Complexity can be scalable on most ED addons it has an arcade mode and simulation mode. Some addons like the Hawk will have an FC level complexity as well as a DCS version. IMO if people want easier sims then there are games for consoles or they can use FC3.

I think rivet counters are fine. As long as approach for feedback is constructive and adult-like. Plus it keeps ED team in check.

You know, I'm not even sure what I mean by "FC3-level" aircraft. I don't actually want another FC3 aircraft...the lack of a clickable cockpit is pretty much a show-stopper for me. I know it doesn't bother a lot of people, but I have real trouble having to map and write down a multitude of keyboard commands to do basic functions.

But I do think there is something that's between what FC3 is now, and DCS:A-10, that would suit many of us. I'll give you two examples:

I bought the PMDG 737 a few months ago. I've got quite a bit of stick time in it now, but to be honest I probably only use about 20% of the plane's functionality. I just don't need to know how to do everything that is modeled in order to fly it successfully and complete a mission. I contrast it with the JustFlight "F-Lite" aicraft. They model a lot of the important stuff but then cut out a lot of the BS. For most casual players, the F-Lite is enough...more complex than stock FSX but not over-the-top complex as PMDG.

Another example is Falcon 4. I've been flying F4 since 1998. I'll say I have, conservatively, 1000+ hours in the F-16. It's probably closer to 2000+, especially if you include other flyables in Freefalcon. But confession time: I don't know how to use the UFC panel at all! I've just never really needed it. 95% of everything you really need to do to fly the sim can be done without it. There is a lot of modeling in there that is cool, but not critical to fly and have fun and be successful.

There is part of me that can't wait to see what DCS:MiG-21 is all about. But on the other hand, I think there's some value in every developer not feeling like they have to be PMDG-level. Somewhere like the F-Lite level, where there's enough functionality that you get the feeling and satisfaction of flying something complex, but you cut out some of the details that really are more nice to have than critical to enjoying the sim.

I don't mind the rivet-counters...

...by the way, this is a great discussion, let's keep this going...

...I really don't mind the guys who want the bleeding edge realism. When you think about it, their demands brought DCS about. Without them, we wouldn't have an A-10C or the KA-50.

Now, FC3-level aircraft used to have a great simplified flight model that required far more attention than the harder flight models found in Strike Fighters 2. After the A-10A and F-15C were made into standalone modules, those flight models have vanished. You can check the box, but it doesn't work. Simply bringing those back might help the casual guys like me.

DCS A-10C has a phenomenal simplified avionics system. Make it universal!

The realism buffs get to keep the goodness that DCS has already provided, and newcomers get a great experience that can lead them to more. Win-win situation.

Want it simplified? Lwin-Home

I remember reading somewhere that products like FC3 are the real moneymakers, not complex modules. Which, if you want to get paranoid, naturally points to ED likely phasing out all HC sims in the future so they can concentrate on simple stuff

I like the AFM. I do not find the F-15 or Su-25s to be that difficult to fly. I think the Su-27 will be manageable to. The biggest difference for me was the A-10A (lots of drag) but it is nothing I can't handle.

I think the F-15C is the perfect level of realism they should strive for in future "Flaming Cliffs" level aircraft. Just keep with 1970s-modern air frames and they will be simple to fly. The other things, like the P-51 and UH-1 are much harder to fly than the F-15 or KA-50.

I think it would be a perfect way to get people into flight sims. You can't expect people to go from Ace Combat (and 2007 was the last time a good one was released) straight to DCS. And it would (or should) be cheaper than a full fidelity aircraft. I would also help fund ED without breaking realism for those who want full realism planes as the flight/weapon dynamics (once launched) behave exactly the same.

Just dump the "FC" term and create a new term, such as "high fidelity" and "low fidelity" to differentiate between the two.

Great and civilizated discussion here, please keep going.

BTW, as rivet counters I mean people concentrating more on fidelity of the systems than having fun, but thinking more deeply, fun is different for everyone, so everyone can have fun If we add as much content as possible. I can't wait to have the F/A-18C and create some realistic style missions for it. But let me remark one tought.

