Leaderboard

Wouldn't it be great if we had an AK47 inside the cockpit and after running out of missiles, rockets and cannon, open the doors and shoot all those little people with it? We could also get out and continue fighting old fashioned FPS style. This could come in handy if the chopper is badly damaged, player manages to land somehow and bunch of terrorists are advancing towards him, he digs in, and takes them out one by one untill say, SAR chopper comes to the rescue. If AK47 is too big to carry, then Makarov should do just fine..I don't know..what do you guys think?

Со своего десктопа сервер свой виден? Зайди на него, и он должен стать виден в мире. Или что-то не так делаешь.

At the risk of abusing the subject, I am often seen posting about the limitations of developer resources and the degree to which they define the development realities of a flight sim studio versus the expectations of flight sim enthusiasts. Although my own experience generally revolves around Eagle Dynamics, the article below describes the "behind the scenes" struggle leading up to the cancellation of Jane's A-10 Warthog. It's a goldmine of insight into some of the reasons why modern air combat simulators have all but vanished from the PC games market. It is information which, I believe, every flight simmer should read and digest, because it is in light of this kind of reality that I've come to appreciate the work of developers and hope more community members can as well. The article demonstrates the impact that individual programmers can have on the entire project, the marketing calculations that determine development course, the ever-increasing complexity and cost of production in light of flat or diminishing sales numbers. I would remind you also - it dates back to 1999-2000. Ten years on, the complexities of a flight simulation and our expectations have only skyrocketed since, making the oppositions outlined below all the more unbridgeable. I will quote some paragraphs that I find especially relevant, particularly in terms of ED's own experiences and decisions. However, I would encourage you to read the article in full: http://www.gamespot.com/features/pcgraveyard_janes/index.html On Human Resources: ...the idea of a "development team" can create an illusion of continuity that simply doesn't exist when tracking the personnel who worked on the Austin team's projects. Only two programmers (producer Will McBurnett and wrapper programmer Steve Muchow) actually coded the Longbow series through all its iterations. The remarkable thing about the Austin Skunkworks team was that at any given time, the team members included some of the industry's most outstanding talent. While the Austin team has been marked by turnover, the Baltimore team has remained fairly stable over that same period of time. Perhaps one of the lessons to be learned from the cancellation of A-10 is that constancy and longevity go hand in hand when working on such complex, demanding projects as military flight simulations. ... The development of A-10 became one of unchanging goals coupled with evolving means. As a source on the development team puts it, "Besides all the people coming and going, and trying to get the graphics engine nailed down, the game we were working on the last day was the same game we pitched in our design document." Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the development team. When dealing with a team as talented as the Austin Skunkworks, it was perhaps inevitable that individual team members would leave to pursue different or more lucrative projects. As a game, A-10 never changed focus. But as a development project, it was a completely different story. As work progressed, it became clear that the initial intention of using the Longbow 2 code would simply not fly. ... Furthermore, most of the Longbow 2 code had been written by people "long gone" from Origin Systems, and as work progressed it became clear that this was a significant obstacle to the game's timely completion. This problem of outdated, cryptic code permeated every aspect of the sim's development. Alex Pavloff, who was then between his junior and senior years at the University of Houston, was hired as a summer intern on the project just as it was beginning, and shared the difficulties presented by having to reuse old programs. ... "Simply put, the mission builder was pretty lousy," says Pavloff. "The program was a Win32 GUI [graphical user interface] application written in C. If I knew then what I know now, I would have asked permission to rewrite the thing in C++ and MFC, or even in Visual Basic. The mission builder had originally been written by Tsuyoshi Kawahito, who had left Origin after Longbow 2 to go to work for Microprose on European Air War. Apparently, he was the master programmer. He'd work late, get his stuff done, but he didn't comment his code. Clark Janes, the guy who got to work on the mission builder for A-10, was constantly fixing bugs in the editor, and the real designers and I would sometimes get multiple builds in one day in an attempt to make the thing work. Sometimes, however, the missions that we had made wouldn't work anymore in new versions, leading to much repetitive work in an annoying GUI." ... As such problems began to appear, it became apparent to the team that the game could not possibly meet its ship date of first quarter, 1999. There was simply too much uncommented and hard-to-follow