Dr. Yes

Denial. Denial. Denial. I already posted the pics once under another name. They looked the same. And you guys denied it back then. Posting them again won't do any good. If you guys want to see the comparison, go dig. Keyword Infiltration or UT1 will probably find them. But if even the moderators / testers are going to deny it, I feel like I'm wasting my breath.

Played it to death in the mod Infiltration. I've already compared pics of EDGE to UT1. Looks like the same lighting, same simple graphics, same textures.

Agreed. The graphics in EDGE so far look like Unreal Tournament 1 ( actually less ). You HAVE to get better than that. There are engines now that can literally model the whole earth that have better terrain and lighting than EDGE. You can go on and on about how you have made the most realistic flight sim there is with the most advanced AFM that will burn up all the CPU's and GPU's. But without a world to fly it in, it isn't worth much. The people on here who don't care about the world are pure flight sim enthusiasts. These are the ones who like flying an hour to the target zone. These people will deny this, but we majority players don't like a flight of more than 5 to 10 minutes. We just need those few minutes to setup and get our bearings. Were more into the combat. And for this, we need FPS and a WORLD. To tell you the truth, I like the AFM, but how much farther can you go before you start losing all the majority? The people who would be satisfied with something just a little better than SFM? By going higher and higher with all the AFM, and not working on the world, your only pleasing the 40 or so fanboys who prowl this forum. As these other great engines which are FAR superior in graphics and lighting start implementing flight sim, your going to lose the majority of people who have bought your game. Even Star Citizen is going to pull a lot of players away. I'll say Beczl sure knows what he's doing. That has to be the most beautiful Mig-21 cockpit I have ever seen. Now think about how that is going to contrast to the 1990 era UT1 world (EDGE) below. You've put everything into your flight sim, but ignored the world, and seem to still be ignoring it. This is not going to get you sales. I and many others are constantly looking for a better flight sim / fps. One guy is now working on clickable cockpits and realistic systems (Maverick, CCRP, CCIP ) in Arma 3 and that is definitely going to compete with you in the mainstream. This is the future. People want a realistic world below them.

:megalol:

You reach for the China Hat in your car...

Yeah, that's what I've been suggesting. It would solve well for both sides. Plenty of room to fly, you could have as big a maps as you like. The Arma 3 players are actually calling Altis "too big". A detailed place the size of Chernarus would be plenty. Even a few smaller places would work, and probably would be better. Spread a few small "FPS" type places over the map that have high detail. Like Arma 2's small Island of Utes. You could even go smaller with tight CQB sites. Just small villages with a fortress, old chemical warehouse, etc. As for mostly flight sim, if your going to keep it that, then you really shouldn't call it "World", cause that's misleading. Digital Combat Flight Sim would be more appropriate. There's already been a few posts on the Steam forums asking how to jump into the vehicles and how do you do "infantry". And actually, if you'll release some good modding tools, there are probably modders who would build these high detail zones for free. Truthfully, a lot of modders are really unhappy with Arma 3. Even some of the large groups like ACE seem to have pulled out in disgust of how BI is just ignoring everyones complaints. BI even banned one of their oldest moderators when he had problems with it all. That's the first time in over 20 years of gaming I've ever seen a moderator banned from a forum. Arma seems to have been dumped now in favor of Steam and DayZ. So yeah, a lot of us Arma types are really looking for a new sim / engine. DCS looks perfect, and it would finally bring the flight simmers / FPS people together.

Hate to tell you, but there's already a thread for this. But yeah, really interesting astronomy program.

Just downloaded this. Really neat astronomy program with all the procedurally generated worlds. Love being able to travel at 100 MPars / sec. Eat my dust Millennium Falcon. See you at the end of the Universe.

