britgliderpilot
-
Posts
2795 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by britgliderpilot
-
-
I'd rather fly a more sophisticated aircraft in a study sim with more educated guesses than a less sophisticated aircraft that can be simulated down to the last nut or bolt any day of the week. As long as those guesses are reasonable and perhaps on the conservative side, thats fine with me. :)
Fair enough - but you won't get that sim from ED any time soon :)
The more advanced the aircraft get, the more difficult it is to figure out their capabilities in order to model them.
The list of stuff we don't actually know about the F/A-22 is endless. It starts with about 2 million lines of code . . .
-
My specs are; amd 3700, leadtek 6800gt, 1,5gig ram, etc...
I got around 15-20 fps in single player missions, with nearly everything maxed (except water and distance) at 1280*1024.
I am also planning an upgrade and I was waiting for Nvidia 9800 series. Unfortunately, 9800 series will be a major disappointment for me, judging what was released so far in terms of syntetic tests. Maybe an upgrade with a 9600gt SLI system would be better...
By the way, does FC support SLI or will BS support SLI?
An AMD 3700?
I hope you're planning to swap that for a Core 2 Duo . . .
As a rule of thumb I don't buy brand-shiny-new graphics cards - the price/performance ratio is too high and the software doesn't keep up with the new tech.
Waiting for the new card to come out, and then buying towards the top of the last generation has worked well for me :)
When the 9800 comes out I think I'll be having an 8800 or two to replay Crysis with DX10 . . . mmn . . .
-
As GGTharos points out, it has to be realistic enough to satisfy ED's requirements.
The criteria are many and I don't know what they all are . . . but modelling something to the possible limit is on the list. That does NOT include making stuff up.
My understanding is that for the AH-64D, you would have to make up some fairly significant chunks of the systems . . . . so it's off the list for now.
Hardcore simmers may well be able to justify the position that once you make something up, it's no longer a simulator . . .
-
Great idea , i'm going to buy a new pc hardware and thought (like many people)what spec will be best or enough good to run DCS.
As with every time this comes up . . .
If you want to buy a new PC for Black Shark, don't do it until you know when Black Shark is being released!
Lets you save more, lets more powerful hardware drop in price, and final betas give you a better idea of the kind of power that's acceptable.
There's still no release date, there's still no release date estimate. ED is aiming for some time in 2008. That is all.
I've got a 2.5GHz Core 2 Duo, 2Gb RAM, and a 7950GT. Has handled the betas very well indeed so far, and it's now more than a year old.
But I haven't stress-tested it with campaign-mission sized battles yet, so things could all change.
-
Now you're just bragging :P
That's one hell of a beefy laptop. Can it actually be refitted with the uber graphics cards?
How open are the mobile Core 2 Duos to overclocking?
-
This is what the UI will look like in black shark
. . . uh . . . .
;)
I believe there's a Mission Editor interface screenie floating around somewhere. That's been tweaked a bit since the last show, too.
-
I think the walking feature could be handy place to start missions in a briefing room and then walk to your helicopter/aircraft. If the aircraft was fully modeled then you would do a walk around and check fluids etc. Could even add battle damage which the player could reject the aircraft if its not airworthy otherwise there are consequences. Yes this is an idea for the future not a request for Black Shark just an idea.:thumbup: Expanding on the game play further in such an enviroment you would need more detailed mission planning and players would require a set aircraft to fly otherwise in the current LO enviroment it would be first in first served. I like the idea of ground crew as well there should be alot of immersion added by having ground crew and considering there are helicopters involved how about hand signals for guiding the aircraft onto the landing pad. Could even add an interface or key commands for players to use hand signals for guiding helicopters for other players.(maybe for the AH64 sim):music_whistling:
You will be astonished how long it takes to cover ground while walking . . .
I'm not sure how much a walkaround would tell you, either . . . modelling visible fluid leaks and making sure everything's bolted on properly is waaaay beyond the current scope of BS.
Ground crew would add immersion - if someone could whip up some animated models, that would be fantastic. With the system as it is now, you could probably trigger ground crew running out to your landing pad as you approach. Add in some activity around your aircraft for a re-arm or refuel, and NOW we're talking . . .
Good mission builders will find some workarounds to add considerable immersion to the missions. If you list of triggers is long enough . . . . grin.
Weta-
The ability to retrieve shot-down pilots for more points would add a great deal to big online missions . . . but as well as AI improvements, you'd have to have a system for generating flights to a specific point for it to be successful. Which means further development of the Mission Editor would be required.
