There is a lot of cool stuff that people are eager to get, a lot of the cool stuff is hard to show off during construction as it’s 1s and 0s, so I get that eagerness can boil over.
14 Likes
Perhaps I’ve said it already, but as I have definitive evidence to support my claim, I am positing that the “core fixes” issue is a simple communication problem with the users’ collective idea of “core” being different than the devs’ collective idea of “core.”
When the users talk about the “core,” they are talking specifically about gameplay features, e.g. AI (which is a whole 'nother topic between aircraft and ground AI issues).
When the devs talk about the “core,” they are talking about the literal core, which is basically everything.
List of core changes from a developer:
As you can see, all of those are cosmetic developments. None are gameplay developments. Except perhaps the atmospeheric model, as I suppose that affects how the aircraft/missiles fly. In effect, both claims of “there have been core developments” and “there have been no core developments” are valid because the “core developments” being referred to by the two parties are different. What’s causing frustration is that neither party explicitly describes exactly what they mean by “core.” Engineers are engineers with their own paradigm. Users are users with their own, separate paradigm. The two parties are experiencing the same product in two completely different ways, which should be rather obvious.
Now, that list doesn’t include the recent WW2 developments with the slight AI improvement and the amazing damage model that keeps me going back to DCS WW2. I say “slight” in terms of how it has affected gameplay–I’m sure it was a major undertaking from the engineers’ perspective. Even with those two developments included in the list, the changes are still overwhelmingly superficial. Not unwelcomingly so, but after a few hours of looking at pretty things one starts to desire more substance.
Thus, I chalk the heated discussions up to the classic communication breakdown between engineer brain and user brain.
13 Likes
4 Likes
The addition of GFM can’t come soon enough, honestly. Though, I also would like to know what’s planned for the Simo Hahya ground fire.
2 Likes
Those two are the crux of my “core issues” as well. The past ~7 years, DCS has primarily been a Digital Cockpit Simulator with weaponeering practice on the range purely because of those issues.
4 Likes
Are we now debating the definition of core elements?
ok, so do you want a list of:
-Engine Changes (GFX, Terrain, Sound, Atmosphere/Weather)
-AI Behavior Changes
-Mission Scripting Changes
-Feature Additions Changes
??
I have a spreadsheet with every fix and the category they fall in.
And every one of those categories has at least 500+ items from first 2021 patch to now,
it’s overlooked because, something like:
" * AI Ticonderoga class ships will fire even if they don’t have line of sight for weapon - Fixed."
isn’t considered a core gameplay change, when it is, but because it doesn’t affect everyone it’s overlooked by the majority,
Or “* AI Continues to fire on aircraft after the pilot has bailed out - Fixed.”
Same thing, huge change, but it’s overlooked by the masses.
If you tell a mission or campaign author there hasn’t been any fixes or changes in a long time, they’ll have a stroke…
It all stems back to events recently, where specific items were not fixed by a time frame set by the community for the developers, so now the notion of “nothing core game play wise has been fixed”.
Sorry if that was brash.
6 Likes
The definition of core elements has never been part of the discussion. Which specific core elements are being addressed when someone says the words “core fixes” is the point of my argument, as I made abundantly clear in my post.
As an air combat sim, the core fixes the community wants and feels there has been insufficient work on are:
*less cheating air and ground AI (sensors/omniscience, gunnery, flight model)
*AI taxi issues gumming up airbases/carriers
*ground AI pathfinding that doesn’t get gummed up or cause performance issues
*improved ground vehicle damage model so we don’t have to rely on plinking with smart weapons to achieve an objective
3 Likes
It doesn’t need to be so, actually. You really have to curate the experience as the end-user and that’s always kind of been the case for combat sims of any kind. With DCS, the situation is honestly just a matter of knowing the sim. Specifically, AI assets.
Certain AI, like the F-5 etc. display a total disregard for physics at certain skill levels so it’s best to keep them low. Things like that.
Certain modules, like the F-86 and MiG-15, are modeled incorrectly and fixes to that are not forthcoming despite @nineline 's best efforts and I genuinely mean his best efforts, he’s done right by us. So, you limit what you do with them, fly them at a later time frame where they’d be relegated to ground attack and CAS. It isn’t ideal, they’re meant to dogfight, but it is what it is and it’s still fun.
It’s just going to give me pause before I buy another first-party module, though. That said, even once the AI issues are fixed, even once they give us Vulkan and Multi-core, it’ll still be an experience you have to curate. And that’s, honestly, part of the appeal to people like me.
2 Likes
ok that makes more sense, now that I re-read a few posts…
2 Likes
In my experience with Falcon BMS, Combat Flight Simulator 2 & 3, and European Air War, that was not the case. You simply hopped in and the instant action or campaign generator curated the experience for you.
Even if you do your best to curate the experience in DCS, the only way to do something like A2G attack in the Mossie or one of the helos is to set any unit with a gun to ROE=hold fire or you’ll just get shredded before you can even do anything. In the A-10 I’ve taken hits from ZSU-57s shooting through clouds…I’m pretty sure those are optically aimed. Then no one shoots back and everything just feels empty. That’s an issue I have repeatedly come across when building my personal sandbox training missions or Liberation campaigns.
2 Likes
It does get confusing. Even the 4-point list of most desired fixes I mentioned can be broken down into a multitude of more precises fixes.
