Jump to content

Endy

Members
  • Posts

    209
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Endy

  1. I think you mistake intent otto. Using historical evidence for corrections of flight model is of course commendable. Like your quoted examples, these are all things that got better (or hopefully will) and changed due to player input and player-dev interaction. But it's unfortunately often the case, that historical evidence is used in a manipulative way, sort of "choose you convenient fact" way. And many users on this or other sim forums are guilty of that. ManOWar used a derogatory term towards one side only, and that was not nice perhaps. As said, I've seen people guilty of it on both sides. Speaking of which, there should be no "sides" when it comes to historical accuracy and making this sim the best possible. But unfortuantely people very often are biased and choose only convenient facts to somehow boost their own favourite plane by manipulating evidence and that's a problem. Thankfully Yo-Yo is very open to discussions and apparently if proper evidence is supplied, changes to FM are being made so big props for that. Anyway, to finish the rant, I think most are grateful for the additional input supplied by the guys with historical and aeronautical knowledge that can make this sim better and more realistic. As long as it's done for this purpose, I'm all for it, it's just sad to see that this is being misused at times, that's all.
  2. In Poland (but I'm fairly sure whole EU has a similar law though I might be wrong and it may different in terms between countries) according to the law when you buy anything on the internet (only internet, not in a brick and mortar store) you have a 2 week period when you can just return the item to the seller without even having to give a reason. You don't like the item, you can return it and of course during the two weeks you have the right to unpack and use the item normally. The only thing you lose is the shipping cost back to the seller. It's a very strong pro consumer law and can cause trouble for the shops, because they have to accept even damaged items and can only demand some recompense later...But the reasoning is, if the customer buys something they can't check personally (ie. on the internet) then this grace period for returns is needed. Running an online shop myself, I can say that people surprisingly don't abuse this law and usually only a very small % decides to return the items if they did not like them or it was not as they imagined. So overall I think it's a decent law and can encourage people to buy more in internet shops because they risk less. And as said, I'm pretty sure that's based on a EU directive, although implementation in different EU countries may differ.
  3. I've actually seen it go both ways, for both Allied and Axis planes, because people tend to be biased towards their favorite ride and can't try and be objective. That's why I appreciate Yo-Yo coming to the forums and actually explaining stuff, also taking note of bugs or wrongly modelled things if something's proven because it takes time and a lot of patience and not many developers do that.
  4. I myself find it the funniest when some people start using historical documents as proof of their thesis about the flight model, but usually carefull omit the documents or parts of the same that do not support, or can be dangerous to their thesis :) They usually pick one paragraph and stay silent about the one just next to it, quote just one sentence or a part of it, interpret in a convenient way or show a graph but don't mention specific conditions when some test was performed etc. :) This gets quite tiresome sometimes but also funny when people get caught doing this. Of course, it's a more universal thing than flight sims though and is pretty common for any discussion.
  5. Well doveman, a bubble system or some other limiting solution is needed because of sheer scale and complexity. The thing is, currently DCS simulates all units at a high level of complexity, all planes, ground units etc. I don't know what the current limit of AI units is before a decent PC / server grounds to a halt but i doubt it's possible to have full battalions of ground troops fighting each other, plus many planes in the air etc. at that high level. That's why there would have to be something that either limits the number of units on the map, limiting them to some AO only, or simplify's their AI and interaction outside a certain range from the player while still giving semibelievable results. There are many theoretically possible solutions depending on design, but this is essentially a matter of resources available and how to keep the game still playable.
  6. Well, just to mention it, there was an option in a recent forum poll by Wags where you could mark Dynamic Campaign as something you'd like to see in the future in DCS, so I assume it did not get there by accident. There's a very long way from a forum poll option to a finished thing, and of course it could be something different than we imagine. But at least they seem to be considering something by that name which sounds promising and not as negative as you make it seem :)
  7. I'm wondering why you're so sure... There could multiple solutions similar to that; - a spawn / despawn mechanism depending on range from the player or players - aka similar to bubble - an abstract campaign engine on a kind of operations map and then when fragging a flight you would first choose the operations area, just a part of the map where detailed and real units would be spawned based on what was going on in the abstract campaign engine. That is obviously better for spawning single missions rather than a 24/7 war, but still. It could work for online scheduled events, with players flying a mission, then you run the DC engine some more, advance time etc. and spawn another mission / AO for a multiplayer event. Same for singleplayer. So there you go, at least two possibilities for a kind of "full blown ral time all encompassing DC in DCS" OF SORTS is quite possible but of course it would need to be done DIFFERENTLY than in F4. And yes, that would require writing a lot of code, same as a new graphics engine did but you saw that it is quite possible. So that could be a mix between your idea of mission generator but on a larger scale. In other words, you have a general, simplified simulation of the theatre of operations which would then spawn detailed unit positions where needed, perhaps depending on where the player or players plan their mission. The limitation would be that if you fly outside the pre-planned AO then it would be empty of units, unless some kind of spawn/despawn system was implemented. These are ideas. How feasible or more importantly how profitable for ED it would be to try and implement it is a different question. But we don't really know what's possible and what is not, same as I bet many players thought you can't make DCS any better looking / performing and moving to a new graphics engine surprised everyone in how good it was.
