DCS

[Lusekofte]

Just now, Gambit21 said:

 

 

Does the DCS editor have randomized logic, zone triggers, event triggers and such?

Yes they have very advanced triggers. But as in box learning to use it is a step up. From making singlemissions

[LukeFF]

A flight sim developer gave an interview today on the Air Combat Sim podcast. One of the things he talked about was how their mission editor was too complex for new users and how they want to simplify things, so that it doesn't take days for people to be able to start creating their own missions. And that flight sim developer was...?

 

 

Wait for it...

 

 

Matt Wager of Eagle Dynamics.

 

So yeah, I don't buy the argument that IL2's mission editor is somehow overly complex in comparison to DCS's, especially when it seems like it's the same few people telling us repeatedly that it takes a Master's degree to understand how it works.

[Lusekofte]

1 minute ago, LukeFF said:

 

So yeah, I don't buy the argument that IL2's mission editor is somehow overly complex in comparison to DCS's,

I bet a month wage you are able to make your own mission in ten minutes. I did first time. Making a online career or a campaign is another matter. Mission editor is pretty damn huge and complex if you really dig in to it. But for a mission you need only 5 minutes to half a hour or two hours depending on what you will make. 
For whst Canada speak of it is way easier. 
But I bet it can be even more complex than  ME in box digging deep enough

[=RS=Stix_09]

12 minutes ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

I bet a month wage you are able to make your own mission in ten minutes. I did first time. Making a online career or a campaign is another matter. Mission editor is pretty damn huge and complex if you really dig in to it. But for a mission you need only 5 minutes to half a hour or two hours depending on what you will make. 
For whst Canada speak of it is way easier. 
But I bet it can be even more complex than  ME in box digging deep enough

 

It depends on how computer literate you are and your background. The mission editor is complex, but its all simple building blocks. For many its more than a 10 minute thing if they have never done anything like this before. I would like to see the quick mission builder improved so it can do more rather than trying to make a dumbed down version of the full mission builder.

 

Edited October 15, 2020 by =RS=Stix_09

[LukeFF]

4 minutes ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

I would like to see the quick mission builder improved so it can do more rather than trying to make a dumbed down version of the full mission builder.

 

But that's kind of the point, is it not? The idea of the QMB is to allow the player to quickly set up a mission with a variety of parameters, and off they go, and IL2's does exactly that. If people want more than that, there are good quality third-party mission creation programs out there, just like there were / are for the original IL2. 

[Tuesday]

16 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

So yeah, I don't buy the argument that IL2's mission editor is somehow overly complex in comparison to DCS's, especially when it seems like it's the same few people telling us repeatedly that it takes a Master's degree to understand how it works.

 

Slight aside - the nice thing about the DCS editor is that it is available from within the game and the UI is a little easier to navigate - not less, nor more complex than Il-2.  The IL-2 editor being a separate program is handy if you're sitting down to only do that, of course. 

 

On 10/13/2020 at 2:50 PM, Gambit21 said:

All that said, I’m getting tired of not having anything PTO to fly...

 

Some days it seems like we're watching a race and both runners are going backwards.  In the meantime the F-14 and carrier stuff is pretty nice. 

 

[=RS=Stix_09]

49 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

 

Does the DCS editor have randomized logic, zone triggers, event triggers and such?

Yes

The DCS editor is far more powerful as you can use LUA code, and with tools like the MOOSE framework its on a whole dif level. 

 

For example trying to do conditional logic in IL-2 is very painful, as its basically going back to making logic gates at a binary level almost. And without a programming language you can't reference dynamically created objects like you can in COD and DCS.

 

You could also say the Il-2 COD editor is more powerful as it supports C# language, but without using C# is less powerful than the Il-2 GB editor. But basic stuff is easier to do in Il-2 COD. The thing that makes GB editor painful is everything is single objects that you have to join manually to make a whole, even with templates its time consuming to make missions.

