This article and video were meant to be a discussion, a chat about a particular topic. For this reason, I initially decided against adapting and posting the article’s content, as I usually do. Moreover, since what is discussed is better communicated via in-game footage, many details would be lost anyway.
Nevertheless, I decided to post this article anyway, in case you struggle to follow the video or prefer this format. Consider this article a transcript, as the video format better conveys the points discussed.
This video is a long discussion about game issues, their effects, and why they matter, as realism can be scaled down, but it cannot be scaled up if the basic elements are not there. Ergo, aiming for a realistic representation should be important. Moreover, I added considerations about some common comments I often see on this channel and across different communities and personal opinions.
This video is long. It is packed with information, considerations and demonstrations. I recommend using the timestamps to skip to points that interest you the most.
On top of that, here is a TLDW, or “too long, didn’t watch” recap of the message this video tried to convey.
- Realism is key to a sim game such as DCS. It is what makes it special and differentiates it from arcade games.
- Aiming for realism ensures “balance”, in the sense that certain hardware respects specs and expectations of the period it is set into. This ensures a veridical scenario for players looking for this kind of experience, and casual players can mix and match as they please. However, the opposite cannot be done. If the game is disproportionately arcade, see games such as War Thunder, then having a more simulative experience is simply impossible. Even the “simulation” games more there, in fact, are slightly more polished arcade matches.
- In DCS, realism should not depend on the dev working on a module. This is not the case at the moment.
- Absolute realism is not achievable, of course. However, a standardised approach across modules, a “believable behaviour”, should be the norm. When real sources are not available, maths or data-based educated guesses should be used. In such cases, the modus operandi should be freely available; see the whitepaper from Heatblur discussing the original implementation of the AIM-54 Phoenix.
The complicated part of this discussion is demonstrating that those points are not just a “rivet counter’s fetish”, but have solid and tangible consequences. This explains why this video is so long and raises so many points. To help you navigate this labyrinth, I have added several timestamps to help you jump to the topic that interests you the most.
DCS: The Original Sin
According to some comments viewers left on my channel, aiming for realism in DCS is actually a problem. Not everyone, of course, agrees.
I categorised those messages, as well as similar posts in various DCS communities, into four main categories.
- The most common type of comment hints that this is a game, and unrealistic issues should then be ignored or not addressed.
- There are also players who say that realism is not fun.
- Then there are those who say that DCS is a game, not a job.
- We also have sarcastic comments, such as one in my video about the MiG-29 9.12A pre-purchase, suggesting that ED should not care about money and focus on realism.
So, let’s see if we can address these points and, whilst we are at it, try to communicate why aiming for realism is important both for the so-called “milsim” players, but for casual, airquakers, and anything in-between.
1. DCS is a Game
DCS is a game. But also a simulator. It is a simulation video game. One attribute does not cancel the other and, above all, DCS is a sandbox, and you can do whatever you want we it, fluctuating at your discretion between an arcade approach, or a fully simulative one.
However, the point most dear to me is that realism matters in DCS, but I often struggle to communicate why effectively. So, I’ll show you five examples. One is the KLJ-7 of the JF-17. Another shows the effects of manually lofting missiles. Three show the AN/ALR-67 of the F/A-18C lot 20. Although only three modules are shown, the issues touch multiple aircraft.
Again, the point is not being unreasonably picky, but having that common level of believable standards, rather than having dev-based advantages or disadvantages.
Here are the five examples.
- 1.1 The first is quite straightforward and shows the huge boost in attack capabilities that unrealistic avionics provide.
- 1.2 The second example shows the huge situational awareness boost ultraprecise RWR can provide.
- 1.2bis Of IFF and Ambushes
- 1.3 The third example focuses the previous point into the real of missile defence. The same RWR, in fact, enables notching missiles and breaking locks with ease, thereby enhancing defensive capabilities.
Bonus whilst recording this test, I spotted a fresh new bug. - 1.3bis Active Missile Seekers
- 1.4 Missile lofting. A technique I discussed in detail throughout the years, it allows to almost double the effectiveness of certain missiles. But if such a gain is possible why, in reality, many missiles have relative short battery life and no ad hoc technique is discussed? With the exception, of course, of missiles that specifically allows additional lofting, such as the AIM-120?
- 1.5 The last is a mini “opus magna” of this video: a 10-minute-long, possibly tedious yet fascinating demonstration of how a single device in the avionics can break the balance so hardly sought by casual servers.