1 Like
Interestingly enuff, I just spent a few days on this very thing. Had to script it in detail (lua, took days to find something that worked) to make sure they didn’t completely wipe each other out until I could get there, no matter how many units, with equal weapons, etc. They went ‘blind’ (situationally) with the slightest visual obstruction.
Reminded me of 18th century warfare: stand there and just slug it out, etc. Getting them to detect, then turning off their AI completely, etc, until I got within sensor range.
And yeah, I know it’s’ not a ground combat simulator (CA aside). It’s just that what is there takes work to get the exact combination to do its thing. I’m okay with it not being ARMA-like (for example) ground AI but the base AI functionality is an issue I continually run up against - I’m fine with doing the higher level things myself.
I got something that looks reasonable from 10,000 AGL with a lot of work. Still working on it actually, but it was/is frustrating.
3 Likes
I’m not up on this “GFM” thing. General Flight Model? If so, might it improve my chances of doing BFM with, well most, AI aircraft? The “Mig28” being the most notorious one. I don’t really do much A2A for this reason. It’s still fun of course - I just imagine it’s a, for example, Mig-28 Block 1000 
(or F-22 in an F-5 skin) Then get on with it.
1 Like
On a different note: A pre-mission briefing interface is something I’ve been hoping to see for a few years now; I’m tempted to do it in an external .exe but, alas, more work there.
And I can’t get an API to the radios - I have, after 2 attempts, finally abandoned my semi-realistic radio comm’s coding; just one function would make it all work, but no joy. Compromises will have to made.
getFrequency(radioID) would be nice, but I digress…
DCS reminds me of an exotic sports car (I prefer bikes but…): it’s a blast most of the time, until it coughs, sputters, and rolls to a stop - just when you want to put the pedal to the metal. Then you have to wait for the mechanic. And you need to be part mechanic. But for a stretch, wow!
Nothing is perfect. Perfect is the enemy of good?
1 Like
In short, it’s been billed as a revamping of AI decision making; they’ll make mistakes, lose sight of you, etc.
That alone sounds pretty great, but I’m hoping it also includes FM changes that disallow the AI from committing to infinite energy loops.
It sounds like the AI updates Il-2 '46 got once upon a time. If ends up just being that? That’s frankly, pretty damn acceptable.
Marketing up-chuck:
Before describing our new General Flight Model (GFM) for AI, it may be useful to review the development history of flight models in DCS since inception. Initially, we used a trajectory model called Standard (SFM) for human players and a very simple model for AI which used primitive laws of physics. Eventually, the Advanced Flight Model (AFM) and its successor, the Professional Flight model (PFM) were developed and the SFM was adapted for AI aircraft. Although SFM produces accurate trajectory parameters such as turn rate, specific excess power, flight envelope, etc. it suffers from a lack of natural short-period movement and switched models for ground and flight.
Expanding the use of PFM or even AFM for AI aircraft wouldn’t be smart due to several key factors, notably AFM and PFM both require substantial work to create each individual aircraft flight data model. In addition, processor workload for runtime data in the mission would be excessive and greatly affect performance, especially when many different aircraft are present in the mission.
The approach in our new GFM will deliver accurate AI trajectory performance and copy the PFM’s short-period characteristics from the player-controlled models that we already have. The GFM ‘pilot’ will use the same control surface deflection as PFM and can naturally stall and spin as well; the GFM also experiences air turbulence. It is interesting to note that the short period characteristics of the new models also naturally depend on Mach numbers.
The greatest challenge when starting the work on GFM was creating a unique multi-level autopilot system capable of controlling any and all aircraft. Unlike standard autopilot programming approaches, which demand that each aircraft be adjusted individually, the new approach permits automatic use of aircraft flight parameters. This saves substantial time and delivers more accurate and realistic auto-pilot behaviour that is particularly appreciated for trans-sonic and supersonic regime changes, which now no longer require substantial tuning.
This fundamental work required about two years of programming with formation flying alone requiring an additional 5 months of intense development. The main task was to teach the AI to fly correctly but not as a supernatural drone but rather as a human pilot would, including micro-delays, errors and limitations. Soon, every pilot can practice the formation lead role and develop highly realistic skills without having to play online and depend on inadequate wingmen to hone his talent.
All ordinary tasks such as takeoff, landing, aerial combat, ground strikes and bombing were also entirely re-written. Implementation is expected during 2022.
If they can deliver that? Literally game changing. If they can then implement changes to ground AI? Outstanding.
8 Likes
Just in case anyone here missed it, Ugra posted some screenshots of their upcoming eastern Syria expansion. The best map keeps getting better.
https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/239806-syria-preview/page/18/#comment-4897988
9 Likes
Next major update (apache) is looking like a big one.
1 Like
FLIR rework, Syria expansion, some whirlybird toy… yup, it’s gun’ be gud!
4 Likes
Love this map.
Deir ez Zor AIr Base is about 250 NM from KDAN LTAG?. Nice. I like the occasional long road trip.
Where do I submit the suggestion: “Extend it to the PG map” (to include Iraq). I know, I know…
1 Like
Well, the maps seem to be getting bigger and bigger. Normandy will grow significantly, and Syria will be gigantic after this update… So who knows, maybe sooner than later…
3 Likes