The smart Enigma guy from the Enigma Cold War server releases another banger of a video that address some brilliant points. I do not believe we will all agree to the same things but hell he does hit several nails on the head.
One above all, we, simmers, are our own worst enemy at times.
I’d really like to hear everyone’s comment on this.
That was an interesting video.
I have to agree with him, full fidelity will never happen on jets. Too much is classified. And lets be honest we don’t need to look under panels and see all the boxes.
Now having said that, I love the 15E start up. I would hate to have seen that as FC3 level.
I do think there is a place for something in between. Imagine the SU-27 we have now but with clickable switches. Sort of a FC3 plus.
There are certain planes we will never see in DCS because they can’t be full fidelity but could be FC3 level.
FC3 aircraft are perfect for that quick start. Sometimes you don’t have 8 mins to wait for INS alignment.
And at the end of the day we all play to drop bombs and shoot missiles. Most of the weapons data is classified so ED is just taking a well educated guess. So are we really full fidelity???
I never understood the great demand for specific system failures in any flight sim. It takes 10 mins to set the plane up, the last thing I want is a random failure mid flight that ruins it all.
I think the sweet spot is in the middle between FC3 and 'full fidelity".
Some good thoughts in that video.
My take on this is that I’m into flightsims to have fun. Now, what I consider fun, may be boring to others and vise versa.
But, did I have fun in Flanker 1.5? Yes. LOMAC? Absolutely. Early DCS? You betcha! Am I still having fun in todays DCS? Oh yes.
To have fun I need the sim to be challenging. I don’t really care that the flightmodel is perfect or that the systems are exact, as long as I don’t know what I’m talking about, if you know what I mean. I do know a thing or two about the Viggen, so if that’s off, I know it’s off and that kills some of my fun. But the rest… As long as the module is believable, I’m happy. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
Is DCS a museum? Interesting analogy. Well, if we consider it a museum, where people can experience aircraft, they need to experience more than just a fancy 3D model, right? There has got to be some similarity to the real thing, or it wouldn’t be much of an experience. So, where do one draw that line? It is highly subjective.
Take the age old question, is it a sim or a game?
I answer that with, what do you want to simulate? Take our latest module, the Strike Eagle, as an example. I think it’s safe to say that it’s the most realistic simulation of the real jet, available for the home PC user. Yet, very few of these users have years of government funded training and experience, so putting Average Joe in the DCS Strike Eagle is actually highly unrealistic. It simply wouldn’t happen like that, in real life. I’d say that making the systems a bit easier to learn and use, or maybe add some helping features, could be considered more realistic, at least if we’re talking about simulating the experience of flying an advanced fighter, like the Beagle.
I’d welcome more FC style aircraft. That said, I do love to marvel at all the MFD subsystems and switchology too.
from my point of view the key point here could be the scalability.
is the experience scalable?
I guess it is. yes, these are museum relics recreated to the tiniest detail.
but from what I have read here somewhere, you can always play it the Casmo way. have the birds hot on ramp, aligned or even spawn in the air, after the AAR part of flight etc.
just choose what fits you the most and have fun.
That’s a good one. I just cannot be bothered learning/assigning switches that I can see in the cockpit and could just click.
That’s why I don’t fly non-clickable planes anymore. IL-2 for example drives me nuts. Such beautiful planes, but I can f***ing see the cowl flaps lever, let me click it!
Edit: tail hook lever is even better. IL-2 forces me to either bind it on the stick (which is a waste, I need it once per flight) or use the keyboard (which breaks immersion even more than just clicking it. Especially if I was flying in VR with hand controllers).
I think many MSFS planes hit the nail on the head systems wise. Sure, there are a lot of non-clickable elements, but the most important ones are usually there and clickable.
I don’t need full fidelity with every circuit breaker, but I want the ~80% experience. Let me press the buttons that a real pilot would use during most of the flights.
That’s all I want. Give me clickable cockpits (so I don’t have to memorize 100 keyboard shortcuts for every airplane) and tell me how the aircraft works. I’ll never know how realistic or unrealistic it is, so does it matter as long as it’s consistent?
IL2: Cliffs of Dover got this right, 85% of the cockpits were clickable which was awesome. MSFS is another good example. Just from a useability standpoint, especially in VR, clickable is a must.
I love IL2:GB, love the performance the graphics, flight models and effects, I’d put it all right there at nearly the same level as DCS WWII, except that I can’t click items in the cockpit.
I wonder what Jason’s new one has planned for the cockpits? I’m hoping clickable for all the reasons outlined above.