Edited October 15, 2020 by =RS=Stix_09

[Lusekofte]

7 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

But that's kind of the point, is it not? The idea of the QMB is to allow the player to quickly set up a mission with a variety of parameters, and off they go

You have a qmb that let you choose what where and how many or what you want to face. 

2 minutes ago, Tuesday said:

In the meantime the F-14 and carrier stuff is pretty nice. 

I love the f 14. I think it is the best pit I ever sat in using vr. But I hate interacting with Jester

[Guest deleted@83466]

14 minutes ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

 

I love the f 14. I think it is the best pit I ever sat in using vr. But I hate interacting with Jester

 

Wait until you've spent some time with a genuine human imbecile in your back seat, and you'll think Jester is the greatest thing since sliced bread.  But you're right, there is no substitute for a good RIO who knows what he's doing, and if you can't find one, it diminishes the best aspects of the module.

 

 

Edited October 15, 2020 by SeaSerpent

[DD_Arthur]

22 minutes ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

"frankly my dear its basically going back to making logic gates at a binary level"

 

 

I don't know wtf this means Stix but we can sure work up a dialogue with it!

[CanadaOne]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 

 

Does the DCS editor have randomized logic, zone triggers, event triggers and such?

 

There are triggers and all kinds of stuff I don't understand. You, being an accomplished mission builder - yours is the only campaign I have purchased in any sim - are better suited to examine it in depth.

 

What I can tell you, though, is that in a heartbeat, without having to turn the game off in order to use it, I can access the DCS mission builder and put a plane exactly where I want it and a tank/other object also exactly where I want it, and be back flying in seconds. And if I want to change planes, add some tanks, or make the scenario on a different map, I can do that super fast as well... without having the turn the game off, open a separate program, make the changes, close the program, and then open the game back up. And then go through the whole thing again every time I want to change anything.

 

DCS, for all its faults, makes it easy to create fast and fun flights exactly the way the player wants them. That's no small thing in a flightsim.

[=RS=Stix_09]

 

32 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

 

There are triggers and all kinds of stuff I don't understand. You, being an accomplished mission builder - yours is the only campaign I have purchased in any sim - are better suited to examine it in depth.

 

What I can tell you, though, is that in a heartbeat, without having to turn the game off in order to use it, I can access the DCS mission builder and put a plane exactly where I want it and a tank/other object also exactly where I want it, and be back flying in seconds. And if I want to change planes, add some tanks, or make the scenario on a different map, I can do that super fast as well... without having the turn the game off, open a separate program, make the changes, close the program, and then open the game back up. And then go through the whole thing again every time I want to change anything.

 

DCS, for all its faults, makes it easy to create fast and fun flights exactly the way the player wants them. That's no small thing in a flightsim.

 

Its because in DCS(and il-2 COD) placing a plane object also includes the waypoint logic and other stuff too. Its easier for the layman to work with. In Il-2 placing a plane is just the the plane object, the waypoint logic and other stuff to make the plane fly is all a bunch of other objects(things) in the editor  that you have to add and link together to make it fly, takeoff land etc

 

Its like programming in a lower level language like machine code as apposed to a programming in something like basic/pascal/c# for example. All the bits need to be added manually as the objects in the editor are very simple parts that need to be put together like a jigsaw puzzle.

Edited October 15, 2020 by =RS=Stix_09

[CanadaOne]

8 minutes ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

 

 

Its because in DCS(and il-2 COD) placing a plane object also includes the waypoint logic and other stuff too. Its easier to the layman to work with. In Il-2 placing a plane is just the the plane object, they waypoint logic and other stuff to make the plane fly is all a bunch of other objects(things) in the editor  that you have to add and link together to make it fly, takeoff land etc

 

Its like programming in a lower level language like machine code as apposed to a programming in something like basic/pascal/c# for example. All the bits need to be added manually as the objects in the editor are very simple parts that need to be put together like a jigsaw puzzle.

 

I'm not much on making puzzles. Especially when I don't want to. 