code from Longbow 2 that had been written by people who had left the company. This code had to be changed. On Marketing Calculations and the Benefits of Independent Development: At the time that A-10 was cancelled, Origin was predicting the game would sell 40,000 copies. ... The success of Ultima Online had made Origin eager to capitalize on its success... ...In the words of Andy Hollis, "With the change of leadership at Origin, everything was looked at again in a new light." This change in priorities did not go unnoticed by the development team, as a source from the team reveals, "The first inkling I got was in September '98 when it became obvious that A-10 and Origin's online strategy did not mix. It was obvious that we had the best team in the building, and we should be doing online stuff! When we approached Lucas for the Star Wars license, that was the first step. That fell through, so [we] started to design Wing Commander Online. This was after the entire Wing Commander Prophecy team left for Bootprint. We asked for a decision to be made about A-10's future - with expectations that it would be supported, marketed, and sold well, or dropped right then - so we could work on the more important, more strategic, and much cooler Wing Commander Online. For some reason, Electronic Arts (not Origin) management said 'no.' They wanted the short-term A-10 money." ... "[The] Jane's [brand] was the darling for a while, because it went from $0 to several million, and went to number one in market share. When the Jane's stuff stopped growing, it stopped being the darling. Then Jane's World War II fighters came along, spent some serious cash, and did not sell. Microsoft stole all World War II combat sales that year [with Combat Flight Simulator]. That was the death knell for Jane's products. No one wanted to be a part of it. All the people who started it - Paul Grace, Andy Hollis, and Frank Gibeau - either left or went to different things. There was no champion at the corporate level, and the marketing guys hated it. Bye-bye." ... When the success of Ultima Online was added to the mix, there was less and less of a reason, from a business standpoint, to continue with A-10, especially at a public company like Electronic Arts whose shareholders expected continued large sales growth. Flight sims were not a growth business, it seemed. ... The new code, when compounded by the personnel changes, had conspired to delay A-10 by at least six months. In the end, time simply ran out. The game had missed several deadlines, and it was clearly not going to ship in 1999. In July of 1999, Origin pulled the plug. ... According to Andy Hollis, these talks [to revive A-10 as a product of Third Wire Productions, EB] never proceeded past the negotiation stages. As Hollis puts it, "Had it actually gone forward, it probably would have made more sense for it to happen as Longbow 3, but the reality is that combat sims are really just nonstarters as far as the sales and marketing people go." ... Simulations no longer provided a return on investment that justified their production. This didn't mean they didn't sell: Private Electronic Arts' sales numbers show that the original Longbow shipped more than 600,000 units worldwide. And, together, the five Longbow releases (Longbow, Flashpoint: Korea, Longbow Gold, Longbow 2, and Longbow Anthology) shipped more that 1.2 million copies. But the cost of production had gotten inordinately high, and returns were steadily diminishing. On Flight Simmers' Expectations and Feature-Creep: In the words of Andy Hollis, "Everybody was feature-creeping where the bar was," and expectations for new sims had simply become too high. "Building a product that would satisfy all these expectations would cost a tremendous amount of money," and the result is that "no one wants to go there." Are flight sims dead forever, then? "I'm sure sims will make a comeback," says Hollis optimistically. "If everyone leaves the field, then someone is bound to step into the void eventually." But how long flight-sim fans are going to have to wait remains an open question. We now know... [EB]. On Dynamic Campaigns ;) While the team was working on the missions, the issue of the campaign structure came up. Because they were supposed to be based on the Longbow 2 code, the campaigns would be structured in the same way. This meant that they would have the "apparently dynamic" structure that Andy Hollis referred to repeatedly in the newsgroups as "smoke and mirrors." Pavloff explains: "The campaigns in Longbow 2, while seeming dynamic to the user, in fact, really weren't. The Longbow 2 campaign editor basically involved the designers creating multiple locations for the enemy troops on each phase line, and creating multiple paths and targets, and letting a random number generator create the missions. It became obvious that the mission builder had enough problems, and the programmers were slowly getting backed up to the point where the 'dynamic' campaign was going to have to be cut." So the A-10 programmers were faced with the possibility of having a game based on the Longbow 2 engine that actually had a less variable campaign than Longbow 2. This was an example of how, as code advanced from the Longbow 2 base, certain features either had to be left behind or made to work with the changing code. And this meant investing time. The "Longbow 2 shortcut" was already proving to be a false one.

