Quality Standard for DCS World

[Bluedrake42]

It would be nice to see a quality standard (or at least a clearer line drawn for NON-DCS quality products) for DCS World. I have people who think the A10A is an A10C quality product, and that Combined Arms is a Steel Beasts Pro PE level tank simulator. It would be nice to see all DCS World products featuring at minimum a fully interactive cockpit and advanced flight model.

 

In a perfect world, I'd like to see Flaming Cliffs 3 dropped from DCS World, Combined Arms made a free default feature of DCS World, and the A10A, SU25 and SU25T brought up to A10C standards.

 

I'm not saying like... if this doesn't happen I'll stop buying DCS products or anything... but as a consumer I feel obligated to share my views after spending so much time with your products. I think consumer confidence is being compromised with so many potential buyers becoming confused and put-off with erratic DCS World module quality.

[cichlidfan]

If people can't read the product descriptions and determine that CA is not Steel Beasts, then I don't think that ED giving CA away for free will help the problem.

 

Removing the Flaming Cliffs aircraft would eliminate a huge portion of ED's revenue stream with only a very long and expensive development process, to bring the aircraft to A-10C level, to look forward to before any chance of recovering that lost revenue.

[Exorcet]

ED could making some of the naming schemes a little clearer, but I think all the info needed is there if you look.

 

I'd like to see Flaming Cliffs 3 dropped from DCS World

That's just ridiculous.

[EtherealN]

Let me turn that around to you a little:

 

Even if you personally don't like the featuresets of FC3 aircraft or Combined Arms, you still benefit from them, because revenue from them goes towards improving the overall platform. Example:

 

AFMs for A2A missiles? Paid for by FC3.

Want ultra-real simulation of SAMs, tanks and naval units? CA paid for the requisite netcode reimplementation.

 

Basically, without lower-fidelity products, the high-fidelity products would also suffer; in part because they actually tap different markets. There is a lot of people that are fine with learning "how to fly", but don't have the time or inclination (work, family etcetera etcetera) to put into learning the systems of an "A-10C quality product". (However, here I object to your use of the word "quality" - that's a separate characteristic, you are looking for the word "fidelity" or "realism" or "level of detail". Is War Thunder a low-"quality" product because it doesn't do what DCS P-51D does? No.)

 

Just to point out that in your "perfect world", DCS World and it's "A10C quality product" would have less features than they do now. ;)

 

Now, what would be the measure you would propose? Aside from clearly labeling some as "DCS" and others not? For example, FC3 is not "DCS" - it is "Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 3". The standalones are "A-10A: DCS Flaming Cliffs" (and yeah, perhaps that can add confusion) but the boxart makes a distinction: it's not "DCS Aircraft X", it's just "Aircraft X for DCS World" (which is a factual statement - if that was not there, people would complain (as they do) that they need more than just the aircraft download itself - ie, that they need DCS World.

 

And remember, it's not an either-or. For example, is the A-10A of old "FC" level and not okey, but the A-10A that got an Advanced Flight Model good? What about an aircraft that has "A-10C quality" systems modeling, but no Advanced Flight Model?

 

If you have a suggestion that covers all bases there, I'm sure everyone will be happy. But it isn't really an easy thing.

 

PS. On Steam, the lower-fidelity modules are actually clearly stated as such on the product information page. Perhaps that should be migrated over to the ED site itself, I'll broach the subject.

[danilop]

...Even if you personally don't like the feature sets of FC3 aircraft or Combined Arms, you still benefit from them, because revenue from them goes towards improving the overall platform. ...

 

:thumbup:

 

The revenue from FC franchise is also the main reason why ED survived, while all the other hard core guys didn't.

[Bluedrake42]

Guys I said in a perfect world, I didn't say I expected it to happen. I don't think FC3 is going anywhere, and obviously I don't expect Combined Arms to be made free. If we could go back in time, it'd be nice to see that... but what happened has happened. I'm just giving hindsight.

 

The only thing I'd like to see now, is two VERY CLEAR designations for ED products. DCS quality, and NON-DCS Quality. It'd be nice to see big obvious separations/categories in the stores (ED store and Steam) and also on the DCS World main page.

 

I know low fidelity products have helped pay for DCS World in general, but still... I'd like to see some kind of effort made to draw a clearer line.

 

Like... it would be nice for all low-fidelity products labeled as just Flaming Cliffs and high fidelity products labeled DCS. Right now we have A10A "DCS" Flaming Cliffs. I don't think that's okay, its misleading.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Bluedrake42

[cichlidfan]

Like... it would be nice for all low-fidelity products labeled as just Flaming Cliffs and high fidelity products labeled DCS. Right now we have A10A "DCS" Flaming Cliffs. I don't think that's okay, its misleading.

 

Now that, I cannot disagree with.

[EtherealN]

Okey, but then, what are the TWO (2) categories?

 

Like I said:

 

1) Aircraft with AFM, advanced hydraulics etcetera, but no "clickable cockpit" and simpler avionics.

