weasel75

And since there are Wikipedia-DVD getting produced, *sold* and shipped, this would even be worse .... Doh!

Are you sure? Since I am afraid that this is not true :( The copyright-holder is TFC. In the (german) license-agreement I received the non-transferable right to make use of the program and the documentation for personal use. (Something like that, it was all lawyer-talk and stuff and I am not that good with the translation..) However, taking pictures and making them public, would not be a personal use anymore... so this would be in violation with the license-agreement. It is tricky I guess, and AFAIU the folks at wikipedia are very concerned, when it comes to coyprights/copylefts and license agreements.

Mhmm.. I tried it the stupid way - writing them an eMail. Since I am really not sure that the wikipedia-"lawyers" will accept anything less than a (semi)-official writing ... Thanks for the infos :)

Ooops.. sorry, I meant for "Black Shark" :) I just found LOMAC-pictures in wikipedia, so LOMAC was my example. Now I look for some text-passage where the copyright-holder (whoever that is exactly (not Ubisoft I hope ;) ) specifies the license under which I might use the screenshots ..... Argh, I do not like that topic, but man, I want to get some pictures published @wiki ;)

Since I thought about making some screenshots public, how is the copyright handled? Does Eagle Dynamics holds the copyright? The Fighter Collection? (Or Koch Media GmbH for the german release?) Especially Wikipedia is very strict and wants to know the exact terms. ... just take a look at the LOMAC-related articles - all have some Ubisoft-related copyright-notices attached. Sorry if this question came up before, I was searching the forums but had no luck finding some thread regarding that issue. :noexpression:

ARMA + Queens Gambit (and for that OFP) were truly amazing simulations. Not deep into each weapon/vehicle, but as a solid infantry-simulation. Flying a helicopter or driving a tank into an urban area made you definitely aware, how vulnerable those high-tech-machines are without any ground-support..... Sneaking up on those "all-mighty" killers and blowing them to pieces was a real pleasure :thumbup: The only other "sim" (coming to my mind) with such an all-aspect factor would be ww2online. Really, it is a huge difference whether you fly/fight vs. stupid AI or against real human beings .... even more important when it comes to supporting ground-troops! The thrill of getting requests and directions from some human soldier on the ground (often firing blindly into given buildings/hideouts) is amazing. I loved OFP and ARMA, and I look forward to the next release..... :D Just hoping for good multiplayer-support and epic battles (not only Team vs. Team, but the huge COOP-missions ... I loved those) :joystick: EDIT: And I just hope that the AI looses it's "I turn 180 degrees and then snipe/headshot the hidden player (300m away) with my first shot" - capabilities :-( .... it was a show-killer for me ... Additionally: let's pray, that soon all those different simulations (ArmyOps, ARMA, SteelBeasts, LOMAC, BS) might come together in one simulated world ...

Maybe just a "mix-up"? The DCS-system is "open" in the meaning of further extension and allowing user-modification (to a certain degree (while trying to maintain a balanced and fair MultiPlayer-experience)). Yet, it is proprietary in the meaning of the "original" developers keep the solely right to create future modules (A-10, AH-64, ... ?). And pardon, but I also think your posting could easily be a lame provocation... or do you *really* think, you can control *any* vehicle you can see on a screenshot of a game/simulation? If true, then helicopters in Half-Life, dozens of planes and tanks in Falcon 4.0, spaceships in Doom 3, Fighter-crafts and walkers in Quake 4, and hundreds of other games must have been a major disappointment to you. I am baffled how you can cope with all that disappointment! Respect, Bro! Over n Out! PS: I am a defender of OpenSource, but I also understand why a certain game/sim might need profound financial background ... so I bite the bullet and buy the game .. it is from a relatively small and very dedicated group of developers ... and man, for me they are worth the support :)

Me dreams of a "game"/sim similar to ww2online .. but with modern tanks and helicopters ... and infantry played by humans ..... :music_whistling: EDIT: And even the "stupid" AI should be able to predict a funnel-attack after you running in circles multiple times ... ;)

If you enjoyed the F4 for its realism, then DCS is the way to go. The A-10 will show up some day .. so you will have your fixed wings then ;) Lomac is great for it's graphics, full-speed NOE is way more thrilling than with the outdated (sorry for being a heretic) Falcon. But for me, Lomac in SinglePlayer never felt as intense as the Falcon ... the dynamic campaign delivered such full skies and always something unexpected going on. In Lomac the missions are ... mhmm... if it is not planned/considered, it won't happen. Booooring. Almost like flying in a dead world ("The Quiet Earth" anyone? ;) ). And: the F16 was also way more challenging than any of the aircrafts in LockOn - the Su-25T from Flamming Cliffs aside ... *think* ... no, even the Su-25T was not as challenging (in avionics) as the "later"/patched F16 with it's alsmost complete startup-procedure, all the radar-modes, etc. ... Multiplayer: different story :) (just like in IL-2 .. which (for me) also became boring in SinglePlayer quiet fast)

Tracking bright (the brightest) spot(s) in a picture is far, *far* more easy than trying to find a pattern among lots of potentially similar patterns with considerably less contrast. Also consider, that the original pattern (which you try to track) will change, due to the angle and distance of the tracker, changing light-conditions might also affect it. Even the line of sight might be interrupted (trees, smoke, objects, etc), or similar objects might move in front of each other (e.g. cars passing by). In the end one would write a tracking-software for information we already have (in that case: even generated!). I think it would be easier, to not remove the destroyed objects from the list of "valid" objects for the camera/tracking ;)

You should hear the german voices then ... it made my ears bleed :fear: Really, tears were showing up in my eyes :cry: - and that did not happen in years!! Please, please, make a download available for the original sounds, my russian skills are good enough (with subtitles *lol* .. no, just kidding) from the Su-25T :D (and 10 years of involuntary Russian-lessons :music_whistling:)