People that want to have less complex avionics modes are not depriving hardcore simmers of anything, BUT hardcore simmers many times say, let's have full realism or nothing. Seen that tons of times, and maybe we can have both as I'm pretty sure FC3 level of avionics are easier to add.

In many, but not all cases, people who want less realistic avionics cab simulate them by not using all of the aircrafts functions. I think this is mostly obvious with the a10c. You don't have to use the CDU, hook things on the TAD or even have the TGP onboard. Yes, it does still require a HOTAS of some form and you have to do some set up for it.

Fc3 aircraft are not too much different from this, but conceptually easier to use: you don't have to try and figure out what's useful and what's not.

Like I said, I rarely use the TGP in A-10C because it requires a higher pilot workload and it usually results in me flying too close to ADA and being killed!

I can clean up with the "less capable" A-10A compared to the A-10C because I can make multiple Maverick shots per pass in less time (maybe 6 vs 3-4), the gun is roughly the same, but unguided weapons like rockets and bombs just are easier to employ and more accurately as well. Using bombs in the A-10C is an exercise in button-pushing frustration for me. Using slicks in the A-10A I can destroy almost anything once the worst "shoot back" targets are down with Mavericks. I don't enjoy flying the A-10C at high altitude lobbing LGBs, that's what the F-15E or F-16C are for.

Look at the Su-25T or Ka-50--learn Vikhrs, rockets/guns, and laser-guided missiles and you're done! Bombs? Eh, I guess, but I rarely take them. The Shkval is so much easier to use than the TGP.

Another thing--I don't want to put more time into learning the TGP. Yeah, in theory if I spend hours practicing with it I could get better with it, but when? I fly half a dozen other planes in DCS alone, not counting ROF, Il-2 (in several forms), SF2, a few racing sims, a few RTS games, a couple strategy games, several FPS, and RPGs.

I'm a simmer, but I'm not just a simmer. I can't spend time I do not have. I don't want to just NOT fly DCS because every plane requires more study time than getting an MCSE to enjoy. I want to pretend to be a combat pilot but I don't want to be one and study it like a job--because I already have one, plus a family, and other interests.

I don't begrudge people that want A-10C levels of systems fidelity in their planes, but I don't want the choice to be that or "god mode radar and single button targeting". The FC planes got it right for me, but unfortunately no other planes in this class have been made.



The Jedi Master

Exactly how I feel. The "easy mode" for A-10C looked terrible; I believe it was the SimHQ review in which I saw it.

Ideally an "FC3" level aircraft would not be too hard to make as the flight model, cockpit and art assets are all the same. I believe ED said something about an FC3 level F/A-18C which might be released before the study sim level? That would be wonderful if true.

I never saw ED mention that. Link?

This is the issue in a nutshell. To get productive (re: good) in a combat aircraft takes TIME. Time that must be taken away from other things...something has to be sacrificed. I'm pretty sure in this modern day world there aren't too many of us that have time just waiting to be used.

Some other notes. First, realize that every level from pure arcade to multi million dollar simulation that one program tries to cover will require time/money/resources to build. Never say 'Oh, just add this level'...it NEVER is that easy.

Second, simulations will never match real life...period. Will it help? Absolutely, especially in procedures. But even multi-million simulators that the military and civilians use cannot completely replicate the 'feel' of flying the aircraft. I learned how to fly and hover the Ka-50 on max realism (I didn't say I could employ it at all) fairly quickly. The simulation makes some allowances for lack of full vision and vestibular inputs. And I could fly and hover a R-22 in FSX by a simple joystick and keyboard...again in max flight realism. But damn if when I flew a R-44 in real life it wasn't a totally different level of work. I was happy that I actually was able to get it to stay somewhere 'near' altitude, attitude, and heading for more than 10 seconds. Which brings up another point.

Third, those who have flown these aircraft for real do not think about all the procedures needed to accomplish something. It becomes natural and you stop thinking about it. A prime example is trimming. I don't know how many times I have heard people complaining in the TW series because you can't trim. My counter to that is simple...I don't think about it in real life. Trimming is like breathing...you just do it. But it takes hours to get to that level of reflex. So, the question is...how quickly do you want to get to feeling like a fighter pilot? Because like others have said...fighter pilots dedicate their LIVES to this stuff. You got that much time on your hands?

