BBQ

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080515/LOCAL18/805150509 Pretty cool--can't wait to check it out!

I must agree, it is a very nice representation of reality :thumbup:

You should find some time, Groove. If only to see this future-molding title--it's really that good.

nope, the DCS Version.

Nice GGTharos, thinking ahead :joystick: I think I'll be ready for the Apache in 3-5 years, considering it will probably take that long for me to become proficient in the Ka-50!

zoranin--have you checked in the LockOn forums here?

And check out my new sig ;)

Well, I don't think it's a bad idea, it's a good idea--it would increase the scope of the simulation--and perhaps in another, upcoming version, it could be developed. Perhaps even a third party could create a seperate application that could be dedicated to pilot development. From what I've read, this new product (DCS) is going to be very open to community mods using the LUA thingy.

Didn't realize this was possible. Is this an "easy" thing to do?

Good question Avimimus--I almost missed it as well.

I'm thinking of using this sentence as my new sig. :lol: Just Kidding Bucic. You have a unique way of asking questions--IMHO, the whole idea of pilot evaluation is better realized within a virtual squadron, where you are evaluated by another human being. Remember it is primarily a flight sim, not an "pilot evaluation" sim. They had so many resources, and had to create priorities, which in the case of Blackshark, seems to be KA-50 avionics/systems/flight model simulation in combat. Best,

Hmm, better make sure I keep my INS updated.

Can we simulate solar flares in Blackshark? :D

Bucic: 1. Again, the "Mission" success, as I understand it, is whatever the mission builder wants it to be--and once that is set--there is no other capability in the ME design to create any other successful criteria. E.G. Mission success depends on destroying one tank. The mission creator chose this as the goal for a "successful mission". Now, let's say the map is populated with 100 other tanks on the front line, and you fly the mission and destroy every single one of those 100 tanks, but fail to kill the one tank, that mission creator designated as the goal. Guess what? The mission fails. However, the mission creator could have made the goal to kill every one of those 100 tanks, or 75% of them, or whatever. The point is, it's all about what the mission creator sets as the goals that need to be completed. I imagine these can be as complex or as simple as possible. Wags, et al., correct me if I'm wrong--but there could be multiple goals, that depending on which one's are met, allow you to proceed to a certain mission or phase. So in our example above, let's say there are two goals--one to kill the loner tank, and one goal to kill the 100 tanks. If you kill the loner tank, you proceed to mission "X" and if you kill the 100 tanks, you go to mission "Y". If you kill all the tanks, you go to mission "Z". So, it's all about the goals that are set by the mission creator. I'll predict that some will be unrealisted (have to kill the loner tank only for success), and others more realistic (if you kill 75% of the tanks on the front line, you are successful). This though, is subjective, in terms of how you want to define "success" in a modern day situation. I imagine in some people's minds, simply getting back home in one piece is a success.

Perhaps I don't understand your question--but my reply was meant to address your "end situations". As far as the "judging system" the mission builder could have put in a goal that the sam sites had to be destroyed for a successful mission. The "judge" can only judge if goals are met, or not--and the mission builder is the one who sets these goals. Just my two cents--anyone please to correct me if I'm wrong. The excitement of the mission, I would think, happens precisely when you state "...so player could not possibly approach his target." Now the flight has the problem of figuring out how to proceed, with the air defenses still up.

Bucic, I would venture to say that just because you have tasked your flight, or another flight, to attack a certain target, that that doesn't mean that it will necessarily be successful. After all--if that's the case--why even put the sam site in the mission in the first place? Think about what would happen IRL. If a wild weasel flight failed to take out a particular air defense unit--do you think then, that the strike package turns around and heads for home? They have to deal with the air defenses themselves, and hope for the best. That, to me, is realistic. The AI cannot be perfect--as humans are not perfect--

what Poko said.

You mean, when you are creating missions within a particular phase, you could set up a sort of template, that you previously mentioned, with the frontline the same in each mission--then when you move to the next phase, you could update the template with the new frontline? Somebody should spearhead a "team" to make some nice, long, realistic campaigns for BS, ala Valhalla for F/A-18. Any takers??!!:D Wag: can we expect a similiarly, thorough, realistic, campaign like the one that you created for F/A-18? I mean in terms of the number of missions, complexity, and general similarity to a real ATO?

It is, after all, part shark.

Wags illuminates some details about the current campaign system: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=30053

A little off topic: I can tell you in GTA IV, that cars DO NOT float :)

Sounds like a big step in the right direction--

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/01/jet.crash.ap/index.html

that eurotiger is beautiful!

another treat from Ironhand