Something else to consider regarding clickable cockpits: a lot more modern aircraft no longer have switches for every little thing. If you take the AH-64D, a vast majority of switches were removed from the A model that are now accessed exclusively through the MPDs.
As a hypothetical, if you had a choice between a FC partially clickable cockpit or no Harrier, Tomcat, Phantom, etc, which way would you go? I would certainly take the FC option myself.
Agreed, and I think there is where a partially clickable (and mappable) cockpit for things like the MFDās come into play. However you can still do quiet a bit of system abstraction to reduce complexity for the developer that is completely transparent to the end user. Aerosofts OV-10 Bronco is an excellent example for my point. It has a beautifully put together electrical system, engine modeling, etc far beyond what FSX does (same kinda stuff A2A does with their stuff). Even in FSX, I have to set things to break, and intentionally fly it outside of the book, to start to see almost all their electrical system modeling, and about 70-80% of the engine modeling. For a combat title where I donāt really care about what bus supplies power to the windscreen wiper, all that was extra work that didnāt need to happen.
Is ultimate fidelity a nice dream? Sure, but Iād prefer to still have some eyesight, hearing, and teeth left by the time we see some of these modules in development. A partially clickable cockpit with high fidelity combat simulation, high to moderate fidelity flight modeling (and Iām DCS EFM moderate mind you), and medium to low systems modeling is where I think financial success lies for developers. The AC is much faster to produce and more importantly troubleshoot once itās out in the wild. The core competency of DCS is ācombatā so it focuses on that area.
-Jenrick
2 Likes
I think we can see why there have not been any more FC3-level modules produced by ED or third party developers. Despite that the module was the highest-selling (you get, what is it, five planes for the price of one?) DCS users do not seem to be backing off their demands for realism to the nth degree. This is why DCS will never have the player base beyond a very small demographic of the total video gaming population.
I always bring it back to this example: I demand highly realistic driving simulations but my flight simulators do not have to adhere to the same rigid standards. Why? Because Iāve driven a car.
I am convinced that there is a certain subset within the DCS community that firmly believes that if they were placed in the cockpit of an A-10C, they could start it up, fly it to a target, successfully engage that target, and then land. This makes me chuckle a little. The result of that scenario would most likely be a jet that never leaves the ground, or if it did, it would result in a $25M hole in the ground. Hopefully, the sim prepared the pilot for the forces of ejection.
Iām totally cool with DCS fans insisting on (and getting) the products they demand. Itās their demands, and the developer is engineered for giving those customers what they want. DCS is as close as you can get to the real thing, but it is not the real thing. What I find a little off-putting about some of the fan base of DCS is this notion they hold that it is the real thing.
5 Likes
Oh so much this.
I Still insist on TK developing a "Strike Fighters 3 " Module for DCS.
Aircraft w/ FC Level Avionics and Maybe AFM,
He always said he abandoned SF PC Development due to not having funds to develop all the engines (GFX, Sound, MP, Etc).
If He decided to develop modules for DCS, heād need to only worry about Airplanes.
5 Likes
His ego would collide with those of the DCS honchoās such as Wags and Dr. Tishin. No way in hades that would ever fly. Itād be nice thoā¦
I agree.
And especially since most flightsimmers donāt really know what realism is. The only reference theyāve got comes from anectdotes in a book, magazine or movie.
Orā¦they could do it in another sim, so it must be possible! 
And then we have the limitations of PC hardwareā¦ Letās face it. The physics of flight canāt be simulated in 100% realism and in real time, on a PC.
But flightsimmers donāt necessarily want absolute realism. They want relative realism. They want relatively advanced systems fidelity, and they want the systems and aircraft to function within relative plausible limits.
They want more than air quake. Not that arcade point and shoot isnāt fun. It is. But not for long.
I think this is why FC sold so well. It was an entry point. Some people stopped after FC, and some continued. Those that took the red pill, and continued further into the simulation, want moreā¦ Hm? Does that mean that they shouldāve taken the blue pillā¦? 
I know I want systems to deal with. I want the aircraft to behave in a believable, plausible, fashion.
Because of this, I can get flightsim gratification from just doing a cold start and some pattern workā¦
6 Likes
Lets not forget also about ED, BST aso. Imho its not only about customer desires. Big (biger, bigestā¦?) portion of EDs living is in military combat simulation and maybe we can consider DCS just as hoby and testbed for them.
They are creating full fidelity modules because thats what about is the military business. We are lucky that they are pasionate and have permision to deliver it also as entertainment software.
The question is why other developers are not interested in FC level? Maybe its just worth it to add the clickable cockpit and script some systems for the 50 bucks instead of 15!?
3 Likes
Itās likely too Late now anyway.
