Plus there's the whole career and family obligations thing that puts a damper on the free time of many people as they get past their teenage and college years.

I agree with bisher..Age does become a factor..Eyesight being the main one,,,I now days fly sims that are simpler and the missions quicker so i can fly a quick mission and take a break...I lean more towards wargames because they stay put if i get up and go do something else..Also back in the Falcon 4 days my mind could hold all the information needed to fly it,,now I tend to forget and have to constantly re read the manual EAW..SF2 and First Eagles are about the level I can handle,,Started messing with IL-1 BAT but mostly just to fly all the different aircraft,,,Guess I got ADHD or what they call old farts disease..Some times the grand kids come around and watch me fly but they gave me an older X box but it isn't plugged in anymore

LOL
We had fun in Birds of Prey! I prefer to laugh when I game, not feel like I should have earned some kind of certification. MP that is, I'm not crazy.

Once I got over the fact that I needed bifocals and got them, I feel like I have super-vision now.

Another factor with sims/games is that I rarely play for more than an hour at a time, if that. That keeps me from even the scifi sims like ED. I want to use that time well.

Yeah, one hour won't get you very far at all if you are flying a hardcore flight sim like DCS or Falcon 4. That 's barely enough to do one mission and that assumes an air start and a relatively short transit time to the target area.

I spent most evenings playing or modding sims, taking a break to go eat out or call for delivery, then back to my PC while wife watched TV. Spent countless weekends like this, even bringing manuals and printed material to the restaurant.

Then a health crisis hit me at the start of mid-life that shook me up good. I realized I was pissing my life away and on the verge of losing everything, causing a drastic change of habits and mindset. I'm not the same person I was even 10 years ago, I don't recognize that person anymore (and have been told something similar by many people).

Not that sims are bad but they can be very time consuming and one needs balance (a skill which eludes me), although I'm slowly getting back into some of the older and simpler ones (gotten off track at the moment with house stuff, but that's almost done).

Plus my eyesight (progressive trifocals) isn't what it use to be as well, with higher resolutions.

Good post Mark and it really brings up a very crucial reason as to why hardcore flight sims aren't really played by many people compared to the overall gaming community. Quite simply the time commitment required to get the most out of hardcore flight sims is more than most gamers are willing or able to dedicate themselves to.


The "casual" flight sims are a different matter of course since the time commitment is much less but even those games are played by a small percentage of the overall gaming market.

[quote=- Ice]
Eh? Didn't ED say FC2 and FC3 were their biggest sources of income? Heck, the American air superiority fighter in that line isn't even DCS-level but is rather an FC3 aircraft!! How does the F-15C's avionics match the real world counterpart? Please don't use "fidelity" as an excuse... ED never had any intention to build a DC or make the theatres more "alive." Even after their poll showed that their customers wanting a DC, it isn't in their roadmap at all./quote]

In part because of the plane choices, in part because they were the only fighters in DCS World. But also because it was an excellent value and easy enough to learn. I think many people enjoy these planes but they're suppressed on the forums. Few people seem to want more FC3 type planes on the DCS forums, and they're always asking for more and more realism. Personally I love the level of FC3, and I would rather see more improvements to the mission editor, AI and other things to add immersion. The argument seems to be that FC3 to study sim level is not that different from a development standpoint, but I don't believe that is true. Art and flight model wise it is the same, but you should be able to shave a lot of time off doing avionics and research into all the various radar sub modes.

I sincerely hope an FC3 version of DCS F-18 comes out. Similar control scheme to that of the F-15C and A-10A so I can map the functions to the same or similar buttons on my HOTAS.

I don't think you're correct, there a quite a few that wish for more FC3 level aircraft, myself included. I think the gist of the OP is correct. Switchology is not the holy grail. For instance I'm having a blast with Cold waters, it would reflect a sim of the 90-00s in terms of complexity, as such I can concentrate tactics rather.than system memorisation. However, as a counterpoint to my own argument, there is a great satisfaction to be had in being able to fly something like the A-10C, having learned the systems backwards. I'll never have the time to be able to do something like that again though.

Nate

Switchology is good, but you either end up like FSX/P3D/XP10 and be a civvie flight sim or you end up like BMS. Being in the middle --- combat flight simulator with lots of switchology but sterile environment --- is not a good thing. I think that's why FC3 stuff fared better... and I did cut my teeth in FC2/FC3's A10A. Little study timre required and you're into blowing stuff up quicker and because of the lower entry point, the sterile environment isn't seen in such a negative light.

I like to think my excuse is latent adult onset attention deficit disorder, along with, um, ah,,,, Wait, what were we talking about?

