Logan9773

The techs are slacking off. Have them beaten, then try again.

Personally, I'm pretty satisfied with the 80mm HEAT rockets. They seem to do their job. If you want more bang for your buck, load up with 120mm ones that have tandem warheads.

I think the question is, do you want realism or not? Realism = Black Shark Game = Lock on. As one Open Falcon player said, "I'd rather have a sister in a whorehouse, than a brother who plays Lock On." :lol: Mean, but it says it well. I'm from the Falcon 3 and 4 and later Open Falcon community. I don't play Lock On because its just not very real. If you've never played a flight sim, you might like it, but if you really want to learn aircraft the right way, go with Black Shark.

Hmm, found a program called GlovePIE that lets you emulate a joystick. Works decent when it doesn't crash BlackShark. But still really hard.

This is for Black Shark. How can you set the mouse as a controller? It shows up on the controllers but when I try to set it to control the axis it doesn't work. If you hit axis tune, it shows up, but the dot on the line doesn't move at all, and it doesn't work at all in game. It seems the only thing you can do with the mouse at this time is use it to flip switches and look around the cockpit. So can it be used as a controller? I ask this, because flying with keyboard is hard, and I don't want to spend a lot of money on a joystick. I play this game once in a while, so I have no interest in investing a lot of money in it. I'm sure there are a lot of other players who have interest in this too.

Well, I've pretty much learned all the basic stuff of BS, and some of the advanced. And that's all there is to do in this sim. The problem with this game is its a flight sim in the truest sense. i.e There is very little else you can do with it. You can only fly the one aircraft, and you can do very little with the editor. That's where it becomes boring. Once you have learned the aircraft, that's about it. Nothing else to do. Campaigns and missions are really just simple shooting galleries. Feels like shooting ducks in a barrel. Heavily armed ones, but really just ducks none the less. What you need to do is get together with the FPS people and put your aircraft into games like Crysis and Arma 2. You know, give us a living, breathing world. Then you would have something that is enduring, modable, and sellable to much more than a very niche market. This would take a high end machine to play well, but with Nvidia's new DX11 card coming out and decently priced i7 motherboards and chips already out, I don't see this as much of a financial problem for the average end user. Both players and companies would benefit from it, and you would sell many more copies of your game.

Well, I got pretty bored with this sim a while back. The heli itself is the most realistic sim of a helicopter I've seen so far. It appears to be 100% real sim of the actual copter. And learning to fly a real aircraft is great. I don't know if everything is real though; it would be nice to have that verified. However, the outside world sucks. Some of the AI don't appear to be able to hit the side of a barn even on expert. The Igla is supposed to have good defenses against flares, but usually misses. Also, even direct hits seem to have little effect. Where are all the ground forces ( besides the immobile stick people)? It seems everything has been put into the sim of the heli controls and flight engine. All else was just an after thought. Like the guy above said, an expensive tuxedo drinking Strawberry Hill from a paper cup whilst attending a WallMart christmas party. You guys need to take a look at Arma II and Crysis Wars when building your next engine. Look at the detail of the terrain and buildings. Also the imagination put into it. Not to mention this sim desperately needs some FPS and human controlled ground troops and vehicles, ala Arma II. Also realistic destruction of buildings, vehicles, and terrain. In a nutshell, gamewise it's pretty boring.

I find the game to be nothing but console crap. Too many weird bugs to even count. My guy seems to be able to spot people I can't see anywhere on the screen, calling them out to the rest of the team. I hate that. Also, the enemy seems to know exactly where you are the minute you get anywhere near close, no matter if your crawling through bushes and grass. Very unrealistic. Very arcade. Horrible physics, if any. My character seems to be able to walk up and down walls like he's spiderman. Bland, ugly terrain, pretty much like Arma. Basically, just a worse, more arcadish, version of Arma. Sticking to Crysis, and hoping one day we get regular soldiers and realistic vehicles / aircraft / ships in it.

I'm saying its a living world (there's even fish and sharks swimming around in the ocean ). There are human controlled players and vehicles moving on the ground. Its just one mass battlefield with almost everything of consequence controlled by human intelligence. The AI is decent, but I hate AI. I would just like to bring realistic flight sims into a high level FPS like Crysis. I can envision linking a bunch of servers together to run one map with multiple battles going on simultaneously in different hot spots and CAS, CAP, Strike, and BDA going on from above. All in a nice jungle setting. :D

Read the Manuals and the forum posts. They give lots of good tips. Going backwards and sideways is standard on takeoff, you have to correct with the stick. Flights pretty hard, as Joey said, just keep practicing. Your lucky you've got a good stick, I fly by keyboard myself. Very basic manuevering. :p

Yeah, I would call the graphics from high above "average". Decent enough to get away with, but not the greatest. However, you have to remember that what you are looking down on is all 3D. Every tree, every blade of grass, every bush, tanks, buildings - all exist in 3D. I would call that quite an achievement. Its what a helicopter sim really needs, as they are ambush predators. Plus, in MP, human intelligence is behind almost everything, which makes it a much more rewarding experience. The one thing Crysis lacks, just like Arma, is realistic flight and vehicle simulation. Its needs to bring in Steel Beasts and Black Shark realism.