2) Aircraft with everything A-10C has, but no AFM.

 

...where do they fit? Should we force 3rd parties (or ED itself, for that matter) to do only either-or? Either FC, or A-10C. But even that is getting muddied, since the FC aircraft are busy getting AFM's...

 

The problem is that there are no two (2) categories. Different aircraft (ships, tanks, whatever) offer different possiblities for all kinds of reasons, including data availability, means that some things are possible for some, for others there are other things that are possible.

 

The A-10A you are talking about has been given an Advanced Flight Model derived from the one made for the A-10C. I assume you agree the A-10C flight model is "high fidelity"? ;)

[Bluedrake42]

personally I think the fully interactive cockpit is more important than the AFM.

DCS quality aircraft should have interactive cockpits, AFM would be nice... but cockpits come first imo

[EtherealN]

I'll agree to one thing though:

 

It probably would be good if feature descriptions were expanded. That is, that things like the "clickable cockpit" and the underlying modeling in the A-10C is made more explicit, whereby lack of such a feature listed also becomes more descriptive.

 

...except, this is already done.

 

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/

[outlawal2]

personally I think the fully interactive cockpit is more important than the AFM.

DCS quality aircraft should have interactive cockpits, AFM would be nice... but cockpits come first imo

 

Sorry but the AFM is REQUIRED for a DCS level module.. Period.. Anything less... is well, LESS..

[kontiuka]

Sorry but the AFM is REQUIRED for a DCS level module.. Period.. Anything less... is well, LESS..

Well, really both are required for it to be labelled DCS fidelity.

[Dr. Yes]

Now that, I cannot disagree with.

 

Yeah, I agree too. DCS and Flaming Cliffs in the same sentence is pretty confusing. It should be one or the other.

 

personally I think the fully interactive cockpit is more important than the AFM.

DCS quality aircraft should have interactive cockpits, AFM would be nice... but cockpits come first imo

 

THIS. I'd really like to know how much more power and computations does the AFM take (CPU wise) vs. the SFM? It its a lot, I'd rather see that put into a better world ( terrain, textures, lighting, objects ). As Ellis pointed out in one of his posts, the majority of "flight simmers" aren't that interested in AFM, finding SFM to be fine. Were the hardcore types here. What most people want is something like Outerra ( not talking about map size ). Look at their Mig-29. Thats pretty good for most people. I really want the best AFM there is, but I have to be realistic in that its using the CPU ( which we all know how limited that is ). I'm looking at other engines right now, for an FPS world where we can have jets, vehicles, etc. like the Hawk with its Clickable cockpit and the real system models, but only SFM needed if AFM takes a lot more CPU power.

 

I think AFM is important in helicopters, but I think its much less so in fast jets, simple because at speed, you don't notice much. With helicopters, they are slow, inertia doesn't have as much effect, and its like your balancing on the head of a pin. Slow attack jets are best with AFM as well, because they are slow and seem to also be more affected by gravity and the environment. Jets - Your just a guy clinging to a rocket. Not much seems to affect you.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Dr. Yes

[NineLine]

 

I think AFM is important in helicopters, but I think its much less so in fast jets.

 

You really can make that judgement until you have tried a fast mover with a true AFM though ;)

[EtherealN]

THIS. I'd really like to know how much more power and computations does the AFM take (CPU wise) vs. the SFM? It its a lot, I'd rather see that put into a better world ( terrain, textures, lighting, objects ).

 

Remember that different things use different resources. Textures live in your VGA adapter's vRAM. Not the CPU. Terrain lives in both. Lighting lives in your VGA adapter's computer cores. "Objects" is too wide a term to categorize.

 

However, there you are talking about runtime compute resources. Not development. Totally different things. And the graphics live in DCS World, not in the aircraft module.

 

What most people want is something like Outerra ( not talking about map size ).

 

I request a source, in the form of a statistically significant and properly weighted sampling of customers that might purchase this type of product. That is, you will find, hard to come by. Then, after that, you'll find additional obstacles since different things require different resources. In the example of AFM vs SFM, some aircraft it will be easier to get the avionics right than the flight dynamics. Other cases it's the opposite.

 

I think AFM is important in helicopters, but I think its much less so in fast jets, simple because at speed, you don't notice much. With helicopters, they are slow, inertia doesn't have as much effect, and its like your balancing on the head of a pin.

 

Nonsense. You know how they spent a lot of time struggling with the "sound barrier"? How pilots died through accidently getting into the transonic? Yeah, SFM can't do that. It's a MAJOR part of what makes a "fast-jet" actually be a "fast-jet"... But it is unimportant? ;)

 

Seriously, increased fidelity has it's place in all aspects of simulation. What the appropriate balance is depends on the aircraft in question, the resources available to the development team, availability of raw data for use etcetera. This means that different aircraft will have different tradeoffs. Which, in turn, means that simple categorization in either-or is completely impossible.

[Dr. Yes]

I request a source, in the form of a statistically significant and properly weighted sampling of customers that might purchase this type of product.