When we put everything together, we notice that unrealistic modules have attack, defence and situational awareness advantage over thoroughly made modules. Ergo, realism is not only a frivolous desire, but has tangible effects on the game.
[1.1] JF-17 KLJ-7 Divine Attack & Awareness
As mentioned, this problem was fixed after I raised it, but the JF-17 has plenty of other bugs or non-implemented restrictions that make the life of the pilot so much simpler than it would be. Crazy, right? Especially considering that I found all these issues and more in not even a dozen hours on the module.
Another issue of the many is the radar resolution. F-14 players know all too well how the AWG-9 is often disoriented when contacts fly closely, to the extent that even Single-Target Tracking may become unreliable; let’s not even think about what happens in Track-While-Scan.
Interestingly enough, not every module simulates radar details in the same way. In the video I raised discussing this aspect of the KLJ-7, I have shown how the radar can discern, lock, and engage two targets flying as a single object at maximum radar range. So, although Deka patched the initial, biggest video in record time, from my understanding, this problem remains. Therefore, there is no way to mask multiple aircraft together, something that would limit the Situational Awareness of the JF-17 and prevent multiple engagements.
Once again, here is how some modules have huge advantages, and how some others have considerable disadvantages. Aiming for the same realistic implementation of the avionics will remove, or at least attenuate, these problems that tangibly affect the gameplay.
[1.2] F/A-18’s RWR: Big Picture
In this scenario, I spawned circa half a dozen aircraft more or less randomly, with only one carefully placed. If you know what to look for, it takes only a couple of seconds to have a pretty good idea of where each contact is going. According to the many SME I enquired about this, such a level of detail should not be possible. In fact, let’s see the same situation from the RWR in the F-4 Phantom.
The extensive example discussed later, on point 1.5, will drive the point home even more, but I would like to show how each return is moving smoothly and at a drift ratio dictated by the geometry. Some of you have probably spotted the intruder already. If that’s the case, well done, here is a virtual beer for ya! For the others, the intruder is the only contact not drifting because, when this happens, our fighter and the contact are on a collision course. This is one of the preferred tactics of the AI, so all you need to do to spot this situation is check the Hornet’s RWR now and then.
Back to the drift, the ratio varies depending on the geometry. Generally speaking, a high ratio drift means a geometry close to 90 Cut or 90 HCA and/or short range. If the drift ratio is minimal, then the contact is closer and closer to a collision course, or the range is considerable.
See, all this information, plus others I did not mention to keep things short, are available to the pilots of the modules whose RWR implementation is simplistic. Does having advantages based on who made the module seem fair to you? Or should everyone be held to the same high standard, allowing players to then simplify the experience as they desire?
[1.2bis] Of IFF and Ambushes
As a sidenote to the perfect awareness, the most common engagement events and techniques until the recent era are entirely missing from the game. I am talking about intercepts to identify a bogey and the disparity of situational awareness that leads one group to be ambushed by another.
The first issue is simply demonstrated by this short video. This is an F-14 Tomcat’s AN/APX-72 IFF interrogating a contact. It comes back as friendly. But when we get closer, it appears to be… a Focke-Wulf 190 D-9. Coalitions appear to be the discerning factor between friends and foes. There are no faults or misconfigurations in the IFF logic, so it all comes down to a bit-sized flag. Besides being unrealistic and depriving players of a massive chunk of gameplay, the current implementation makes creating realistic missions much more challenging. For my campaign, I wanted to make the IFF unreliable and incompatible across coalitions. That involved a lot of messing with triggers and scripts.
The too-easy situational awareness carries another issue: although in real life being jumped on by hostile aircraft happened, in DCS, this is basically not possible. The AI sees everything, AWACS and GCI update in real time and never miss a scan – another huge problem I raised years ago and still waiting for answers.
DCS lacks the greatest factor of all: chaos. Once you get used to radar, RWR, datalink, and controllers being always spot on, building almost perfect SA is immediate. At that point, there is no way to hide for any bandit unless the crews themselves make a mistake or complacency sets in.
[1.3] JF-17 KLJ-7 Divine Attack & Awareness
The scenario is simple: the Tomcat shoots, I go gate and hard right, use the super RWR to match a 90° angle, and that’s pretty much it. Effort required: very little. Now, different radars have different characteristics, and more modern ones may be more or less resilient. Still, knowing perfectly where the missile is coming from allows the crew to efficiently drag it, for example. If, instead, you do not know a missile is coming at all, well, the game has just become much tougher, and the crew must put extra effort into building good Situational Awareness and developing appropriate timelines.