  8. Yes and no. The diversity of planes/roles for now in DCS is better, that can't be argued with. But the problem with campaigns like Blue Flag you mentioned is that they: - require a lot of time to prepare - you can argue it's the same thing in all games BUT once you prepare a dynamic campaign you get something that can be run multiple times with different results, a whole virtual war lasting for several days (real time if you want), ofter with different outcomes, depending on AI and player actions. In DCS it takes a lot of time to prepare one MISSION and sure, that mission can be repeated but it's only a mission, not a whole campaign. You want a continuation of it then you need to spend lots of time again to prepare another one, testing and again and again. If you want that mission to last longer on the server, like for days, then you need to simplify it, like prepare a sort of tug of war scenario with scripted stuff etc. but again, complex to prepare and results are a bit artificial. - with a dynamic campaign you could create your own missions within the theatre on the fly, whether single or multiplayer. In singleplayer, you can run the campaign, pause, enter at any point and fly a meaningful mission, either AI prepared or by yourself, it literally takes 2 minutes to choose objectives, flight plan, armament etc. And the situation is changing constantly according to how the AI wages its war and your actions too to some degree. This is impossible in DCS right now and would take a lot of work to prepare a mission that makes sense, hand place units / objectives, test etc. In multiplayer, the biggest advantage is that you could enter a server, alone or with friends, look at the situation in the theater and simply frag a flight, whatever mission type, adjust flight plan as you wish, objectives, armament and all that. And again, the process is very quick and flexible. You want to fly with more friends? No problem, frag a flight for 8 people, splitting roles between SEAD, CAP and CAS for example, adjusting flight plans as needed for every group on the fly. Taking part in singular events in DCS is very cool of course, but that's a preset mission only, with preset flight plans etc. None of the flexibility that a DC allows and very little in terms of dynamics. That's the main thing here, the ease of use for both single and multiplayer guys. DCS has currently a powerful mission editor but it's complicated, takes a lot of time, is slow to prepare new scenarios and is very inflexible once the mission is prepared. Sure, some of it can be mitigated by scripting, but that only makes time effort and ease of use worse. Look at how many people are compaining in DCS because it's difficult and time consuming to create new, meaningful content via the mission editor... A DC in DCS World would allow for very fast mission creation (and in a way that makes sense in general environment) and a very flexible one too, both in single and multiplayer. In general, it would increase it's potential by orders of magnitude.
  9. Well, that's what the thread's for, to exchange ideas mostly :) We have no real idea (at least I don't) of what can technically be done in DCS World and what can't. Someone surely does or will do and just perhaps will start checking/implementing what's possible and what is not. The new graphics engine proved that even huge changes are possible in the game so why not dream big eh? :)
  10. Actually, we're not discussing BMS per se, but just comparing ideas and borrowing some of them for the dream feature (of some of us at least) that is a dynamic campaign in DCS World. Nobody's saying, "hey, that game is better" but rather, "hey, that game does it this way, can we try to have something similar here perhaps?". It's a simple feature request backed by a real life example, not comparing engines etc. And also, if the only argument for not using it as an example is a different engine etc, then you can't really compare any game to any other according to that way of thinking... And yes, it's an old game, but one that is still wildly popular (in sim community terms at least, offline and online) until this day and actually still being developed by Benchmark sims, so it's still kind of valid. Anyway, I'm in a similar position as you then, just a customer, wishing there was this and that feature in a game I like (DCS World) and to show exactly what my kind request is, I show the feature working in another game. Whether ED take note of it or nor is their thing, I won't blame them if they won't for example for business reasons. But perhaps, if this thread is kept alive, and many people show their interest in the idea, then just perhaps someone will take note of it and maybe try to see if that's at all feasible, profitable etc. There is no other way to get ED's attention, or at least I don't know of any other, unless they have plans for it themselves. So far ED have been wonderfully responsive (it doesn't not mean they do everything according to player whims of course) for example in terms of flight model questions, so that gives me some hope that perhaps someone is reading threads like this too like Yo-Yo does the FM threads. Now, one of the options in the poll posted by Wags was for a dynamic campaign, and I don't think it got there by accident. Perhaps they are at least remotely considering the possibility and checking player resposnse too, among other features as well. That's a long was till implementation, but if they see player interest in the thing, that might just (or not) give them a nudge that it's a good idea.