Not necessarily. With DX11 we get OpenCL, Microsoft's DirectCompute, and the Compute Shader. This allows massively parallel operations to be performed on the GPU which has hundreds of cores. So at least some operations can be tossed to the GPU to perform for much faster number crunching. Programmers will just have to decide what threads can be given to the GPU to crunch and what threads must remain on the CPU. This is going to be a boost for gaming programmers. If graphics aren't taking up to much of the GPU, you push off some number crunching from the CPU on to the GPU for much faster results. I can remember seeing the differences between DX11 and the old DX9, DX10. DX11 is much more than just another step, its a real revolution. Here's one article on Wikipedia which decribes it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectCompute

Yeah, I think that's the big barrier right now. Its not the coding, or the engine, its how much power its going to take. Hopefully, Nvidia will come out with a monster DX11 card next year, that will take us to the next level. Of course, I don't think I'm going to pay their initial $1200 price tag, so I'll probably wait a year. :music_whistling:

Well, I'm sure there will be things pulled out of the Xbox and Playstation versions. Otherwise, I might as well buy a $300 Xbox instead of a $3000 computer :smilewink:. Parts in that video did look very xboxish, like the waterfall for example. Personally, I think its better in CryEngine 2. Im sure the PC graphics, textures, and detail will be much more in the PC version of Crysis 2. Otherwise, they can give up on me and many other PC gamers from buying their game. My big gripe about Black Shark is that the terrain is so primitive. I want to see some meaningful terrain, like in Crysis. Canyons, rivers, trees, forests, large cities with tall buildings. Not just painted flat terrain with boxes for buildings.

Oh, yeah, it's so dumbed down.:music_whistling: Lol. And those are just the console shots. The PC version will have a lot more detail to be sure.

Well said. Crytek's CryEngine can do just about anything. You can have MASSIVE maps and all the view distance you want. The only thing stopping that right now is an annoying bug in the program that will be fixed with the release of CE3. That's why you haven't seen absolutely huge maps yet. People tried to design them, which should be possible, but ran into the bug at about 64km square. I know some college professor is actually trying to map the whole city of London in CE2. Of course, the thing that is really stopping huge maps, view distances, and physics is cpu/gpu power. CE2 brings high end computers to there knees. And from what I have seen of the C++ code, it is kind of hard looking. I would think you would need to use C++ to highly modify what passes for flight sim right now. Interestingly though, the guy working on it at present (CWright) appears to be using LUA and Flowgraphs only, and getting some really good results. Some people may not like it, but for the majority of people ( me included ), this melding of FPS and realistic flight sim is what we want to see, and will flock too. Will be nice to dive on a realistic Shilka, backed by Human Intelligence. :thumbup:

Well, Crysis and CryEngine 2 were mostly built with graphics and terrain detail in mind. But actually, a guy named CWright along with a few other people giving some assistance, is doing a pretty good job of building a somewhat realistic flight engine into the game. Its no where as realistic as black shark and 6dof, but its not bad. Right now he has released a B-25 and a Spitfire that at least let us get up into the clouds and take a look around and the view is pretty good! Much better than I expected. Coming out next is an F4 and a Mig 19, maybe an F16, and these will have much better flight engines. Also an Osprey tilt rotor which is going to be neat. If anyone knows coding, modeling, etc. and wants to help, he might want some assistance. You can find him at Crymod.com. I personally think that merging FPS games with realistic flight sims like Black Shark is the future. Black Shark has an excellent aircraft sim, but come on, you've got to admit, the terrain and ground objects are so 1990. I was going to put a link to his main thread here, but now I see he has a couple of new ones started. So, just search for the name CWright.

...like moving the whole thing over to Cryengine 3. :smilewink:

Well, I don't think HE rounds should affect 16mm armor at all. The APC should just be able to brush them off. It might be able to screw up its track links if powerful enough, but I don't know. Its basically just a high velocity 30mm grenade that can punch through thin sheet metal, windows, etc. I've read its also linked in with AP-T to kill or wound any supporting infantry that are close to a tank that is being fired on. As for the AP, its really hard to tell if its hitting the target. Only in the later bursts could I see it was hitting the target. I see max range on the cannon is 2000 meters, but I'm wondering if I needed to be closer to engage the BMP as its 16mm of armor is the max penetration limit of the 30mm AP-T. I think more work needs to be done on penetration of armor in this sim. Especially when it comes to where the round hit and was the armor weakened by another round earlier at that point. Also, when we get in close, can we designate parts of the tank to hit with the tracking gates on the shkval, instead of just the whole tank? Like the back part of the tank and the top? Tread area, etc. EDIT: This is Kuro6, I seem to have an older name on this site that I keep getting linked with. Have to figure it out later.

