This is an entertaining assessment of the DCS A-10 experience...

[Bahger]

...even if you don't agree with it.

 

"Wot I Think" by Tim Stone

 

I don't agree with it, not because I don't have compassion for his technical difficulties -- I do, and I'm grateful I don't suffer from them myself -- but because I did not buy this sim in order to experience a middle ground between arcade simming and study simming. Maybe he has a point about this being a commercial "sweet spot" but I bought DCS A-10 because I wanted to experience "the whole hog" (forgive me...) which I think it delivers. It took me three months of the Betas to get up to speed and now I simply cannot imagine simming without 15-minute ramp starts.

[GGTharos]

People also don't realize how hard it is to do the training. Even though the new system for DCS was implemented in A-10C with the in-cockpit triggers and pointers to switches etc, lessons are still being learned.

 

People who expect some sort of 'instructor' should drop that expectation. Like right now. And forever. It is very very ... very impractical to even attempt to create one except for the most procedural of things.

[Bahger]

Yeah, the training missions are very good indeed but, obviously, scripted. Dynamic, interactive in-flight instruction is impractical and even if not, would be an unwarranted drain on developer resources. The voice-over training series provides a very sound basis for learning the Hog; after that, it's about close scrutiny of the manual, use of numerous and valuable resources available online and voice-commed MP with a more experienced user. People also underestimate how easy it is to make small missions in the ME which can be really useful to practice just about every weapon and system in the sim.

[Madman777]

Patience & willingness to learn should be on the 'system requirements' section for DCS A10C. That way they wont be surprised. :-)

[GGTharos]

Exactly. I'm all for making things easier (Especially for mission builders, but for the guys who want to learn the sim, too! ) but in the end a realistic flight sim is a commitment. People need to get onboard with that and not moan about it.

 

It isn't like the learning curve is insane or anything. Sure, it's a PITA if you've never heard these terms before, you don't have a clue how these systems operate or why, but it's on you to learn ... sorry to say but $60 just won't buy USAF quality instruction ... might buy you an hour's worth of flight instruction at your local flying club, where you'll be taught to fly straight and level and trim.

 

For everything else in the A-10C, there are the tutorials and the videos.

[636_Castle]

There's the community too. :) I've found the A-10A manual to be the greatest help to me so far in terms of procedures like ramp start, TOLD computations, etc. And the DCS manual to be great for learning Charlie specific avionics.

 

It's a bit unfair though to give newbies a hard time. I could dog ED for not implementing intelligent AI and dynamic campaigns, and poor mission planners/briefings, but that wouldn't be fair either.

 

People will complain about things that challenge them, simple as that. It's especially true when you're not used to hardcore flight simming. It's the fact that they're unaware of the complexity and the amount of effort it'd take to put together built in training. Once they take a look at the flight manual, they'll understand those reasons. :)

[Bahger]

I'm all for making things easier (Especially for mission builders...)

This strikes a major chord for me, so please bear with the following editorial:

 

I think the future of this product, for much of the non-contracted military user anyway, resides with the ME. I think it would be worthwhile for ED to promote "handmade" (as opposed to those using the mission generator) user-built missions. ED could run competitions, give prominence to worthwhile SP and MP missions here and on its web site and run or solicit tutorials in graduate-level ME stuff, like extensive randomization, scripting and importing voice files. Ultimately this will produce user-made campaigns which, with no disrespect to the dev team that had a great deal else to cope with, will eclipse the stock campaigns very quickly and provide longevity for the sim. I also think that an official or semi-official effort to align the possibilities of the ME with coordinated promotion of real-life Hog tactics and deployment would be useful. It would be great if ED got r/l Hog pilots and tacticians to comment on this and educate sim pilots/mission designers. One thing I cannot abide in this, or any other high-fidelity sim, is flying missions, even well-made ones, with unrealistic tactical environments for contemporary USAF operations, such as a wall of SAMs without SEAD cover, or the lack of air superiority in any scenario except a balls-out cold war conflict with Russia. A true "study" sim requires parrallel study of real-life tactics and deployment and ED could promote this, partly in its own interests.