  11. The DC engine handles different equipment (or eras if you prefer). So for example in BMS you have an 80s theater and you can have a more modern one no problem. The AI has some different units and ammo etc. under its control depending on the scenario/theater, simple as that. You add a new plane then you just give the AI ability to use it IF that scenario / theater allows for that plane. So adding new equipment / modules to theaters should be relatively painless and modders are doing it in BMS. Sure, it does take some work to prepare, but it could be handled by mission makers to set up campaigns, units AI can use, ammo, equipment etc, virtually what they are doing now in DCS mission editor, just on a different scale, but also via different, easier methods. As for creating DC data for new maps, same thing, modders have been doing that for Falcon so it should be even easier for profesional devs in DCS. Anyway, this was possible almost 20 years ago so it should not be undoable nowadays. Also, players don't need total control over every aspect, that's what is handled by the DC engine exactly. The AI plays its own war based on initial conditions set by the game (can be modified) and then it just rolls with it. And you, as a player, are just a small cog in the whole war machine, but can also be a significant one. Sadly, seeing your pesimism somehow makes me think you know something we don't. Perhaps the feature's been discussed internally by ED and already discarded as an idea... And now you're just trying to discourage us from even thinking about this as a real possibility which is really sad, at least for me... No offence but I get that impression (I can be totally wrong of course) from your general attitude, please don't get me wrong. DCS is a good game, but could be even better after the introduction of a DC engine. Sadly, while it's probably doable, and could even bring a return on investment, especially in the increased longevity of the game, it may not be seen as the best use of assets right here and right now from a business perspective. It's probably more beneficial for the company to just pump another plane or map to the players. ED would first need to see the long term benefits of creating something like this for their game but it's difficult to foresee how they react to that... Like I said, seeing your reaction Sithspawn makes me worried that this has been already discussed (rather improbable that it hasn't at some point) and already discarded as too risky / too long term / ROI not high enough in the short term so the only thing we can do is discuss it here and keep dreaming. As you see, this thread has over 100 pages now, alive since 2010/11, perhaps not that great considering the time period but it does give an insight on the subject. There was also a poll on these very forums where DC scored very highly, and sure, a forum poll may not be the best way to judge an idea but that's just one of the few indicators what players want (and I would argue most players would love this feature just like they do in BMS) so maybe it will be reconsidered at some point. Question is, what ED want for their game and how they see it from the business perspective.
  12. Moreover, many of these people will not touch DCS or other sims because they're not a complete experience in their opinion without the Dynamic Campaign, aka a simulated war which you can easily take part in in a meaningful way whether single or mutliplayer. Now, that may be a minority of players used to that type of gameplay, but that kind of goes to show how faithful people can be to a game that gives them this type of experience. I guess many, if not the majority, of DCS players would fall in love instantly with this feature if it was available in DCS and that would even increase their love of the game, willingness to buy new modules etc. The best thing is, as mentioned before in this thread, that this feature is EQUALLY aimed towards single and multiplayer and makes both modes that much more easy to fly and have fun with. It's also good because you don't create a feature for one type of player only but rather something that everyone is going to benefit from, which is much more cost effective.
  13. I think you may have misunderstood what he meant. The campaign view is there primarily to see how the war develops, movement of friendly and hostile ground forces, air defences, visible flights etc. - meaning a general view of the situation, not for the purpose of a "mediocre rts mini game". If anything, the current DCS: Combined Arms is closer to being that rts mini game and I don't think ED sacrificed anything by adding it to the mix, do you? On the contrary, this has got nice potential to spice things up, especially in a multiplayer environment. If that was to be combined with a dynamic campaign the likes of which you can see in BMS, that would be the best. Now, having large scale, dynamic war ran by AI while at the same time having an ability to jump in and take personal control of some units on the map via Combined Arms, issue orders etc. would mean that DCS could have something that no other sim has.