For personal preference I'd eliminate the possibility of a human being picked up - leave the ability to respawn.
However, for a few bonus points it might be nice to switch the little man on the ground to AI and leave him open to being picked up.
Anyway - troop pickup and some CSAR capability. Let's add it to the wish-list :)
-
I disagree
While it is obviously (or hopefully) too late to include new features in DCS.BS, DCS.A10 is presumably being worked on at a variety of levels - code from DCS.BS will end up in DCS.A10, devs have shown WIPs of A-10 cockpits, and there will inevitably be people compiling both actual code, and requirements for code for the next project.
It makes MUCH more sense to air ideas and requests NOW (no matter how fanciful they may seem at this stage in product development) than wait till we are at the same stage of development on the next product (or the product after that) & suddenly raise a list of what might be very good ideas, but again voiced at a stage that is too late in development to allow them to be added.
Yes software should be developed to a plan, but that plan should reflect both the interests and innovation brought by the Devs, and the perceived desires of the customers (as interpreted by the devs) - not be an exercise in theoretical purity or navel gazing on the part of the Devs.
This thread is providing an avenue for devs to access some of their customer base's desires.
As was mentioned above, a (presumably) minor change in the code for the A-10 module - the ability to have a ground troop be 'picked up' (disappear) at a set proximity from a specific vehicle, not just appear, does make player SAR (C-SAR) missions available, or makes it possible to implement the modelling of players being picked up by other choppers after exiting their own craft (downed A-10 pilots) or even of doing a walk around then getting IN the aircraft, rather than only getting OUT.
We appear to be getting ground infantry in DCS.BS. An addition that would undoubtedly add to immersion would (as someone else said) be to create an 'infantry' unit that is ground crew & have the AI tinker around between aircraft & support vehicles. - or even take the (assumed) current ability to have trrops spawn beside choppers or vehicles on a trigger, & add optional weighpoints 'embark' & 'disembark' for all vehicles so that if the mission maker wants then at the start & end of their journey a character leaves the nearest building, gets in travels then gets out & enters the nearest building.
Suggesting 'improvements' particularly methods to utilise the existing code to add functions that add to immersion, is not counter-productive, but highly productive, and will ensure that the playability & longevity of future DCS modules is increased.
Well put!
I'd like to add one thing to the above - while it's very important to welcome suggestions from the community, it is not practical or sensible to try and incorporate them all.
So while some suggestions are productive and will be worked on, there will inevitably be some that, no matter how dear it is to one or two posters' hearts, won't go on to be developed.
My personal opinion is that the ability to fly alongside a troop pickup/CSAR mission in progress would be very good indeed - well worth having, and would expand mission variety.
But having your ejected pilot sit around and wait for three hours to be picked up by a CSAR helicopter in order to continue a campaign . . . that's pointless in the extreme.
Once you've ejected you'd either have to restart the mission, or if you've already succeeded then assume you get picked up.
Anyway - to reiterate the point once more, there is no plan I am aware of to add any playable ground combat stuff to DCS.
. . . . someone's going to ask about after DCS now, aren't they? :P
To pre-empt that one, the plans for DCS aren't finished. At least three aircraft are in the works, and it's not worth speculating beyond that yet.
-
I don't about the 33 but I'm sure he has a server that scans the Universe for the string "MiG-29K" :D
Cheers Jens! ;)
Oh . . . now you've gone and done it . .
I can see a smoke trail incoming from here . . .
-
... and my fans come out of the woodwork :D
I swear, Alfa has a server dedicated to scanning the web for any occurrence of the term "Su33" . . .
:D
-
Well, yes and no. I mean the raw documents ED used to develope the sim "compiled" somewhere easy to reach all at once. Manuals, technical documents, essays, papers, etc. That way they'd have the knowledge to tell what should be there and what shouldn't be. I mention this in the interest of getting more beta testers on board for a better end product. Most beta testing I'm familiar with isn't paid beta testing, either.
And yes, I mean unclassified stuff. If you're saying all this stuff is classified, then how are they making a high-fidelity sim?
Ah, I see what you mean.
I'm told that Kamov offered unprecented access to ED regarding information on the Ka50 - what form that took I don't know. Might be possible to pool it on a server for the beta team.
Problem with that is that Kamov is Russian. I don't know how far the other testers will go, but learning Russian is a bit far beyond my level of dedication :D
"You have to think in Russian!"
