Jump to content

element1108

Members
  • Posts

    1633
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by element1108

  1. Well said my friend, Bucic thanks for reminding me about this sim that's been in my bin for sometime, not knowing about 2.11...completely changed everything. +1's to both!
  2. MUCH better!!
  3. Shenanigans! I'll never understand that, Contra 30 lives cheat was the only real cheat I ever played...it was impossible to beat that game with only 3 lives seriously. Anyway, that's too bad.
  4. Man cheating like that...really no fun at all. There's just no JEOPARDY if you win all the time. It's all about jeopardy.
  5. The problem with comparing a promo video (purpose to sell sell sell) and a real tangible commercial product is that one is fiction and the other isn't. The producers of Cryentine/Outerra are very selective of what they show their audience. The engine looks crazy cool, but until a commercial product is released along the same lines as DCS series/Rise of flight I think it's a completely unreasonable comparison to make.
  6. I need to find my BOB disk. Installed it a long time ago and was less than impressed (the patches have done wonders)...tracker IR was buggered for me and it was during a time I was playing warbirds online...so didn't give it much of a chance. I guess with Cliffs of Dover it's a little late, but you can never have too much BOB :)
  7. You didn't quote GG's line completely therefore changing the context. Please never work in the media, with omissions like this you could possibly start a world war. ;) "c) do it right to start with. A little planning/preparation before the mission can and will go a long way ;)" That's not bad form at all, that's very reasonable and he's hardly lecturing. He actually made some constructive helpful tips for those it applies to. Is that track error you're having a common issue? I've never had any problems with track files or playing track files.
  8. Aviation no matter what branch you're into is ALL about routine. Especially combat pilots, they have more routine than any other aviator (well maybe not commercial airlines) but boy the steps they have to take just to takeoff, never mind press the trigger. Aviation is complicated, when you factor in combat into that equation it becomes even more complicated and therefore steps are taken to ensure an efficient and "safe" process. Airline pilots with thousands of hours still call out checklists to their co-pilot to ensure proper startup/taxi/takeoff/climb procedures. When you're flying a sim from the comfort of your computer you're not getting the physical sensations that come along with high speed, g's and life jeopardy (if routine isn't followed) ... it's all about the KILL (for some) (for others it's the step by steps process). The A2A spit looks amazing, A2A are the only 3rd party FSX guys who continue to really push the bar when it comes to exploiting the FSX code. Flying the aircraft is much more than throttle forward stick into gut, trigger pressed. 1) Aviation as a hobby so I've taken a few flights, but by no means a RL expert 2) A good friend of mine is in RCAF flying CF-18's and I've discussed his routines and processes a LOT (comparing to RL aviation). Again, I'm no expert :)
  9. :megalol: Not to mention the physical effects of air combat....g-lock and barf bags. Most falconers wouldn't survive the G test to begin with let alone survive ground school ;). The real deal is definitely in a category all it's own, there' a lot more discomfort involved that's for sure. :pilotfly: I can do a split S in falcon whilst drinking a tea after a heavy meal...tracking my target in a 6G dogfight is a simple zero resistance tweak of the neck and tracker IR fills in the rest ;). It's amazing back in the day (as a child) these graphics worked. Imagination seemed to fill in the rest, it seems as though now everything graphically must be hand delivered with a little bow and personal name card for it to satisfy. I know it's 2011 (technically it's only 25 days into 2011), but I'm still not sure what 2011 graphics are suppose to look like, especially in a flight sim. The genre has made loads of progress and will continue to do so no doubt about it. Here's to the past, present AND future :)
  10. Unless my left leg had airport diagram/checklist/frequency notes in super high rez that I could refer to I don't really care to see a virtual leg that blocks some key switches for quick access whilst flying. It's nice, but gimmicky I think...but that's just me ;).