I mentioned a twist. Here is a bug I was unaware of that involves the AI. I let the recording progress, to have more margin during the video editing, and, at a non-coincidental distance of 10-ish nm, the AIM-54A activated itself and chased my aeroplane. That shouldn’t happen.
I specifically chose the AIM-54A because it lacks the ability to self-activate. If launched in Track-While-Scan, the missile could have reached a certain point and then been activated by the WCS, but this was not the case. The RWR going off signified a Pulse Doppler STT launch. In this mode, which is the standard mode for basically all missiles and radars pre-AESA against fighters, the AIM-54A behaves as a Semi-Active Radar-Homing missile all the way until impact. If the lock is lost, goodbye missile. As we have seen, this is not what happened.
After seeing this, I checked with Hearblur. Forty-four minutes later, I got the answer: since this problem involves the AI, it is in Eagle Dynamics’ hands, as Heatblur have limited access to this aspect of the game.
Hopefully, this will get sorted quickly, as this bug affects Cold War scenarios involving AI.
[1.3bis] Active Missile Seekers
The bug met a moment reminded me that active missile seekers are not a thing in DCS or, at least, they are not common to every missile. Old viewers of this channel may remember the test I made in early 2021 that showed how active seekers do not work with the AIM-54 Phoenix in PSTT.
As you can see, each missile goes for its intended target. Although the AIM-54A is very outdated compared to modern missiles, such as the AIM-54C, the AIM-120 and so on, which have advanced avionics and INS on board, the 54A just goes.
This problem matters as this issue makes the Phoenix capable of being launched in a sort of semi-TWS, launch-and-leave mode that ignores everything but its original target. In reality, this should not be the case. This is another example of the disparities between similar types of weapons.
Since the missile is active off the rail, the Phoenix should merrily home in on one of the many targets. Instead, as you can see, the Phoenix passes through the wall of targets and splashes only the targets designated. Moreover, note that the turn begins when the range between the target and AIM-54 is the usual 10nm. This range seems to be hardcoded into the game.
[1.4] Missiles Manual Lofting
Goes without saying that extreme pitch angles can cause a loss of radar lock. Moreover, after a certain pitch angle, we enter into the realms of diminishing returns.
The R-27ER and its cousin, the R-27ET, are peculiar cases. The platform used in this footage is the Sukhoi Su-27.
Comparing the 27E variants to real charts, it is evident how lofting makes the performance go, literally, off the charts.
*badum tss*
From a certain point of view, this makes sense. From another, apparently, either manual loft is a secret well-kept on both sides of the Iron Curtain, or it simply was not the norm, as it is, instead, in DCS. In fact, besides references to the AIM-120, I could not find concrete documents about other missiles, and I have never seen a single in-cockpit video of lofted missiles. So, if you have sources, please give me a shout!
Back to lofting, the matter becomes more interesting when the in-game LAR is considered. The “LAR”, acronym for Launch Acceptability Region, is affected by several parameters such as range or altitude. The pitch angle is not one of the parameters. Which leads to the first question: if manually lofting missiles was a common tactic, wouldn’t the LAR adjust itself accordingly?
The following is an engagement with the R-27R and ER at 2000 ft. I used the extended-range variant as a reference for when to shoot, then I bypassed the restrictions and shot much earlier. I was not interested in hitting the target; instead, I wanted to observe the kinematics characteristics of the missiles.
The first is R-27, and R-27ER are launched, levelled, and beyond LAR. In fact, I had to override the launch authorisation. The last is a lofted R-27ER thrown whilst pitching up a 30°, with a minor delay due to the time required to put the nose up.
Let’s check the size of the LAR at this altitude. Speed-wise, I spawned at circa M1, then went full reheat and held it there. Launch speed is circa M1.15, but the V-sub-C is quite low since the transport is flying at M.6. In this situation, the maximum range of the R-27R was 16.4 km and 26 km for the R-27ER. Ergo 8.9 nm and 14 nm, respectively. I launched the missiles at a range of circa 20 nm or 37 km.
I think the video speaks for itself. Although firing three missiles is not ground for a proper study, it allowed me to provide a more effective and easily understandable visualisation of the situation. It gets even more interesting if we mark when each missile fell below M.7, which is usually the bare minimum for them to manoeuvre in DCS, although it varies missile by missile.