People aren't dumber, but it's too easy to lose interest now. The flightsim devs now don't make what I call a complete sim.

I understand cost, but remember Jane's? Upon purchase you had a "released" version of a product that contained a campaign,
a very well thought out and versatile "quick mission" builder, a full editor, training missions, cut-scenes to make it interesting,
AND a 300+ page spiral bound manual describing everything.

It was complete.

Now, without Chuck Owl's manuals for (every)sim I play I'd say screw it.

Hardcore sims have become far more detailed systems wise as PC hardware has advanced. You used to start at the end of the runway, all systems up and running in the most hardcore sims of the day. Now, we are at the point where we have to use a checklist and wait several minutes for the INS to spool up.

It really hit home to me that entertainment flight sims had moved to a whole new level when I purchased a King Air B200 addon for FS9 (Aeroworx?). I was just starting out flying the real airplane at the time and the sim really helped me with start and shutdown flows. In that context, it was time and effort well spent, but it was hardly entertaining, it was kind of hard work. I guess that is easy for me to say, seeing as I was fortunate enough to be able to fly the real thing.

It has become a lot of effort and extremely time consuming to become truly proficient in a modern sim. Proficiency is even more important when playing in a multi-player environment where your ability to perform is being judged by your peers. They are relying on you to know how to operate the airplane, how to fight with the airplane, how to communicate effectively with your squadmates etc etc. It was a lot simpler back when I was a teenager/ young adult with a crazy ambition to be a pilot. In the late 90's I started playing Warbirds seriously, the flight modeling was extremely good for the time, the online experience was awesome even on dialup. The people were outstanding, intelligent individuals, and yet we started at the end of the runway and pressed a single key to start our engines... and we loved every minute of it (which was fine until you realized how much your monthly bill was..LOL). I nearly lost my marriage to Warbirds. It was an addiction. Looking back, that was pretty dumb. I'm older and hopefully a little wiser now.

With the level of complexity that is the norm in sims these days, a new player would have to possess a keen interest in learning the nitty gritty of flying a complex machine. I wonder how many of us would have stuck with it if the sims of our day were anywhere near as complex as what we take for granted today?

Excellent post. As I've stated before, I don't want to flip every switch in the cockpit just because real F-16 pilots do. What I do want is for the weapons to perform as they do in the real world. Select AIM-120, get a lock and fire. I don't care about SOI etc. I want the sim to "pretend" that I know what I'm doing and "assume" all the switches were in their proper place when I pulled the trigger. I'm much more interested in the tactics of a mission and in the battlefield I'm flying over. I'll gladly spend a few hours flying missions over and over figuring out proper tactics, but I won't spend hours learning how to spool up the engine.

Hardware and programming limitations? Either way, sims today have come closer to real-life and you talk about it like it's a bad thing? You do know that sims like DCS A10C have one-button startup options and BMS has the "Start at TAXI" or even the "Start at RUNWAY" option, right?


Again, sims today are much closer to RL. You could use MSFS98 to practice patterns and scanning instruments, you could use XP11 or P3D to do the same.... and do much more. I can't see why that's a bad thing.... and I'm also sure stuff like XP11 and P3D have the "aircraft already running" option if the simmer wants to skip the cold-and-dark startup. Both sims also has the "exit aircraft" option which you can use in the air, on the runway, or on the taxiway if the simmer wants to skip the taxi-to-the-correct-ramp-and-shutdown routine.



Fair point, but where does the "pretend you know what you're doing" stop? Why not always be in the ideal shooting position as well because your pilot should know how to merge, go defensive, and get behind the bandit, right? Why bother about learning about the different radar modes? The game should just switch to the appropriate one for you to lock on the enemy since the real pilot would know how to select the proper targeting mode, right? Heck, if we're going down this rabbit hole, might as well re-implement the magic radar that can see everything because your pilot knows how to scan different radar ranges and elevations! Also implement auto-fire because your pilot will know when the best time is to fire a missile or drop a bomb....

All this talk about "I just want the fun bits!" and then complaining sims does not deliver? Or maybe the sims **DO** deliver, but people just can't get past the initial learning requirements and can't be bothered?

While DCS and BMS may have a "Start on RUNWAY" option, neither of them has an "automatic Master Arm ON" option.



Should only take 2-4 goes to learn a startup. After that, with a proper checklist, it should only be as long as it would normally take and the extra time spent on waiting for INS to align or for stuff to warm up can be spent adjusting bomb profiles, entering BINGO/JOKER levels, setting up IDM, etc... Stuff real pilots do because they want to stay alive. Just like defensive maneuvers or keeping up SA.