[GGTharos]

I agree, but I'm not the guy who makes the decisions (or any decisions, and heck, I don't get paid) :)

 

But I also disagree at the same time; there is significant demand for automatically generated missions.

 

You have two categories: Lovingly hand-crafted missions with voiceovers, surprises, all sorts of things and ... automatically generated missions which, while fitting a template are always 'fresh-ish' and include a relatively large amount of stuff happening with minimal amount of fuss for the player.

 

Both have their place. ED has done competitions for hand-made missions and campaigns before, and perhaps they will be inclined to do so again with A-10C. However turnout when this was last tried was low :(

 

Either way it isn't like ED have not noticed or thought about all this. They do know that the mission making guys are where it's at. I will pitch this again to someone and see where it goes.

 

I think you have a solid idea there, and, if you were interested on starting something in terms of ME tutorials, i think everyone would be happy to see some contributions to the DCS wiki.

[Kenan]

There's the community too. :)

 

+1

No matter how difficult/detailed any sim is, if you have a quality community to support it, people will learn a lot faster and the whole experience will be a lot more enjoyable.

[159th_Viper]

.......if you have a quality community to support it, people will learn a lot faster and the whole experience will be a lot more enjoyable.

 

+1.

 

Build the Wiki, people: Build the Wiki :)

[Bahger]

I think you have a solid idea there, and, if you were interested on starting something in terms of ME tutorials, i think everyone would be happy to see some contributions to the DCS wiki.

Well, for this I must defer to Grimes, a resident ME guru who, with much patience, taught me most of what I know about randomisation logic in the ME. I do know a certain amount about r/l air combat tactics and doctrine, though, so teaming up with an ME genius (that'll never be me, I do not have the mind of a programmer) might be worthwhile.

[Headspace]

It's a bit unfair though to give newbies a hard time.

It's not just a bit unfair...it's seriously unfair. That's the numero uno thing that gets me about the flight sim community and why in many ways it has itself to thank for the lack of mainstream interest in flight sims. The average person can get into this but not if they're being discouraged every step of the way for not being hardcore enough.

 

People spend mad money on things like the Kinect and other heavily marketed consumer schwag which is fine, but you put that money into a trackIR and a decent stick and you could be playing A-10 just fine. The barrier for entry isn't as high as people think.

 

Just plan on investing the amount of time you would spend finishing a normal game to learn this one and you will do fine.

[Bahger]

Well I do think this is an exceptionally civilised community. I see very little posturing or chest-beating at the expense of new users on these boards and I have benefited enormously from the advice and help of several forum "regulars".

[Thisdale]

but because I did not buy this sim in order to experience a middle ground between arcade simming and study simming. Maybe he has a point about this being a commercial "sweet spot" but I bought DCS A-10 because I wanted to experience "the whole hog" (forgive me...) which I think it delivers. It took me three months of the Betas to get up to speed and now I simply cannot imagine simming without 15-minute ramp starts.

 

-- but because I did not buy this sim in order to experience a middle ground between arcade simming and study simming. Maybe he has a point about this being a commercial "sweet spot" but I bought DCS A-10 because I wanted to experience "the whole hog" (forgive me...) which I think it delivers.

 

Hey,

 

I'd like to offer a count-point to your argument concerning the forementionned article you posted ( which i quite enjoyed).

 

Ithink the point the author tries to make in his article is not about dumbing down the product; which would both be a tragedy and travesty of course. It has to do with its accessibility. Ironically, the principle of accessibility is very well suited to dumbed-down products as found on most console-oriented games (like the xbox360 or ps3): the principle of console platforms is for the product to be easily accessible and become rapidely familiar with everyone in a household. Now if that means pressing 1 button to perform 3-4 contectual actions, so be it. However what i am refering to here, is that most console games, under a very tight supervision from the console makers themselves, go to very long and hard lenghts to create extensive tutorials that explain all the mechanics and controls needed for the player to go through the whole purchased experience. Furthermore, these same products go to some length to take the player by the hand to make sure the tutorial content be fully assimilated in the first few "levels".

 

Essentially what i am getting at is, these console games teach by repetition.

