GGTharos Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 How about the Planes, radar, misssiles, EW, AFM, etc, etc, etc, etc... The list goes on. ... What, in your opinion, goes undone in relation to the helicopter project? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Kula66 Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 ... What, in your opinion, goes undone in relation to the helicopter project? How about SpeedTrees, moving animated infantry (and lots of them), more detailed ground environment - walls, hedges, higher level terrain mesh ..., better explosions visuals, better explosion modelling, better ground AI, etc etc .... ;)
Guest IguanaKing Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 After all these years, the "other" sim has a new theatre of operations...but still no flight model. SP4.2s wasn't too bad though. Its funny that AFM was mentioned as being neglected by someone who prefers F4AF. :music_whistling: I like both sims, they are both essential to any flight sim enthusiast. Neither one excels in all areas, but flight models are definitely not F4s strong suit in that competition.
GGTharos Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 How about SpeedTrees, moving animated infantry (and lots of them), more detailed ground environment - walls, hedges, higher level terrain mesh ..., better explosions visuals, better explosion modelling, better ground AI, etc etc .... ;) Speed tree did not turn out to be all it was cracked up to be ... let's say that the current trees look better overall. Yes, I know, they're not solid. I'll give you explosions, infantry (some infantry) and ground AI ... as far as I know the ground AI has received some treatment. As for the rest - what are you planning to run this on, a cray? ;) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Kula66 Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 As for the rest - what are you planning to run this on, a cray? ;) Well, yesterdays super-computer is tomorrows high-end desktop ... Although, I must say that the rocochet video looks great. Although in RL they seem to bounce off at a greater spread of angles ... should look good at night!
D-Scythe Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 How about SpeedTrees, moving animated infantry (and lots of them), more detailed ground environment - walls, hedges, higher level terrain mesh ..., better explosions visuals, better explosion modelling, better ground AI, etc etc .... ;) Um, better explosion visuals? Why would you want ED to even add more eyecandy than LOMAC is already LOADED with? And better explosion modelling? That ranks even below 'realistic bullet ballistics' in terms of what the user can see/experience. If I'm going Mach 1 and something blows up 6 miles away, I don't want to waste my CPU power on calculating the physics of how the debris should behave.
Gaizokubanou Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 I think explosions could look a lot better in LOMAC... :( sure on aircraft going at mach 1 wouldn't notice it from miles away, but from black shark I think it would be noticible. I agree that it's not a priority though.
Pilotasso Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 Um, better explosion visuals? Why would you want ED to even add more eyecandy than LOMAC is already LOADED with? And better explosion modelling? That ranks even below 'realistic bullet ballistics' in terms of what the user can see/experience. If I'm going Mach 1 and something blows up 6 miles away, I don't want to waste my CPU power on calculating the physics of how the debris should behave. What he means is that the explosions are visibly scripted and do not look natural. Missile detonation for example looks odd and nothing like the real thing. They get close to target and then they stop and vanish in thin air, and in their place apears a puff of smoke with huge radial spirals coming out of it. Reminds me of an octopus wig. There are no proximity or direct impact efects, just the same (unrealistic) odd looking smoke weird thing everytime. I would like to see missiles go through fuselages and burst into flames on the other side of the aircraft. Missile detonations are amost always small but bright or very elongated if an aircraft is hit. .
D-Scythe Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 There are no proximity or direct impact efects, just the same (unrealistic) odd looking smoke weird thing everytime. I would like to see missiles go through fuselages and burst into flames on the other side of the aircraft. Even from 3 miles away, you are not gonna see a missile lance through the fuselage of your target in a spectacular explosion. Honestly, LOMAC has the best explosions of any sim modelling modern air combat that I've seen - the scripted missile explosion behaviour is in every other sim anyway. Unless you're killing things a thousand yards in front, LOMAC's explosions are fine. Instead of wasting programming resources on modelling how a missile should explode, how bout we spend more time on how the missile behaves to get to the point where it kill the target? End-game performance is of infinitely higher priority IMO.
hitman Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 I like the rep the n00b gave me. New Screens Friday 22.9. 09-24-2006 08:19 AM 23rd_SATAN my actions? LOL Good Idea Satan. Just keep proving to me how high that skirt of yours lifts up.
Kula66 Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 Um, better explosion visuals? Why would you want ED to even add more eyecandy than LOMAC is already LOADED with? And better explosion modelling? That ranks even below 'realistic bullet ballistics' in terms of what the user can see/experience. If I'm going Mach 1 and something blows up 6 miles away, I don't want to waste my CPU power on calculating the physics of how the debris should behave. D-Scythe, How do you go M1 in a helicopter? I've given up nagging about A2A ... it just isn't going to get the major upgrade I would love to see. So, if this is going to be a ground pounding sim ... hell, yes eye-candy IS important! And given realistic head-2-head with helicopters isn't an option ... 'cos the Apache/Cobra can't be modelled, its giong to be ALL about blowing AI things up! By explosion modeling I mean dropping a 2000lber on a column of trucks and only one gtting hit!