-
Its a shame that ED probably doesn't have the time and money to compile a set of references on the real aircraft, kind of like a "DCS/Black Shark Bible" and make that required reading for testers. They might be surprised at how quickly people can pick things like that up and have a good working knowledge for testing purpose. I guess with their limited resources you have to already bring that to the table.
. . . . like a manual?
Draft manuals have been available to the beta team for learning and editing for some time. But reading the whole thing and testing each function of each piece of equipment can make you go cross-eyed. Remember Wags' "600-page manual" quote?
-
I've read through this thread and I understand what ED is looking for, but I think the whole "beta team" thing is a misnomer and thats what could people off. They're confusing it with "beta tester".
Actually contributing to the development of something in terms of knowledge and production aren't what most people think of when they think "beta". That's a bit like saying Bud Anderson is you beta tester for your P-51 sim. No, he's you technical expert or technical adviser. Same goes for talented folks who make your skins, textures, and art.
I've beta tested computer games before. All I did was play them and report bugs. I didn't even try to do anything crazy to crash it, just played it like I normally would. This is what beta testing means to most people. When a new MMORPG comes out and people sign up for beta, all they really want is the ability to play the game before others. All they're really expected to do is report bugs and not give out any info while under the NDA.
A major problem with testing DCS is that the depth of modelling is such that you'd barely scratch it in normal playing.
Nearly all the helicopter's systems are modelled - but how many people will regularly use the more complex features of the ABRIS, or the radionavigation equipment, or some of the more arcane weapons system dials . . . .
The testers need to learn these systems in great detail to understand what the bugs are, and in some cases the theory behind them as well. If they understand the theory or systems first, that's a big advantage!
In addition, I'm expecting a huge load to be placed on the testers as instructors and troubleshooters once Black Shark is released - because we do know the Ka50's systems and the quirks thereof.
It'd be a bit presumptuous to say that testing for DCS is harder than testing for other sims - but from what I've seen so far, being included on the DCS beta team does drop you into an immensely challenging environment, with a wider range of learning and input than may have been required for "simpler" sims.
You've really got to know your stuff, and you've got to be dedicated to the project. Yes, ED do try and get advisers and SMEs on board as they develop new features . . . and combining the role of an adviser on a feature with testing on that and other features seems to be working well for them :)
To some extent the joy of discovering the sim all at once does suffer from beta testing . . . but it's still exciting seeing new features come into the sim. If it wasn't fun, why would we do it? ;)
I'm still looking forward very much to flying the campaigns in the final product - it's hard to reconcile an advancing storyline with test scenarios.
That should be an epic adventure . . . can't wait!
-
what is that from?:noexpression:
Dunno where you might find a copy, but what it IS . . . is ED's AH-64A cockpit model ;)
-
I've seen that vid before - it's a combination of an extremely agile chopper and an unbelievably talented pilot.
The Bo105 is, if anything, more agile than the Ka50 . . . . it's smaller, lighter, no targeting systems, cannon, armour . . . .
I'm reluctant to fly that way even in Black Shark with a chopper that isn't real!
There are forests with clearings that you can duck in and out of, yes. Flying NOE in the Ka50 can be fantastic fun ;)
. . . it also showcases the Ka50's damage model . . . because you ARE going to crash while practicing. Lots :D
-
1
-
-
The description in the screens section say "Tornado GR3" (with Firefox check "not load images").
Bye
Phant
It's most likely a labelling error on the website - as Gys points out, the Mk3 version of the Tornado was an interceptor. And if Gys says he modelled the GR4, I'd be inclined to believe him ;)
Both the Jaguar and the Harrier came in GR3 variants, so the designation isn't unheard of . . . but wrong for this aircraft.
-
1
-
-
As stated in the updates thread, a counter-insurgency campaign IS planned.
http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=27694
How exactly this will be implemented I'm not sure - but don't worry, it's not just nation-state warfare considered :)
-
So far there's no generic map I'm aware of, only maps that individual testers have created.
I believe the intention is to release *some* documentation as the release date becomes imminent, so there'll be some time to prepare . . . but not just yet.
-
Watching the video, it becomes more and more obvious that Black Shark will REQUIRE trackIR to enjoy it...
I cannot imagine trying to do all of these maneuvers while trying to manipulate the view with the hatswitch.
Damn... another item that I need to convince the girlfriend to put on our budget!
Any of the beta testers flying the helicopter without trackIR?
