Of planes, fidelity and gaming

Hangar Flying
41

You are wording his exact point very well, just from a single player pov. Enigma runs a dynamic multiplayer server. So for his “world” to be complete in Falklands, Vietnam, etc, he needs flyable Super Étendards, Harrier I, Pucará, Sea King, F-100, F-105, MiG-17.

Whereas you want those in AI assets and better more believable flight and ground AI, spotting/hiding, ATC, etc.

The point remains: throwing more and more resources at simulating all the detailed systems inside an increasingly harder to make (and thus lower quantity) of flyable modules is not going to help flesh out the world.

You would obviously disagree on number of flyable modules, but I feel like you are both reasoning from a very similar argument and have a very similar vision of what DCS needs.

EDIT: FWIW I enjoy ultra-high fidelity planes a lot. I was the first and loudest one cheering for the Mirage 2000 module when it pioneered highly accurate radar simulation. I loved learning every single subsystem in the Mi-8, every radio, weapons panel and doppler nav feature, etc.

But I also see that a more filled world would allow us to enjoy our incredible systems simulations more. Whether that world is online or single player… and the better and better systems simulation means less resources available to fill that world.

3 Likes
42

SMDH

43

If this would mean that DCS would have to drop the Sandbox aspect of development, I’d be all for it.
I have advocated this many times in the past.
This would also solve the same level of fidelity problem. I would totally support a DCS: ’Nam that had MAC/FC/Strikefighters levels of fidelity if that meant that we had aircraft of that era and location and that they were matched in fidelity.
But this doesn’t seem to be in the cards for DCS, unfortunately.
As long as you can put a Viggen against a Bf-109, in the Falklands, just putting out more aircraft and match them, seems a bit pointless to me.

Another aspect of this is that making a theatre based sim would mean that they could stop supporting the modules indefinitely as the ’nam set of aircraft wouldn’t have to be operational in the next theater sim for Desert Storm, or whatever. Unless they make a B-52, of course :wink:

2 Likes
44

are we still talking FC3 level or are we talking more about something like Strike Fighters level?

because from the comments on ED forums I dont have the impression that the FC3 level modules are some kind of resource saver:

1 Like
45

Thanks for the research! That quote from Nineline is a very important argument against what Enigma is saying. I wonder if that balance is shifting with the raised bar for radar and other systems simulation but it definitely seems like the high-quality flight models are not as cheap as he makes it out to be.

In which case this whole discussion is not as important, if the cost ratio is closer to 2:1 than 10:1

46

:rofl:

[Makes B-52 module for DCS… Has to support it until 2050… :man_facepalming:]

5 Likes
47

I would speculate that fortunately.

we all know that Strike Fighters series wasnt any grand economical success, dont we? or was it something else that it didnt last?

https://fundrazr.com/31YZNe?ref=ab_88SKob_ab_4B8Lc97b5nW4B8Lc97b5nW

1 Like
48

Yeah, flightsims has never been goldmines, have they :wink:

And who knows what kind of business model is the better one? Certainly not I.
I just observe what’s going on in DCS with endless development that breaks modules every so often.

OTOH, the largest sandbox flightsim of them all, MSFS, seems to be doing very well. But aircraft in MSFS aren’t competitive by nature. It’s not a big problem that two versions of the 737 doesn’t have the same systems depth or that one is a little bit faster in cruise.

49

While I understand where you’re coming from, I have to offer a counter-point to this (aside from the part about the AI, I agree that it needs to ‘fight fair’.):

What does a ‘more forgiving’ flight model look like to a newbie player that needs it? In my mind it means some sort of pilot assistance that helps prevent departures from controlled flight, by stepping in and curtailing control inputs near the boundary of the envelope, limiting AOA, etc. It wouldn’t turn the airplane into a UFO; in fact it would likely slightly handicap the player in BFM since his/her aircraft wouldn’t be able to pull quite as hard as yours, lest it depart (just an example).

What do simplified systems look like? Probably a similar scenario: the radar is easier to use, maybe the modes are automatically changed to best fit the scenario, but it’s not going to be 100% ideal all of the time. Maybe where I can obtain a lock at 50nm with expert use, the simplified radar won’t lock up my aircraft until it’s closer to 40nm.

