Keeping the SFM alive

[Boberro]

Good point Sven :)

 

When I was reading your post I thought it is Grimes :D

[159th_Viper]

Cannot help but feel that this discussion would be best continued subsequent to the release of DCS:Hog. Do not misunderstand me, I'm not taking issue with the merit of either argument, for or against, for it's a matter too subjective in nature. Can only comment on my experience which has led me to the inevitable conclusion of 'cannot conceivably fathom flying LockOn seriously again'.

 

Even at this stage, and scalability options aside, operating the A10C is easily enough accomplished with the Hog's fidelity level probably on par and even surpassing Falcon in some respects (assumption as I have never touched Falcon). And as said previously, options are scalable to cater for a myriad of needs and foibles. Same will ring true for the eventual release of a fast-mover (no - I am not aware of any plans to do so. Merely conjecture on my part, but it makes marketing sense, hence the speculation) which will in all probability happen sooner rather than later.

 

Returning to my comment as above - 'cannot conceivably fathom flying LockOn seriously again', DCS Hog is such a gargantuan step above it's LockOn counterpart that one cannot help but draw the comparison that you might as well be flying in a HAWX/ARMA/Battlefield environment - It's just that good!

 

Again, the personal observation stems from the very fact that I am fortunate enough at this stage to be a part of the Test-Team. The vast majority of the Community does not have this advantage, hence my comment that the matter be addressed once you all have the product in your hands and can then make the comparison between SFM (LockOn) vs AFM (DCS).

 

Exactly the same will ring true for the eventual release of a fast-jet if one has regard to the commitment of each module being on par or even surpassing the fidelity of the previous one. Why would one consciously nibble on Shank when you can have Filet Mignon?

 

At the end of the day it's simple enough: Arcade vs Simulation. I know where my path leads......I advise all to exercise a wee bit of patience, wait for the product and then contemplate yours.

[3Sqn_Sven]

Good point Sven :)

 

When I was reading your post I thought it is Grimes :D

 

Haha, yeah, Grimesy and I rarely disagree!

[RIPTIDE]

-snip-

All well and good... but like I said... some of us are a2a. You can give me the most Hi fidelity sim of DCS: JCB Digger... and I'll still be saying thats great, but I like A2A. So until DCS: Fighter, the rest of us have FC 2.0. And its that simple. Thats a long time and life is short.

 

So to use your analogy .. why have fillet mignon at all when I prefer a T-bone. ;)

Edited September 23, 2010 by RIPTIDE

[159th_Viper]

... and I'll still be saying thats great, but I like A2A....

 

I agree, and that's why you have LockOn to entertain you. Will be of interest to revisit this thread when DCS: Fast-Jet arrives.

 

And yeah - I shudder at the LockOn/T-Bone comparison........Wish-Bone is definitely more apt in the circumstances, trust me :D

[RIPTIDE]

I agree, and that's why you have LockOn to entertain you. Will be of interest to revisit this thread when DCS: Fast-Jet arrives.

 

And yeah - I shudder at the LockOn/T-Bone comparison........Wish-Bone is definitely more apt in the circumstances, trust me :D

Yes my point is however is the WHEN. T-bone today is better than starvation until Filet Mignon in a couple of years. When Fast Jet arrives... sure. I can't wait. pew pew pew.:joystick:

[Steel Jaw]

operating the A10C is easily enough accomplished with the Hog's fidelity level probably on par and even surpassing Falcon in some respects (assumption as I have never touched Falcon).

 

As a long time Falconeer I would guess you're correct, A10 will prolly surpass even the hardest-core public combat sim, Open Falcon 4.7. I am good with that if so. BRING IT ON (WE) SAY.

[Steel Jaw]

DCS Hog is such a gargantuan step above it's LockOn counterpart that one cannot help but draw the comparison that you might as well be flying in a HAWX/ARMA/Battlefield environment - It's just that good!

 

And what's funny to me is that prior to BS, I had no faith that you folks could crank out such a hardcore product after the tortuous years of the lite weight business LOMAC etc.

[Steel Jaw]

I agree, and that's why you have LockOn to entertain you.

 

Yeah, not really. Hurry up with the A10. :D

 

The Falcon community is watching this one closely.

[InFireBaptize]

but most of us just don't have the time for it while working a full time job.

