Anyone ever heard of the Grognard effect?

[Sharrow 107]

ExtremeTech had an interesting article a few days ago about the Grognard effect and its relationship with Flight Sim here.

It seems obvious to say that the relentless pursuit of the ultimate in realism is what we "hardcore" simmers desire above just about everything else. I will be the first to admit here that I do not see myself being "satisfied" with the level of realism inside the FS world anytime soon. 5m Germany mesh, VFR Germany, German Airports & Airfields and German Landmarks all sprinkled with some FSX-SHD notwithstanding. Don't get me wrong, it all looks pretty fantastic BUT at the same time there is a long way yet to go.

But is all this demand for realism indeed making it impossible for the flight sim industry, as it currently stands, to grow in the long term? If so, then is this not a case of us hardcore/veteran simmers having in effect signed our very own death warrant?

Perhaps we will one day see two very distinct versions of otherwise the same flight simulator. One lite/live version using the "apple i-whatever" model for addons and more features (on both desktop and consoles); and the other a Pro (desktop only?) version where you tinker and add whatever you like but with the caveat of doing your own support, sourcing your own weather, navigation data and whetever else you may need. Obviously addon development should be identical for both versions, just in the Pro version you can have many more options and higher resolution textures and you get to run what you own offline, on VATSIM or wherever...

Konrad

[Snave 466]

Never heard of it, assume it's some made-up excuse for the weak of character, depleted of mind or diminished of intellectual capacity to use as an excuse.

There is simply not one shred of evidence that requiring increasing complication causes anything other than growth and potential. After all, how many of us wind up the windows of our cars with a manual handle? Would you say the car driving experience is depleted or diminished by the absence of rotational handles? When was the last time you played a game with wireframe graphics?

It's another facile argument from someone who simply likes the sound of their own voice. It's simply the fact that, as the compexity increases, the talent pool capable of delivering to that level of complexity reduces in size.

As for gaming, aside from non-sensical decisions by large corporation, it's mostly Darwinism at work, and the weak fall by the wayside.

As for the flight simulation argument in general, surely this is the most straightforward proof possible that the theory (if that is what it is) is total b*ll**s..?

[DogTailRed2 0]

Maybe this is similar to Coles Law?

[Snave 466]

What, you mean it's shredded raw cabbage..?

Oh wait, that's coleslaw...

[Seadog 2]

Since the link in the OP's post doesn't work for me, I searched Extreme Tech for Grognard, and found two text references, both authored by Loyd Case.

In the earlier, http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,1965505,00.asp, he writes

There's one last problem with pitching to enthusiasts: the grognard effect.

The term grognard originally referred to loyal veterans of Napoleon's armies who had earned the right to complain. Loosely translated, grognard means "grumbler." The term was later applied to wargamers who were extremely picky about perceived lack of realism and historical accuracy in board wargames, and were quite vocal about it.

In the more recent, http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2340598,00.asp, it states

For those of you who don't know, grognard is derived from the French word for "grumbler." In the war games world, grognard can be either a compliment (for an experienced, veteran gamer) or a pejorative (remember: "grumbler"). On the pejorative side, grognards tend to complain about lack of realism and, perhaps worse, realistic minutiae.

The problem is that focusing on grognards can kill a genre. Board war games in the classical sense have become a tiny fraction of the overall board gaming market. As the European style of board games took off, the old style Avalon Hill games have become a tiny niche.

The same thing essentially happened to the flight sim market. As the veteran flight simmers clamored for more realism, the developers delivered that realism—and the genre became stale and dry. Because of that, existing developers have carved out a small niche, but one that's not growing with the industry.

One recent side effect of this was Microsoft's decision to kill the ACES studio, which has been responsible for the Microsoft Flight Simulator sales. As with more combat oriented sims, Flight Simulator generated steady sales, but wasn't growing much.

My French-English dictionary supports the definition and derivation.