 

Now games like DCS's A10 do not have such well designed and implemented features. They instead have complicated and very theorical tutorials. This in itself is not a bad thing, but as a consumer product, it isn't the most appropriated, especially if the company doing the product wants to make their product lucrative.

 

To give an example better suited for my argument, a good way DCS could go on with their future products could be to create a whole campaign bases around teaching the player how to operate the A10, by slowly incorporate one [more] gameplay element with each sortie.

 

Mission 1: startup, taxi, take flight. Return immediately to base, taxi, shut down.

Now the important thing here (and the game should say that to its clients) is that its not important to memorise everything right away, what is important is for the client to have a feeling of accomplishement for doing things right.

 

Mission 2: same formula as before (pratice by repetition) but inlude a gun run.

 

Mission 3: same as mission 2, but at night. Learn about the onboard lights, navigation lights, night vision...

 

Mission 4: same as mission 2, but add ground crew rearm for rockets, and go to the range for guns and rockets...

 

Now i could go on but i won't; the point i'm making here, is that by incorporating "missions" from an "easy" theater of war, the player gradually learns the mechanics, gets reward (perhaps ribbons for good conduct, good aim, good whatever) and has fun by being implicated in the game and it's story, rather then being fed forceful theorical information over and over and over, which is not fun since the game doesn't reward the player and does not explain what is being done wrong.

 

To conclude, i believe the main point being disputed in the article is not about the level of difficulty, which is normal in a flight simulator, but rather that it's not because it's a simulator that there shouldn't be a good and "soft" learning curve included in the package, which nowadays is expected in most game platforms, weather it's computer or console based.

[Grimes]

Lots of interesting content in this thread...

 

</me channels inner 4th grade student>Jeez headspace, if you like the more simple flight sims so much, why don't you marry it?

 

Sorry every time I hear "my sim is better than yours" I always flashback to the 4th grade. It is just that childish to me. -_-

 

@Training Discussion: I think it was a step up from what was in BS, but its not quite where it needs to be. Training is difficult to implement into flight sims because there is such an intense need for educational/classroom learning that is required before practical application. Furthermore there is no "rewind" or "try again" capability. Within both DCS titles we have seen a heavy influence of non critical information into the practical applications. Essentially all DCS training has been "in flight lecture" followed by "here is a basic instruction on how to use it." I think that is where things start to become overwhelming for new or experienced simmers. Even seperating the training into 1. Information and 2. Practical would be helpful.

 

 

@Community Interaction: Community awards like what Bohemia Interactive does would be awesome. I guess there is nothing stopping anyone from making their own awards for the community, but if it were ED sponsored that would be pretty neat. During the beta, I was kinda hoping ED might take the best user made content and "officially" make it part of the sim. Maybe thats just me hanging around Valve games to much, but hey, its quite an incentive to create quality content.

[Thisdale]

Oh, i'd like to add something to this, since i've been typing this post bit by bit all afternoon and upon re-reading m post, forgot to mention something important.

 

One key factor of today's gaming experience is the internet. It is much much much easier for players to find the necessary information to their troubles. Some forums and websites are especially good at forwarding, sharing and helping newcomers (dcs, check-six, simhq to name a few), but for all those good intentions, this will -never- be part of the game package. A lot of consumers will buy the game, and find themselves overwhelmed with the amount of things to do/not so well explained/and no feedback on if it eas good or not.

 

It is not excusable for a product to rely on its online community to "teach" their new consumers about their product's features. If the consumer must "go on the net to download additionaly information, search for stuff on forums or go through the hassle of downloading user-made mission tutorials or videos", the production team did not do their job at their best.

 

Now i'll close this by saying i know exactly what it is like, since i do that for a living. It is HARD to do that kind of material, test it, playtest it and make sure it actually performs as it should, but it is still crutial to build a good and solid relationship with its clients to constently reward them for their efforts, and 60% of that work is done through first few hours of gamepay; the tutorials and game setup.

 

Cheers,

[Speed]

Now that most people in my squad are able to fly for hours without CTDing, I see AI being the Achilles heel of the whole sim at the moment (though to be honest, patch 1.1.0.666 is still hurting us, because it drove at least a third of the squad away from the game and they are yet to return).