Предисловие: Мой братишка копался на форуме и наткнулся на тему, где была предложена идея к радио Р-800 подвесить трансляции радио из интернета, повесив каждую станция на свою частоту. Сегодня этот злобный карлик вытащил меня с завода (я работаю) чтоб поехать в институт набрать справок и поступить в другой. Позвонили и выяснилось, что на работе отгул взяли зря. Сидим без воды, обе (холодную, горячую) снова отключили, видать работы ведутся :) Делать было особо нечего, предложил он воплотить идею. Как оно работает: сидя в кабине вертолёта включаем радио Р-800 тыкаем барабанчик на нужную частоту и спустя немного секунд (зависит и от интернета, как долго будет соединяться с сервером радио транслиции) наслаждаемся звуками из пищалок :music_whistling: публичная версия - http://pereulok.net.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=83 icq: 307817507 skype: repeat38 p.s. в тесте используются такие радиостанции (кусок из кода, как видно можно будет легко добавить станции) ifreq = {} ifreq["127225"] = "mms://www.novoeradio.com/novoeradio" -- Радио Энерджи ifreq["127250"] = "mms://94.23.194.126/v1_1_128?st=020358700123831603720090420" --Авторадио ifreq["127275"] = "mms://94.103.92.245/v3_1_22?st=" --Шансон ifreq["127300"] = "http://83.222.4.42:8880/listen.pls" --Маяк ifreq["127575"] = "mms://stream.rfn.ru/mayak"

I would like to have female friend (or better girlfriend :D) who flies flight sims, eeh dreams, always worth to dream ;]

I contest the notion of "fighting no". Back in high school a female friend of mine played one type of game and that only - shooters. Somewhat interestingly, she once actually referred to her choice as "well, I guess it's because I'm female, all those other games just seem boring". So instead of focusing on gender I'd be more inclined on looking at those social and cultural elements that are inculcated into our children as a function of their gender - nothing intrinsic about the gender itself. Indeed, the only female friend of mine at the time that played computer games at all who was not like that preferred strategy games like Heroes of Might and Magic. So we just need to procreate and then cause both genders of our kids to play with toy aircraft when they're small. Then it's all set. :D

Ich Не совсем полное решение: Сверху над сообщениями нажать кнопку Опции темы, потом Версия для печати. На открывшейся странице нажать Показывать 40 сообщений этой темы. После этого Ctrl-a ctrl-c в txt, нажать следующую страницу, повторить до готовности :)

Great, now if there was a link...;)

Oh, it is just a bug withing the simulator code. ...but how about the needle in the steam gauge got stuck in its position due to the mechanical failure of the instrument ;) These things do happen :)

I do think that was a normal landing, I was looking at the video you posted Topol and I do not think is even close to be similar, just IMHO. I just wander what is the moment of inertia on the left main tire when it hit the ground? I wonder how heavy was the aircraft when it landed? I think at the least, they had to change the tire and check the left axle, or maybe even the right to make you it did not get bent. Now if Bob Hoover was flying, then I would consider it a normal landing :joystick:.

Question. Why on one of the cockpit screenshots we see on HUD that the flight path vector is below the horizon line - however the (steam gauge) vertical speed indicator shows the a/c is climbing? Why there is discrepancy between two instruments? Are they using independent systems for measure? Is one system lagging more then the other? http://www.simhq.com/_air13/air_425d.html

Something for Topol-M i think:

Так может у тебя не 1.0.1 а тестерский билд какой-нибудь?)

Maybe this First Person Shooter thing should then be arcade mode. In simulation mode, on the other hand, DCS: Human could be introduced: if you get wounded by bullets, you have to vet your fully simulated body. There is only little need for modification of the hydraulics engine to simulate your whole blood vessel system. :smartass:

I agree. We should also have to soak the moisture off leaves with a spounge by rapidly tapping the triangle button so we don't die of thirst and quick time events like "push X not to divulge classified information and only say only your name, rank, and serial number while being tortured".

Ну так и XP ставь из DOS - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307848/

разгонять надо до "Ой, блин, сгорело..." ))

выскакивает такое окно:что делать?Всё работает нормально виста,бейсик 32 бит

IMHO these things depend 99% on the mission-builder. ED gave us all the tools to make the simulation and the battlefield more realistic. Not perfect in every single regard, no doubt, but many things are already possible but simply not used: System failures, medium altitude SAM, working EWRs, enemy reacting to intrusion detection, attacks and leaks in the defense, calling for fixed wings to take out helos or ground-targets, units fighting units, full-scale-battles going on, etc. are all possible at least via triggers, but they are rarely used in missions. So IMHO the question is rather, how realistic we want it to be. Do we really want WW3/Fulda-Gap-Scenarios where you can hover unharmed at >5000m all mission long? Do we really want to see 90% of the airdefenses in the first row of the frontlines and the tanks waiting behind them as price once you got through? Do we really want to call missions "complex" because they are suicide due to 10.000 MANPADs, but could be easily won with a single tank-platoon just rolling over the masses of stinger-soldiers right to the target? Or do we on the other hand, really want to fall out of the sky after 40min of flight, just before the primary target, because of a random mechanical malfunction? Long story short: IMHO ED doesn't have to change much. We just need to use the tools that are already present and we must be willing to face the fact, that we will have to change the way we play this simulation or be slaughtered in masses if the battlefield becomes what it should, what it could, and what it is wanted to be, here.