I can't support the conclusions drawn by the author because I think the premise is false. I think Aces put a great deal of effort into aspects of FSX that appealed not to the purists, but to new entrants (See, the Living World and Missions topics in the Learning Center). I even found FS9 more approachable to casual simmers and viffers (nice word you coined, Simon ) than predecessor versions.

-Doug

[Snave 466]

Yes, and FSX - for all its complexities - added features that specifically invite new and beginner users. To add those features was adding complication. Surely no-one could be naive enough to believe they don't improve the experience for the less-experienced?

I certainly didnt ask for air racing, or hoistable objects, or missions with goals. But I know of many inexperienced simmers and first-time buyers who have used these tools to take the first step on what is a very long ladder. Good for them!

So the whole premise of complex = stale is false. The continued development of the FS genre- right up to the Night of the Long Knives - is proof of that.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

ExtremeTech had an interesting article a few days ago about the Grognard effect and its relationship with Flight Sim here.

It seems obvious to say that the relentless pursuit of the ultimate in realism is what we "hardcore" simmers desire above just about everything else. I will be the first to admit here that I do not see myself being "satisfied" with the level of realism inside the FS world anytime soon. 5m Germany mesh, VFR Germany, German Airports & Airfields and German Landmarks all sprinkled with some FSX-SHD notwithstanding. Don't get me wrong, it all looks pretty fantastic BUT at the same time there is a long way yet to go.

But is all this demand for realism indeed making it impossible for the flight sim industry, as it currently stands, to grow in the long term? If so, then is this not a case of us hardcore/veteran simmers having in effect signed our very own death warrant?

Perhaps we will one day see two very distinct versions of otherwise the same flight simulator. One lite/live version using the "apple i-whatever" model for addons and more features (on both desktop and consoles); and the other a Pro (desktop only?) version where you tinker and add whatever you like but with the caveat of doing your own support, sourcing your own weather, navigation data and whetever else you may need. Obviously addon development should be identical for both versions, just in the Pro version you can have many more options and higher resolution textures and you get to run what you own offline, on VATSIM or wherever...

Konrad

The effect has been a problem for at least 5 years. As we increase realism we loose customers at the lower end and got problems picking them up at all. At the same time development costs explode and support demands are growing whie the prices for the products got to be lower to sell them. (and yet we grew 400% in that same period!)

Personally I am not a huge fan of realism. I believe we should make the products the way customers believe they should be. There is a big difference between actual realism and what customers feel is realistic. How many of our customers have flown a Seahawk, F-16, B747-400 or even less likely a Catalina? How many know how an airport looks like from the cockpit of an airliner? Take your laptop to the airport and compare the most awarded engine sounds in FSX to the real thing. The version in FS will almost always be more impressive, 'bigger'. That's because when we put a real recording in the sim customers will call it thin. In the same way whole models of buildings and aircraft are tweaked. If 99% of our focuss/test groups felt the F-16 should be more pointy while we knew the model was correct we would make it more pointy.

We often do these small tests. Model a few B747s and let them see our customers. They always pick the one with rhe biggest hump on it's back. That's what a B747 is for them, an Airbus with a hump. Let customers hear sounds we do for the Huey helcopter and they will always pick the one with the loudest whoop-whoop sound in it. Because that's how a Huey should sound for them.

[Robert S 75]

"What, you mean it's shredded raw cabbage..?

Oh wait, that's coleslaw... "

LOL!

[Sharrow 107]

So then, we are left with some conflicting views here...

Simon, I think that it is too easy to just dismiss the article, the author, the name of the effect, ExtremeTech, whatever. Dismissing it, however, leaves us no closer to understanding the issue which according to Mathijs (and myself) does seem have some merit to it.

