Stealth and radar.

[Spud]

F-117A Nighthawk Stealth Fighter 2.0 was a 1990's flight sim that placed an emphasis on the stealthy nature of the aircraft, in order to complete missions you needed to evade radar and strike undetected if possible before sneaking away, it was a great game and really put an interesting spin on the flight sim genre, here's a link...
http://store.steampowered.com/app/328920/
DCS would be a great platform for something similar, is there anything like that available? or is anything planned? A module that focused on Stealth and evading detection would add a whole new dimension to the DCS world.

Moderator - I was about to post a reply but the topic was locked, it's a shame the original descended into a bun fight about missile physics, but if you don't mind I would like to continue the debate related to the feasibility of incorporatiing realistic radar mechanics and stealth capabilities. thank you. To everyone else - please stay on topic, cheers.

[Spud]

kazereal の投稿を引用：

Guetapens の投稿を引用：

Smoke and mirrors gentlemen, we are paying to be successfully fooled.

For most people, that is as close to real thing that is possible to get under any circumstances.
And there are significant limitations what can be done on home computer hardware without a rack full of hardware.

Question is about how close to real it is possible to get and what one is willing to accept.

Simulations are constantly improving and pushing forward realism, but there is no flight simulation that would actually use real-time fluid/gas simulation of air as of now. So some sacrifices have to be there to make it possible with what we have available.

That's my point, of course there are limits to what can be done, and those limits are constantly being challenged by world class developers like you.

Every feature in this simulation is limited by constraints of processing power etc, yet you find a way to add as much as you can, and over time these features will be refined and deeper levels of complexity introduced.

Why not add a simple approximation of radar and slowly build upon that as the constraints are gradually loosened.


When I say smoke and mirrors it is not meant as an insult, quite the opposite, perhaps I should have said it's all an illusion or a magic trick, because that is what you do, you manage to convince people sat in rooms staring at screens that they are flying real planes in real skies, using only lines of code... that is something incredible to me, I have nothing but admiration and respect for your work.

I merely suggest that you can perhaps improve this magic spell you cast even further.

[Chameleon_Silk]

ya basically what I was saying, no ones asking for true radar modelling to the smallest detail, simply fool us a little better with whats there and work the magic to make it even better.

the issue is there will always be those who don't want any compromise and then therefore because it deviates from 100pct realistic implementation won't want it in.

the opposite side of the coin.

hell i'd be fine with AI F-22, F-35, F-117A <- oh wait thats in the game as AI, and its very hard to detect and track.... so about those RCS values ED? hmm? how is it they aproximate F-117A but will not estimate RCS for another stealth fighter AI or not. if the F-117A is there I see no reason to not add AI versions of the other aircraft to fight against not to fly against.... I would gladly pay DCS ARCADE AI planes!

go try and track and shoot down an F-117A and see for yourself how slippery it is :P

[jester]

Guetapens の投稿を引用：

Everything is compromised, nothing in this or any other simulation is 'real', there is compromise everywhere you look, there has to be. A simulation is by its very nature a fake.

It's all smoke and mirrors gentlemen, we are paying to be successfully fooled.

Absolutely agree. There is no simulator that will ever be 100% realistic. Even simulators designed specifically for the military take compromises.

Someone from Micropose's development team a long time ago during the creation of Falcon 4 was informed by a colonel that "if you ask designers to create a flight simulator with no compromises, they would end up designing the aircraft itself."

Chameleon_Silk の投稿を引用：

the issue is there will always be those who don't want any compromise and then therefore because it deviates from 100pct realistic implementation won't want it in.

That's fine. Those people don't play DCS anyway then because it's not 100% realistic.

I would love to see a better radar implementation in DCS. I guess we can chalk up another mark in the "pros" column for a certain F-16 simulator? :^)

[Madfish]

Guetapens の投稿を引用：

USAF announce new Stealth bomber, the B-21 looks very pretty perhaps appearing in a future module? ; ) https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-air-force-unveils-picture-stealth-bomber-160158472.html

I don't think it's the final image. It just looks like a photoshopped B-2. That said I'd say a B-2 would be more realistic anyways since most of the DCS planes are (of course) antique due to classification.

As for improved radar simulation that'd indeed be amazing. I'd assume a simple vector model with some curves for parameters would suffice. It's what the PFM uses and I doubt things will go beyond that very soonish unless X-Plane has a real breakthrough in technology.

