Tests and observations can be found in this video, separated due to how long and poorly engaging it is. Feel free to jump directly to the conclusions: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-3omceQDswWE.html
Love this book. And i must agree with you as many other times. They spend huge amount of time for visuals, and new early access modules, but the core elements still not change. I love the tornado and the A-6. But with almighty air defense and robot cgi on servers, what's the purpose of the low level, high speed attacks?
Yeah, I have to agree. There are ways to make things better, but they require editing and/or scripting. For instance, using triggers to enable the AI of AAA batteries after a random timer, or setting specific options.
This addresses one of my biggest annoyances with DCS. I wholeheartedly agree. The lack of ambiguity, the lack of relevant and timely information, the incessant callouts of irrelevant contacts, etc. The entire system needs a massive overhaul urgently.
An issue with a deliberately ambiguous/imperfect system on a flight sim is that it becomes yet another variable in 'why didn't X work the way I expected it to?'. If a variability/probability error is introduced, that needs to be accompanied by something to let the player know that it isn't a bug in the module, a bug in the mission/campaign, something wrong with the map, an error in the mission editor, etc etc etc.
greatly said, GCI took a massive handle on the use of our mirage F1s, the mig-23 and 29, hopefully ED addresses and fixes these issues along their work on the mig-29
One big problem with not-perfect system is the perception of the user. If CGI/AWACS are made to miss contacts or report wrong or old information users tend to interpret this as bugs. If not-perfect systems are implemented steps would need to be taken to inform about the intended bahviour. I’m thinking of extensively explaining the programming but even more of ingame analysis tools that would enable the user to recognize intend low performance after the situation, for example in replays. Otherwise such features would cause a lot of negative emotions because the (general) user would think the game is broken.
Agreed, but I think the player base is amenable to that sort of thing. Look at Heatblur. They've attempted to model much of the downsides of the Viggen and F-14 (and soon F-4) and the players of those modules love them.
I have actually been doing a lot of testing in custom missions lately in preparation of just such a post on the forums. Not only do I fully agree with you and should the AWACS not be perfect, it is worse in that fact that it can spot rotary targets at 250NM at 5ft and it can continue to track targets up to 5 min after they went behind terrain and can even keep tracking them as the land .. behind terrain
This is more or less why I love LotATC so much despite its performance impacts. Its customizable to the degree in which you can get updates every 10-20s, and even lock the user into a single unit at a time. I lost aircraft that were only 100NM away from my unit under around 12,000ft, and had to do proper coordination and handoffs between 2 other GCIs and their relevant flights to effectively complete the intercept exercise. While Lot does trade off quite a bit of server performance and stability, the customizability and options it introduces are worth taking that hit.
Depends on server size, for big servers like ECW, Blue Flag, Coop, or Contention it's basically unplayable if you run LoATC. It's a cool idea, but the way it grabs data just murders server performance for public servers.
Great vid! The unrealistically capable GCI/AWACS are akin to the degree-perfect RWRs is most modules. FWIW I prefer your actual voice to the AI voice you're now using, at least for the parts where you're not quoting from the book
I’m on the fence on this one. An Ironman mode might be good for some but at the end of the day it’s a game and for entertainment. It’s an interesting point though that bears thinking about. We will escape spamram only to be haunted by infallible god radar. Hmmm
Interesting point about not modelling detection ambiguities and update delays, and for a modern context I agree, but you talked about the 70s and 80s. DCS does not have an AWACS from that era. The E-3 is basically a 90s E-3 and obviously outperforms what you'd have in the 70s and 80s. Setting the E-3 to perform like an older system wouldn't make sense. Instead, DCS would need era-appropriate systems like the EC-121, Tu-126, and similar ground-based systems.
There's no meaningful difference in DCS, so I did not name a single radar system, AWACS or others. Speaking of the E-3A, it is a very late 70s / early 80s platform, and the radar rotates every 10". I'm not sure about the E-3C we have in DCS, IIRC it's USAF stuff, but in-game it is considered a late 70s aircraft.
@@FlyAndWire I think you missed the point, or I wasn't clear. Regardless of what year ED claims for the E-3, it provides effectively a level of SA broadly comparable to a modern context, 90s at the earliest. Whereas your story about Migs in South Africa is a story about fighters operating with 70s ground-based systems. So, you're basically complaining that a modern AWACS does not provide the same fog of war as a 70s ground-controlled intercept. It would not make sense to simply degrade radar performance across the board to satisfy the Cold War crowd at the expense of the modern scenarios. What's needed for Cold War scenarios are Cold War era C2 systems.
@@Jester-uh9xg I see what you mean, but I reiterate that any AIC or GCI in DCS provides the same excessive capabilities (id est real-time updates). Ergo, no, I am not bothered by the E-3, the E-2, the A-50, or their ground-based relatives, nor am I advocating for nerfs or buffs. At the end of the day, they are fundamentally a reskin, which is inheriting the same problems of the parent. The whole system is flawed and needs to be thoroughly reworked. To be honest, I leave finding a way to make it work to ED; adding more time-coherent assets is only the first step.
I feel like part of this issue is simply that DCS has overall pretty simplistic and poor radar simulation. Naturally, such modeling results in an enviornent that doesn't mirror real life (leading to even more unrealistic player behavior). A big theme of DCS is so little is simulated or simulated well outside of the cockpit that realistic behavior isn't useful, if not disadvantageous.
and this is why I make 4-5 kills sorties on Enigma in my F-5. I am directed without any issue by the GCI to migs and mirages, and as soon as I spot them they are dead meat.
this one seems to be more of an enigma issue if you are on about the popup that is given in the top right of the screen that can be adjusted using the f10 menu. that's because Enigmas team would have coded this in to allow players to have a more action-packed experience. The ewr calls that this vid is on about is more the ewr status of ED (the one that should appear as an awacks call in the top left). This is very wacky at times and can sometimes see you through terrain or just because you seem to be at a certain altitude even if the terrain is blocking its direct line of sight to you. The same can apply to the awacks in some cases.
I enjoy your content, and this is another good video on a topic which desperately needs attention in dcs. I must say however I dont think the AI generated voice makes these videos better. In fact IMO it was much better before without them.
@@FlyAndWire I see. That's understandable. In anycase I had hoped you weren't doing it just because you thought people were bothered by the accent or somesuch.
@@d_b_7819 Well, I have received lots of negative comments for the reasons you mentioned. Rushing the voice recordings + not being a native speaker = not great. Ergo, the clarity of the AI is definitely a plus.
@@FlyAndWireThat’s their problem to solve with practice or subtitles. Your delivery and accent are not a problem - and your accent is a part of who you are, be proud of it. 💪
Because there’s a whiny minority that complain about how having every little switch working somehow drastically improves the fun factor. Little do they realise that they can just, not buy new fc3 modules
ED doesn't and won't do things like model inaccuracies, imperfections, and failure rates because 90% of the player base will whine incessantly and they will lose revenue because of it. We (the players) are to blame for much of DCS's inaccuracy.
@@c.g.262they are large enough and from recent ‘findings’ our money is mostly just not going into more dev time or more devs, but into the pocket of the CEO.