 

Here's an example I was going to show Gambit21. Making this flight, while in the game, including load times, took about three-minutes. I made changes twice, each time it took seconds and I was back flying. Now this particular flight might not be everyone's cup of tea, but it shows that as a sandbox - someone wanting to land a helicopter on a carrier in rough seas for example - DCS does provide a lot of toys that can be conveniently and quickly accessed. And of course this applies to the WWII end of the game as well.

 

 

[Rei-sen]

1 hour ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

Its like programming in a lower level language like machine code as apposed to a programming in something like basic/pascal/c# for example. All the bits need to be added manually as the objects in the editor are very simple parts that need to be put together like a jigsaw puzzle.

With no real benefits from that complexity.

I'm looking forward to see the new DM update. I hope they'll also overhaul the horrible ground and water impact effects that are straight from the LockOn era as well as make better muzzle flashes and better tracers with smoke trails.

I hope they'll start releasing more WWII modules with Flaming Cliffs level of detailization with more flyable planes and with the focus on a certain theater. I'd ditch BoX completely for that. Not that I play BoX frequently, tbh. Bodenplatte was a huge red pill for me. It's a pity that I already bought BoN and Hurricanes before that.

Edited October 16, 2020 by Arthur-A

[=RS=Stix_09]

1 minute ago, Arthur-A said:

With no real benefits from that complexity.

I'm looking forward to see the new DM update. I hope they'll also overhaul the horrible ground and water impact effects that are straight from the LockOn era as well as muzzle flashes, tracers with smoke trails.

I hope they'll start releasing more WWII modules with Flaming Cliffs level of detailization with more flyable planes and with the focus on a certain theater. I'd ditch BoX completely for that. Not that I play BoX frequently, tbh. Bodenplatte was a huge red pill for me. It's a pity that I already bought BoN and Hurricanes before that.

 

They also need to work on spotting , its very difficult in DCS currently

[CanadaOne]

4 minutes ago, Arthur-A said:

With no real benefits from that complexity.

I'm looking forward to see the new DM update. I hope they'll also overhaul the horrible ground and water impact effects that are straight from the LockOn era as well as make better muzzle flashes and better tracers with smoke trails.

I hope they'll start releasing more WWII modules with Flaming Cliffs level of detailization with more flyable planes and with the focus on a certain theater. I'd ditch BoX completely for that. Not that I play BoX frequently, tbh. Bodenplatte was a huge red pill for me. It's a pity that I already bought BoN and Hurricanes before that.

 

The DCS DM sucks, that's for sure. But it looks like the next update will address it to some extent. And you're 100% right that they need some low-fidelity WWII planes.

 

I'm not buying BoN until, at the very least, the QMB gets some serious love. 

 

 

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, Arthur-A said:

With no real benefits from that complexity.

 

False - stay in your lane.

 

[Rei-sen]

Whatever you say.

[DBFlyguy]

1 hour ago, Arthur-A said:

I hope they'll start releasing more WWII modules with Flaming Cliffs level of detailization with more flyable planes and with the focus on a certain theater. I'd ditch BoX completely for that. Not that I play BoX frequently, tbh. Bodenplatte was a huge red pill for me. It's a pity that I already bought BoN and Hurricanes before that.

 

DCS and "focus" go together like oil and water ? I wouldn't hold my breath on them focusing on anything, ED's only modus operandi is to sell as many early access products as possible to keep the lights on for a few more weeks, thinking they'll actually ever finish something or make a consistent theater to the level of any of the BoX releases is a pipe dream, Never. Going. To. Happen.

 

Serious question though, what exactly from Bodenplatte got people's feathers so ruffled? It brought some of the most popular later war aircraft into BoX, kinda confused how this would turn off someone who supposedly was already a fan of the sim series especially to the point of regretting pre-ordering BoN ?

[Gambit21]

8 minutes ago, Arthur-A said:

Whatever you say.

 

 

[Rei-sen]

1 hour ago, DBFlyguy said:

Serious question though, what exactly from Bodenplatte got people's feathers so ruffled? It brought some of the most popular later war aircraft into BoX, kinda confused how this would turn off someone who supposedly was already a fan of the sim series especially to the point of regretting pre-ordering BoN ?