[Silky]

DCS needs something like this, a bomber. Diverse the gameplay, it would bring some of the battle up to 25,000ft for once vs the constant 10,000ft and under we have now.

Though by the time something like that actually comes out, 10 years?

[Spud]

Serpentes の投稿を引用：

Sauce Johnson の投稿を引用：

DCS needs something like this, a bomber. Diverse the gameplay, it would bring some of the battle up to 25,000ft for once vs the constant 10,000ft and under we have now.

Though by the time something like that actually comes out, 10 years?

That is the thing really we need, but F-117A isn't such one. Sure it would be nicer challenge for fighter pilots to try to track it, but it would be unfair/unrealistic if the radar system doesn't work even semi-realistically.

But as many at ED forums has requested, DCS would need a multi-seat bomber. Not from the WW2 like B-17, but something like a Su-34 or F-15E, but both hits again to same problem, too new/classified/in-use.

But something like Mig-25RB or Mig-25RBT (over 24400m altitude), or then Mig-23ML (18300m altitude) (http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=137863) or if going to larger scale bombers, Tu-22M is good choice as it was presented in one of the ED videos.

I would take either Tu-22M, as it would be crew of 4 and have a acceptable ceiling of 13300m. Or then take that Mig-25RB as it would offer that 24km altitude capability and be able to be used for bombings or even as a fighter too.

I agree that we should get the fighters combat back to up to 8-12km altitudes where they basically belong, but to do that the SAM systems and radars simulations should really be there to enforce that.

As mentioned elsewhere a B1 would be a great addition, offering multi crew roles and something entirely new for the series. A true long range bomber that is unlike anything else both in appearance and functionality.

[Madfish]

I'm not sure if there's a "too heavy" etc. For me there isn't. The more the better, even if it's AI planes.

The thing that limits DCS in comparison to IL-2 e.g. is that it's an incomplete puzzle.there's only a handful scenarios that deliver a complete theater with no vehicles or aircraft missing from the picture.

Secondly bombers (diverse ones) would certainly introduce new elements for gameplay. Striking out ones like the 117A would make the game suffer though. It was flown in combat missions, so there would be scenarios where it can be used.

[Spud]

Madfish の投稿を引用：

I'm not sure if there's a "too heavy" etc. For me there isn't. The more the better, even if it's AI planes.

The thing that limits DCS in comparison to IL-2 e.g. is that it's an incomplete puzzle.there's only a handful scenarios that deliver a complete theater with no vehicles or aircraft missing from the picture.

Secondly bombers (diverse ones) would certainly introduce new elements for gameplay. Striking out ones like the 117A would make the game suffer though. It was flown in combat missions, so there would be scenarios where it can be used.

Agreed.

Some people simply do not want Stealth aircraft to be introduced, presumably because they don't believe the developer is capable of doing it well, or perhaps because they feel the engine is incapable of supporting the additional mechanics etc that would be required in order to represent these things in a realistic enough way, this is despite the fact that there are plenty of other features already in the game that are not simulated in a 'realistic' way.

Personally I'm far more optimistic, I believe this developer could adequately replicate the behaviour of radar and stealth tech very well indeed. I do have reservations however about the will to do it, it would involve a lot of work and the pay off would not be immediate.

But as most seem to agree, a flight simulator that focuses on the military without radar and stealth technology is lacking something fundamental to the world of military aviation, and is therefore lacking considerably in the realism it strives for.

[Madfish]

I miss something like a feature voting system. Where players can vote what they want.
I also generally don't believe in a concept of selling 3rd party items without major internal quality control and planes only. I think they should sell DLC similar to arma where platform (engine) content is improved upon and provided.
Currently they're giving out DCS world 2 literally for free.

[Spud]

Madfish の投稿を引用：

I miss something like a feature voting system. Where players can vote what they want.
I also generally don't believe in a concept of selling 3rd party items without major internal quality control and planes only. I think they should sell DLC similar to arma where platform (engine) content is improved upon and provided.
Currently they're giving out DCS world 2 literally for free.

Both good ideas, when I made the suggestion I had an Arma type DLC/Module in mind, where the base engine gets the radar/stealth mechanics upgrade for free but those who buy the module get a new plane that exploits the new systems and maybe a map/campaign, that way it benefits the entire community and the developers.

Feature voting is something all developers should do.

[Hadji]

What DCS mostly lacks is a sense of direction... What is it going to be? A WWII sim? A Cold War sim? Korea? Europe? Middle East? If it is trying be everything (like it actually does right now...) it won't be anything more than a good looking flight simulator.