Let’s talk about engine management for a second: IL2:GB does this pretty well by offering several different options for complexity, that all boil down to how much assistance you want in managing engine/prop/radiator settings. They’re all fundamentally the same engine, simulated under the same ‘rules’ and limitations. With the highest level of assistance, the throttle gets reduced to maintain power and not exceed published limits, temperature limits are automatically observed and radiators/props get managed to stay ‘by the book’.

I know the P-51D pretty well in both games (IL2 & DCS). I know that if I leave the radiators manually open and keep my airspeed up I can run in wide open or even in WEP for a long time without cooking my engine (almost indefinitely in DCS as long as I keep an eye on temps and stay fast).

A new player is not going to know that, and will be semi-handicapped if using the automagic engine management, but they won’t be frustrated by constantly having an engine seize up. Once they are ready, they can turn those settings off and learn how to eek even more performance out of their aircraft.

IMO, stuff like this that makes these complex aircraft more accessible to new players with no special knowledge of aviation is a good thing. It means new blood coming into DCS and new friends to play with in MP. As long as we’re all flying the same aircraft bound by the same rules, I’m all for it.

2 Likes
50

Excellent points! I do agree that help functions would be preferrable to having ‘light’ modules. That way everybody gets what they want.
Problem is that it still requires the development of full fidelity modules.

1 Like
51

Clapping Applause GIF

52

I don’t think the marketing and publicity was anywhere near what it needed to be to say for certain it would fail. Sure they can sit there and put the blame on the few customers for their failed business strategy.

MSFS and DCS have had publicity in mainstream news - even the selling flight manuals thing was publicity. They can sell things off their current popularity.

People who never learn anything can still have fun on the MP servers like its warthunder / Afterburner.

53

“SIAI Marchetti DeHavilland”?
“Seattle Mariners’ Designated Hitter”?
“Shopping Makes Diana Happy”?
“Silly Monkey Died Hungry”?

1 Like
54

What about? Curious what your thoughts are (and not smart enough to infer them).

55

I think the issue isn’t as simple as FC level aircraft versus DCS full depth module. The SF series would have been a very different title if it hadn’t come with auto mission generation and a dynamic campaign. If you’re going light on the systems and procedures you have to have the “tactical” depth to make it involving.

Ultimately, the question with combat flight sim development is “Does our target market want to play a jet pilot, or be a jet pilot?” The first is everything from Ace Combat/HAWX’s to FC3. The latter is pretty much DCS in the modern context now. What we used to consider acceptable systems and procedures depth for “be a pilot” we would now firmly lump into the “play” category. Commercially “play” is the money maker, as “be” is usually way too much systems depth for the average consumer, and massively more expensive to produce.

4 Likes
56

Question for you Spitfire pilots out there. Would you rather do V for victory, or press the E key for startup?

1 Like
57

That would be a definite YES, from me… :wink:

58

As long as there are enough customers (I was going to say consumers but that is a bit impolite) the market will decide.

My biggest worry is that everything gets pushed into a MP PvP sandbox… even if it is so real it should be classified or arcade enough that I would be looking for a coin slot on my PC. Anything that removes or limits SP would be the biggest flightsim killer for me.

4 Likes
59

Well see that’s just it. PvP creates a problem as has been pointed out aplenty. Enigma’s server is PvP. (And it is excellent if you haven’t tried it. A great place to relearn older jets. Another shameless plug for the FREE A-4.) But I generally have more fun in PvE servers. And it is here where the difference in complexity matters not a whit. All players can enjoy the experience in the manner that best suits their style. This is where the DC model, if we ever see it, could really shine. Anyway, what matters for me is that I have gained an understanding of how other players feel and actually get it.

3 Likes
60

agree, I would say that there were multiple mistakes done through the course of development concluded by release of unfinished product where reviewers were discouraging people from buying.

Third Wire has excellent customer service, these issues will be fixed, but until they are, save your money.

similar history can be perceived from development and release of IL2COD. the post release out-roar was great.
me personally, I didnt preorder and didnt buy after release.

both these series and responsible devs, TK and Oleg respectively, in the end left the PC flight sim business (with ThirdWire later trying their luck with mobile game port to PC).

we actually have few business models for combat sims right now in place. seems like they all work.

the only question remains then, why no dev wants to seize the market for post WWII survey sims. … hopefully it will be M.A.C. one day ( this one seems to be the colsest to release :slight_smile: intwoweeks oc).

2 Likes