Horrible map, horrible P-47 (Compare it to the DCS one), dull career, etc etc.

[Sokol1]

5 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 One of the things he talked about was how their mission editor was too complex for new users and how they want to simplify things, so that it doesn't take days for people to be able to start creating their own missions.

 

The fact that DCS mission maker is "too complex for new users"  not necessarily implicates that have the same level of complexity of IL-2:GB editor.

The key word there is "new users", those want a 3 clicks mission maker. ?

[Lusekofte]

6 hours ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

 

They also need to work on spotting , its very difficult in DCS currently

This is a huge issue. 

5 hours ago, DBFlyguy said:

 

DCS and "focus" go together like oil and water ? I wouldn't hold my breath on them focusing on anything, ED's only modus operandi is to sell as many early access products as possible to keep the lights on for a few more weeks, thinking they'll actually ever finish something or make a consistent theater to the level of any of the BoX releases is a pipe dream, Never. Going. To. Happen.

 

Serious question though, what exactly from Bodenplatte got people's feathers so ruffled? It brought some of the most popular later war aircraft into BoX, kinda confused how this would turn off someone who supposedly was already a fan of the sim series especially to the point of regretting pre-ordering BoN ?

It is a hotrod module to boost sale. Making that map a huge dogfight server. Forcing everybody that want to do other stuff than dogfight to fly low and heavy right in to a set up trap. 
Bon is the same. Only obsolete level bombers with simplified bombaim interface. My curiosity to mossie,  tiffy and ME 410 is the only reason I bought it. 
I am confident these packs draw new customers, so it is not wrong by devs, it is wrong for me, but look at YT. And you see endless dogfight videos. 
A game with seldom occurrence of Airbattle in depth. It is designed for people liking to wait for easy pray

Edited October 16, 2020 by 216th_LuseKofte

[Lusekofte]

5 hours ago, Sokol1 said:

 

The fact that DCS mission maker is "too complex for new users"  not necessarily implicates that have the same level of complexity of IL-2:GB editor.

The key word there is "new users", those want a 3 clicks mission maker. ?

In fact. I am all for simple use, but simplifying bring a bit of fear in me. Looking at GB , that is designed for getting WT flyers in, and in many ways did not take old simmers into consideration. 
If ED are on the same track, I fear for my own interest in it. Hopefully that is just a bollix consern

[ZachariasX]

10 hours ago, LukeFF said:

So yeah, I don't buy the argument that IL2's mission editor is somehow overly complex in comparison to DCS's, especially when it seems like it's the same few people telling us repeatedly that it takes a Master's degree to understand how it works.

 

The DCS mission editior, as complex as it may be, far more accessible than what is included in BoX. Far more. At least to me. Not just by the fact that you can launch it within the game. It doesn‘t take too long to position your units such that you can have a simple mission as you have envisioned it. The old IL2 had a simple mission builder that was equally straight forward to use, despite the added functionality.

 

I undestand that creating a logically consistent AND intuitive mission designer a huge task, something that has a hard time to get justification for earning a production slot, as there is seemingly no direct revenue associated to it. But I consider it a key factor for keeping people interested.

 

We have some very creative and talented people as user base, hence you can set the bar incredibly high and many still will be able to make great use of the game. As for the rest, it is more like, „here, eat your dog food“. It is almost a tragedy that the user base of high fidelity combat sims is that literate both in knowledge about the content as in content creation. As a publisher, you just get away with almost anying as long as the quality of the content (which is enough of a problem in itself) meets expectations. But living in this bubble will ward off any new player that has little idea about the whole thing. Think of someone reading about these aircraft and wants to simulate not just the combat as such, but the mission he read about. Right now, he realistically can‘t as he wouldn’t bother. With the old IL2, this was straight forward to do. You opened that one and you got your functions where you expected them and in a logical sequence. It was a great tool to make basic missions.