Well, you have a good point there. So maybe it is simulated " a little ". Still, its no where near reality. I just hope in the future they can do much better with it. @Evil. No, I don't have a track of it, because I have not yet figured how to save the track to a file. What I'm talking about is when you are standing near still ( usually happens when I near stall out the heli trying to turn too hard with too little energy ) and I see this stream of bullets going past me. I'm thinking, OK, Im dead, sitting duck. Yet the idiot gunner never seems to realize that if he just turned his gun about 10 degree's, he would blow me out of the sky. My chopper turns slowly over, in a near stall, and finally goes nose ground so I can get some air under me. This is happening in the mission Battle. Against human controlled vehicles, I would have been absolutely dead. Sometimes, I see 3 or 4 paths of bullets going around me. Surely, AI is better shots than that. I've seen video of a Tunguska tearing a jet out of the sky at about 1000 feet. It was awesome. In Crysis, if I go against a Shilka, I get shredded almost instantly. Thats real. You can imagine what 4 fast firing 23mm cannons can do to a heli at semi close range. Damage in this sim seems a little nerfed in the players favor.

And there in lies the problem. Image processing is not being simulated in this sim. It is obviously just simple padlocking, ala Gunship 2000. Like the "moving target" button on the WCS is really just eyecandy. It doesn't seem to affect tracking at all ( because its simple padlocking ). I was rather depressed to figure that out. Kind of ruined the sim for me. I hope that DCS can actually come up with a realistic Shkval. Right now, its kind of arcade. Why even have a center post sight on the gate if its just going to padlock the target exactly anyway? Not real. The gate has a center post because thats where the laser would aim if you had real image processing. If I want padlocking, I'll just go back to Crysis which has better AI and graphics anyway. Some things in this sim are great. I think a lot of effort was put into it. But others seem to have come up against a deadline and simple tricks were used to make it "good enough" and "get it out". I hope that in future patches, we will see these things fixed, especially "image processing" on the Shkval, and better AI that can actually hit a close up heli with gunfire. The missles are average in hitting but the AI aimed fire absolutely sucks.

Exactly. While the flight models on the Ka-50 are pretty realistic, other parts leave much to be desired. For instance, the Shkval seems to just padlock objects, no realism at all there. I don't even know why they put in the moving target button on the WCS. It doesn't seem to matter whether it is on at all. I seem to be able to hit moving targets with the Shkval with or without it on. It seems to be just eyecandy. As for the AI, I'll repeat what I said in another thread. With guns and cannons, they don't seem to be able to hit the side of a barn, even on excellent. They are pretty good with missles, but seem to have visual impairment when it comes to guns. I can be caught flying low and having a hard time with a turn, bringing my speed down to nothing, and they can't seem to hit me to save their lives. I'm near standing still, and I have vulcans shooting 20 degrees off of me. They can't hit me standing near still? With a gattling gun that shoots 1000 RPM and an optical lead calculating sight? And when they do hit me, it seems they only hit with one or two rounds, hardly doing any damage at all. Rarely do I get systems or engines knocked out. If there were humans controlling these vehicles, you would be dead instantly. I'm used to playing against other humans in games like Crysis. Its utter slaughter. Heli's in Crysis last about 2 minutes if your good. Against Shilka's, you have just enough time to kiss your ass goodbye before the hundreds of 23mm rounds shred you and the copter into little bitty peices. I agree with the poster above, the flight model is excellent, but everything else needs a lot more work.

Ok, thats what I wanted to know. So there is no target recognition, just matching optical data, without any kind of database. But why can't I lock up the ground in front of a tank then? It only goes to TA when I am on part of a tank or such. Seems to be not so realistic. I'll try to dig through the book and videos a little more to find some answer to this.

Per the title. Also, when the shkval locks something, it supposedly uses optical recognition of the target. Hence, why you can't lock up a rock? So, is there anywhere that the computer will tell me what it has locked up? And if it can identify what it has locked up, is it able to determine the weakest point of the target for missle and cannon fire guidance? I want to know this, because I really have a hard time at extreme range ( which you need to be at most times ) in determining what my target is. Most times, it just looks like a tank ( could be M1, could be Linebacker or 2S6 ). The computer obviously recognizes it, but its not telling me what it is. I need to know if its something I shouldn't worry too much about, or is it AAA which is what I want to kill from the farthest distance possible.

This is a real annoyance. When you bank right or left and then come back up, the auto pilot doesn't try to change you back. Why should it do so for rudder? The computer knows you hit rudder, then released. Therefore you meant to do it. Its not as if the heli was turned by wind or such. I'm not so sure that this is correct. More like a bug.