 

While mission building, to tell you the truth, the biggest drain on my time (because I enjoy dynamic, moving missions) is trouble-shooting AI. Example, say the ground AI units are getting stuck, I have to test and re-test, each test being like 30 minutes, till the AI doesn't go stupid and get stuck.

 

Just the other night, I had to spend a whole hour just to get a four ship of F-15s orbit and not use afterburner. They kept ignoring their ordered speed and altitudes (900 km/h at 10000 meters) and flying like 500km/h at 9000 meters, using afterburner nearly continuously (and RTBing early), and also getting shot down when dipping lower..... after an HOUR and many different attempts, I FINALLY got them to stay.

 

So really better AI would equal better missions too, since just about everyone who includes AI in their missions could spend a heck of lot less time testing and more time building.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Speed

[Headspace]

Jeez headspace, if you like the more simple flight sims so much, why don't you marry it?

Please read what I wrote. The gist of my post was an admonishment of people who attack newer players, not any sort of endorsement of any given style of game.

 

I am clueless as to how you got that quoted bit from what I wrote. And if you think that I somehow dislike DCS you are obviously unfamiliar with the sheer amount of effort I have put into modding the game.

[OPPSpectre]

DCS: A10-C was the very FIRST flying sim that I've ever played (ACE Combat really doesn't count as anything) so naturally, I had a bit of trouble at the beginning. The very first time I started the game I had a CTD, so I tried again and got the same thing. A quick, 3 minute visit to the forums told me that the necessary steps to take. It took me 1 minute to do these steps and I was able to play. My first mission was instant action, and the only thing I did was mess around and fly, mashing keys on the keyboard and trying to figure out what each key did. For about the first week of having the game, I did nothing but repeat the tutorial missions over and over until I could remember the keyboard commands. After that, I started doing more Mission Generator missions. Yeah, I got shot down every time and my flights lasted about 5 minutes, but those 5 minutes were pure "Awwwwwwwwwwwww yeah!". Eventually, I even managed to discover WHOT and BHOT, and found my first target. Overjoyed. Then, another week goes by and I get my first kill. Estatic. Then I got my HOTAS Warthog and it was all uphill from there.

 

Basically, I started out as a complete newbie to any flight sim (and certainly nothing as complex as DCS A10C) and after a few minutes on the forum search engine, I knew whatever I needed to know.

 

If someone is looking for a nice flight sim that they can take an evening flight with, have a simple "takeoff-fly for 12 hours-land" plan, then go back to something like FSX. If you're expecting a game like DCS A10C, with all of its complex AI and high fidelity cockpit controls, to not have errors and a bumpy start, then you're crazy. It's not just a flight sim, it's a modern military combat simulator, which means you'll probably need to do some reading and head scratching.

 

/rant

[mooshim]

I'm a teacher by profession. Which basically means I get paid to teach and most people ignore me. :)

 

I work at (putatively) the top university in my country of residence and not a single day goes by that I'm not reminded of the increasing resistance of students to study. My students think taking a class is tantamount to studying the subject.

 

"Studying happens outside of the class," I tell them while everyone rolls their eyes.

 

Consumers of a study sim are students. Students should be turned on--lit up inside--by a learning curve. Agency, initiative, curiosity--these are the things that distinguish a decent student.

 

Learning something new fires off chemicals in the brain and that is a good thing. All the better if one is able to nurture his own curiosity, do a bit of research, ask the questions, do the brainwork, consult the manual and bounce his ideas off of others...and marvel at how well others are able to explain and articulate their own understanding of this weapon system or those features wingman management...or Q-calls, or correct trim for fuel efficiency, etc.

 

The fruit hanging from the higher branch tastes better. Much better if you've picked it yourself.

 

This is why we're bored by Top Gun Airfighter 2000 for XBox... Games are Entertainment. Entertainment is diversion. --Nothing wrong with that at all! I'm not a snob. (I loves me some Angry Birds from time to time...Good FM and decent damage model.:smilewink:)

 

However, diversion seems the farthest thing from the effect DCS a10c is intended to have on even the most casual a10c simmer.