 

I used to make a lot of missions in the old IL2. I do also in DCS but there more to learn an aircraft and the necessity for getting suitable environments for that. But GB, that editor has written all over it „look this is not for you and we gave it to you just because you asked“. So I don‘t use it. Limiting the way people can make use of a combat sim hurts the game as a whole. It makes it less interesting. I find it especially tragic for GB, as this one has all the ingredients that make it a very good game.

 

[DD_fruitbat]

Anyone who has spent any time in the both the dcs editor and the Great Battles editor knows that the dcs editor is way way way more easier to use. Thats a simple undeniable fact.

 

Anyone who says otherwise, their opinion is so clouded and blantantly false, that they are a joke.

[CanadaOne]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

 

The DCS mission editior, as complex as it may be, far more accessible than what is included in BoX. Far more. At least to me. Not just by the fact that you can launch it within the game. It doesn‘t take too long to position your units such that you can have a simple mission as you have envisioned it. The old IL2 had a simple mission builder that was equally straight forward to use, despite the added functionality.

 

I undestand that creating a logically consistent AND intuitive mission designer a huge task, something that has a hard time to get justification for earning a production slot, as there is seemingly no direct revenue associated to it. But I consider it a key factor for keeping people interested.

 

We have some very creative and talented people as user base, hence you can set the bar incredibly high and many still will be able to make great use of the game. As for the rest, it is more like, „here, eat your dog food“. It is almost a tragedy that the user base of high fidelity combat sims is that literate both in knowledge about the content as in content creation. As a publisher, you just get away with almost anying as long as the quality of the content (which is enough of a problem in itself) meets expectations. But living in this bubble will ward off any new player that has little idea about the whole thing. Think of someone reading about these aircraft and wants to simulate not just the combat as such, but the mission he read about. Right now, he realistically can‘t as he wouldn’t bother. With the old IL2, this was straight forward to do. You opened that one and you got your functions where you expected them and in a logical sequence. It was a great tool to make basic missions.

 

I used to make a lot of missions in the old IL2. I do also in DCS but there more to learn an aircraft and the necessity for getting suitable environments for that. But GB, that editor has written all over it „look this is not for you and we gave it to you just because you asked“. So I don‘t use it. Limiting the way people can make use of a combat sim hurts the game as a whole. It makes it less interesting. I find it especially tragic for GB, as this one has all the ingredients that make it a very good game.

 

 

Exactly!

 

Some of the guys here have been super friendly and very patient when it comes to helping others learn how to manage the BoX ME. Even I have managed to put a plane in the air and a tank on the ground with their help. But every time I think I might give it a go again, and open the editor, and then see that the map doesn't even have the buildings and bridges on it, I have to load them myself... "click"... close program.

 

In DCS I can be flying around, and think "Hey, I like this flight, but I want to try out a rocket on a tank, and I want that tank to be right there beside that building", I can put it together in seconds and try the flight out. Then it's "Okay, now I want some AAA over there to make it a bit more interesting", and super fast I've got it done and I'm back flying in my scenario. And on and on. You can literally build the flight as you're flying it. I really enjoy that.

 

Creative control that doesn't keep me waiting. I want it and my money goes to whoever gives it to me. 

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, DD_fruitbat said:

Anyone who says otherwise, their opinion is so clouded and blantantly false, that they are a joke.

 

Instead of throwing insults around, why don't you listen to the interview yourself?

[ZachariasX]

I think on the question „what is (too) complex“ context is key. At least to me, it is obvious that without the mission editor, you can‘t make much of DCS at all. Meaning you hurt just about everyone with difficulties found in that department. Hence, looking at world and their dog, the bar for „too complex“ is far lower than in this game, where the full mission editor is very optional, as you get plenty by doing just a few clicks in the simple mission editor, something absolutely lacking in DCS. The random mission generator is no compensation there, as it still throws you in the  mission editor.

 

Hence, everything in this game can be more complex while still being acceptable. My main concern is more that when trying to create a mission, you do things in a way one doesn’t expect and hence one looks in the wrong places. I felt the same trying blender after working with 3dsmax.