Lets take DCS as example:

1. Looks like crap - while some planes look spectacular whole map looks like toxic wasteland, effects are from early 2000s and sounds are meh
2. Runs like crap
3. Has more bugs then ant colony
4. Has MOBA toxicity level community managers

That's why flight sims are dying breed.

Arma was in similar situation with one major exception - its moddable! Arma community created some awesome mods that completely saved the whole arma franchise. From various zombie mods, battle royale mods to classic team vs team and ctf, there is something for everyone. Both offline and online. Arma community made arma FUN! That's why arma is growing while other sims are on life support. Space sims were in same position as flight sims. They became bloated and depressing and they died. But from their ashes rose up new generation of space sims that are fun to play before anything else. KSP is funny as hell and that's why is so popular. Its full of complex systems but they are all hidden behind fun gameplay. And again its moddable with great community outreach. You want more hardcore experience you can mod it, you want less hardcore you can mod it. Even NASA embraced it !
So to sum it up, if game/sim is not fun then its not worth it. If on top of not being fun its full of technical issues, well then that game/sim is lost cause and has no right to exist

I agree with most here, while simulations have become graphically better, the "feeling" somehow suffers. Best example is indeed DCS, but also Rise of Flight, at least in Single Player.
Compare RoF to WOFF and you know what i mean. I do not want to bash RoF at all, it is very nice and i fly it almost daily, online. But it sucks in single player, and offline campaign.

One of the best sims feeling-wise for me was Sierra's "Aces of the Pacific" and Microsoft's "Combat simulator 2", also in the pacific area. Especially the latter had a nice touch of life on those carriers or fields, a lot of historical info, but was also fine in flying. IL2 pacific theatre was also nice and graphically better, but it already suffered somehow of "being there". Nice sim, still.
When i need an almost real simulator, DCS is fine, But it is already more a tool for training, than a game. It is fun for us (or some of us), but the love of detail certainly will shock beginners, and thus hold back some.
I can enjoy cliffs of Dover because i know a bit about what happened, and where the action took place. Without that knowledge it is a bit sterile. And then, bugs.

Nowadays you download a game without any manual or only a very rudimentary one, hidden somewhere in the labyrinth of files and directories. And mostly lacking some info about the war, history and so on. The sim programmers are often fanatics (in a positive sense) who cannot understand there may be noobs who do not know anything, history or technical. Look at YT WW2 videos and those comments.. OMG !

If DCS built a modern or Cold war Submarine simulator, i guess you would have to micromanage the reactor and refill this rocket fuel manually, but i wonder what would be left for playing the captain..
Which is exactly why l like "Cold waters". If i think of Sonalysts' "Dangerous waters" with Killerfish's "Cold waters"' graphics, i'd be in simulation heaven.

I think what the new sims lack is information, the feeling of being there and a storyline, so to speak.

I did that once. I'll never make that mistake again.

Re-read the part you obviously missed.



Well that's the point of flight sim GAMES isn't it, to have fun? Do any DCS users really think they might get the chance to fly a real F-16 or A-10 one day so they better learn exactly how it works? And have you missed the multiple instances of us older posters stating that we just don't have time to learn all the switches and modes etc due to Real Life obligations?



Well I'm not trying to be a real F-16 pilot, I just want to play an interesting game, not fly a perfectly detailed jet over a sterile landscape dotted by a few enemy forces always in the same place.


I am fine with flight sims having hardcore modes, so long as it isn't the only mode. The most fun I've had in a jet combat flight sim in recent years has been with Third Wire products. Those may not have everything modeled in exacting, excruciating, detail but they're fun and you can sit down and be flying in a minute or less.

Ok. Switchology isn't wrong itself. But it is because sims focus only on switchology and nothing else. So if development resources are limited, it should be on the back burner instead of front end.

But what you are essentially saying is we prefer sim lites instead of sim hardcores (in today's language). To hell with buttons, to hell with avionics, WE HATE THEM!

I think this won't result in a awesome sim. It would produce some retard little game but with a cockpit so you know you're in a plane. It might have a DC engine but it is so stripped down simple it might as well just use a story campaign.

The fact that there no longer are sim lites is the problem itself. The fact that the sim heavies are button pushing procedural skeletons is a problem itself. It is BECAUSE the entire pie is so small right now. It is not the switchology button pushing sims are declining the genre. Rather, they are the result of it. Causality shouldn't be inverted.

There are actually quite a lot of sim lites still being made. They are mostly made by small independent developers though so their exposure to the market is limited. The "Strike Fighters" series was a very popular sim-lite flight sim but that ended a few years ago.