 

Elle's company (Hawk) already did it, and came to that conclusion themselves.

 

Face it, Flight Sim only, AFM, very simple world is a tiny niche. That's why Elle's said they were outputting their product with SFM to start. AFM did not interest as near as many people as the clickable cockpit / full simulated systems. The planes in DCS are beautiful, but then they are contrasted against that simple, ugly world, in which you can do very little. I get so sick of flat plains with sprite trees. I think terrain and objects still use the CPU. I know in Arma, which seems to use a similiar CPU dependent engine, having view distances of 30km is not a big deal. You lose a few FPS. Its the Object Distance that kills it all. So it appears objects really use the CPU a lot. From what I've seen of EDGE so far, I'm really not impressed. It looks like something from UT1. Of course, I don't care much for Nevada as a battlefield, so maybe with more intricate objects, textures, and lighting, you can get it at looking at least like Arma 3.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Dr. Yes

[NineLine]

Elle's company (Hawk) already did it, and came to that conclusion themselves.

 

Face it, Flight Sim only, AFM, very simple world is a tiny niche. That's why Elle's said they were outputting their product with SFM to start. AFM did not interest as near as many people as the clickable cockpit / full simulated systems. The planes in DCS are beautiful, but then they are contrasted against that simple, ugly world, in which you can do very little. Again, I wonder how much more the AFM takes in CPU power.

 

 

Again, you havent seen an AFM for a fast mover, so you really cant be sure what you are missing, we will see if some people change their opinions after the F-15C and Su-27S... it will be a different experience.

[Glowing_Amraam]

... it will be a different experience.

 

And it truly is ;)

[Silver_Dragon]

^^ That is very suspicious ;)

[Glowing_Amraam]

^^ That is very suspicious ;)

 

I have no idea what you are talking about. :D

[Dr. Yes]

Again, you havent seen an AFM for a fast mover, so you really cant be sure what you are missing, we will see if some people change their opinions after the F-15C and Su-27S... it will be a different experience.

 

Yeah, I'll probably love it. But, I still would prefer putting the power to a better world, as I'm mostly a heli / mud mover type. We slow / low movers really need an FPS engine to play in. DCS world is really made more for the jet jockeys. We just can't get that interactive / many places to hide and ambush detail. We need something along the terrain / trees / buildings of Crysis Wars.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Dr. Yes

[NineLine]

Yeah, I'll probably love it. But, I still would prefer putting the power to a better world, as I'm mostly a heli / mud mover type. We slow / low movers really need an FPS engine to play in. DCS world is really made more for the jet jockeys.

 

 

EDGE is coming, so both aspects seem to be covered :)

[lunaticfringe]

personally I think the fully interactive cockpit is more important than the AFM.

DCS quality aircraft should have interactive cockpits, AFM would be nice... but cockpits come first imo

 

That's funny, considering that in fourth generation aircraft, 90+% of the switchology required to put munitions on target are on the stick and throttle you paid $200+ to emulate.

 

But boy, if you can't click that switch with a mouse... OH GOD!!!

[EtherealN]

Elle's company (Hawk) already did it, and came to that conclusion themselves.

 

They made that judgement yes. However, they did not have the factual backing I requested here. Point being: no-one has that. ;) Rather, they made a best informed decision between their resources, their information, and their picture of what people want.

 

Face it, Flight Sim only, AFM, very simple world is a tiny niche.

 

The opposite is true.

A good AFM gives "instant gratification".

Detailed systems modeling takes effort to enjoy.

Guess which is the bigger market. ;)

 

That's why Elle's said they were outputting their product with SFM to start. AFM did not interest as near as many people as the clickable cockpit / full simulated systems.

 

Okey, first of all, you are talking about their product here. That's an aircraft that, to start with, few people have ever heard about. They've done an awesome job with it, and for those that _are_ interested in it the systems is what is interesting.

 

Talk to random joe on the streat however, and they'll have no clue what the Hawk is. But speaking as someone that previously worked reviews for PC Gamer magazine, flight simulation products were always judged by giving the sensation of flight. Remember: what you call "simple" avionics used to be above what even the most "advanced" hardcore flight sims did. ;)

 

But, again: you made the statement that people in general, I understand this as "customers", want AFM less and avionics more. ED's sales figures disagree. (Sorry, no, I can't give you specifics. But consider why ED bothered keeping FC alive in spite of all the crap with legal obligations to Ubisoft etcetera. Apparently it was worth it...)

 

What I'm angling for here is that it would be strange if the company that is the one company that stayed alive after the death of simulator developers had no clue about what the market wants. Right? Remember how that happend? Lock On. What happened to the people that made Falcon 4? Bankruptcy. Think about that when you consider what people want. ;)

Edited January 16, 2014 by EtherealN

[Vekkinho]

Hey the entire idea was to have FC and DCS aircraft in same theater and mission.

 

If ED drops FC aircraft from DCS World who'd fly the escort for the DCS:A-10C players? DCS:Mustang sally pilots?!