Fourth, the post-Korean Air War combat flight sim arena is difficult to build hi fidelity for. Think about it. You have all the issues a WWII sim has, plus the EW environment (ECM,Radar,AAMs,SAMs, etc). Think about how much effort that it would take to get right in absolutely all areas, not to mention just how much more complex the aircraft and systems are. What's the only other serious competitor to DCS in this area...Falcon BMS. A sim that has taken over a DECADE and a half to get to this point...

Finally, I really am concerned about just how many of us are there...if there isn't enough to sustain our genre as we know it long term. I like the idea of DCS, and I am very interested in the post WWII area especially (KAW and later). But the cost vs benefit curve that companies have to look at eventually rules all...

FC

Exactly. And I am concerned that in the desire to give customers what they've said they want, they have neglected those things that they needed but never gave voice to until they noticed their absence, but can give no description of beyond "ambience" or "immersion" or "soul."

It's a finite well from which you draw the water to pour out a sim (to stretch a metaphor), and I think the well is dry. Rebalancing needs to occur OR development needs to stretch out even more than it already has, with everything modular such that in 5 years we get DCS: Lifelike AI and in 10 we get DCS: Living Airfield while still flying the same A-10C and Ka-50 we've had for years.



The Jedi Master

Here is a fantastic blog post about game development from the Lead Dev on Divinity: Original Sin. It is an RPG but this is an honest and heartfelt recap of what it takes for a smaller developer to make a successful game these days-

http://www.lar.net/2014/09/12/thoughts-after-releasing-divinityoriginal-sin-and-what-comes-next/

Here are two excerpts that I think are relevant to this discussion for those who don't want to read that (elves and dragons , I know) -

Regarding Content:

"Content is also king when it comes to the game itself. Bad content means players will have no motivation to invest themselves in your game, and if you find yourself for whatever reason with bad content, cull it. Don’t release it, even if it causes extra delays and it brings you to the brink of bankruptcy. Bad is bad and players will recognise bad. Fix your content first. At some undisclosed point in development, we dumped more than half of what we had. It was the best decision ever, even if did tarnish the end result a bit and caused a lot of extra stress."


Regarding Feedback:

"Listen to your community, but be aggressive in your triage and remember that game development requires enlightened despotism, not democracy. Communities are diverse and as such you’ll get conflicting opinions. You need a strong core vision to guide you through their feedback, and you need to stick to that vision, no matter how vocal they become. But you do need to listen and recognize the underlying causes of problems being reported. Often communities will complain about the symptoms of something that’s wrong and it’s not always easy to discover what the root cause is.

Also remember that the vocal minority does not represent the majority, no matter how hard their claims. The majority doesn’t have time to write thousands of posts. And if you encounter some uncivilized people on a forum, ignore them. They’re not worth the emotional stress they may cause. You wouldn’t deal with them in real life either."

Yeah I agree with the original post. I basically quit flight sims because somewhere along the line they lost the "fun" element.

Why can't we get a flight sim that bridges the gap between arcadey stuff like HAWX and War Thunder, and The DCS titles? Strike Fighters 2 seemed to come the closest over the last several years. I don't really like the arcadey stuff like HAWX, Ace Combat etc, because they're too arcadey. DCS requires almost real world flight and avionics training to master. I don't have the attention span or motivation to devote that kind of time to it.

Personally I would LOVE something with the details of DCS World, the pick up and play friendliness of Strike Fighters 2, and the dynamic campaign of Falcon 4.0.

I was thinking of reading the whole thread and coming up with a long, articulate response but, ummm... well may be some other time .

To provide a short perspective, DCS is, indeed what I want it to be : A combat flight simulation sandbox that can provide top notch realistic modules of every possible aircraft with enough available information on, across all the eras of aviation. I enjoy it in this perspective.

But I also can relate to wish for a somewhat less hardcore but not arcade sim, with a more lively combat environment for larger and more dynamic missions / campaigns.

