Quality Standard for DCS World

[Frostie]

DCS Acronym.

 

Out: Digital Combat Simulator

New Hotness: Dishwasher Control Simulation

 

:D

 

:D i'd buy it.

[Dr. Yes]

Whatever, I like interactive cockpits better. That's it, end of story. I'd rather know how to turn on a plane and then sit on the ramp looking like an idiot, than have someone else turn on the plane for me and fly like a pro.

 

Obviously I'd like both, its not like I hate AFM... but I'd choose IC given the choice.

 

It just comes down to a matter of opinion I guess, so if we could just stop the armchair commando bashing please... that'd be nice.

 

This. While I would LOVE AFM, my problem is I wonder how much CPU that takes up, and then I keep seeing the planes getting better and better, but I see nothing going on with the "world". Even EDGE doesn't look that great, like UT1 graphics. I'd like to see at least Arma 2 level graphics ( maybe that can be done with EDGE, hopefully ), so we can put some realistic 3rd party vehicles and infantry down there. Then you have a battlefield. Right now, we have plastic soldiers that just basically stand there as you bomb them. If your going to call your game World, then please make a "world". I know that all the hardcore types are on here, of which I'm one, I like AFM. But what the people like me want even more than AFM is a better ARMA, like it or not. They don't post here. They don't post on the ARMA forums. Because the hardcore fanboys rule the forums and SCREAM when they hear this ( thanks for not screaming guys, you've been pretty nice ). ARMA forums are 20x worse than this one. About 10 different fanboys and the mods RULE that place. You can't say anything. Thats why Arma 3 is starting to die. They even ignore their bug report list. You complain, your IP banned for life. Everyone has left.

 

AFM is VERY WELCOME! Would love to see it! But please start putting some time into the world as well. Third party developers would be fine. FPS infantry, Arma 2 graphics ( Arma 3 would be nice, if possible ), realistic vehicles with clickable "cockpits" and systems.

 

Thanks.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Dr. Yes

[danilop]

I think all of us would like to see perfect graphics, integrated battlefield, everything ... However, reality is that ED is very small company, market for their products is small (really low to average return of investment) and coding to standard required by community takes extraordinary amount of man-hours.

 

On top of that, they're the only one left in game, so we don't have much choice - best we can do is to give them support and have patience.

 

Although whining on these forums helps to relieve personal frustration with state of flight sim market (been there, done that :D), we should be really grateful to have any kind of hard core combat flight simulator in this market and economy.

Edited January 17, 2014 by danilop

[EtherealN]

I'd rather know how to turn on a plane and then sit on the ramp looking like an idiot, than have someone else turn on the plane for me and fly like a pro.

 

I've been in the position of comparing a real plane with a simulator.

Know what I cared about in the simulator prior to stepping into the real thing? The flight dynamics. I was using the sim to learn how to fly the aircraft.

 

;)

 

Obviously I'd like both, its not like I hate AFM... but I'd choose IC given the choice.

 

The thing being missed here is that in modern combat aviation, they actually do not want you to flip switches. They want EVERYTHING on the HOTAS, as far as is possible. In combat - that is, when it matters - you're not pressing any buttons anywhere other than on your HOTAS. And to simulate that, you do not need mouse-clickable anything in the pit. (It's really nice from a study perspective though, I agree.)

 

While I would LOVE AFM, my problem is I wonder how much CPU that takes up, and then I keep seeing the planes getting better and better, but I see nothing going on with the "world".

 

Nothing is happening in the "world"? What? Which planet are you on? :)

 

Now, as for CPU use, there's a lot of confusion going on. The AFM's themselves aren't that bad - part of the magic (and difficulty) in AFM development is the aerodynamic analysis that takes place in developing the mathematical model that simplifies enough to be easily implemented without taxing resources too much while still getting everything that is important in the dynamics. The "big deal" in AFM development takes place before a single line of DCS-world compatible code is written. Comparing to something like X-Plane for example: that sim is inefficient in flight dynamics modeling since it is effectively doing a runtime wind tunnel, therefore requiring that the computer be able to do all the aerodynamic calculations in real time.

