I know it's almost impossible to throw that out there and not have this thread become an instantaneous lock, but let me explain.

I've been reading a lot of the threads on this forum, and really thinking about things, and I have come to the conclusion that most of us don't actually want ultra-realistic, high-fidelity combat simulators. What we (you) really want is a game. Here is why I say this:

I wrote a fairly lengthy article for Grogheads.com several months ago about realism in flight simulators ( http://grogheads.com/?p=662#more-662 ). Because I know most of you won't read the article, I'm cutting and pasting a few parts below.

“Distributed Mission Operations, (DMO) as this type of networked training is known, pulls in participants from all US services and, increasingly, allies and permits them to “game” and rehearse highly complex campaigns, using a mix of local, distant, and virtual players…Already, flights of F-15s from Langley AFB, Va., can fly virtual missions, via simulators, alongside F-16s based at Shaw AFB, S.C., all of them vectored to their targets by E-3 AWACS crews seated at station simulators at Tinker AFB, Okla., and using data supplied by E-8 Joint STARS operators hundreds of miles away, VanSkiver said. They can all talk to each other as if they were flying in the same airspace.

As VanSkiver explained, ‘You can now have the whole synthetic battle-space developed, without anybody leaving home, and you can do that on call, whenever you choose to set the architecture up.’

‘It’s very hard to bring all those people together without disrupting their home life,’ Hambleton noted. ‘They don’t have to leave home. They can [train] in their local simulators.’”

Regarding DCS:

DCS, with its Combined Arms module, finally takes the commercially available civilian simulation enthusiast from hobbyist-level to borderline military-grade simulation. Combined Arms allows world-wide players to control the full gamut of battlefield units, from the extremely detailed A-10, Black Shark, and UH-1H Huey, to a wide variety of armored and mechanized units including tanks, APCs, and air defense vehicles. Through the battlefield commander interface, each side can have a commander who issues orders and controls the flow of the battle. Theoretically it is now possible to have a fully involved battlefield controlled solely by humans in a virtual environment. The leap from doing this for “fun” to doing it for real-world training would not be hard to make. It would take players with professional training to conduct evolutions in a structured environment with serious, like-minded players adhering to real-world procedures.

This shouldn’t sound far-fetched. Consider that DCS: A-10 and DCS: Black Shark were initially created to fulfill military-contracted training requirements. Other simulators, such as Steel Beasts, are already used by military organizations around the world for real-world training. While Combined Arms doesn’t have the fidelity to provide true ground vehicle military-grade training there is nothing preventing virtual A-10 pilots from conducting real-world training. With the DCS series the pieces are in place to create a platform for military-grade Distributed Mission Operations training in the civilian environment if Eagle Dynamics chooses to fully realize the ground vehicle modeling.

****************

I posted this in another thread, but it bears repeating in light of the above: When Nevada releases we (home consumers) will have a tool that will allow us, at home, to replicate to nearly military-grade standards air combat scenarios. If you were to strip away everything else and just leave DCS:A-10 and Nevada as the entirety of the DCS line, you can fly at home very close to what an actual Air Force A-10 pilot does at Red Flag. If you throw in something like a MiG-21 as an adversary, you have likely exceeded what is possible in real life!

The only way you're going to get a more authentic Red Flag experience is to join the Air Force and become an A-10 pilot.

***************

I assert, then, that most of us find flaws with DCS because we don't really want this. We don't want to be given a high-fidelity simulator where we have to assume the role of instructor and student, where we have to do all of the heavy lifting to create the training scenario in which we are going to fly. In some ways maybe Steel Beasts has the better approach to this, never referring to the player as "Player" but rather "Student" thereby setting the precedent early on that the software isn't there to entertain you, it's to train you. Any fun you're having is almost incidental .

DCS is frequently compared to BMS Falcon. I think this is a fair comparison because they both attempt to simulate modern combat aircraft to a high degree of accuracy. There is a fundamental difference between the two which is the dynamic campaign. The gorilla in the DCS room. But see, here's the thing. Accepting that BMS simulates the F-16 to a high degree of accuracy...realistically...the dynamic campaign is anything but realistic. It just isn't. It's fun. It's a game. It entertains. But it's not a realistic depiction of a "campaign." Multiplayer is a different story...but then we're back to DCS and BMS being on equal footing.

So, I argue that you basically don't really want a military simulation. You want a game you can play. And that's why you don't like DCS.

It's not often that I ask for a TL;DR, but really...

What's the summary of this?

I'm going to have to second that request.

You don't want a military-grade simulator. You want a game. But you don't want to admit it.

That's where your underlying dislike of DCS comes from.

But you should read the post to understand why I say that.

This is an interesting post.

One of things I want from DCS modules is an FC level "playable" craft. The super-sim stuff frankly scares me, but I can personally handle a lower-fidelity recreation.