 

Cheers,

Moosh

[SY_KO]

Good post Moosh +1

 

/ignore :p

[delta9856]

I don't really agree with this assessment of what I think is one of the best if not THE best flight sim ever. I dont know how anyone can expect to jump into the Hog and be flying combat missions within a few weeks. I have been flying the A-10C since Beta 1 and am still not fully familiar with all the in-depth systems. All I can say is well done ED!

[shu77]

Readig the review I do agree that while the engine is what it is, the training could do with a once over for someone from a training background so that it identifies objectives, reasons for learning, logical introduction of concepts etc. Not a criticism at all, just an observation.

 

Funnily enough though I spent my first week taking hand written notes into an A-5 notebook, start up procedures, take off prcedures, airport layouts etc, I thought to myself more than once, this feels like work... This feels like the RAAF Hornet simulator, lol then it occured to me people do this for a living, they spend years learning to fly and operate these things in an environment with a formalised training structure, instructors and assessments. This should feel like a job, because it is for someone somewhere (this fellow here infact)

 

My notes are very similar to the notes I used for learning to fly originally, or for parachuting, so it actually speaks to the quality of the sim. I reckon thats the ultimate compliment myself.

[PlainSight]

One thing i love about dcs is that it's a sandbox. There's no unlocking of weapons, no unlocking missions, no accomplishments, no XP points, there's even no intro! I love such games, where everything is available from the start and where motivation for playing is not unlocking or collecting stuff, but the gaming experience itself! I play it because i love flying, not because i need to achieve level 30 or get a 1000th gun kill.

 

True sim doesn't need rewards, the reward itself is gained knowledge and successfully accomplished mission.

 

That's one reason i sold my PS3, stupid GT5 and it's collecting-unlocking-grinding nature, like some lab rat experiment.

 

EDIT: my previous post, concerning "complicated" training, or the lack of it:

You guys watched Jetstream? It's not about spoon-feeding information, it's about repetition, discipline and self initiative. Drinking from the firehose.

 

There's definitely a need for somewhat standardised course, but these things aren't supposed to be user-friendly. There's a reason why so much info is thrown at you. If you'll grind through it, you'll process critical info faster and made instant right decisions in the heat of battles. You don't think what TMS down or china forward does, you have to know it before you press it.

 

Author should forget his fantasies about making learn fun, anyone willing to learn and master, WILL get it, it's not a rocket science.

Edited April 12, 2011 by PlainSight

[SonofEil]

I do agree with a couple of his points, such as this being the thousandth deployment to the Caucuses. (I'm sorry, it's just true.)

As for the gripes about how much there is to learn and how nobody is holding his little hand thru all the really really hard training, too bad! This isn't the sim for you! There's only so many times people can say that the reward is worth the investment.

 

One thing i love about dcs is that it's a sandbox. There's no unlocking of weapons, no unlocking missions, no accomplishments, no XP points, there's even no intro! I love such games, where everything is available from the start and where motivation for playing is not unlocking or collecting stuff, but the gaming experience itself! I play it because i love flying, not because i need to achieve level 30 or get a 1000th gun kill.

 

True sim doesn't need rewards, the reward itself is gained knowledge and successfully accomplished mission.

 

That's one reason i sold my PS3, stupid GT5 and it's collecting-unlocking-grinding nature, like some lab rat experiment.

 

Exactly. This is why it's a combat/flight simulator!

 

The reviewer says, "... there are thousands of curious Silent Hunters, ARMAphiles and Wings of Prey-ers, out there ripe for assimilation."

 

I say that if those ripe for assimilation can't be bothered to put in the time, concentration and effort (and there are plenty that are willing) to learn an actual study sim, then they were never ripe to begin with. It's not the sim's job to conform to the casual "rubber-necker" or sim moonlighter.

 

" There really is no excuse for not offering truly interactive instruction these days."

 

Time/money/hardware. Pretty good excuses to me. The training will always get better (the difference between BS and WH is an amazing leap forward!). As for now: RTFM, Training, Fly, Forum, Fly some more, Notes (yes, take notes, like a real pilot), and RTFM again.

It's more and more like reality every day!