 

AFM development however can use synthetic windtunnels (or real-life wind-tunnel data) towards isolating elements, and then mathematical and physics towards building a model that describes the dynamics without undue computation load.

 

However, there's more to this: how does the "clickable cockpit" actually work? Well, when you flip that APU on, why does X happen? What decides whether it starts or doesn't? Well, an equally dynamic model of the fuel system, including pipe resistances, electrical systems with their firings and resistances and potentials and so on and so forth. In the example of the P-51D, when that engine fires after you press the igniter it is because the dynamic model runs the pistons and fuel injectors and all of that jazz and gives you exactly that readout on our "interactive cockpit" that you really should get.

 

If you are worrying about CPU power, you are on the wrong side of this discussion. ;)

 

EDIT: As an anectode; I'm not sure if you were around back when DCS: BS1 was released. Back then, there was a lot of people reporting perceived bugs in the Shkval, but the testers and devs had issues figuring it out because (as it turned out) there was a bug in the simulator that was very similar to a "bug" (or, rather, correctly simulated design deficiency) in the real thing. You think doing stuff at that detail comes at negligible CPU overhead? ;)

 

Basically, if you are asking for realism in the clickable cockpit - that is, the position where you actually could start the real thing - you're asking for a hell of a lot of CPU cycles there too. Because otherwise, you'll only "start" a real thing if it is in perfect mint condition - which they never ever are. ;)

 

EDIT2: Now, of course, there is a distinction that can be made here. You can do a Falcon-style "if switch 1 is off then turning switch 2 does X", where there is no actual simulation going on. But what you are doing then is just a procedure trainer, and most importnantly for combat flight simulation it does not set you up to handle system failures or battle damage* in a realistic manner. You're not prepared to handle hydraulic leaks realistically insofar as their effect on control authority etcetera. Basically: do not kid yourself that the "CPU hog" in DCS A-10C is "just" the flight model. It's all tied together with a LOT of CPU work happening for the complete package, up-to and including how hydraulic stuff makes the engines work which in turn gives thrust feeding into the flight model... It's more complex than most think, and there most definitely is not a clear distinction to be made between a "DCS level" and an "FC level". It's a fluid spectrum, and what is possible (and at what expense) depends on the specific aircraft and team resources.

 

*Example: "SFM" treats the entire aircraft as one single lift/drag/thrust/etc object. This means battle damage cannot affect flight dynamics unless you hardcode specific cases. Since dev time is limited (and no-one bothered to shoot planes to pieces in controlled conditions and make that data available to ED). Now this is a combat simulator. Battle damage is a big deal to me - one of the best moments was in early A-10C (I think it was when we were getting fammed with pre-beta code) and I lost half a wing after GG launched a mav just as I was buzzing him (and thus ate the mav... ooops). The resulting adventure of getting that badly mangled plane onto a runway was awesome. Also, could not be done without AFM. It would either have been "yay, flying like nothing happened" or "instant KABOOM".

Edited January 18, 2014 by EtherealN

[Exorcet]

This. While I would LOVE AFM, my problem is I wonder how much CPU that takes up, and then I keep seeing the planes getting better and better, but I see nothing going on with the "world". Even EDGE doesn't look that great, like UT1 graphics. I'd like to see at least Arma 2

But this isn't ARMA. It's quite a bit of a scale up in map size, and the thing is, the current map is way too small.

 

You can zig zag all over it flying the fighters and go beyond the zones that are even modeled before you run out of gas. Larger aircraft (AWACS, tanker, transport) are all forced to parked on the front lines. I personally feel a bigger map is way up on the priority list compared to graphics. The sim is certainly playable with helicopters and ground vehicles with the current look (but some things need correcting like sight through trees) but limited map size does hurt mission creation for the larger aircraft.

