Anyone starting to not like BS?

[sp0nge]

a picture tells 1000 words huh. More like 1,000,000. thats a massive jump for graphics of the Ah-64a

[Kuky]

luckybob9... that's excellent comparison :D good point ;)

 

Now, looking at that second screenshot.. just what more could people want in detail of 3D Model?

[Haegar]

Did you read the hole thread? Or just hopped in? The modeling of the aircrafts and vehicles was not the subject of the (new graphics)-discussion.

[Bucic]

The new 3D model is rendered with the same graphics engine (slightly tweaked probably) so it's not a big deal and will pay for this with system req. Unless there's a good balance of LODs. The other thing is good 3D models is what community is able to deliver to some point.

 

BUT - ED to use old graphics engine when the new one is even not in development is both obvious and a good move. And OpenGL/multiplatform support plans is what made BS a precious project that can start a good trend in a simworld.

 

Talking abut "under the hood" - BS will likely present some features very characteristic for Lock On series and that is (still) not dynamic campaign, practicaly lack of radio chatter and lack of serious use of radio comms, inadequate system requirements (it's still LO graph engine) and maybe something more. I hope I am wrong at least in a single point mentioned.

[Haegar]

beispiel1.jpg

 

A well modelled vehicle in front of a cardboard like house, what is looking like a cheap c-movie coulisse, placed on an undefined, blurred something called "ground".

 

This point of view comes much closer to what you will see from a helo cockpit, than the two posted shots from far above.

[luckybob9]

Did you read the hole thread? Or just hopped in? The modeling of the aircrafts and vehicles was not the subject of the (new graphics)-discussion.

Mostly just hopped in. I skimmed a little bit.

 

Would making making the square buildings more square or make it have sharper corners satisfy you for better graphics for things other than aircrafts and vehicles?

[159th_Viper]

To be Honest..........In the Helo I'd rather be keeping my Eye on that Truck with the Aft-Mounted Flak Gun than the Scantily Clad Fit Lass in the Upstairs window of that Apartment Block :D

[VMFA-Blaze]

As far as beginning to not like BS ... How can anyone make that kind of judgement without playing it, to see how it really stacks up... You can try to imagine various things, sure, but until you actually begin to fly missions, its all speculation..

 

If the the meaning of the first post is to question the decision to start with a fresh approach for Ed's next release...well I'm personally backing Ed's decision 100% ....

 

This had to happen, I mean the writing was on the wall for quite some time .. To act shocked or betrayed because of Lock On being finally cancelled is really a bit naive...

 

Its better to start new, with a clean slate so to speak..Some dead wood had to be removed and I'm looking forward to a new and better future for Eagle Dynamics...

 

~S~

 

Blaze

[192nd_Erdem]

To be Honest..........In the Helo I'd rather be keeping my Eye on that Truck with the Aft-Mounted Flak Gun than the Scantily Clad Fit Lass in the Upstairs window of that Apartment Block :D

 

I'd rather have my eyes pleased more with both.

 

I can't understand the buddha attitude of some guys here, why don't you want more after 2 years of development? They're just gonna rip LO and strap a well modelled Ka-50 in it with some community made vehicle models and voila, it's a new series.

 

Yeah.

[Bucic]

Oh, and I hope new DCS graphics engine will not make manga funs as happy as LO engine did. :devil_2:

[VMFA-Blaze]

Oh, and I hope new DCS graphics engine will not make manga funs as happy as LO engine did. :devil_2:

 

manga funs ????

[Bucic]

manga funs ????

 

It should be fAns, sorry. And I meant colors and ovarall cartoonish look.

[GGTharos]

I'm sure you can make a better 3d engine ;) Show us!

[Vekkinho]

Guys, LOFC graphics was way beyond any other game available at that time, especially flight sims. I can't remember any other flight sim from that time that could compete with terrain in LOFC. Additional terrain upgrades for FS2004 were payware with price sometimes doubling the price of Flaming Cliffs and terrain only covered couple of square miler around airports and bigger cities.