Instead of wasting resources on making 2.0 maps with densly populated areas like Las Vegas and Dubai focus on something that makes sense from a gameplay and game performance point of view. Yes, Las Vegas looks cool but does it make the flight simulator any better? It is DCS and not Cities XL we are playing! I'd rather have a scenario that allows for more aircraft in the air and advanced radar calculations than having cars moving on a Walmart parking lot. And at ground level DCS still looks rubbish and there is no objecty hit-detection so having these detailed maps doesn't make sense even for CA.

ED should dictate the overall project goal for DCS and I am using DCS WWII as an example: Finish DCS WWII and have the 3rd party devs make modules that FIT IN. Now we are seeing Pacific Theatre planes in the pipleline and even planes that never flew in 1944 before the BASE GAME is even half finished. So we will probably get a Horten flying wing before we see a B-17 or a Lancaster and that Horten will fly over either Sochi, Las Vegas or Dubai. At this rate it will never be finished!

Focus on ONE ERA AND SCENARIO at a time so the bleeping scenarios becomes complete before moving to the next. Feature voting would only add to the confusion. ED needs to step in, point with the entire arm and FINISH WHAT THEY STARTED before deciding on the next city to render in DCS.

[Madfish]

What you're saying is that A) you don't really see tech systems (radar) improvements coming and B) that combat simulation in DCS isn't working.

I don't think that's the case. I have high hopes that ED has the potential to become an awesome platform. Multicrew has certainly been a great step into the right direction. But I'd agree on theater completion and less content that's high energy but low return. Nevada might be an exeption because it's an amazing platform for training sessions. (but that'd require better and less pricey accessibility to the map and trainer aircraft.

As this isn't RoF or IL-2 I believe radar and non-optic targeting solutions improvements are pretty much vital. It's part of why I never liked BVR / modern age jet fighter sims. It's more or less a hand crafted rock paper scissors right now, literally.

[Chameleon_Silk]

well nevada has a tapestry of reasons why it exists and why it took so long and why they had to deliver nevada to people who pre-ordered A-10C.

it was also a test bed, with the work going on with A-G radars how do we know they aren't working on radar stuffs beyond just A-G as we speak? wouldn't it seem to make some sense to tackle all facets of the radar eventually... I think eventually it will be fleshed out more just give them some time.

DCS World 3.0

[jester]

El Hadji の投稿を引用：

-snip-

The biggest downfall that will be the undoing of DCS is the lack of direction. Currently, random aircraft are been added in with little to no regard for anything else. Too big of a project, too small of a team. It's starting to feel like a mixture of Call of Duty and FSX to be honest. No dynamic interaction, unlikely to ever find servers populated if they don't have F-15s in them, no realistic theaters of war (hurr durr they're coming promise! - ♥♥♥).

I hardly touch DCS any more because anything I want to do in it is done better in other sims. Jack of all trades is cool in theory but not so much in reality.

[kazereal]

jester の投稿を引用：

Currently, random aircraft are been added in with little to no regard for anything else. Too big of a project, too small of a team.

Because it is not a single team or single goal. There are multiple teams working on different things that:
a) they have enough data/expertise about
b) there's enough resources (people, time..) to work on, and:
c) that should be selling enough to cover the costs

There is no single person telling "you must all do this now" - that would be silly in any simulation since there are a lot of people interested in a lot of things.

I repeat since people don't seem to understand this: it is not one single team working on everything, there are different people working on graphics code, terrain code, networking code, terrain meshes, textures, aircraft meshes and textures, aircraft systems, aircraft flight models, ground unit simulations, naval units, campaigns, technical support and so on and so on.

Add to this that there are 3rd party developers with different set of available information, resources and expertise.

When one team finishes a "milestone" to be released, it is released. Another team may be working on another thing at that time and when they reach a "milestone" that will be released. And always according to if other bits and pieces are ready as well: for example new map needs the terrain support and other things must work with it as well.

Different tasks require different skills from people doing them: texture artists usually don't have enough understanding about computer code to work on that and vice versa. Also adding more people does not speed up things always: making 9 women pregnant does not get you a baby in a one month. (Recommended reading: "The Mythical Man-Month" about software engineering and project management.)

Don't even begin the comparison with FSX which has no quality or accuracy demands at all.

Also the level of detail and accuracy in DCS demands a lot of work before release: that is why things take longer to reach certain milestone since people expect that much more from it (which is a good thing, it shows how much people care for true-to-life simulations).