This is not about the noob friendly features of FS9 or FSX. These are the things which make it a game and they are all vital inclusions. What the issue is about is the fact that this drive for ever increasing levels of realism is forcing developers to spend ever increasing amounts of time and money and support delivering these high levels of realism, all for a very small percentage of the FS market. All this extra work "at the high end" is done at the expense of other things. Case in point is FSX itself which is all about adding more realism through much higher polygon counts and higher res textures for just about everything. Higher resolution = higher levels of realism. If MS had not concentrated so much effort on upping the realism with FSX they would clearly have had much more time to address other issues - like proper multi-core support to mention just one. This is obviously a simplified example but nevertheless I feel it is an accurate one.

But where has this left us? To this very day FS9 is ahead of FSX on Amazon's PC game best seller list. The majority of simmers worldwide are still using FS9. Something is obviously wrong here guys - Grognard or Coleslaw or whatever you want to call it...

Konrad

[warbird861 0]

What, you mean it's shredded raw cabbage..?

Oh wait, that's coleslaw...

[Farlis 155]

The effect has been a problem for at least 5 years. As we increase realism we loose customers at the lower end and got problems picking them up at all. At the same time development costs explode and support demands are growing whie the prices for the products got to be lower to sell them. (and yet we grew 400% in that same period!)

Personally I am not a huge fan of realism. I believe we should make the products the way customers believe they should be. There is a big difference between actual realism and what customers feel is realistic. How many of our customers have flown a Seahawk, F-16, B747-400 or even less likely a Catalina? How many know how an airport looks like from the cockpit of an airliner? Take your laptop to the airport and compare the most awarded engine sounds in FSX to the real thing. The version in FS will almost always be more impressive, 'bigger'. That's because when we put a real recording in the sim customers will call it thin. In the same way whole models of buildings and aircraft are tweaked. If 99% of our focuss/test groups felt the F-16 should be more pointy while we knew the model was correct we would make it more pointy.

We often do these small tests. Model a few B747s and let them see our customers. They always pick the one with rhe biggest hump on it's back. That's what a B747 is for them, an Airbus with a hump. Let customers hear sounds we do for the Huey helcopter and they will always pick the one with the loudest whoop-whoop sound in it. Because that's how a Huey should sound for them.

I am at the exact opposite side of opinion. I love realism. I don't care what the average simmer thinks is right. Right is what is correct. So if you don't hear the engines from the cockpit in a 767 then I don't want to hear them when I fly a simulated one.

After all that's what this is all about: Simulation.

And simulation is not approximation. It should only be when it is technically impossible to get closer to reality.

[Snave 466]

I see merit in both arguments, but I don't see, believe or have ever seen any evidence whatsoever that the sophistication of the product is more of a turn-off than a turn-on. For sure positioning of a product in the overall marketplace is important, but the `sophisticated` failures seem, in the main, too have come from products which were mistakenly (or deliberately) marketed as `sophisticated` only to have their faults and deficiencies highlighted.

The fact is that making something simple is not the same as making it `real`. And is simply a reflection of the qualitative level of complexity of the product being simulated. Those who choose - and it is a choice for a developer, not an imposition - to develop for the sophisticated market simply have to make sure their products are what they say they are, or else expect the faults and failures, weaknesses and substandard elements to be highlighted.

[Sharrow 107]

I see merit in both arguments, but I don't see, believe or have ever seen any evidence whatsoever that the sophistication of the product is more of a turn-off than a turn-on.

I suspect that finding specific evidence to support this topic would be a bit difficult. There is no obvious cause and effect one can point to, it is more an amalgamation of various things which, when added up, all contribute to making FSX a bit of a mind (and hardware) bender.

Over and above aviation in general which is complicated enough all by itself we then also have FSX for which one needs a "lite" degree in computer science to get running right, especially once you start piling on the addons. Furthermore few people really understand or appreciate the staggering amount of work which needs to be done to simulate great swathes of the world, all seen from the VC of something like the MD-11 or even the Do-27. We should all bow down in front of our PC's chanting that we're not worthy!

I also think that as veteran/hardcore simmers we tend to seriously underestimate just how much information we have absorbed over the years and from this position it becomes hard to appreciate just how complicated this "hobby" really is for those just starting out.

Konrad