nonfunctional HMS would be a problem. :P

[GGTharos]

Heh, are you kidding me :D

 

We get some many threads about 'I can't pass the high mountain, the engines shut off' 'why are my AP lights blinking?' 'I can't autohover' etc that random failures would probably just get us lynched :D

[topol-m]

Heh, are you kidding me :D

 

We get some many threads about 'I can't pass the high mountain, the engines shut off' 'why are my AP lights blinking?' 'I can't autohover' etc that random failures would probably just get us lynched :D

 

Some ejection seats failures would be great, and while you insist pressing the ejection button 10 times/sec you hear the sweat voice of Betty/Nadya or whatever name it has in the different countries, "Sorry, you`re fu..ed up." :doh: Priceless.