 

So statements like:

There is no NEW terrain - we'll get only light retoushed, so there still be ugly like always was. So BS now isn't totally new sim. ;).

 

are not based on facts but a bunch of jibberish.

 

Think a bit more globaly my friend and you may notice that you were able to run LOFC back in 2003 on a P-III rigs with lo-end GPUs and compare that fact with Falcon4.0, a game from '98 with a dissapointing level of eye-candy but a great level of avionics modelling that still needed improvement. Improvement wasn't possible until introduction of P-IV processors so Open projects resurected F4 recently when a faster and newer CPUs become widely available to mortals with a limited budget. However, Open Falcon (F4 version with most realistic avionics modelling) still runs low on FPS and terrain still looks poor and players are still not able to run it in full potential even on C2D CPUs. It's a Dx7 game! Hi-tiles that are supposed to improve the terrain detail are 20US$!

 

Red Viper (another F4 derivative) has more eye candy but avionics are pretty messed up. FPS is better than in OF because less flight model calculations and avionics data processing burden your CPUs! Remember that CPU is the bottleneck of all modern rigs!

 

We must admit that LOFC has a pretty eye-candy even nowadays, casting shadows on rivalish flight sims, even FS-X with Dx10. At least there's no military aspect in FS-X!

[Bucic]

I'm sure you can make a better 3d engine ;) Show us!

Oh please, cut this... I am not the one to compare with and you know that.

 

Programming skills are one thing and proper approach is another. When I say Lock On generates inadequate system requirements it's based upon my experience only. But you don't have to be a great coder to have that sensible approach to the problem of visualisation in sim - the most important is to make it look as realistic as it can get with current technology, not as NICE :baby: as it can be.

 

Person responsible for the next DCS graphics engine with such an approach is just my hope.

 

P.S. At this point I'm no longer writing under the "Anyone starting to not like BS" banner.

[rattler]

Did you read the hole thread? Or just hopped in? The modeling of the aircrafts and vehicles was not the subject of the (new graphics)-discussion.

 

Thank you Haegar!!!!

[EvilBivol-1]

I believe I have yet to see a beta tester or anyone at our public displays complain about the terrain graphics. Really, even when we were flying the chopper in standard LO terrain, it wasn't a problem, but much of it has since become more detailed, dense and accurate. I can somewhat understand the concern, judging from the screenshots, but I think on this one we can fall back on the (AFAIK) universal opinion of those who have flown it that the terrain graphics are more than adequate. If there's anything to complain about, it's less the visual presentation, but the functional problems of fly-through trees. I'm still hoping this can be addressed before release, but if not, I'm confident it will be later.

 

I'd rather have my eyes pleased more with both.

So you'd be pleased to know that some of the building models and textures have been updated as well. :)

 

I can't understand the buddha attitude of some guys here, why don't you want more after 2 years of development? They're just gonna rip LO and strap a well modelled Ka-50 in it with some community made vehicle models and voila, it's a new series.

I think you'll be surprized how much code has been re-written and restructured. When you (finally) get the sim installed, I suggest you browse the folders. In fact, the graphics engine is probably the only major connection between LO and DCS - and even that has been significantly upgraded and is temporary, according to current plans.

 

About two years, remember that some of that time Black Shark spent on the back-burner.

 

Finally, despite our constant mention of this, not everyone seems to understand or believe that Black Shark is only the initial step for DCS, laying some of the groundwork for continous future improvement. I understand some people are sceptical about future upgrades and certainly nobody will promise them to you, but you'd better believe that's what ED's aiming for.

[rattler]

I'll play your silly game. If you are going to use pictures use updated ones DCS:BS and FSX. Now here is something you forgot.The last one of the city is Graphics. Well the oil rig too. Now tell me which has best GRAPHICS. Not flight combat, flight management etc. GRAPHICS!!!