Since I am (sim)flying for quite some time now, most of the stuff in the manual is not that new.... and so most of the stuff I would just read once. So the digital manual is fine with me. BUT - I would prefer a nice selection of check-lists, the (default) keyboard-layout, standard-procedures (flying, tactics, team-work, ..) and some references (e.g. weapons, cockpit-layout, etc). For that I would pay around 15-25$ max ... while it would require *way* less pages to print. ... and if you would add that stuff to a retail DVD, people would surely welcome it ... and the price could easily go up a notch ;)

Thanx, but the link does not work - but Google helps (again) ;) You mean the file which is ~390MB? EDIT: I am also impressed by that video -- after all, it is not just a trailer-clip, but real in-game footage. And while the planes still seem to steer a bit jerky, the game runs smooth, without crashes and quite the view-distance!! Respect!

It was historically, but this came often with the limits of the 3D-engines and the technical limits (namely RAM/CPU), since a whole "realistic" 3D-landscape with enough details (and buildings, etc) for infantry to be fun and large enough for (sane!) air-plane-use, will still reach the limits of any modern computer. Best attempt I know of: ww2online. There you have some decent simulation paired with plenty of FPS-action. The sim-part was sufficient enough that many soldiers rather never tried to fly and the even more complex stuff (level-bombing from high alt) was left to some experts. ArmA (1) was cool too, but the visibility was lame .. waiting for ArmA II to check that out :D But I hope and believe, that it is a natural thing to bring those genres together. It will add so much more depth to games - both sides (ground- and air-forces) can benefit from that :thumbup:

I feel betrayed ... 2vs1 ... and then suddenly a healthy second SU shows up from nowhere just to be wasted after the first was blown up .... :music_whistling: Nice video though ;)

If I understand him correctly, it is about detailed placement. This starts with buildings (various sizes, but always just the same icon), and goes on with vehicle-placement. If one wants to place some vehicles (or waypoints) offroad, it becomes difficult to adjust the waypoint/vehicle with added structure. Personal: while this can be overcome with multiple starts ("Fly!") and externals on (in case of waypoint-checks: put in a placeholder), some things can not be overcome that easily (i.e. scripting, dependencies, timings (for win/loose-conditions), more detailed win/loose (not just DESTROY/SURVIVE), etc.pp.).

For a heli-sim - there should be "working" trees!! (Not just for the eye-candy, but to hide (from radar and VID) and advanced tactics.)

From what I read are most people not concerned about what was put *into* this little chopper(-part of the sim), but about the outer world and the aircrafts (i.e. F-15)... But as said, there are no other sims to compete at that level, so I will buy it for sure, and be it for the Ka-50 alone (without any changes to the rest of the LockOn-world). And sure was the 25T a *huge* step towards serious simulation :thumbup: .. the more it hurts to see the engine suffer from the old problems/limitations. But nevermind, I'll wait and see :)

KA-50 is not just popular, its single-seated too! Mi-28, Mi-24 and Ka-52 are all two-seated - so no go with the current engine :( Editor is nice n fine ... if some scripting (OFP-style :thumbup:) and more detailed win/loose-conditions were to be added. That way some more complex mission could be done :music_whistling:

On for me the billboard-trees are sufficient, even in A-10/Su-25. Lets see how they work in BS ... However, it should not be possible to fly thrue .. and I hope they stop/deflect missiles/rounds ...

Anyone said Mid-Air Refueling in MP? But personally I am happy to see a detailed, complex and realistic helicopter-sim on the horizon. And lets see whats comming up next (post-BS) from ED.... or any other team?! Sadly the sim-market looks grim, and not just since last year :(

Can one fly thrue trees? Do they stop/deflect bullets?

A DCS is more than "just" some surprises (which LockOn normally lacks too - outside of the mission-parameters there is dead silence). In a DCS your mission-results influence the next missions, so you *matter* somehow in an ongoing war. Imagine to destroy 2 bridges in one mission, and some hours later one bridge is being rebuild by tech-units, while the 2nd bridge is still down and causing a logistic problem for the enemy. Maybe some convoy(s) stack up at the destroyed bridge or they get being re-routed ... however the outcome, you changed the (virtual) world. For me, this adds a lot of immersion, since the ongoing conflict is reflected in a constant (but consistent) change of frontline and damage & destruction (and repairs/re-conctruction) on the vital installations. DCS just feels more alive :) PS: Was there some (3rd party) dynamic campaign planned?

Okay, so the bomb is inhuman and bad... compared to all the other bombs, which are "good"? ;) /sarcasm But same here - tried the bomb before and saw no big difference on the ground. Maybe just the gfx are missing/not modelled? After all, one can destroy parked vehicles with that bomb (although that can be done easier via cluster-bombs or bomblets (another bad-bomb, not to be used in civilized areas (which basically should cover the whole world by now ;) )). S! - w75 PS: Anyone remember "Hind" from DI? There one could drop mines from the Mi-24... and some missions had that task..... gave me a strange feeling....

The challenge! :) Many people create videos just for fun ... so to say - as a hobby. Now think of the people who render video-scenes with 3DMax, Blender, Maya, etc. many of them strive for realism, or at least a realistic impression. Same applies to that video - it tries to make a realistic impression... doing so, it deceives people to think it was real. While trying to deceive people is not considered "nice", it is all what "magic" (no, not the Potter-Boy-Magic) is all about. And the illusion of that video is neat .. keeps you on the edge of the seat .. just like in a magic-show .. is it real, but it cant .... but it looks like ... if so, how did he do it .... mhmmm So respect to the guys who did this!! :)