So I had this sitting as a draft new topic for a while, but this seems like a decent spot for it:
Many of us here started FS’img with “golden age” titles, or even earlier. Many of those titles (Tornado, Falcon, Fleet Defender, Aces over XXX, Apache vs Hind, etc) are certainly not what we would consider “simulations” today, but they are still viewed positively. My question is why is that? What is it about the older titles that make us view them positively?
I would contend that “golden age” titles weren’t systems or procedure simulators in the way DCS or BMS are. Rather they were tactical simulators. The systems and procedures to use those systems were largely abstracted, but the tactics to employee them were in fact usually well simulated (at least for the hardware that was available). To have an environment that allowed for simulated tactics (without having a mission editor), this required the devs to have a wide range of scenarios and usually campaigns (and the legendary dynamic campaign).
System and procedure simulators on the flip side, provide the same experience regardless if you are in the middle of a carefully plotted mission or going through switchology via something you knocked together in the mission editor.
DCS is a superb systems and procedure simulator. Cold starts galore, radio tuning, MDT button punching, etc. It leaves a lot of the “tactics” simulation to the end user or 3rd parties to create engaging missions. I know quite a few of us are content with this, one of my favorite activities is dropping iron bombs with manual depression reticles. How many of us are excited by the idea of fighting our way through the F-4’s radar to be able to actually employee the sparrow? I would hazard a large number portion of the MS user base.
I would wager that the public at large is more of a “tactics” crowd (or what they perceive as tactics), with the Ace Combat series going on 18 different titles so far. Early combat flight simtitles gave just enough systems and procedures to create immersion, and no more. @NEVO brough up scalability is a great option. MSFS does this well with everything from external view xbox controller gameplay to dang near needing a type rating to start the A/C with $5,000 worth of peripherals in use flying it.
As many folks here have checked out Gunner: HEAT, PC and Helicopter Gunship DEX. Both of these titles are short on the systems and procedures in the vein of a “golden age” title, with enough to create immersion, but not enough to make it a focus of the gameplay. I would contend this concept is a success across all genres. FPS’s like ARMA and Ground Branch which try to have more realism in the systems and procedures area are massively outsold by titles like COD, which are “tactics” titles (COD certainly has tactics, they just don’t have much basis in reality). Racing titles have almost always been good about scalability with some form of “race engineer” allowing simple sliders to stand in for much more complex adjustments, etc.
Good simulation does not necessarily make good gaming. Good gaming is not necessarily good simulation.
This hit the nail on the head for me.
and now the question is. how many people, at least here, prefer IL2 COD or IL2 DWT over DCS WWII ?
IL2 DWT isnt that old, the FMs are good, DMs are one of the best on the market…
I would speculate that the attractivity of the ‘golden age’ simulators was the promise that there will come eventually something like F4 or DCS one day.
at least it was for me like that. I started with Warbirds, then moved to Target Rabaul/Tobruk, then IL2 FB etc.
the fidelity, at least in my eyes, was gradually growing from title to title.
didnt know at that time that Oleg with IL2 COD was just looking for some acceptable approach to the simulation.
I didnt know at that time that e.g. BOBII:WOV already delivered clickable cockpits.
I only knew that one day we will get something like DCS - simulation with systems depth and clickable cockpits.
and I love my DCS Pony. its virtual museum relic and thats great about it. cant see myself flying any other Pony less simulated than this.
but in one breath I will add that I dont own DCS F14/15/16/18 … too complicated for my limited spare time. so fully understand why you guys bagging for FC3 level, clickable cockpits versions, of these modules.
I can only speak for myself, but firing up Flight Simulator (yep FS 1) or even Fleet Defender, I never in my wildest dreams imagined we’d get to something like BMS or DCS.
Nothing to add except that although DCS is probably wasted on me (I very rarely do a cold and dark start) I’m glad it exists. For me it is ‘real enough’ that I can imagine myself in the cockpit of [insert aircraft name here] even though I never have and never will IRL.
Absolutely, SB2 models the systems in greater detail but It is the things that can’t be simulated (or simulated well) that are immersion breaking for me and makes GHPC the best ever tank combat sim/game IMHO for an overall experience…
I’m not sure if Enigma made a point that resonated with me. But the replies above sure as hell did. A few days ago I asked @JediMaster why he preferred simpler models and his explanation fell nicely in line with Enigma’s main point. I now get it. @NEVO I think closely described me. Back in my younger years I relished F-19, Gunship and Flanker BECAUSE subconsciously I was fantasizing about what we have now. I can prove it personally. Late in the Black Shark development process ED released a video of it flying about peaceably to the lovely tune of a Russian pop song. I didn’t literally cry but the emotional reaction was so intense that I remember it now like it was only hours ago. When Black Shark dropped my life as a game player changed forever. I get a visceral reaction when I take a cold and dark machine and make it go. In my real life I feel it and in my gaming life I feel it. In both, when I look up at the hundreds of buttons and switches and understand them all* I feel a certain pride at my ability to interface with the machine. Most of you relate. Others see that as a bit sad. In life the “others” are obviously wrong. In life you MUST know the machine. (And it sure helps if that knowledge makes you happy). But in gaming, both approaches are equally valid.