F-86F is Done,
F-15C is Done (FC3)
MIG-21 is Done
MIG-15 is Done
F-14 is In Progress
F-4E is In Progress
Mig-19 is in Progress
A-4E is in Progress
A-6 is In Progress w/ Murmurs of A-7 or F-8 in Progress.
2 Likes
I remember Andy Bush ( a former A-10 driver who used to be active in the simming world back in the bad old days) making a case that in some aspects the (then) PS2 Ace Combat games had more realism in them than the hardcore sims of the day (falcon iirc) because of their swirling nature and the fact that a metric f-ton of things were going on all the time. Missile trails all over the place, everybody talking over the radio all the time, that stuff.
Yeah itās an acquired taste. I used to be a firm believer in tactical environment over systems and had almost given up on flying. And then I was given the time and peace of mind to actually study the sim and it was awesome. No turning back now.
3 Likes
This. Iāve spoken on the phone with TK as part of a feature I did for another site and I can tell you with firsthand knowledge this relationship would not last long.
TK is an indoor cat, and he doesnāt play well with others.
2 Likes
Heās in his bunk. Do not expect him back until completely dehydrated 
5 Likes
Andy also flew the F-4 in Vietnam 
And, he has a good point. Realism can be many things. Intricate systems, as real as they possibly can get, is one thing. Learning how to use them, is another. Real pilots live for, and of, learning the stuff. Itās their job. They spend a lot of time learning the systems of their aircraft. A flightsimmer spend a sub fraction of that time. Is that realistic? Well, you can argue that easy avionics can give you a more realistic flightsim experience, because you are equipped with systems that you can operate as easily as a fully trained pilot could, in real life.
So, flying in arcade mode, with easy avionics, can produce a very realistic experience. It depends on what you want to simulate. Do you want to dvelve deep into advanced avionic systems? Or do you want to feel like a real life fighterpilot, using the benefits of many years of government funded training?
7 Likes
Like Troll, I posit that the āsimplifiedā avionics and systems more closely mirror the reflexive actions of a pilot with years of training than it would me hunting and squinting on a screen to find the right switch, hover my cursor over it, and then flip said switch.
6 Likes
Perhaps it came with age, but nowadays for me the āI want to be a fighter jockā experience comes not from frantic turning and burning but like the Troll said, waking a cold and dark jet up, doing a circuit (and perhaps blast a drone target) and then park it and shut it down.
5 Likes
I think there are three main sub-genres in the āFrog Taxonomy of Flightsimsā.
- Cockpit simulators. Systems, systems, systems. Complexity, authenticity, switches.
- Dogfight / Combat simulators. Opponents and wingmen, furballs, eyes on, SAM launch 9 oāclock.
- Battle simulators. Log books, wars, fronts that move, squadrons, logistics, pushing flights.
If this was expressed as a pie-chart then SF2 would be:
Something like DCS would be:
Is the perfect ratio then 33%/33%/33%?
3 Likes
I think that depends on the kind of game being made. DCS caters to people who want everything 100% accurate down to every last rivet; theyāre not so concerned about warfare and how it all comes together with air power. Conversely, you have Ace Combat where they cater to the crowd who wants Warbros of Duty in the air; they could care less as to how the HUD works or what switchology needs to happen to use the pee tube in a long ferry flight. Then you get people like me who like to see a mix: we know weāll never fly the things, much less use them in combat, so as long as we can at least feel like weāre doing more than the lite crowd while not being as anal as the hardcore crowd (ugh, PHRASING!).
I remember the gross oversimplification I did for the AH-64 in ArmA2, with a clickable startup procedure, and despite explicit instructions (as well as a training campaign) on how to work it, many people still were at a loss as to how to use it. Something as simple as understanding how SAL guidance works was completely lost on certain folks; this was then compounded by the hardcore crowd who nit picked over every small little detail. Itās a tight rope to walk for sure, but Iād still pick it over the DCS route ā I remember a lot of the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the smallest things from the old IL2 days.
5 Likes
Yep, agreed.
Itās just interesting that the pendulum swings so much, as in we had a lot of ābreadthā titles and now we have a lot of ādepthā ones instead. Itās like the flight sim market diverged in interests as the hardware got better. I personally like the āCockpitā depth and like some drama around the āBattleā part (even if a bit cheesy, just to feel part of something larger) while the āDogfightā bit I sort of vary over how much I want. Sometimes I really enjoy complex Multiplayer (usually PvE though), while other times I just want to go in a circle and just be happy the laser code was right and that Fuel Truck #1411 met his maker.
My own preferred ratio would probably be something like 50/20/30, which means Iām keen on things like DCS getting more ābig picture warā stuff, but keeping the systems depth.
2 Likes
Oh, no. Frogās turned into Glenn Beck with the graphs, and the charts, andā¦
Kidding.
1 Like