This is not so much a problem of DCS not being what some people want, so much as being about how we don't have many options anymore in flight simulations. Free Falcon, for example, had potential to fit the bill for "more easily simulated and numerous aircraft with a large scale dynamic campaign", but it didn't quite work for them (from what I recall, part of the reason was difficulty of task and stability issues, and part of the reason was how it was impossible to please the community they were open to). Such a sim, is usually enough to practice tactics and be part of a strategic effor in a large, living war, while providing just enough realism in aircraft to provide a tactical difference between their abilities. Maybe a survey sim in relation to aircraft flight and systems modeling, but study sim in regards to running a war effort.

I am torn on subject of "less than top fidelity modules on DCS", while I can relate to idea of being able to produce many aircraft, many of which would not be possible to build to DCS standart, and having more accessible levels of reality for more simmers, I still find even current FC3 aircraft to be somewhat out of place in a sim where other modules have more advanced and therefore difficult flight and system models. I LOVE Su-27, but, I just don't like dogfighting in it anymore, it feels just unengaging and generally too easy... Low-fi aircraft against hi-fi aircraft feels even somewhat unfair to me. For some highly classified / newer aircraft, I have doubts even on ASM/PFM modules. For example, while I will most certainly get it when it releases, I am somewhat unsure on Typhoon for DCS, just how much of it will need to be extrapolation, and how much of that extrapolation will give it questionable advantages on other, more well known aircraft or vehicles in sim? But since VEAO were doing a military grade sim for RAF if I recall right, and since I am confident in their word I think it will be just fine. But I find wanting a DCS F-22, F-35 or PAK-FA abhorrable in this light. And while I want them to succeed and then want to buy it, I have some doubts as to how realistic will F/A-18E by Coretex would be. I think I am closer to not wanting any more FC3 or "Guesstimate" modules for DCS, even though I can see the beneficial sides of such proposal too.

I really wish there would be more flight simulations catering to different tastes so we could all enjoy them all whenever we feel like enjoying what particular thing they offer, we'd fire up the relevant sim title.

If you have some time, and you'd like to read someone's flight simming opinions : When I have sometime, I write about my about two decade long flight sim journey here : http://whmilsimflyer.blogspot.com.tr/

Among the articles, there is a short history of sims from my perspective, touching on days when there were much more sim titles around, and also on how development of sims took differing approaches and definitions of Survey and Study came up. I also have articles as to why and what I love in Falcon BMS and DCS World. I have been thinking about coming up with a more articulate article about the same subject as the conversation in this thread for a while, hopefully soon.

For those of us who don't play adversarial MP, this is a non-issue. Every plane is easy for the AI to fly.

So I do NOT want plane selection dictated by what some might consider "fair" in the singular instance of adversarial MP while those of us who fly coop MP or SP get the shaft.




The Jedi Master

I'm finding the WWII birds and the Huey have the combination I want - excellent flight model and structural model, moderate avionics complexity. Probably the Sabre does as well. Maybe what we want is simpler, but accurate, planes and appropriate opposition?

I think there are two reasons why not:

1. Audience for "arcade" flight game is assumed (by dev/marketing) to not have the patience of maturity for in-depth teamwork mechanics. So you don't get a mix of deep gameplay and simple airplanes.

2. Audience (and dev) for realistic airplanes are so exhausted by learning (creating) the airplane they have no effort left to learn tactics, teamwork, strategy with their complicated vehicle.

That's true, there is definitely this assumption out there that "simplified" = "immature". Marketing, some devs, and especially the hardcore community itself. A whole Real Men Fly Full Real bravado that is just ridiculous. Why can't mature adults be allowed to enjoy it when it doesn't take a master's thesis to learn?

Yes, some people only want to fly Ace Combat-style, and DCS will never work for them.
However, some of us want to simulate a real environment with real planes with real capabilities like weapons loadouts and abilities without having to learn the 15-step procedure to drop the weapon accurately. Not a 2-step "target and fire" process, but again what you must do in the FC planes. Around 4-5 steps seems to me the sweet spot. Easy to remember, but still involved enough to make it feel like a process.



The Jedi Master