To further clarify, in theory, neither the 27R nor the 27ER should have reached the target. The last missile launched arrived first, whilst the others dropped like bricks when the battery died. Not only that, the successful R-27ER impacted the transport aircraft at a speed of M.80. Which is not much, by all means, but when an impossibility materialises, I take whatever comes.
Speaking of battery, the ER that won the day still have circa 10 seconds of juice left, so I could have launched even farther.
I also employed an R-27ER against a transport at 80nm. As we know, the battery life is too short for it to be effective. However, the missile definitely has the energy and the correct characteristics to get there. I also threw a couple of AIM-54s for fun, more or less with similar parameters. These are the values collected.
The Phoenix data are straightforward. The R-27s need a bit of explanation. The first column is the missile speed when the battery dies. When this happens, the missile goes stupid and starts falling following a ballistic trajectory. I then recorded the speed and time values when the missile fell through the target’s altitude of 35,000 ft. As you can see, it has all the energy in the world to be a huge threat, greater than the Phoenix in some cases, as it arrives circa 30 seconds earlier. The only variables preventing the R-27ER from being the ultimate long-range threat are the abysmal state of most RWRs and the battery life.
Note that I am not directly comparing the R-27 and the AIM-54. I mentioned it to help communicate how manual loft enhances the characteristics of the “Alamo”. Put it this way, pitching up is like placing a huge engine in a utilitarian car. It is now faster, but the engine is not sufficient to make it a sports car. Breaks, aerodynamic design and much more are designed for a different purpose.
Before moving to the next point, there is a considerable problem with tangible effects on missile employment. What most people miss, especially ab initio players, is how important the pitch angle is in DCS. Lofting significantly affects performance, but so does its opposite. Pitching down, even slightly, introduces a non-ignorable handicap to missiles, something I measured in the past in one of the many missile studies.
I ran a quick test and, over a distance of circa 30 nm against a hot transport, the difference between a levelled and a -4° pitch is not meaningful time-wise. However, the “levelled” missiles arrived with circa 7-8% more energy. This is a minor difference, but over longer distances, against manoeuvring targets and greater negative pitch angles, the difference can become much broader, and signify the difference between a successful hit and a thrashed missile.
To wrap up this discussion, I would love to understand whether manually lofting a missile is a “theoretically possible” action or a common practice. I find it a bit odd that a missile can be lofted while pulling 10Gs or inverted and pulling negative 4Gs, and there is no impact on guidance, separation, their navigation logic, or anything else.
Radars are also a non-factor, as they nonchalantly guide until impact or the battery runs out. Missiles go 50% or even 200% farther, and that’s it, really.
So, if you have sources about this topic, please drop me a line in the comments below.
[1.5] F/A-18’s RWR – Complete intercept
I have not touched the Hornet as a pilot in probably 2-3 years and did not put much effort into the intercept. It’s very easy, even when playing casually.
The first step is to put the radar on standby, figure out why the Baro doesn’t kick in, and, once sorted, crack on with the intercept. By monitoring the RWR, the pilot can observe how the drift behaves. The variables required are the rate and direction of the drift.
Minor drift means hotter geometry or long range. Also, the bearing on the RWR equals the antenna train angle, which tells the pilot where to look to spot the target. As long as your monitor is clean… and you’ll see why later.
Here is me embarrassingly getting distracted and drifting as I was looking for an ADI or something to check when “steadied up”. Smarter players would have look at this in advance.
After this embarrassing demonstration of ineptitude, let’s go back to the AN/ALR-67.
Finally, we observe a slight drift towards the fighter’s left. This tells us immediately which side is hot and which one is cold, and the general location of CATA, or Collision Antenna Train Angle. If the target is drifting left, it means that the intercept is getting colder on the right side of the display. If we want to establish a Collision Course, we have to make the intercept hotter by turning into the target.
Note that I am still referring to “sides”, although this is no B-scope radar display. Thinking about it, the RWR resembles some sort of extended PPI. A 360° TID, if you are familiar with the Tomcat.
Since I have a bit of time to fill, let me throw some theory at you. Let’s start with a god’s-eye view of the process. The idea is nailing the Collision Course. When done, the angles won’t change, and there is no drift. Then I wait until I see the target and turn to settle next to it.