  11. The first guy goes to demo his sim and he crashes 2 seconds after takeoff lol.
  12. That's great man! I know it's silly but it feels like a joke how they hype up the graphics and system specs. I remember those days well, but never remember seeing the production value of tv being so cheesy back then ;) +1
  13. Yeah perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough, I'm not against the opinion of online, hell I LOVE playing online. My main point (however unclear it was) is that the gross majority of players (these are statistics, not my personal opinion) who play pc games do so the majority of time offline. The whole boutique thing was just to reinforce the fact that there isn't endless resources from which to keep digging. If you don't stop at some point, when do you stop when it comes to features. At some point you have to wrap it up and move on, that's all. As accessable as the internet appears to be, the majority of users do not have a strong enough connection to offer high quality online play. People complain (rightly so) when an internet connection must be maintained to play a game, they simply will not buy said game if one is required (rise of flight initially, SH5). I actually play ARMA 2 and I only play online, i'd prefer to play online more in the DCS series but time is just a factor for me (and if its a factor for me, it's a factor for a lot of other players as well who are in similar situations). I have done my best learning from flying Black Shark online. When I heard FC2 and Black Shark were being made compatible I lost my S&&T I was so happy to hear that. Evidence suggests they're aiming for a bigger mp compatibility, the goal of ED is in fact for the modules to be online compatible...that in itself indicates the companies dedication and respect for multiplayer. Of course I respect the opinions of others, I do apologize if that's been lacking.:pilotfly:
  14. :smartass::thumbup:
  15. So if it comes down to it; would players sacrifice new development/modules (fighter perhaps) for a more dedicated time building a dynamic campaign or implementing more features online? Would people pay extra for these features? How much would you pay? Lets talk bottom line here, it's not like ED offers NO MP features in their products. I'm quite satisfied with them generally, if they had more it probably wouldn't make much of a difference to me. If 100% of the market played exclusively online all the time I'm sure the development process would be different. Apart from MMO's there are no complex games that are exclusively online, it's generally a medium who's gameplay is centered around the lowest common denominator, if a person has a crap internet connection...their gameplay suffers heavily. Whatever case any individual has about gaming online and the future etc there is an equal and obviously more powerful argument against them. Dedicated online works for simple console games who's single player component is no longer than 5 hours and which requires a monthly subscription (xbox life) to enjoy. (PS3 guys excluded of course, but also endure more lag than xbox users). I don't know why I feel so strongly about this, I have thought a lot of the same things people are writing down here for online gaming, but fact of the matter is the bigger picture doesn't always take into account our beliefs/desires/gameplay preferences. We have to accept that...voice an opinion of course, but be more understanding when those who know more than us fill in the blanks we've left out. Some posts I read make me feel as if there's no mp feature at all and that simply isn't the case. There is only so much a boutique developer can achieve in a given amount of time. I've seen nothing but progress in the YEARS i've been following ED products (lomac day 1) and I'm CONFIDENT the greatest things are yet to come. I love those boutique shops because frankly they're making the type of sims I want to play. If it weren't for ED, 777 Studios (i forget the russian u something initially), Madox games etc we'd have no modern day sims. The trend in FPS is even starting to shift, CASUAL gamers is the new audience. Vastly more popular than the COD teen market, games require FAR less frills to produce and they sell to a wider audience across multiple platforms. Angry Birds is your worst nightmare...not MP features in DCS series ;)