 

wife is the overtime hours :glare:

Edited September 23, 2010 by InFireBaptize

[Grimes]

Attention Bobbero, this is the post by Grimes :D

 

I will always maintain and believe that FC2 levels of realism are a necessity in the flight sim market. Some might say its a necessary evil, others look at it as a "stepping stone" of sorts to bigger better things, while others ignore and dislike it. Honestly we need these sort of games. Hell I bought black shark (and will likely get A10C) because of LockOn.... which I got because of flying around in Battlefield 2.... which I enjoyed so much because I bought a joystick for Mech Warrior 4.

 

When you think about it DCS:BS kinda dropped the ball on the transition between "arcade" and "simulation" modes. Although I never gave the arcade features much of a try, but if I remember it was literally...

- Pure Game (A Third Person shooter)

- Game Avionics, Sim FM (3rd person shooter but harder to fly)

- Game simulation, Sim Avionics (Easy to fly, but full sim pit)

- Full Sim.

 

There were a few other options you can turn on and off, but from a pure "pit to pit" DCS Black Shark was either way less of a sim than FC2 or much much more of a sim. There was no middle ground where you can look at both games and say "yeah, they are about equal in difficulty."

 

I would love to see a "DCS: Lite" to be released that features all of the world and editor features of a normal DCS game, but with some weird sick hybrid of FC2 and DCS for the flight model and cockpit avionics. Hell if we got the new A-10 editor features in FC2 we would have multiplayer scenarios that the DCS guys would be jealous of. Obviously there are implications of allowing the "simming is serious business" crowd and... well everyone else, into the same servers and game. We have that problem now-a-days, put up a public co-op and its "join in progress" its probably going to be rather disorganized. Play the same mission in a passworded server with a set start time and briefing, the mission will play out differently. I suppose it really doesn't matter much if DCS quality airframes share the same airspace as something of less quality if the players are communicating and being realistic in their tactics. In my book the only deciding factor would be if player to player interactions or combat suffered between "DCS: Pure" and "DCS:Lite" as a direct result in something not being modeled correctly.

[GhostDog]

I disagree. IMO, Lock On has been the best there is as far as multiplayer air combat simulation goes for a long time. Sure, there's Falcon 4, but my god it's complicated. Falcon 4 is, no joking, like flying a real jet. It's that complicated. And how many people have the time to learn a real jet when they're not getting paid for it? Not many. The fact is that the MEAT and the reason COMBAT simmers come to any combat sim is in the action. Lock On gives you the choice to fly the best of the worlds air-air fighters and CAS aircraft, and skips over 90% of the individual avionics modelling in order to provide you the best feel of air combat. Ideally the devs would like to give you the 100% solution of perfectly realistic avionics and flight models for all jets, but it's not doable. They wanted to give you the chance to fly essentially 5 types of aircraft with as realistic flight model and weapons as they could provide, so they gave you the 80% solution of simple flight model and simplified but as close as reasonably practical avionics. And it works. Sure, we don;t have all xxxx modes of the radar in the Eagle, or a clickable cockpit for the radar modes in the Russian jets, but it's close.

 

It's not novalogic F-22 style, or Tom Clancy Hawx. You can achieve a realistic feel of air combat in lock on, if you make the appropriate mission. Ka-50 guys, much like Falcon 4 guys, love the in depth simulation of the platform, getting into the start procedures etc, but most of us just don't have the time for it while working a full time job. Not to mention you don't have the back up of proper instruction like a full time pilot in training does...it's all self taught, which takes even more time.

 

The average Lock On guy wants to enjoy his 1 hr a day of free sim time doing the business...killing bad guys. Taking 60 minutes to properly brief a mission, another 60 to get the platform fired up, taxi out, etc, only to get killed after 10min airborne because, guess what, you're in a high threat environment, is no fun. That's why for real, military aviators continue the mission even after they are dead in order to gain experience. You can't do that in an online sim...if you die you are dead. And thats why military aviators spend 50 hours a week doing that job. Who's got 50 hours a week to sim? Almost no one.

 

Lock On is a compromise. There are definitely some things the devs can improve on. But how much difference would an advanced flight model for an F-15C really make a difference? 5% of the time? It's not worth it. Put the effort into making the SFM as close to realistic as practical, making the weapons as close to realistic as practical, and give us the chance to fly the best jets in the western and eastern world. We, the community, will make the scenarios and make it fun online. We'll airquake during the week and once every 2 months or so we'll do a Red Flag with some realistic scenarios. If you get sick of airquake, join a squad that trains weekly. This gives us all the flexibility to fly in the same game in a good differential of aircraft, and funds the devs to further develop the platforms they wish to (KA50, A-10). A single platform game (ala Janes F-18, and as you suggest, DCS A-10) will not satisfy everyone (I want to do air-air).