If the direction of the drift changes, the target may be manoeuvring, the closure rate is increasing or decreasing, or the last correction put us beyond the Collision Antenna Train angle. If the reason is the last mentioned, then the intercept has become too hot. Ergo, the Target Aspect is going down, or the Aspect Angle is going up. In our situation, since we know nothing about the target’s flight parameters, we want to establish a Collision Course. Since CC captures the aspect whilst the Lateral Separation decreases, we can hold it until tally. Then, either follow one of the usual Displacement Turns into a Counterturn for the target’s rear quarter or, as I prefer, aim for a zero-cut before letting the target drift and perform a counterturn starting easy into standard or hard depending on the case.
By placing the target on the nose, the relative bearing, aka the Antenna Train Angle, becomes zero. The concern here was that the target performed one or multiple manoeuvres, and “zeroing” on the target immediately shows the intercept drift ratio and its direction.
An alternative to the Collision Course is Pure Pursuit. This familiar method places the target on the nose and holds it there. Albeit useful during the last phase of a stern conversion and on several other occasions, Pure Pursuit is not a great choice here. The bogey, in fact, will either tend to drift away or prevent the creation of meaningful Lateral Separation. Also, if the Hornet drifts so much that it is not illuminated anymore, there will be no returns on the RWR.
Fun fact, since the Hornet’s RWR is so precise, an RWS radar sweep allows the pilot to have a general idea of the contacts’ aspect, precisely depending on whether they appear or not on the display.
We are now circa halfway through this interception. I am conflicted between the impulse to throw more theory in your general direction or adding random stuff. OK, I hear you, no more theory. So… enjoy this brief footage of my setup. I turned it on specifically to record this video. Besides a couple of similar occasions, I last used it perhaps four years ago or even more.
OK, back to business. Sort of. The reason I decided to include the entire 100+ nautical miles intercept is to demonstrate that there is no trick behind this recording, and even while literally falling asleep, it takes no effort to make it work. Imagine what a normal virtual pilot could do!
It is worth reiterating that the point of showing the absurdity of this radar warning receiver is to demonstrate the absurd level of SA it provides. All it takes is checking it until something moves. The radar is nowhere near as efficient!
Spoiler alert, still circa 4 minutes to reach the end of the intercept, and then we can finally check TacView.
So, whilst we wait, here is a view of the same RWR model, the AN/ALR-67 mounted in the later F-14A and F-14B.
I forced the same aircraft shown in this example to spawn, and, as you can see, it is nowhere near as simple. If a pixel moving is sufficient for the Hornet to build Situational Awareness, the Tomcat’s crew simply cannot do that.
What about other aeroplanes? This is the F-4E’s RWR, the AN/ALR-46.
Another example, the F-15C from Flaming Cliff 3. I am not entirely sure this RWR has changed since LOMAC, and as you can see, it works exactly as the F/A-18C.
However, in a chat with someone at Eagle Dynamics, I have been reminded that the SPO-10 of the Mi-24 Hind uses a vastly more advanced technology, and the upcoming SPO-15 MiG-29 9.12A, will further improve it. This is the type of news I am always happy to hear from ED.
In this mission, not only did I randomise tracks and manoeuvres, but I also assigned different altitudes to the four potential bogeys. I used intervals of 1000 ft, nothing crazy, but it’s enough to force me to look around.
Thirty seconds before tally, the bogey is already visible, but I did not spot it whilst recording.
No tally so far, so I reverted to the RWR. Its uber-precision provided a good tool to eyeball the drift ratio and have an idea of the range and the geometry. The fact that the bogey illuminated my fighter meant that there was a limited arc of values that Cut and HCA could have assumed.
If the target disappeared, it meant that the geometry setup was approaching the beam. In such a case, I would have executed a hard left turn, gate, and monitored the RWR whilst scanning outside.
The Displacement into Counterturn and other similar techniques are straightforward to execute once the distance and aspect and eyeballed. The Antenna Train Angle is provided by the RWR instead.
To complete the manoeuvre properly, the fighter should have a speed advantage. Something I remembered only during the turn. There are several rules of thumb to ascertain that, but generally speaking, it is quite simple to adapt to each situation.
I was early in too hard on the turn, and I had to ease off. Don’t be afraid to correct: committing and fixating on an erroneous manoeuvre does not help you. Someone once said, “Sapientis est mutare consilium”, which means, “it is for the wise person to change his mind”. Or, as someone from this millennium would say, “You absolute nob head! You fucked it up, now you fix it”.
And this concludes the intercept. It is somehow absurd to think that it all started and continued following that single pixel-size movement of the bogey on the Radar Warning Receiver more than 100 nautical miles away. So, tell me, is this a banal realism issue or an excessive simplification that significantly impacts the overall gameplay? Because remember: this is not a standard feature of every module.