 

The initial homework one has to to be productive is just too big to ever „just do a simple mission“. Consequently, most never start at all. And this initial homework does not correlate with the functionality of the thing, but with its usability.

 

You know, Vi is a great editor. But.

Edited October 16, 2020 by ZachariasX

[messsucher]

14 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

I think on the question „what is (too) complex“ context is key. At least to me, it is obvious that without the mission editor, you can‘t make much of DCS at all. Meaning you hurt just about everyone with difficulties found in that department. Hence, looking at world and their dog, the bar for „too complex“ is far lower than in this game, where the full mission editor is very optional, as you get plenty by doing just a few clicks in the simple mission editor, something absolutely lacking in DCS. The random mission generator is no compensation there, as it still throws you in the  mission editor.

 

Hence, everything in this game can be more complex while still being acceptable. My main concern is more that when trying to create a mission, you do things in a way one doesn’t expect and hence one looks in the wrong places. I felt the same trying blender after doing working with 3dsmax.

 

The initial homework one has to to be productive is just too big to ever „just do a simple mission“. Consequently, most never start at all. And this initial homework does not correlate with the functionality of the thing, but with its usability.

 

You know, Vi is a great editor. But.

 

Vim is the god of an editor, if you just learn to use it. And if you are editing a lot of text files, then you should.

[JG4_dingsda]

37 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

You know, Vi is a great editor. But.

There is no 'but' to this.

 

Edited October 16, 2020 by JG4_dingsda

[Art-J]

About the Corsair, some people just can't be pleased it seems. Not ED, but a third party studio decided to build an F4U just because they love it, not because it fits anything - just like in DCS I-16 case. Nothing more, nothing less, they're not obliged to add anything else to it (and in fact they'll go for F-8 as their next project).

 

Unlike DCS I-16, though, they decided not to stop here but at least add a period correct AI opponent plane, and an aircraft carrier in single package for free.

 

I'm first and foremost PTO enthusiast myself, but even I understand that DCS is kind of FS/P3D/X-Plane equivalent with guns. A sandbox sim with some various planes to fly around. I don't expect it to be something it's not meant to be, especially when 3rd party studios are concerned.

[CastorTroy]

21 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

So does the F-14.

 

 

The Heatblur F-14B with the supercarrier is one of the best VR experiences I have had in a flight sim.  

[CanadaOne]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

It’s the “near miss, to something that could be so much more” aspect that many of us find maddening. Progress toward a viable theater somewhere is like watching grass grow.

 

But at what point is a "viable theater" reached? DCS has maps of the Caucasus, the Persian Gulf, and Syria. It also has some seriously hi-def jets and choppers and pretty sophisticated ground assets for both sides of a scenario, including some bitchin' carrier action. I can't see where a viable theater is missing in all that. Granted it not sold as a set, as is done in BoX, but the cost would be wildly prohibitive. So it's offered in bits and pieces and you fill up your sandbox with the toys you want and can afford and have your fun as you see fit.

 

If I can fly my DCS P-51, accompanied by Spitfires and P-47s, escorting A-20s and B-17s across the Channel, and meet up with 109s and 190s, and all kinds of flak and armour and ships appropriate to the era, and all of this on the best WWII map available, I don't see why this is inherently a worse example of a viable theater than what BoX offers. 

 

All of this reminds me of the arguments we had as kids; we the LEGO champions going head to head with the Meccano dweebs.  "Pffffft!"

[Bremspropeller]

Anybody else hyped for the SLUF?

[Hoots]

15 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Anybody else hyped for the SLUF?

 

Yup

[Trooper117]

Short, Little, Ugly, -ucker...

[CanadaOne]

3 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Anybody else hyped for the SLUF?

 

Inquiring minds, and all that.  

[Bremspropeller]

2 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

 

Inquiring minds, and all that.  

 

http://things-wit-wings.blogspot.com/2014/06/a-sluf-in-tigers-clothing.html

[CanadaOne]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

http://things-wit-wings.blogspot.com/2014/06/a-sluf-in-tigers-clothing.html

 

I'd consider it.