 

Being that this is primarily a flight sim, and definitely a vehicle sim over an infantry one currently, the idea of focusing effort on an ARMA style environment seems out of place. However, that doesn't make integration of the two sides impossible. An archipelago map can large and high detail. There can also be high detail zones in larger traditional maps that allow for some infantry fighting.

[EtherealN]

An archipelago map can large and high detail. There can also be high detail zones in larger traditional maps that allow for some infantry fighting.

 

First: F/A-18C

Second: Pacific Ocean

 

Could be extremely awesome, imo. :)

[Dr. Yes]

There can also be high detail zones in larger traditional maps that allow for some infantry fighting.

 

Yeah, that's what I've been suggesting. It would solve well for both sides. Plenty of room to fly, you could have as big a maps as you like. The Arma 3 players are actually calling Altis "too big". A detailed place the size of Chernarus would be plenty. Even a few smaller places would work, and probably would be better. Spread a few small "FPS" type places over the map that have high detail. Like Arma 2's small Island of Utes. You could even go smaller with tight CQB sites. Just small villages with a fortress, old chemical warehouse, etc.

 

Being that this is primarily a flight sim

As for mostly flight sim, if your going to keep it that, then you really shouldn't call it "World", cause that's misleading. Digital Combat Flight Sim would be more appropriate. There's already been a few posts on the Steam forums asking how to jump into the vehicles and how do you do "infantry".

 

And actually, if you'll release some good modding tools, there are probably modders who would build these high detail zones for free. Truthfully, a lot of modders are really unhappy with Arma 3. Even some of the large groups like ACE seem to have pulled out in disgust of how BI is just ignoring everyones complaints. BI even banned one of their oldest moderators when he had problems with it all. That's the first time in over 20 years of gaming I've ever seen a moderator banned from a forum. Arma seems to have been dumped now in favor of Steam and DayZ. So yeah, a lot of us Arma types are really looking for a new sim / engine. DCS looks perfect, and it would finally bring the flight simmers / FPS people together.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Dr. Yes

[Frostie]

Yeah, that's what I've been suggesting. It would solve well for both sides. Plenty of room to fly, you could have as big a maps as you like. The Arma 3 players are actually calling Altis "too big". A detailed place the size of Chernarus would be plenty. Even a few smaller places would work, and probably would be better. Spread a few small "FPS" type places over the map that have high detail. Like Arma 2's small Island of Utes. You could even go smaller with tight CQB sites. Just small villages with a fortress, old chemical warehouse, etc.

 

Plenty of room to fly? Small maps wouldn't work for flight sims, Atlis at 270 km2 is way too small for realistic operations, that's not even 20km from end to end, it would just end up too arcade with airbases constantly being overrun never mind what devastation realistic artillery would do. Just for perspective the Nevada map ED's WIP map for EDGE is 130,000 km2 which is cutting it close to being small for mission building in DCS.

 

What you seem to want is FPS arcade combined with elements of simulation, that's not DCS. The level of soldier simulator combined with flight simulator in a beautifully detailed 500,000 km2 area is light years away. As a soldier simulator ARMA is pretty good but when it comes to combined arms it falls flat because like all games it needs an arcade element to survive the market, this is why the simulation market is so barren and so hard to survive in. ARMA imo is not the direction of DCS.

[Frostie]

As for mostly flight sim, if your going to keep it that, then you really shouldn't call it "World", cause that's misleading. Digital Combat Flight Sim would be more appropriate. There's already been a few posts on the Steam forums asking how to jump into the vehicles and how do you do "infantry".

I'm surprised there has been no posts asking how to become a bus driver, it has always been my first thought.

Seriously, 'World' is a definition of the DCS ever expanding scope.

[ENO]

I'm surprised there has been no posts asking how to become a bus driver, it has always been my first thought.

Seriously, 'World' is a definition of the DCS ever expanding scope.

 

Actually:

 

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3660952/1.html