*Begin Rant* People romanticize this type of thing all the time, but the reality is that while this is a simulation, it's also a game and there needs to be a balance between super-realism and game-play. Who wants to play a two-hour mission just to have their engines go down when they're five minutes away from the flight line? Sounds cool to have to worry about failures and such, but when you're in the middle of a campaign or online mission and your bird goes down through no fault or your own or the enemy's I doubt you'll sit there staring at the wreckage all starry eyed thinking, "Thank god I get to play this mission over again. I was so hoping this would happen." And that's assuming you get through a good chunk of the mission first. Let's look at what would happen if the failure happened right away: You click fly and sit through a two minute load screen depending on your computer specs and then you're sitting in a dark cockpit ready to bring it to life. You get five minutes into it and then your apu fails before you can bring your second engine online...Well crap, now what? Guess I have to hit esc, jump out of the mission (and take a failure if I'm in campaign mode which means I'll have to go back a whole stage), and then go through the whole process again. Hope it doesn't happen twice in a row, eh? ...I just don't get it. It's like those people who get all starry eyed over the Hind. How you romanticize an underpowered, underweaponed, jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none relic that should have seen its coffin years ago, I'll never understand. I guess maybe people watch too many movies where the Hind is a big-bad-killing machine that only happens to get taken down by the sheerest luck. In reality, fully loaded at altitude it could barely get off the ground without a takeoff roll...It can't even hover fully loaded...What kind of helicopter can't hover while carrying a weapons load? *End Rant*

Sea Cat? Sea Dart? I like how that's on wheels.. Very Portable, handy if another person needs to use the sports-hall, for instance for a netball class.

... i think those missiles can fire helicopters...:pilotfly:

TriggersDialog.zip

Try running as administrator, but that might not work. If not your other options are Turn of UAC (though I wouldn't recommend this) or try re-installing and placing DCS in a different sub-directory than C:\Program Files\... I place mine in C:\Games\... remember to deactivate and keep the reactivation code if you do this.

It seems this is all I ever say on these forums anymore and frankly I'm starting to sound abit like Steve Ballmer.... "Community.....Community.....Community.....Community.....Community.....Community..... WOOAAAHAHHAAHAHAHAAAAAAAA" Community is what you need in order to build and keep a player base with a co-op game. They have a very basic server browser that comes with the game, yet you can't communicate directly with people outside of directly joining the game. (which if you need help with your setup is kinda a raw deal) Some squads host ventrilo and teamspeak servers, yet upon joining is like the first day at a new school, you don't know what the expect and the people in there already have pre-existing friendships, making the new guy the awkward man out. Lack of defualt MP missions that come with the game doesn't help things much, nor does the editor facilitate quick construction of missions. As a whole the multiplayer needs to be more of a "game." We need someway to define if we accomplished something, not a personal goal of not crashing the chopper, but a mission goal. What I think it needs. -In game info and briefing (See ARMA) -Updated in game objectives users can understand and see (Again See ARMA) -GAMEMODES! Establish a defined set of rules for a gamemode and build missions around that idea where your team success is easily quanitative and obvious. -Multiplayer lobby with chat, friends, direct voice, private messaging (hyperlobby replacement) -Server wide VOIP would be pretty awesome, but if thats not possible, what about peer-to-peer voip? (as connected through the game lobby) Mission Editor needs... -None GUI Simulation Used for testing AI in missions. It simulates at accelerated speed and feedsback detailed information and records the data for later analytical usage. Perhaps once its done you "simulate" it 10 times to find out the reliability of an AI group. If they destroy their target 9 out of 10 times like they are supposed to then you can move on, if they fail half the time you know something needs fixed. - and alot of stuff Panzertard said. Maybe someday I'll give it a go at the BS Mission Editor and see what sort of ideas I can come up with, but right now I'm having way to much fun in the Source SDK to care.

After seeing what the community can do with the limitations of the current system (like the AdA mod) I'd like to see what would come out of a more open architecture. Of course you are free to choose the mods you use and who you play with online...just like now.