robmypro

I find it a bit surprising that some are claiming this project would be so massive that it couldn't be done, yet we somehow expect one company to build everything alone, as they do now? How much better would an F-16, or an A-10 be if the company could focus almost exclusively on that part and only that part of the sim? I think the effort for each company would drop considerably once you got past the initial stage. I think where you are getting hung up is thinking there would be one massive sim that somehow allows for the creation of air, naval, infantry, etc. That's not what I am proposing. In my view, we'd do several things: 1. Unify the environments using a common terrain file. There would be different levels of detail. 2. Build a communication layer between sims so actions that occur in one sim impact (potentially) the environment of another. If I drop a bomb in my F-16 as I fly over a tank or infantry, I will see the explosion, and I will see the position of those units to a more general level than a FPS player would. And that bomb, and my position, would also be somewhat general to the FPS player, since they do not need to see or know about every minute action I am taking. They just need my general location, and when I perform an action that potentially impacts them (i.e. bomb drop in their area) then it becomes a live event in their world. This type of approach minimizes data transfer between units. If you think about it, every unit in any sim is represented by coordinates. The unit itself is rendered by the players PC. This is no different in the environment I envision. But instead of the players computer processing the positions, it would come from an external source. And this already happens when you dogfight in LOMAC, Falcon, or any other sim. The difference is this time that data is coming from an application external to ours. If you can put 15 jets in the air in multiplayer in LOMAC, does it really matter where the data comes from that tells your PC there is a plane at 5 o'clock, 2 at 6 o'clock, and a few in other locations? It still has to be transmitted real time to your PC, right? The problem is the mechanism each sim uses to process and communicate this information is unique to the sim, and that is what you unify. I know it is difficult, and would take some smart folks to pull off. But look at BS, LOMAC, Falcon, and a long list of others. There are smart people around to do this. We aren't putting a man on the moon. Again, I am not saying build one massive sim. I'm saying unify some of the parts so different sims created by different companies can interact in the same environment.

I agree, and I don't blame any company for not going this direction. I just think it would be a win-win for everyone once they take that direction. It's all good.

Only time will tell I guess but one day I think people will realize this is the obvious direction the industry needs to take.

If you are right I am in for a treat! I'll post my impressions in a few days.

Okay guys, again thanks for all the feedback and opinions. I should have LOMAC in a couple days, so I'll let you know me opinion once I have a chance to work with it a while. Any tips on getting started? Online docs, quick start guides. etc.? Also, any recommendations on the plane to start with?

Yeah, I remember it but I never bought it. I think the problem with all the attempts is they are driven by one company, and a project like this is too large for one alone. I'd love to see an effort where existing sims are integrated. Let's not build a new sim for flight, FPS, etc. Let's integrate the ones we already have. Still dreaming.... Thanks buddy. Hope to see you online.

Thanks Panzer. I'm looking forward to both sims, and maybe we'll see each other online. I'm going to need a lot of help! Thanks for chiming in on this thread and the one on the unified battlefield.

That is sweet! Thanks for sharing that.

I hope you are wrong, but I guess we'll see in 5 or 10 years the direction the industry is taking.

I played it. The problem with all these attempts is the vehicles or nowhere near sim grade. And I do not think one company could do it. It would take an industry movement.

Let me be more clear, and yes, I am a programmer. Take ARMA II. Right now you have bombs that drop, and when they hit you get a blast radius and kills. This data comes from the internal game engine. The engine handles displaying the bomb, the blast, and determining the kill radius. What if this "data" wasn't originated from the ARMA II engine, but instead came from an external source. The external source could pass along info that told it a bomb was dropped, in which direction, and then that bomb becomes part of the ARMA II engine. So the plane that drops it sends data telling it I've dropped a bomb, it's this type of bomb, and here are the coordinates. The pilot sees the blast from the air and the graphic engine of that sim shows the effects of it. Is that much different from the multiplayer games we have now where all players see the same explosions? Once you start sharing the data between sims, the each sim can render it using their native engine. Again, I think this is totally logical, and possible.

What can I say. Falcon is just another level above anything else I've tried. People are die hards because in their opinion nothing else comes close. If you ask anyone that really knows flight sims, and you ask them to name their top 3 sims of all time, I guarantee you Falcon will make that list 9 out of 10 times, and in many cases top the list. That says a lot, especially considering it's been a decade since it was released. But BS sounds great, so I'll dig in and check it out! And FC 2 should be a blast. The A-10 sounds sweet too. But the existence of these sims doesn't negate the fact that we've had Falcon for a decade, and most sims are still playing catch up. Falcon is just in a league all its own, but I welcome anything that can match or exceed it. Do you really think us "Falconites" enjoy flying a 10 year old sim? What a pain in the ass! But we do it for a reason. It's the best of the best if you want the ultimate in an F-16 simulator. Honestly, I bet if we took 10 BS/LOMAC users and put them in Falcon (with training) within a couple days we'd have 7 or 8 more Falconites. You just cannot beat it for realism, and once you get up to speed it is pretty insane. But I will be very happy to have an A-10 sim, and a fighter, so I can FINALLY retire Falcon. If something better comes along in the ultra sim category, I am all for it. One other thing about Falcon. It runs great on my 4 year old PC, and with HiTiles and Aeyes cockpits, it looks pretty darn good. Nothing that deters from the overall experience. But I really want to try something new, and it sounds like LOMAC and BS are 2 great alternatives. Looking forward to both!