It is why I have been having so much fun with F-16 MRF by Novalogic for the last few weeks.

I want DCS lovers to have their navelgazing sim (I say that playfully), and I might join the gazing at some point in the future (see?), but can I have a dumbed down version in the meantime?

I looked at the ED forums under the FC3 subforum, and someone flat out stated that something I want isn't what they wanted. But where I think I want us both to have what we want, I don't get that same feeling from some of the more hardcore. Either it isn't being overtly stated, or I am not looking hard enough.

PS: Except for Beach. He is a very inclusive kinda guy.

I think the critical point is that everyone comes to DCS with different expectations.

If you're a supersonic fighter jockey who's in it for an immerse, persistent, dynamic campaign, you're going to be sorely disappointed and feel as though the sim is massively lacking.

For someone like me who's mainly interested in the helicopters and focuses mainly on systems, training and flight, it ticks significantly more of the boxes for me.

That said, I do actually admit to wanting a greater "gamification" of the experience so that I can put my hard-learned skills to some practical use. I've barely touched the FW-190 and the F-86 because there's no real point to learning how to fly them. At least with the Ka-50, Mi-8 and UH-1, there ARE immersive scripted campaigns that I can aim towards as I build my skills. Learning the nuances of the Focke Wulf and the Sabre does feel like something of a waste of time, which is a bit of a shame, really.

But I do like dcs....

I am confused

Phd-
I think DCS offers something for everybody. The FC3 aircraft bridge that gap for those that aren't ready for, or choose not to play, the "DCS level" aircraft. Although personally I don't find them all that easy to fly. I've tried multiple times to get into the MiG-29 but it confounds me.

Having the option, though, and something moderately flyable as an adversary aircraft, is awesome. I appreciate that it's there.

This is fairly significant in the "real world"...having this capability. I explain that in my article linked above.

and continuing to reply to myself...

Given the above, the awesome capability DCS brings to us, the flight simmmer, I'm consistently amazed that the online servers aren't completely full every night. I don't understand why it is so hard to find a really full server...even one.

I'm going to guess War Thunder doesn't have that problem.

I see this full electronic battlefield sitting out there, the end result of all the dreaming as a kid, and it's going under-utilized. I don't understand it, except to conclude that it isn't really what the community wants.

I love having the option, yes.

Maybe I am not making it clear though what I am asking for, that when ED or a 3rd party comes out with a plane, they should offer an "FC" level recreation of that plane as well. Even if it were packaged with the DCS level plane, to allow me to ramp up my skill.

I won't fly an F-86, or a MiG-21. Not because of the planes, but I can barely fly the A-10C, and I barely have the time to learn to fly it. I'm not going to buy more DCS level stuff if I can barely learn to fly what I have.

Is that ED's problem? Absolutely not. I am a family man with commitments. But having an FC style solution might give them an inroad to my wallet.

Not me. It's exactly the high fidelity nature of DCS that I like.

Speaking for myself, its the current map that keeps me away, and not the high fidelity of the P-51...looking forward to some WW 2 landscapes, soon I hope

...am I the only military veteran who's annoyed by this part?



Sorry, couldn't resist. Carry on, everybody.

I dunno about anyone else, but I want DCS.

I think you're off base. Everyone I know to include myself fly DCS because of the complexity. If it gets "dumbed down" then I wouldn't buy anything.

I love DCS, it's not perfect and I've expressed my cons often recently but I'm hoping even if it made ED upset they at least listened.

Good point. I wonder why that is? There must be something with the way the systems are integrated that makes it prohibitive. You'd think that it would be easy to build a plane to FC3 standards and then, in the future, add to it to take it to DCS standards, but maybe that is harder to program than it would seem.

I don't think it's just "time away from the wife and kids." It likely involves the expense of flying out all of these aircraft to one place to train, as well as the disruption to local training and maintenance on the jets.

I get what you're saying, but I think it doesn't mean what you think it means!

We'll agree to disagree on this one. But I couldn't resist making a small jab at the Air Force. Again.

Heh. Now that you mention it, coming from the Air Force I think you may have had it right after all!

My point is probably biased, as my work is exactly in one of those real life military simulator environment Toonces wrote about.

I love DCS because I feel at "home/work".
The great feat of DCS is exactly to bring you "the plane".

As we have at work- the Eurofighter.
What I have at work and what, I believe, is sorely missing in DCS is the instructor.

You see most of my job is spent looking/listening to military instructors on how to behave in a modern air war theater with a modern figther.

This gives me a way to "interpret", or read if you want, our "module".

I've learned a lot and even more is still to learn. The primary point being, it really unnecessary to care so much for the external environment when you can't use your tool (the fighter in this case, but applies to every military hardware) at 100%.

Sadly I don't feel confident about going down in too much detail, but beside few dedicated players- I sadly think most of the current DCS players are simply playing it wrong.

Not scared or mistaken about what they want.

They just need the right drive.