[159th_Viper]

Well if it's Graphics ya'all are after I hear Ace Combat 6 are looking for a Coupla Virtual Aces............;)

 

Me - I'll stick to the High-Fidelity Advanced Flight Model that ED can offer me. All the rest is a Bonus :)

[rattler]

Well if it's Graphics ya'all are after I hear Ace Combat 6 are looking for a Coupla Virtual Aces............;)

 

Me - I'll stick to the High-Fidelity Advanced Flight Model that ED can offer me. All the rest is a Bonus :)

 

What we want is realism in all areas. Not to much to ask for in a NEW flight sim. The thing is it is not NEW. Just the ka-50. Which by the way I am not knocking, it is a fantastic piece of work. Hats off to ED for such detail in the ka-50. Rest falls a little short. I do hope they make it up in the future. Contrary to popular belief by some, DCS:BS was the logical move for ED. That does not say as a LOFC fan that I am not disappointed because I am. LOFC needs a patch and ED has admitted to this. Ride the wave of DCS:BS and patch LOFC. Not to much to ask IMHO.

[Yeniceri]

I'll play your silly game. If you are going to use pictures use updated ones DCS:BS and FSX. Now here is something you forgot.The last one of the city is Graphics. Well the oil rig too. Now tell me which has best GRAPHICS. Not flight combat, flight management etc. GRAPHICS!!!

i guess you are talking a little early..

Lets just wait and see what future will bring us!..

[Haegar]

What we want is realism in all areas. Not to much to ask for in a NEW flight sim. The thing is it is not NEW. Just the ka-50. Which by the way I am not knocking, it is a fantastic piece of work. Hats off to ED for such detail in the ka-50. Rest falls a little short. I do hope they make it up in the future. Contrary to popular belief by some, DCS:BS was the logical move for ED. That does not say as a LOFC fan that I am not disappointed because I am. LOFC needs a patch and ED has admitted to this. Ride the wave of DCS:BS and patch LOFC. Not to much to ask IMHO.

 

 

100% agree ...

[tflash]

Guys, go see for yourself at Simware ... what you are telling is 100% bullsh.t.

 

It is an incredible game, believe me.

[Slaunyeh]

Sincerely i don t care about graphics. I really dont give a damn about the improvement shown on the 2 apaches. I don tsee much diference on the rivers too, gamewise speaking.

This is good for movie makers.

 

Now if i had to choose vehicle modelling (air-sea-ground) and food low terrain for an helicopter sim, i ll choose the second without a tought. Since 3d modelling of the vehicle has been 3rd partyed, why buildings etc trees couldn't, and so on ?

And between these two and a scenario that have believable collision i choose the last one, and sent the 2 options above to hell.

Why? Because 99% of the time you won t be the modellings near enought to make any diference. This is good only for movie makers. Gamewise its one of the less important issues.

 

Graphics are updatable over time. Game engine mostly not. I am extremely disapointed with BS being a new title. More so by the fact DCS:BS doesn t even have a dinamyc campaign, not even something near 1995 title DID EF2000. IMO it is lame that the company call it battle simulator, unfortunatly falcon 4 as released in 1998 can claim this title with more reason than DCS:BS in its finals feature, at least the ones proposed at this point. Damn, even even ef2000 is above any canned mission game, no matter how beautifull it is. Battle simulator ? Marketing only.

 

As for LOMAC update, i find it extremely LAME that ED havent even proposed to pay for the fixes. As much there would be some people bitchg, the majority would pay it gladly, me included. Anyone know how much fixes can be hard to do.

 

Now someone could claim that i should see this as a payd upgrade. But with the loss of so much, its impossible.

 

This is business some would claim, i agree. But it could have been handled in a more honest way toward the "fan" base. Its plainly understandable that more than one feel backstabed, no matter how good DCS:BS will be.

[Slaunyeh]

Guys, go see for yourself at Simware ... what you are telling is 100% bullsh.t.

 

It is an incredible game, believe me.

 

 

Game and makeup are 2 diferent things... As far as things are we can only see the make up.