 

Thank you for bringing the discussion back to the plane of reality Grimes. And another point to get us even closer to Earth. . .

 

I have not tested this myself, but for BS they were not able to create AI that could handle the FM properly. In general, AI planes use something on par with the general flight models in LO, if i'm not mistaken. Also helps reduce the CPU load.

 

Exactly what are the folks who are arguing for excluding human piloted SFM aircraft from multiplayer arguing against? Other player's preferences? Simple distaste for another individual's choice isn't a reason to not make the choice available.

Edited September 23, 2010 by GhostDog

[Speed]

I disagree. IMO, Lock On has been the best there is as far as multiplayer air combat simulation goes for a long time. Sure, there's Falcon 4, but my god it's complicated. Falcon 4 is, no joking, like flying a real jet. It's that complicated. And how many people have the time to learn a real jet when they're not getting paid for it? Not many. The fact is that the MEAT and the reason COMBAT simmers come to any combat sim is in the action. Lock On gives you the choice to fly the best of the worlds air-air fighters and CAS aircraft, and skips over 90% of the individual avionics modelling in order to provide you the best feel of air combat. Ideally the devs would like to give you the 100% solution of perfectly realistic avionics and flight models for all jets, but it's not doable. They wanted to give you the chance to fly essentially 5 types of aircraft with as realistic flight model and weapons as they could provide, so they gave you the 80% solution of simple flight model and simplified but as close as reasonably practical avionics. And it works. Sure, we don;t have all xxxx modes of the radar in the Eagle, or a clickable cockpit for the radar modes in the Russian jets, but it's close.

 

Personally, I find LOCKON much harder to play than Falcon 4. In Falcon 4 it is much easier to maintain situational awareness and kill your targets because it's FULLY MODELLED. Flying FC2 is harder because every time I step into the FC2 pit I start puking my guts out for lack of a clickable cockpit, an HSD, a datalink, cycleable MFDs, proper AWACs, proper ATC, proper weapons modeling, add on top of that no dynamic campaign! How ANYONE can transfer from Falcon 4 to FC2 is beyond my comprehension, unless they put WAY too much emphasis on graphics. I think that anyone who thinks falcon takes forever to learn either hasn't tried, hasn't tried the right method or lacks patience. Generally, if you have enough time to fly FC2, you have enough time to learn Falcon. I CAN imagine those that have so little time they truely cannot learn Falcon 4, but they would have to be INCREDIBLY busy. Hell, I learned to fly falcon 4 back in the day when I was 15 years old, I just brought the manual to school and read it instead of the crappy books they were trying to make us read.

 

As for those that have the time but not the patience for Falcon 4, that's understandable- hard core flight sims aren't for everyone. For the sake of those, FC2 will not go away with DCS: A-10, just the Ka-50 pilots from your server. Considering that the majority of FC2 folks on public servers just want air quake, this won't be a loss, but private FC2 squadron folks can STILL play with Ka-50s if they have willing Ka-50 flyers with v1.0.2 still on their systems.

 

I'm greatly looking forward to DCS A-10 because I think while the A-10C will be much more complex than the Ka-50, it will probably be much more straightforward and common sense as western aircraft are very well designed. Let's just hope that if there is a next module, it will be a fighter or multirole fighter, and a western one at that.

Edited September 24, 2010 by Speed

[Steel Jaw]

Funny thing, Speed, these days I find Falcon too simplistic and crave the complexity of the DCS A10.

[GGTharos]

Personally, I find LOCKON much harder to play than Falcon 4. In Falcon 4 it is much easier to maintain situational awareness and kill your targets because it's FULLY MODELLED.

 

... minus the electronic warfare component that would PWN your SA six ways to sunday.

 

How ANYONE can transfer from Falcon 4 to FC2 is beyond my comprehension, unless they put WAY too much emphasis on graphics. I think that anyone who thinks falcon takes forever to learn either hasn't tried the right method or lacks patience. If you have enough time to fly FC2, you have enough time to learn Falcon. Hell, I learned to fly falcon 4 back in the day when I was 15 years old, I just brought the manual to school and read it instead of the crappy books they were trying to make us read.

Well, that's a nice bunch of rethoric, but here's your answers: You can transfer to FC2 by flying with people. FC2 makes it easy, enjoyable, and you get higher visual fidelity. In a business that is largely visual, that counts for something. Too much emphasis on graphics? More like you're putting too much emphasis on button pushing while flying alone ;)

 

I'm greatly looking forward to DCS A-10 because I think while the A-10C will be much more complex than the Ka-50, it will probably be much more straightforward and common sense as western aircraft are very well designed. Let's just hope that if there is a next module, it will be a fighter or multirole fighter, and a western one at that.

