Further Key Developments

[pica]

Taking up the supercarrier idea is a milestone for DCS's future, an intelligent decision, because it allows taking the scenarios around the globe and therefore assure a future for the game.

 

However, while a swimming platform's onboard activities anchor a new milestone in the operational use of the sim, all the landbased airbases are purely dead.

 

I wished there was a standard ground activity going on at the airbases, without the need of creating it manually over the mission planner. An ongoing life that makes DCS a bit more interesting. The current sections somehow stuck to the idea of the 90's and do get - compared to other sim products - very boring. Same with AI-Traffic. I mean the world does not stand still just because you launch a military plane, right? Give this product a bit of a realistic touch guys.

 

________________

 

Another issue is the GUI.

pain in the ass key assignment set up, really, no words to describe how unpratical and ancient this gui-thinking is. It's like these guys have no clue about how consumers handle their pc's.

 

_______________

 

Last wish on my behalf is a revollution in the landscape philosophy. I hate this terrain design method. Start Ortho! I want the real world, not this mickey mouse kaukasus crap. Can not distinguish one city from another, this has nothing to do with real life. Why invest that level of detail to cockpits, and leave the terrain behind? This is a big product killer for me and many users out there. it doesn't need to come as MFS 2020 photogrammetric technology, but at least load up the free of charge L19 satellite imagery that is available for the entirety of the planet.

and implement this with high priority please.

 

thank you for listening.

[AeriaGloria]

IIRC Caucuses uses ortho at high altitude. Low altitude is always the Achilles heel of ortho.

 

When 2.5.6 settles down try a mission with RAT and MOOSE, very alive

[Fri13]

I wished there was a standard ground activity going on at the airbases, without the need of creating it manually over the mission planner. An ongoing life that makes DCS a bit more interesting. The current sections somehow stuck to the idea of the 90's and do get - compared to other sim products - very boring. Same with AI-Traffic. I mean the world does not stand still just because you launch a military plane, right? Give this product a bit of a realistic touch guys.

 

 

Many has wished that for, a generic AI operations. A ground crews working on aircrafts. Some ground vehicles driving around the base, aircrafts taking-off and landing. Even if it is just to perform a 100 km circus around the airport and then come back.

 

It should be just one tick in airbase options "Dynamic airfield", and then have "Dynamic operations" where those would actually go to blow things up etc in logic that coming Dynamic Campaign offers.

 

Another issue is the GUI.

pain in the ass key assignment set up, really, no words to describe how unpratical and ancient this gui-thinking is. It's like these guys have no clue about how consumers handle their pc's.

 

I don't find that such a problem. We are easily talking about hundreds of bindings per aircraft.

 

Years ago it was more difficult, but these days it is easy as you get two features:

1) Search function (doesn't help you if you don't know what you are searching!)

2) Grouping of settings to same list (should be more used and done).

 

Like when flying in VR, all you need is to go to HOTAS group and bind there what belongs to real HOTAS. And then you just use your virtual hands to operate everything else in the aircraft.

 

Those groups should be checked right, and then get some changed to what you can bind to what hardware or how many times.

 

Last wish on my behalf is a revollution in the landscape philosophy. I hate this terrain design method. Start Ortho! I want the real world, not this mickey mouse kaukasus crap. Can not distinguish one city from another, this has nothing to do with real life. Why invest that level of detail to cockpits, and leave the terrain behind? This is a big product killer for me and many users out there. it doesn't need to come as MFS 2020 photogrammetric technology, but at least load up the free of charge L19 satellite imagery that is available for the entirety of the planet.

and implement this with high priority please.

 

Last thing I want is the generic satellite images. I so dislike all the flat "town" textures below all the towns. They truly kill immersion in second.

 

Same thing is with everything else, you fly low and you start to see that the map is flat instead sphere. You have basically flat surfaces everywhere, all the buildings and vehicles stick up like a billiard ball on billiard table.

 

That is why towns could be based to public open data like OpenStreetMap where you can find all the buildings locations, roads etc. And then just use that information as source where to place a DCS own 3D buildings at random order.

 

And that same thing for the terrain. We need a higher resolution terrain height map for helicopters and ground vehicles. There needs to be more of small hills, ridges etc as height changes where helicopters and ground units can hide behind.

 

I was just few days ago flying the Normanny, and it really killed the mood when you see rivers that goes over the hills like a highways. No water would be flowing upwards the hills and then downwards. But as limitation of the terrain engine to actually make the rivers and such flat area and be deep in the hills etc, we need to wait new engine.

 

We as well need a lot of random generated bushes, rocks, tall grass, small lakes and ponds. Lots of ground clutter that is stored to map itself like "in this coordinate there should be a rock type of 32" but all those are placed randomly by the map designer with big brush.

 

The maps are empty, even when it is big improvement over what we had in 1.2.x engine. But it is going progress by ED. And hopefully we get there one day.

 

And yes, I take any day a randomly generated terrain details over any satellite information etc as Microsoft does. As I don't care is the specific road crossing exactly right or should there be a path or road, I want "somewhat right" detail level, but with high details so when flying with helicopter or driving a ground vehicle, you have lots of ground clutter. And when you fly at high with multirole aircraft, you can't easily spot any ground vehicles etc as there is so much ground clutter and height changes.

[pica]

"I don't find that such a problem. We are easily talking about hundreds of bindings per aircraft."

 

you probably need to see how it could be done right. you would not want to go back.

holding back innovation or critical pointing allows the devs to rest on status quo and

believe they do right. which they dont. it always needs someone shaping the pen to

get others gain the "ahaaa"-experience.

 

"Last thing I want is the generic satellite images. I so dislike all the flat "town" textures below all the towns. They truly kill immersion in second."

 

Totally wrong. With all respect.

not sure whether you use other sims to get you revise your attitude, but what you say

sounds like the most wrong thing i have ever heard after the 1990's. It's totally wrong.

Every scenery developer today knows how to exactly avoid what you describe.

I hope your arguments will not be heard by ED :)

by the way: there is no such thing like *generic satellite images", generic stands for

predesigned tiles spread over landscapes to represent a type of landclass.

 

sorry to encounter you so directly, but your statements are exactly the reason why we don't get further with DCS world. Why does it need microsoft or laminar to prove nay sayers wrong?

 

and don't get me the fps argument. I have L19 ortho, full scale object density and massive traffic at over 30 fps in other sims. on an average pc.