Actually I probably installed Falcon 3 or 4 times before I found a group of guys that showed me the ropes. There is no way you are going to read a manual and fly a real F-16. You need an instructor. I had two guys that painfully brought me up to speed, and they both flew by the book. Our communication was strictly by the book, and we always tried to bring the planes back in one piece. But before meeting them Falcon was basically install, then uninstall. These guys also created special TE's for me that introduced me to weapons systems, avionics, etc. We flew for maybe 6 months and I was barely coming up to speed on some of the systems. I just got Black Shark, so I am curious how much of a simulator it is. I've heard good things, but IMO Falcon is the flight simulator benchmark. Of course, that doesn't mean other sims with less detail aren't a blast. And I think LOMAC may just be that type sim.

Seriously? If so, you missed one hell of a simulator.

Thanks a lot for the feedback guys. Maybe "Total" is right in that it isn't a Falcon replacement but an addition. I've pumped to try this out!

Let's think about that for a second. First, does it need to be rendered? For example, if I am at 2000 feet in my F-16 and I look down, exactly how detailed could that ditch be to me? I'm thinking not super detailed. But once I drop my payload, that bomb is going to hit somewhere, and when it does the blast radius, and kill zone are going to enter the detail level of the FPS player. So just like if any other bomb were dropped in their current environment, it will depend on a lot of factors if they die or not. I guess I am saying that the fighter pilot wouldn't in real life have the same level of detail as the grunt on the ground, so why should our virtual environment be any different?

Hey guys, long time Falcon fan deciding to give LOMAC a shot. I've purchased LOMAC and FC 2. Can anyone tell me the biggest differences between the two? Falcon is so focused on procedures, and doing the right thing at the right time. It really simulates being in the world of an F-16 pilot well. Can anyone contrast this with LOMAC and FC 2? What will I be gaining and losing? Thanks.

I agree 100%. TeamSpeak or bust.

Thanks for the reply, but I have to disagree with your conclusions. 1. Different Levels of Detail Problem I agree that different type games require different levels of detail. But if I'm in a flight simulator I don't need to load all levels of detail. Likewise, the person running the FPS wouldn't need all levels of detail either. They wouldn't need the data that the flight sim user has, or even the naval sim user. It would be done in layers, so different classes of users wouldn't need to have all classes of detail. Only the one they are currently interacting with. But there would be a common communication layer so data that is relevant to your layer is transmitted from other layers. For instance, if I fly over a town in my F-16 i might see small arms fire if a team of people were fighting COD or ARMA style. But I wouldn't see the same level of detail. 2. Locked into physics, graphics, sound, etc. How is this issue any different than Directx 9, 10.1, 11? Games are developed to support specific graphics specifications. New specifications come around that add enhancements, but provide backward compatibility. Taking that to this new architecture, improvements to sound, graphics, physics, etc, can be released. Maybe the sim you are using doesn't have the new bells and whistles, but maybe someone's new sim does. So nobody gets locked in, just like nobody using a Directx card is locked in or out of using Directx 11 games. You just have less eye candy, assuming the game was written to take advantage of it. 3. Consistent Quality and Balance To some people, opening up FC 2 and BS already presents this problem. The way I envision it, you would have dedicated servers that could be configured to allow for the inclusion or exclusion of specific settings, add-ons, or entire sims. So you could host a server that allows BS and A-10, and Falcon, but does not allow FC 2, COD, etc. Again, I don't see any of these issues as show stoppers. Regarding your last point about playing games through the internet, I will have to check that out. Sounds interesting.

That is one step in the right direction. But is this an industry standard, open source solution?

Hey guys, I am just getting into BS and LOMAC (long time Falcon fan) and I really like the unified battlefield with FC2 and BS. I think this is one big step in the direction I'd like to see military sims go. Ultimately, the battlefield needs to include a completely open architecture, including FPS, flight sims, tank sims, naval sims, etc. Let me explain. There is tremendous overlap when it comes to developing simulations. Terrains must be created, including various objects such as buildings, airports, etc. For example, every team that develops a flight sim spends an incredible amount of time doing this stuff. Why not have a completely open architecture where several companies can focus on terrain exclusively, for a wide variety of locals, and then allow other sims to plug into them? This would be a much more efficient use of resources, and the terrain would be much improved as well. But let's take it even further. Let's say I'm a helicopter fan, so I go get BS. But my buddy is a Falcon fan, so he jumps in the F-16. We should be able to fight on the same battlefield, even though our sims are made by different companies. But taking this further, my friends that love ARMA II and COD should be able to join the same campaign. Extend this to naval and tank sims as well. There is no way one company is going to pull something like this off, and to be really successful we need an industry movement towards this goal IMO. What you'd have is something similar to what Windows did to the PC operating system prior to DOS. Instead of everyone coming up with unique user interfaces, control systems, terrains, campaign engines, etc. why not unify the whole thing? And make it highly modular so anyone with skills can add new content like we do now. I also think the building blocks of this architecture should be completely open source, so no one company takes it in a proprietary direction. While I am really glad to see FC2 and BS share common terrain, and be able to engage on the same battlefield, ultimately we have a long way to go. I had originally thought about this around 10 years ago (when I got into Falcon), but I'm a bit disappointed we haven't come very far since then. Any thoughts on why we have been so slow to move in this direction? I would think it would be good for game developers, since they don't have to shoulder the entire effort of putting together all the pieces. It has always been a win-win for developers and the community to me. Rob