It is always fascinating to see the action from the TacView perspective. The various manoeuvres that seemed random acquire a new meaning, showing how the F/A-18 corrected as the bogey turned.
There is not a lot to say about this action: I was late in almost every turn, but this was more or less intentional, to demonstrate the significant advantage that such an RWR implementation provides to players who fly the Hornet and all those modules affected by similar issues.
I’ll be honest. I find the action post tally oddly satisfying. The displacement turn started at circa 10 nm, target aspect 30L, for a total lateral separation of 30,000 ft. A quarter too tight compared to the training books, but sufficient. It’s a bit of a shame I pulled too hard initially, otherwise I would have drawn a perfect, smooth and soft conversion turn.
2. Realism is Not Fun
It is surprising how often I see this comment in various DCS communities. Anyone should immediately recognise that it is silly, because enjoying something is an exquisitely personal preference. However, I have an interesting anecdote involving the topic here discussed. Notwithstanding, once again, that we are talking about personal preferences, and the only correct approach is to agree, or to agree to disagree.
I was playing with a very casual group as a RIO, as usual, back in 2020. We go up, follow our flight plan, I see some hostile aircraft, shoot here and there and recover. Another flight, F-16s perhaps, was tasked to open a path for a strike flight. They rush in, do not spend time building situational awareness, get hooked by the AI, yes, quite impressive, and get shot down. Here things get interesting: on my side, we had limited resources remaining, and the strike package was now faced with the perspective of having to fight their way out of there. This is one of the few occasions in a casual PvE setting where something unexpected happens, and the adrenaline starts pumping. But no, the players wrecked earlier respawn, come back in full burner and full of new missiles. As expected, the remaining hostiles are taken down by the usual bluefor “spamraam” tactic, even committing and targeting on what we were already managing, thus wasting everyone’s missiles.
When I wrote my debrief, the only one doing it as far as I remember, I was a bit annoyed. The Tomcats did their job and came back alive, but that was not the point. Instead, the action of a full flight respawning drastically affected the strike aircraft’s chances of enjoying a potentially challenging but extremely fun situation. Low on fuel and air-to-air ordnance, but light after dropping their bombs, they would have had to manage their resources carefully and cooperate to get out of there in one piece. Instead, they returned to their task of ferrying bombs from point A to point B.
This is one of the cases where a realistic approach, even in a casual mission, would have benefitted everyone. I understand respawning due to technical reasons, lag, or even during the departure, but not more than one hour into the mission. The muppets that went in head down with no awareness would have learnt a bitter lesson, something that would have stayed with them for longer, due to how bad it hit. It would have been an occasion to become better players. The strikers would have encountered a new, challenging situation. Heck, I would have paid to be one of them. If they made it, they would have remembered that mission. Instead, a combination of a lack of realism and a “me first” attitude took away what I am convinced would have been a really special experience.
I guess the point I am trying to make here is that realism is not an “all or nothing”. It does not only apply to the technical aspects of the simulator, weapons, ordnance, procedures, communication, planning, et cetera. Sometimes, instead, it is just something as little as allowing or disallowing players to respawn. Ergo, “realism is not fun” is a sentence that does not and will never mean much, as it encompasses too many varieties of play style.
In this specific example, we can argue that a lack of even minimal realism has negatively impacted my experience. For the players who respawned, the mission was already too realistic as it was. So, who is right in this case? Both and no one at the same time.
3. DCS is NOT a Job!
If this comment weren’t so common, I would have skipped this topic. By saying that “xyz is not a job”, people want to dismiss and discredit how you spend time in the hobby you love. I don’t really know why, in this day and age, we have to discuss this, since the adage “de gustibus” was coined centuries ago, but here we are. “DCS is not a job” pops almost daily in my feed, comments, and communities. I suppose it is a way to mask insecurity and a sense of inferiority, I guess? Or perhaps just laziness or lack of understanding. I have honestly no clue where the idea that nothing sans jobs can require effort. According to this silly logic, you can’t even hit the gym unless you are a professional sports player or a bouncer, I guess? Hey, how dare you put effort into something that does not pay you!!
Actually, now that I think about it, perhaps hobbies are jobs, but they pay in endorphins and personal satisfaction.
There are plenty of examples of how effort in a hobby leads to gratification. I picked two: one about DCS and the other totally unrelated.