  14. The fact that it's available in online stores can be an advantage though. Where I live, if you buy something in a brick and mortar store, you can't just return it if you don't like it, unless there is some fault in the piece you got. And even then they can just replace it for another if they wish and not give you your money back. On the other hand, when you buy online you have two weeks to return the goods you bought and get your money back without even having to give any reason. You don't like the stick, simply return it and the only thing you lose is the shipping cost which is not that big within the country. So buying online effectively gives you a two week trial period where you can play around with it and return it if you don'l like it. Trying it for only a moment in a brick and mortar store would not give you the same real opportunity to test it.
  15. Well, you're lucky because there are at least three great quality pedals to choose from on the market :) VKB T-rudder pedals https://flightsimcontrols.com/store/pedals/t-rudder-pedals-mk-iii/ Slaw Device http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/01/want-high-end-flight-sim-pedals-put-500-in-a-polish-bank-account-and-contact-slaw/ MFG Crosswind http://mfg.simundza.com/products
  16. I've had some time to play with my set and i'm really happy about the rudders. Now, this is my first set of rudders ever (been using a twist joystick before i got a Warthog) so I can't really compare with any other rudder set, but learning to fly on these has been a really wonderful experience. They're very precise and flying the aircraft with them (especially the prop planes) is really intuitive and you kind of "feel" them almost instantly. That said, I've still a lot to learn and am far from being an expert, but using these pedals feels very natural almost at once and allows for some really precise and minute adjustments. Nothing really new or what the other guys have not said before, I know, just adding one more voice to it :) Also the build quality is really good, packaging was very nice so there's no chance it seems of the item getting damaged in transport and Milan has responded really quickly to any questions I might have. Anyway, one more happy customer here :)
  17. Since there is support for DCS and Falcon BMS, i'm curious if there any plans to add support for other simulations as well like Il2:Cliffs of Dover or IL2:Battle of Stalingrad?
  18. This depends on the type of PS3 eye that you have. There were two different types, with slightly different build inside. In one, the good one, when you remove the IR filter, it's rather easy and the camera stays still in focus. The other one is not good for removing the filter at all and "breaks" the camera. You just can't remove the IR filter in the "bad" type without breaking the lens. There are also outside signs that let you recognize the two types, here's a good thread; http://nuigroup.com/forums/viewthread/5189/
  19. I know what you mean, my wife told me it's insane to spend so much on game controllers, especially that I bought a Warthog same month :) But I treat this as a sort of investment, not money lost. I've little doubt that one will be able to sell stuff like Crosswinds or Warthog even years from now and for just a bit less than new ones. And that's definately not the case with cheaper, plastic sticks and pedals hence my decision.
  20. Well, got mine yesterday. Now I need to learn how to use them - this is my first set of rudder pedals, decided to go all in and not waste money on cheaper models :)
  21. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year :)
  22. There is one more thing that people rarely take into account. Very expensive controllers, like WH or MFG rudders can be treated pretty much as a temporary cash freeze, not money spent never to be recovered. What I mean by that is that these things can be still sold after years of usage for the price very close to the price of a new one. Used TM Cougars go for even more than a new WH and used Warthogs sell for a price just slightly lower than new ones. I can bet that years from now you will still be able to sell used stuff like MFG Crosswinds for a really nice price since this stuff is close to indestructible. Not so with cheaper, plastic joysticks but they can still get a decent price too. Anyway, I treat this is as a sort of investment into my hobby but I'm also pretty sure that if I ever want to sell it I'll be able to and for a good price. So you not only have a lot of fun with better gear but it's also money that is not totally lost and does not lose value like for example cars do.
  23. If you're considering this price range you pretty much have a choice between MFG and Slavs (and i think F16 are not produced by him anymore, only the WWII style). There are also the VKB pedals but there are no toe brakes on them so you have to use workarounds for it. That's pretty much it. There are also CH pedals but that's not the same league.
  24. Not necessarily on the floor. I'm using a simple stool just a bit lower than my chair so that the stick handle is at a proper height. Some other people are mounting the stick on platforms fastened to their chairs etc. So there are different methods, you just need to find what's best for you :)
×
×
  • Create New...