After @JediMaster explained his point someone responded that maybe DCS isn’t for him and he sorta blew his lid. I would have too EVEN though I am probably more in line with the Mudspiker who set him off. But no one should tell someone else what he should and should not take pleasure in—at least so long as nobody is hurt in the pursuit.
Personally, you can’t pay me to fly a FC3 module. It’s been five years at least since I’ve touched any of them. But Jedi convinced me how important MAC is. There is a sizable swath of this community for whom MAC would bring all the joy that Black Shark brought me all those years ago.
*I don’t always look up with comprehension. These machines are so complex and most brains are so feeble (mine more so than most) that sometimes I look up and haven’t a clue. RTFM.
One more thing and then I’ll step aside. Yesterday and today I am flying with a student who previously flew Harriers. I apologized in advance when I told him that I would be using much of the flight to glean as much harrier porn from him as he was willing to share (and he could stop me as soon as I became a bore).
So he told me fun stories. He showed me pictures. He explained the differences between “Night Attack”, “Day Attack”, “Radar” and so on. (I didn’t let on that I knew already.) He drew a picture with HUD, canopy bow and AR lights to show how he snags the basket. (Cool! Can’t wait to try it). He then went on to explain some of the capability and got to the DMT. “It stands for digital…er…dynamic…er… Well **** I forget but it doesn’t matter because we never used it anyway!” (I know exactly what DMT stands for. But I didn’t tell him that!). Study sim payoff bitches! 
I think both are great. Clickable cockpits doesn’t mean we can’t have keyboard shortcuts. Realistic modeling and systems doesn’t mean we can’t have a simplified/game mode. I don’t care whether my wingman is flying with his radar in some kind of auto-acquisition mode, or if he has simplified engine management turned on. IL2:GB does really well with this, you can scale it to be as realistic or game-y as you want. Different servers have different rules enforced. My only issue is I have to have clickable cockpits; I’m too old to remember 100 different keyboard commands, especially in VR.
Dart came to that conclusion almost thirteen years ago. 
Flight Sim to Flight Line, My Journey from Sim Pilot to Sport Pilot
So with 4.3 cumulative hours under my belt I can authoritatively state that for me the years of playing in front of a computer gave me a slight edge over someone who didn’t know anything at all about flying at this point in training, and that many of the lessons learned in virtual skies do translate over to the real one in a shockingly good fit.
Loved these quotes from the article.
Reaction to turbulence was reflexive. Thank you, Rise of Flight, for those horrible rainstorm missions in the Nieuport 17. I cursed you the whole way, but in the rolling air of an afternoon Alabama sky in July it paid off — I wasn’t shaken by it and neither over reacted or let it bully me.
Draw distance for other aircraft needs to be improved. While I spotted a helicopter at five miles, it started out as a small black dot above the horizon and was very slow to resolve to a recognizable shape. A white Citation was invisible to both the instructor and me even though we were told where it was until less than a quarter mile away — and it was only 1000 feet lower than us! Something is screwy when you can’t see a white plane over green forests at one o’clock in the afternoon in clear skies.
Wheels
I’ve heard similar things about various systems, so I’m not surprised at all. The question I’d ask is: why not? There can be some real deep learning in understanding how/why different squadrons operate the same airplane different ways.
good point there @speck .
really looking forward to what @Combat_Pilot_Jason and the team will bring to the table in this regard.
and good memory @wheelsup_cavu .
I remember one article where some author speculated about having online servers where all simers, from beginners with simplified models to pros with full fidelity planes, can coexist.
I would say that we now finally have it with DCS FC planes sharing the same servers with full fidelity modules.
definitely the future situation is quite hazy now, at the ED part, as we are not getting any new FC content and at the same time no news about MAC.
And I have now come full circle:
From the heady days of of 90’s flight sim Nirvana where we could only dream of where the next big ‘full-fidelity’ sim would would take us and Janes A-10 was just around the corner…
To the crash of the early-mid Noughties where I am sure I read at least one article stating that we had seen the end of the ‘Study Sim’…
Which brings me back to today where I can delight in some polite conversation about whether or not ‘too much of a good thing’ is too much of a good thing 
Listened to this Enigma fellow - he has some points but nothing new - pretty sure I wrote something similar when LOMAC turned into DCS in what 2010.
So spot on in many aspects but as ever the company will follow their own agenda in the end which will probably more cockpits with shinier magnetos.