  16. You think the attitudes of people are what hold developers back? Try money, time, resources etc. The attitudes of the community don't really differ great from the dev's, the dev's have proper jeopardy $$$$$$$$$ the community dont have proper jeopardy in the matter...wish lists don't cost anything...in time or money. There have been significant changes since 7-8 years ago, DCS A-10C and Lomac shouldn't even be compared (graphically there may be a few similarities) but the overall experience is very different. Giving the community the IP tools right now may not be the best business model for ED to follow, you have to consider that. Consider as well the fact that if improvements in some of these areas seem to be lacking there is proper reason for that attitudes of the community have nothing to do with it either. These sims are made by people just like us, they probably love the exact same things from a flight sim view, but they are dealing with proper roadblocks whereas we don't understand the full picture. Business is complicated no matter how you try to break it down. ANyway I do apologize for my constant bloody forum "policing" ... done too much of that lately, I just feel many of these posts are lacking in common sense or a general understanding of the bigger picture. I want my 1000 post to be epic, not .... this. :music_whistling:
  17. That's right and we're always all about the next module, simmers are always looking beyond what they have (it's more of a flaw than anything). Wish lists are far easier to write down than they are to make reality. Madtommy: Because DCS is primarily available online doesn't make its audience more willing/able to fly online most of the time. Given the nature of my work I'm online almost all the time, but I dont' have a fraction of that time to fly online. Proper multiplayer (the kind we're all hoping for) requires a more substantial amount of time to organise, plan and execute to it's fullest potential. I personally barely have enough time to startup the shark/hog and do a mission inside a week, never mind playing online. At least I can pause an offline mission if my wife needs me for something (wink wink nudge nudge, say no more), or there is a phone call or whatever. I don't know if this applies to everybody, but the older I've gotten (i'm not even that old) the less time I have to play on the computer (by play i mean sim okay). When I get some dedicated time, I'll look to online servers first and if numbers are low or most gamers in server are lone wolfs I'll fly offline. Online for me is like...going on a snowboard trip and getting an epic powder day. It doesn't happen all the time, but when it does it's magic. It is the way these games should be played (having a human wingman who is capable is the greatest), but it's outside the reach of most "older" gamers who have RL responsibilities influencing how they spend their sim time. Anyway that's my take on it, in a perfect ideal world...online for sure, but that's just not possible for me at this time...and I'm sure many others as well.
  18. That "dumb host" is tailoring to the lowest common denominator (audience wise) so yeah he can't really go into this intricate detail of what proper air combat simulation is all about, it's a COMPLEX PROPERTY, if he did, the majority of the audience would have NO clue what they're talking about and would change the channel. I know something about this because I work in TV, TV is all about making sure your target audience has a clue what you're talking about. The second you're lost is when you change the channel, advertisers do not like that and therefore networks do NOT like that. Anyway this thread really has run it's course, how can you argue a personal perspective. It's obvious the author of this thread doesn't want the experience DCS series offers. The fanboy CE3 and constant Crysis comparisons to DCS gameplay are perfect examples for that. Perhaps this game isn't your demographic Henchman14? The DCS series tailors 100% to my preferences, there are always things to improve, but like life, games aren't perfect, you make an educated guess and commit financially to the cause. Virtual reality will never surpasss the real world, so either accept the fact that you're getting military grade desktop simulation experience or not? If not, there is a larger more diverse market out there (battlefield, COD, arma, CRYSIS) that can give you more what you want. I've wanted what you've wanted for 15 years now, hasn't happened in that timeframe and I don't see it happening in the next 15 years....even with all those CE3 engine videos. to the author: http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3182167 shows more potential in flight sim capable engine than CE3 personally.
  19. Henchman14 you are aware that basing 100% of your opinion on a few video's can be...somewhat disappointing in the end. Promo video's are there to promote so they will only show off the most capable features of a game engine and even those are grossly over simplified. I think you liked what you saw and your imagination filled in the rest to create a beautiful picture in your mind, impossible for anything else to live up to those expectations.