The DCS-related example is straightforward. Just look back at the first point addressed in the video and the number of details related to geometry, avionics, and so on that I discussed. The thing is, DCS is a great, almost unlimited source of hits on things to study: how does a jet engine work? What is the bypass ratio in a turbofan? What are the pros and cons of certain types of wings? Why is a jamming device effective even if vastly less powerful than a radar? How do real pilots create situational awareness? How do multicrews smoothly operate together? The list is infinite, but I love opening a book, reading, studying, and sharing my thoughts. It is not a job, although it is money and time-consuming, and I would love for this to become a sustainable hobby. So, shoutout to the incredible lads, lassies, and everything in-between that support me via Patreon and other means, or even drop a line in the comments, as they feed the algorithm.
Back to us, circa 20 years ago, I used to play airsoft. I decided to get a bolt-action replica. Compared to a normal battery-powered replica, it is very silent, but the rate of fire is only as fast as you can make it. So, being a bit more stealthy helps a lot, especially when, by law, the kinetic energy limit of airsoft replicas is 1 joule, or 100 m/s for a 200 mg pellet (½ m v²). So, I made a ghillie suit by dying Yuta bags I manually tore apart. Then I sewed a scrim net onto an old woodland camo jacket, and attached the now coloured Yuta. Since most of our playfield was woods with rare openings, I had to trim down several parts from the first version, as I kept getting stuck and making a ton of noise. I eventually removed the lower part altogether. To compensate, I left ad hoc attach points for the local vegetation depending on the season we were in.
Now, the final result is laughable, but it worked. On more than one occasion, the “enemy” patrol walked a meter or two from my position and never noticed me. More importantly, I had a ton of fun making it. It took time and effort. It’s definitely not a job. So what?
To wrap this up, the reason why it is often worth reading and adapting real-life techniques to games, including airsoft, is that they work. Think about communications: is blocking a radio channel to describe a situation better than using a single-word brevity? Why would you wear a camo suit when playing airsoft rather than bright colours? Perhaps, just sometimes, reading a book or working to improve something is better than reinventing the wheel. All, at a cost of a bit of effort.
4. Realism Costs Too Much
Although we can argue that this post, which caught my attention in the comment section of the recent MiG-29 video, was made with a good chunk of sarcasm, it raises an interesting question. Is aiming for realism expensive? The answer is probably yes. War Thunder premium vehicles cost more than DCS’ but are de facto reskins of the same thing. Minimum effort, maximum gain.
If we are talking about DCS, instead, things change. Realism and Revenue are not mutually exclusive. Since I do not have access to the financial sales data, I will assume, as a hypothesis, that a popular, recommended module sells better than a heavily criticised one. Let’s take the SA342 “Gazelle” as an example. When released, several real pilots and enthusiasts were sceptical about its flight model. In fact, I recall being able to fly upside down for prolonged periods, and it is a shame I did not record it.
Using Steam reviews as a metric, which should be taken with a grain of salt, of course, we find that the SA-342 sits at a Mixed score, with 65% positive reviews.
Let’s now check some of the most detailed and realistic modules in DCS: Viggen, Tomcat and Phantom II. Unfortunately, RAZBAM’s modules are not present in Steam anymore. I checked with the Wayback Machine but could not find the reviews:
- The AJS-37 Viggen has 92% positive reviews.
- The F-14A/B Tomcat has 89% positive reviews. It received some negative feedback due to the false positive issues with some antivirus heuristics. Because, of course, checking the official sources for a solution before leaving a negative review is overrated /s
- The Phantom II has only 83% positive reviews. The F-4E is the best module in DCS for fidelity, details, flight model, and avionics. The main reason for the negative review is the cost performance-wise, which is odd since, at least on my potato PC, the only difference is the slightly longer loading times. I guess one day I will make a video about hardware and why I have never had issues with DCS.
- Many other modules, from the Hornet to the Falcon, have great reviews as well.
- Unfortunately, I could not check the reviews for VEAO’s Hawk…
Since my background is in IT, I have an idea or two about how the effects of adding features aimed at improving realism can be satisfied. For instance, by writing an efficient, scalable and flexible codebase that can be adapted to different modules. Heatblur stated that they are moving in such a direction, and Eagle Dynamics is doing something similar as well with their new Radar Warning Receiver technology. Speaking about the latter, it was deployed firstly with the Mi-24 Hind, and it is part of the MiG-29 9.12A package of features.