This. While I would LOVE AFM, my problem is I wonder how much CPU that takes up, and then I keep seeing the planes getting better and better, but I see nothing going on with the "world". Even EDGE doesn't look that great, like UT1 graphics. I'd like to see at least Arma 2 level graphics ( maybe that can be done with EDGE, hopefully ), so we can put some realistic 3rd party vehicles and infantry down there. Then you have a battlefield. Right now, we have plastic soldiers that just basically stand there as you bomb them. If your going to call your game World, then please make a "world". I know that all the hardcore types are on here, of which I'm one, I like AFM. But what the people like me want even more than AFM is a better ARMA, like it or not. They don't post here. They don't post on the ARMA forums. Because the hardcore fanboys rule the forums and SCREAM when they hear this ( thanks for not screaming guys, you've been pretty nice ). ARMA forums are 20x worse than this one. About 10 different fanboys and the mods RULE that place. You can't say anything. Thats why Arma 3 is starting to die. They even ignore their bug report list. You complain, your IP banned for life. Everyone has left. AFM is VERY WELCOME! Would love to see it! But please start putting some time into the world as well. Third party developers would be fine. FPS infantry, Arma 2 graphics ( Arma 3 would be nice, if possible ), realistic vehicles with clickable "cockpits" and systems. Thanks.

Yeah, I remember thats what the Israelis got in so much trouble for using against "ground troops".

Falcon 4 bankrupt. That's because they failed to put in a battlefield style ground war, and the graphics were "meh". Stick figures. I could say it failed because it was "only" a flight sim. The campaign though was awesome. But that was a long way back ( I used to fly in Falcon 3 + 4 ). My dream ( and that of some others ) is DCS + Steel Beasts ( armored vehicles with clickable cockpits, real systems ) + Crysis Wars Infantry and landscape. And even Crysis Wars landscape was hard to ambush with in a helicopter. Just have to figure out what absolutely has to use the CPU, and then try to push everything else we can to the GPUs. And since some people are saying this went off topic, I'll leave it at that.

I think its more like people who want more world / battlefield to fly in, and people who mostly just want to fly ( the people who enjoy 20 to 30 minute flights out to the battle ). Most people I talk to don't like more than 3 to 4 minutes to get to the battle.

Actually, a lot of my type do. Were just stuck. Just like here. Its flight sim or its FPS. No one has ever done a good "in between" so far. Thats where people like me are stuck. Believe me, I know people who did their best to try and mod it in to games like Crysis, but the companies will never cooperate by giving us access to the functions we need, and in the end, it always fails. There's one guy named Peral trying to mod in a clickable cockpit into Arma 3 for the A-10C. It looks nice so far, but I think he's going to hit a brick wall though when he tries to put in the CCRP / CCIP. I doubt if BI will allow him access to the needed engine functions. So now, I'm looking at games like Outerra and Novae engine and hoping someone will build aircraft with full clickable cockpits ( thats the immersion for me ) and systems with at least SFM ( because I doubt most of the other customers for it would care that much ). Everything in these "worlds" seems to be going towards sci-fi now. I hope I can get them interested in 21st century ground war. Maybe some third party developers will get interested in it. There are a lot of us who are interested in a hybrid realtic FPS / realistic Flight sim. Unfortunately, the forum boards are always ruled by a few who either pure FPS or Pure flight sim, and we get banned for just talking about it.

Nah, FC2 has no clickable cockpit, bad graphics, and little of a world. SFM would be the least of my worries.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but most of the FPS / Arma types wouldn't even realize the difference. Hell, most Arma types think Battlefield has realistic heli's (shudder :cry:). Well, actually they probably do compared to Arma.

Well, my experience in shooters has always been a lot of smoke really brings down the FPS. But that may be different now in games where its put mostly on the GPU.

Yeah, I'll probably love it. But, I still would prefer putting the power to a better world, as I'm mostly a heli / mud mover type. We slow / low movers really need an FPS engine to play in. DCS world is really made more for the jet jockeys. We just can't get that interactive / many places to hide and ambush detail. We need something along the terrain / trees / buildings of Crysis Wars.