What's the complexity of designate target - hold pickle? This is what it comes down to for the vast majority of simmers, and the vast majority of missions too - in just about any flight sim.

[Steel Jaw]

Simple distaste for another individual's choice isn't a reason to not make the choice available.

 

Sure it is. :P

 

Actually, what I oppose is WASTING limited dev resources on that.

[Speed]

What's the complexity of designate target - hold pickle? This is what it comes down to for the vast majority of simmers, and the vast majority of missions too - in just about any flight sim.

 

 

Are you saying that the avionics of the A-10C really isn't that much more complex thant he avionics of the Ka-50? I would have thought that it would be ALOT more complex.

[Boberro]

I think generally it is turn on TV, pick up target, lock it, kill it.

[GGTharos]

What do you mean by more complex?

 

Everything is distilled down to 'let the pilot do his job easily'. Okay, so you added an instrument or two, but in the end it still distills down to designate target - hold pickle. ;)

 

Your main JOB is to FLY the aircraft into weapon release parameters. Acquisition of the target using your doddlemajigs is essentially a different exercise. Navigating using your doodads, same - as complex as they might be, they, in the end, serve a specific and usually simple purpose.

 

It's only complex if you cannot understand and operate machinery. Realistic simulation of all this stuff is important, but being snobby about it - you're picking the wrong fight ;)

 

Are you saying that the avionics of the A-10C really isn't that much more complex thant he avionics of the Ka-50? I would have thought that it would be ALOT more complex.

[Steel Jaw]

All fighting aircraft are simply weapons platforms and your job as the driver is to get your platform into weapons paramanters.

 

True enough.

[Speed]

It's only complex if you cannot understand and operate machinery. Realistic simulation of all this stuff is important, but being snobby about it - you're picking the wrong fight ;)

 

 

Yea, I could definately never win THAT one :)

[aaron886]

Well, I would say the A-10C's avionics are probably more "ergonomic." That said, GG has a point.

[Speed]

That said, GG has a point.

 

Which is? He just made the point that these aircraft are easy to use (I agree with the Ka-50, and will probably agree about the A-10C), and implied that the words "complex" and "hard" should be synonyms (I strongly disagree). I made it clear in my post I do not consider them synonyms, and that when I said the A-10C will be complex, I CLEARLY did not mean the A-10C will be hard to use:

 

"I'm greatly looking forward to DCS A-10 because I think while the A-10C will be much more complex than the Ka-50, it will probably be much more straightforward and common sense as western aircraft are very well designed."

 

I NEVER said more complex = harder to use. I said A-10C will probably be more complex (as in more aircraft systems, more weapons, more everything) but those systems will probably be EASIER to use than the Ka-50's systems.

 

As to wheter these aircraft are complex- please, give me a break! They are VERY complex. Compare the depth and complexity of a fully modeled A-10C to FC2- there's no comparison there, and then even the HAWX crowd would call FC2 complex. I'm a long time Falcon 4 pilot, I've also learned DCS, and I will NEVER call EITHER of those games simple and NOT complex. Are they easy once you really understand everything? Sure, maybe, but just because you practiced something really complex so many times it's easy doesn't make it not complex anymore.

 

In fact, there is so little correlation between complexity and ease of performing tasks I'm pretty sure most folks will find it much easier to survive and kill stuff in DCS A-10C compared to the A-10A in FC2. Which brings me full circle back to the beginning- I find Falcon 4 easier to fly than FC2 precisely because it IS more complex. You get almost all the necessary, vital systems the real pilot does, not a simplified representation with less utility.

 

So in summary, I disagree GGTharos on your choice to consider the words "complex" and "hard" as being synonyms. I never intended my original post to be taken that way, and I was very clear about that so I do not understand why you responded as you did. I do NOT consider there to be anything other than an inverse correlation between complexity and ease of use in a well designed aircraft, at least, up to a point.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Speed

[Speed]

Funny thing, Speed, these days I find Falcon too simplistic and crave the complexity of the DCS A10.

 

Well, Falcon 4 won't quite be simplistic next to DCS A-10C, at least not, IMO, but there is no doubt that DCS A-10C will be a big step above Falcon in almost everything except the campaign system. I'm wondering how long after A-10 release Falcon will be able to survive on my hard drive. Probably until the next time I see "space on C: is low" and I embark on another purge :) FC2 will probably go in that one too though, I haven't flown it for at least a month, the last time I flew falcon was this week.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Speed