Conclusions
Since I recapped the points raised and the goal of this video right at the beginning, there is not much else to say besides a final personal note.
Where does love for realism come from? There are two main reasons, in my opinion. The first is seeing the game as a gateway to discover technology, science, history, geopolitics, and more. Since the more you know, the more you know that you don’t know, the quest for understanding quickly spirals out of control. It’s like never leaving the Valley of Despair, pretty much. Sobering and exciting at the same time, I suppose.
The second is the immersion. When any other game about aviation is played or a film for a wide audience is watched, the protagonist is almost always the pilot. If you are lucky, you get a GiB, and then you kill him or cause him PTSD.
More seriously, the fighter pilot who plays the protagonist is only the tip of the iceberg. Behind the pilot pulling the trigger, there are other members of the team: the lads and lassies who maintain, refuel, and load the aircraft. Controllers, like an AWACS, or EW assets, such as a Tornado ECR or an EA-6 Prowler, play an impalpable and hidden yet dramatic role in a mission. You almost never see them. Pilots and crews themselves spend long hours planning and preparing. An old US Navy training document mentioned two hours of planning per hour of flight time. Then there is the most important part: the debriefing. You never see this either.
So, you may be wondering, is this just the desire of being a copy-paste of a pilot? No, not really.
It is hard to put into words, especially for a non-native speaker, but the moment you want to recreate something just slightly closer to reality than the banal “departure, spamraam and land” series, planning becomes exponentially more complex, and an unexpected quantity of aspects should be considered. This gives a purpose to the mission, a perceivable weight, and you care more about your virtual life. The time invested has made the whole effort more meaningful and, along with it, makes the adrenaline running and the satisfaction of playing vastly higher. In other words, if you screw up, you don’t just respawn, but you have wasted a lot of time. For this reason, even the often skipped debriefing becomes extremely important, because it is in the defeat and failure that lessons are really learnt. Certainly, this is not the type of gameplay everyone enjoys, and being able to approach the game differently is one of the most beautiful aspects of DCS.
For example, take the bread and butter of many strike aircraft of the mid-to-late Cold War: low-level. It is not particularly complicated, but it skyrockets the planning requirements compared to the usual casual mission. On top of that, you should account for all the other connected assets: other elements of the package, tankers, AWACS, EW assets. You cannot just throw them in; the whole effort requires at least a minimum of coordination. Once all this work is done, more or less, you finally go up and… DCS reminds you of its issue by having a player on a Mirage F1 shoot you down because their Flaming Cliff-level radar placeholder sometimes gives them lookdown-shootdown capabilities even when the target is hugging the trees. This leaves a bitter taste in your mouth. The problem is not being jumped on; it’s the bug, the exploit, or simply the different quality or stage of development that condemns you.
There are many other examples: when you launch an AIM-54 to a MiG-21 at 50 nm and the AI… notches? Wait, with all probability, the SPO-10 shouldn’t even be able to spot the missile. The same happens with the AIM-120 or other missiles. The problem is not having a missile thrashed. The problem is “how.”
When flying in the Phantom, I don’t mind being shot down by CW-guided missiles not detected by the RWR. The blame is on me for having built poor situational awareness, and congratulations go to the player who capitalised on my situation.
After 22 years and counting playing DCS, if we include LOMAC, these sudden spikes of unrealism tend to become quite an immersion-breaking nuisance.
After all that was said, does realism matter in DCS? Yes. Is it a problem? No. Paraphrasing Machiavelli, if devs aim high towards realism, no matter what happens, the result should still fall into that “believable behaviour” sweet spot that is key to the DCS experience. If the devs aim lower and miss the mark, the result can be as bad as a Gazelle flying upside down with the rotor disc two centimetres from the ground.
At the end of the day, realism does not mean reality. As long as the game falls into the mentioned sweet spot and maintains this level across the modules, I am sure everyone would agree that this is quite fine.
Lastly, I am aware I have thrown some low blows at the devs here and there. I tried to make the situation funny because this is not an essay; it’s a long and boring series of thoughts. There is nothing personal at all, and I would love to see whether my points are correct or not in your opinion, and what I have missed. If there are problems, I look forward to seeing them discussed and sorted. I will then make videos dedicated to the matter, like I did in the past for the AI reaction to SAM threats.
But what do you think, dear esteemed viewers who are probably not subscribed yet? Have I succeeded in making my point clearer with this extremely long video? Otherwise, I can carry on longer!
FlyAndWire 