Elle's company (Hawk) already did it, and came to that conclusion themselves. Face it, Flight Sim only, AFM, very simple world is a tiny niche. That's why Elle's said they were outputting their product with SFM to start. AFM did not interest as near as many people as the clickable cockpit / full simulated systems. The planes in DCS are beautiful, but then they are contrasted against that simple, ugly world, in which you can do very little. I get so sick of flat plains with sprite trees. I think terrain and objects still use the CPU. I know in Arma, which seems to use a similiar CPU dependent engine, having view distances of 30km is not a big deal. You lose a few FPS. Its the Object Distance that kills it all. So it appears objects really use the CPU a lot. From what I've seen of EDGE so far, I'm really not impressed. It looks like something from UT1. Of course, I don't care much for Nevada as a battlefield, so maybe with more intricate objects, textures, and lighting, you can get it at looking at least like Arma 3.

Yeah, I agree too. DCS and Flaming Cliffs in the same sentence is pretty confusing. It should be one or the other. THIS. I'd really like to know how much more power and computations does the AFM take (CPU wise) vs. the SFM? It its a lot, I'd rather see that put into a better world ( terrain, textures, lighting, objects ). As Ellis pointed out in one of his posts, the majority of "flight simmers" aren't that interested in AFM, finding SFM to be fine. Were the hardcore types here. What most people want is something like Outerra ( not talking about map size ). Look at their Mig-29. Thats pretty good for most people. I really want the best AFM there is, but I have to be realistic in that its using the CPU ( which we all know how limited that is ). I'm looking at other engines right now, for an FPS world where we can have jets, vehicles, etc. like the Hawk with its Clickable cockpit and the real system models, but only SFM needed if AFM takes a lot more CPU power. I think AFM is important in helicopters, but I think its much less so in fast jets, simple because at speed, you don't notice much. With helicopters, they are slow, inertia doesn't have as much effect, and its like your balancing on the head of a pin. Slow attack jets are best with AFM as well, because they are slow and seem to also be more affected by gravity and the environment. Jets - Your just a guy clinging to a rocket. Not much seems to affect you.

I really hate to agree with that, but I do. They don't seem to have that much interest in the ground stuff, and the engine is very dated. It seems to me all were getting is whatever military contracts they have. I'm really starting to look at whats coming in the new engines, which look to be decades ahead of what DCS is doing. At first, yeah, we could only get that on smaller maps. But now, it looks like they're doing whole planets (Outerrra), and now these new engines, like Space Engine ( which is aiming for the whole frickin Universe!). And its pretty nice! I may have to go do some begging for sim level stuff on their forums!

Kick / ban. TKers are total assholes.

Agreed. ED needs to keep interest alive in their product by coming out with the next jet / EDGE. The engine is quickly becoming obsolete. Even Outerra appears to have been one upped now by the Novae Engine ( forget worlds, it can do whole galaxies :doh:).

DCS should have done Steel Beasts. Yes, I can see it might take more CPU addon time than just another type of aircraft ( because its a whole new set of equations for ground type forces [right now they just stand there] ) but the sim NEEDS it. And Steel Beasts has just as obsolete an engine as DCS. Seriously, I just keep seeing newer and newer engines popping up that can now model whole GALAXIES ( Novae engine with procedural landscape generation). Outerra's already obsolete ( and it was miles ahead of DCS ). And here we sit with an engine straight from the 1990's. Its only a matter of time before one of these new engines decides to make a realistic flight sim. The only reason I'm here is because DCS has 3 realistic helicopter modules and the A-10C. People like me who are into low level and ground warfare really need a better landscape / engine than DCS ( or even EDGE ) are providing. And that goes for Arma as well (obsolete). The DCS aircraft are well done, but the "world" makes you cringe. I guess its ok if your into the 10K club. You fighter jocks never get low enough to notice anything.

Yeah, as much as I like Mantle, my next card is still going to be NVidia because of AMD issues. Kudo's to AMD for trying though. If they can solve all their other issues, they'll have a real winner.