I don't have a TrackIR and can fly Black Shark just fine :)
Those who have TrackIR even in Lomac/FC wax lyrical about how effective and wonderful they are, and I suspect the potential immersion factor in Black Shark is even greater thanks to the 6 DOF cockpit . . . . but don't worry, you can fly without one.
What will be virtually impossible, however, is flying without a HOTAS. I have an X45 and that's just about sufficient . . . for deskspace reasons I'm currently using a Logitech twist-stick, and it's almost impossible to fly an effective mission with it. There's just not enough buttons to deal with the flight controls AND the weapons system controls.
And there's only one hatswitch - at which point things do get interesting without a TrackIR.
And accurate yaw controls of some form are vital too. The X45 rocker switch isn't quite accurate enough . . .
-
Yeah thats a must have for DCS to fill the void with Ai radio traffic like Falcon it adds alot to imersion. It should also be required to be on the same radio freq as well in order to hear them and like wise online.
Black Shark's radio modelling is much more complex than Lomac - you can set up the radio frequencies manually and depending on what you're tuned to you'll hear different things.
Whether the AI outside your flight chatter or not, I'm not sure.
With radio modelling this complex it's probably possible, but don't hold your breath for Black Shark. There's plenty of opportunity to develop through the DCS series :)
There's a realism issue here, too - how much of the AI is likely to be on your channel?
-
Will there be option to trim the cyclic in ka-50, so that we dont have to hold the stick and push it forward all the time? Something like in the EECH 1.10 version?
Trim's in there, yep :)
-
Does being completely insane and wanting to test the inverted-flight characteristicts under bridges while fully armed and being chased by SAM count as providing something unique to the testing-enviroment? :D
It doesn't qualify you on it's own, but it's an important consideration to have . . . . because sooner or later someone is going to try exactly that!
I did once trip across a bug by doing something a bit ridiculous with the Ka50 and a bridge. Way outside the normal operating envelope - but then that's how a lot of people (me included) will fly the Ka50, because it's more fun :D
Some of the bugs are caused by really obscure events. Some are tiny. Chasing those down can be a real challenge . . .
-
Very nice video, a little short though:)
I liked the improvement on grond textures, a little more saturation and contrast is added I suppose...
But what BS lacks is moving grass and volumetric trees... Speed tree or something like that should should implemented.. Why did you decide not to? Was it too expensive or was it a compatibility issue? I guess everyone would be willing to pay a few bucks more for the speed tree:)
I'll give you a clue.
Go out and buy Crysis. Turn the graphics to maximum . . . watch your computer explode ;)
An equally good example is Armed Assault. That gets grass and decent trees at ground level . . . but once you're above it in an aircraft the draw distance is tiny, because today's PCs just can't cope with that level of detail.
If it was possible to implement such features on such a scale as the map in Black Shark, your PC couldn't cope with it yet. In time we may see graphics like that . . . but not quite yet :)
-
Please remind that ED is interested in a very detailed simulation of all systems which is momentally not possible on the Longbow Apache because most of the systems are classified.
Thats why the DCS Series will simulate just the helicopters / aircrafts which can be modeled by ED`s high set standards. If you can provide us ( all ) with detailed AH-64 D documents im sure there will be a AH-64D sim. But beware of the FBI Agents chasing you ;)
I think he was just referring to the dual-seat functionality of the Apache Longbow sim, rather than the fact it modelled the Longbow :)
You know how it is, though - so many questions on why you can't have X aircraft that sometimes you get tunnel vision :P
ED are working on dual-seat functionality - there was limited dual-control functionality over a LAN connection in Lomac v1.02, so they've experimented with it before.
It's not just a case of reproducing that code, it's not suitable for use in Black Shark . . . but it'll probably count as valuable research :)
Hopefully the AI improvements visible at Black Shark release will provide some reassurance that it'd work OK offline, too.
How realistic does it need to be?
in DCS: Ka-50 Black Shark
Posted
It rather depends how you define percentage realism, doesn't it? Was fairly arbitrary at the beginning of the thread . . . do we need to nail it down?
Clearly some stuff won't happen - for a start, when you get shot down you won't be killed.
However - if every system in the simulated aircraft responds in the same way to an input as it would in the real aircraft . . . that system would be 100% realistic.
If the symbology and procedures in the simulated aircraft correspond exactly to the real aircraft, that would be 100% realistic.
For the Ka50 most of that's possible. I believe there are a couple of switches in the Ka50 cockpit in Black Shark that don't work . . . so we might have to settle for 98% by that measure ;)