  20. Perhaps a CE3 game like battlefield 2 or an arma 2 equivalent, you'll never see a flight simulator the level of complexity such as Falcon or DCS in that. It's primarily a FPS engine, draw distances still aren't large enough. And by bland world, do you mean graphically? CE3 hasn't offered any solutions to dynamic campaigns, ai or anything like that, so it must be graphics correct? Here are some numbers regarding how far the human eye can see at various altitudes ... At sea level the curvature of the earth limits the range of vision to 2.9 miles. The formula for determining how many miles an individual can see at higher levels is the square root of his altitude times 1.225. Thus on a clear day at 1,000 feet a person with normal vision can see 39 miles; at 10,000 feet, 123 miles; at 25,000 feet, 194 miles. With good visibility a pilot at 25,000 feet can see Germany from the English Channel; at the same altitude over Tunisia he can see the middle of Sicily. Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,766761,00.html#ixzz1BKaqiS00
  21. You're talking about this engine right? If not I need to see what you're talking about here, might help me understand more where you're coming from. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=65705 You think that is the sim changing engine? From a ground perspective it looks pretty cool, but i don't see the potential it has for aircraft capable of flying 20,000. If you're being helicopter specific again DCS (digital combat series) is making individual flight sims that are (the hope is) to be compatible with one another. If you create a low terrain outstanding graphic engine than you're limited to just helicopters, fixed wing aircraft would be useless. This would in the long run limit what ED can produce module wise (only helicopters) and limit they're potential military contracts to just rotary craft. THAT would hurt their business more than blindly switching over to this magic cry engine that although looks cool, doesn't look like a flight sim capable engine. Outerra has more potential for flight sims than this and again, looking at the engine alone isn't really the best way to educate your conclusions. And math is never just math man, don't over simplify ;)
  22. This is a good debate I pointed out that some of your comments were somewhat belligerent is all. Telling a company how they conduct business for the sake of their future...given it's within your free speech right, doesn't validate it in any way. There is no magic engine out there right now that can do it all and you're crazy if that's what you think. To understand if this engine would be MORE suitable for the DCS series you'd have to understand the inner workings of the DCS series and you simply don't. The same can be applied to this genius Cry Engine you speak of, you don't know it's limitations or if it would be useful at all for a complex study flight sim. It's like you read one thing on it and have taken the words of the author at face value and ignored everything else. Why do you think flight sims are so rare? They cost LOADS to make and most gamers want exactly what you want? A larger than life game experience with realism, great graphics, immersion, dynamic campaign, mission editor, multiplayer, instant gratification, player is the hero, player makes a difference etc etc. They want it all for under $50. Video games aren't going to replace the real world, not in the next 15 years anyway (after that who the hell knows) so ... yes we can improve on many things in the DCS series (of which they have admitted to and are striving towards) but that's not going to happen over night and it's not going to satisfy all of those needs. The wishlist is easy as hell to snap up, factor in each bullet point takes about 11 weeks to properly implement and you've got some time on your hands.
  23. It's not what we do, I don't do that, I don't enjoy reading it, I don't enjoy the circles it creates. Having a educational discussion is one thing, a lot of what you're doing here is being belligerent. I hate flying in ARMA so you represent one side, I represent the other. I'd much rather have a huge world to fly around in without the limits of map size or vis distance just to have a higher textured ground environment. There's no point creating a smaller world for Black Shark because the idea is to have all DCS modules compatible with one another, so in order for that to happen you have to run the same engine for all of them. Do you have FC 2??? Black Shark can fly in the same online environment as LOMAC airframes...that's pretty cool. Seriously, look into Apache Air Assault I think it will have almost everything you're lookming for...at the expense of "realism".
  24. You simply cannot fly A-10's the way they're meant to be flown in ARMA buddy. You obviously haven't played A-10C beta yet otherwise you'd know that. No avionics in ARMA, view distance is pathetic, you can't operate from proper altitudes without being able to see anything but pea soup. Have you tried APache Air assault?? From the sounds of your likes and dislikes...I think you would really enjoy it. (seriously) To also add: You joined what? Dec 2010? You haven't been apart of this community for long. New members are always welcomed, but when you come in off the street you don't start telling the company what they should do to "survive in the game" isn't really a great way for your voice to be heard.
  25. Man, no disrespect here, but can you PLEAAAAASE stop comparing Black Shark with ARMA?!?!? Please!?!? A map the size of ARMA would NOT suffice, especially with FC compatibility or the future compatibility with other fast mover DCS modules. PLEASE STOP!? I find this thread interesting, but statements like this aren't cool. You are assuming way more than you know here and you are singling yourself out as the man who knows it all. You don't i'm afraid, at ALL. Just because a few people agree with you doesn't make it right or the way ED should do it. It sounds like you're more suited for ARMA or Crysis so you can enjoy those games while we enjoy ED's sims. For better or worse. And lastly you need to stop telling ED what to do or what they should do, you have no idea business wise what this company should do to thrive, (neither do I for that matter, but I'm not telling them what they should do). Going out and just buying a 3D engine costs a LOT of money, and that doesn't include the cost and the time it will take to fill that world with the better ai, dynamic campaign etc etc etc. Saying is very easy doing is much more difficult and complicated.
×
×
  • Create New...