D-Scythe Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 D-Scythe, How do you go M1 in a helicopter? I've given up nagging about A2A ... it just isn't going to get the major upgrade I would love to see. So, if this is going to be a ground pounding sim ... hell, yes eye-candy IS important! And given realistic head-2-head with helicopters isn't an option ... 'cos the Apache/Cobra can't be modelled, its giong to be ALL about blowing AI things up! By explosion modeling I mean dropping a 2000lber on a column of trucks and only one gtting hit! You shouldn't give up nagging about A2A. Lock On might end with LOBS, but there is always hope that someone might surprise us in a follow-up LOBS patch ;)
Pilotasso Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 Even from 3 miles away, you are not gonna see a missile lance through the fuselage of your target in a spectacular explosion. Unless you're killing things a thousand yards in front, LOMAC's explosions are fine. Dunno if you been playing much these days but one thing you will be looking out for during air combat are the visual clues of a missile hit on your target. And I always get to see the "octopussy blast" quite clearly either it be 1000 yards away or 10 miles away. ^^^^look at that, looks like a gangsta razta wig. :D And Im not even going to mention the infamous toilet paper missile trails :D Instead of wasting programming resources on modelling how a missile should explode, how bout we spend more time on how the missile behaves to get to the point where it kill the target? End-game performance is of infinitely higher priority IMO. Dont take me the wrong way but I think missile pyrotecnics are easely more important than tank detailed shapes, wich much like you described for "your" explosions, cant be seen a mile away, not even sitting in a slow moving helicopter. And lets be frank, there arent any realy modern jet SIM's arround to compare LOMAC's explosions to. .
D-Scythe Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 Dunno if you been playing much these days but one thing you will be looking out for during air combat are the visual clues of a missile hit on your target. And I always get to see the "octopussy blast" quite clearly either it be 1000 yards away or 10 miles away. As long as I see a flash and a smokey streak spiralling towards the earth, that's a kill. I'm too busy to be looking at how my target exploded - so long as I can eyeball the bare minimum needed to confirm the kill, I'm off looking for somebody else. That's what a pilot *should* be looking out for in air combat ;) Dont take me the wrong way but I think missile pyrotecnics are easely more important than tank detailed shapes, wich much like you described for "your" explosions, cant be seen a mile away, not even sitting in a slow moving helicopter. I...never asked for any of that "stuff" you deem detrimental. In fact, I specifically mentioned missile end-game behaviour above all else. And lets be frank, there arent any realy modern jet SIM's arround to compare LOMAC's explosions to. And yet, these modern jet sims are still around. They have AMAZING longetivity, and it's not because of pretty explosions ;)
britgliderpilot Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 D-Scythe, How do you go M1 in a helicopter? I've given up nagging about A2A ... it just isn't going to get the major upgrade I would love to see. So, if this is going to be a ground pounding sim ... hell, yes eye-candy IS important! And given realistic head-2-head with helicopters isn't an option ... 'cos the Apache/Cobra can't be modelled, its giong to be ALL about blowing AI things up! By explosion modeling I mean dropping a 2000lber on a column of trucks and only one gtting hit! Mach 1 in a helicopter? Surely you've seen that most famous of all helicopter documentaries, Airwolf? What you're probably talking about with the explosion modelling will be a combination of AFM-style physics and tweaked warhead values. I've never seen it mentioned, but apart from the sheer number of ground units it shouldn't be too hard to implement. When we start getting a weapons AFM and AFM into more flyables, proper physics for ground vehicles is the next step. Seeing a tank flipped off the road by a bomb, or the turret flying up in the air after being hit by a Maverick . . . . yeah, would be awesome ;) Would take a little while, though. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v121/britgliderpilot/BS2Britgliderpilot-1.jpg
Flexman_UK Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 You know, art is NEVER finished, only abandoned. Just to chime on here, it doesn't take programmers to make pretty 3D models or bigger shinier explosions. But there are times when members of art departments don't have much to do when everyone else has a full workload. They can get up to all sorts of crazy stuff when left with nothing to do (I'm now remided of the "Hitler wall" incident - shudder) so is best from a managers point of view to give them something to keep them out of trouble :) @britgliderpilot LOL Airwolf. I remember they had some crummy explanation for exceeding M1, they 'disengaged the rotors' when they hit 'turbo'. Great documentary, almost as good as that other one about mercenaries working in the Los Angeles underground, what was it called? B Squad or something? :) P.S Happy 100th birthday Dmitri Shostakovic This our hobby - not our job - if we are not having a laugh, we're doing it wrong. - Rats
hitman Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 At least I can spell "ignorant." :lol: A gunshot sounds the same in every language.
hitman Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 This is getting good. Satan has reached a new low. He hasnt reached a new low, his skirt has reached a new high.
hitman Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 Do they now? I think your fanboyness is clouding your judgement with regards to this sim. How, exactly, is my fanboyness clouding my judgement in regards to you being a complete idiot?
23rd_SATAN Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 How, exactly, is my fanboyness clouding my judgement in regards to you being a complete idiot? Your fanboyness impedes your ability to judge this sim critically. You percieve any critiscism as an attack, personal no less, and come out swinging instead of seeing that the poster has a legitimate point. You, are the idiot. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
23rd_SATAN Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 ... What, in your opinion, goes undone in relation to the helicopter project? Incase your skull is too thick to get it, I am NOT interested in the helicopter sim. Why bother adding more shit to the sim, while not even fixing the base it is on top of? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Alfa Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 Incase your skull is too thick to get it... Speaking of which.... - JJ. JJ
hitman Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 Your fanboyness impedes your ability to judge this sim critically. You percieve any critiscism as an attack, personal no less, and come out swinging instead of seeing that the poster has a legitimate point. You, are the idiot. I dont see how I can be considered a fanboy even though I dont even have Flaming Cliffs yet. I find your opinions edgy and offensive. Have fun in solitary, Shark.
Recommended Posts