Exiting the chopper

[SUBS17]

Because it's pretty freakin' cool! ED programmers are people too and need to get their kicks in from time to time. There are a number of these "easter eggs" in the code. The big ones you already know about (walking the pilot, tuning to a commercial radio), but maybe there are a couple we haven't mentioned yet... ;) Walking the pilot, at this stage anyway, is just something fun ED put into the sim. It's not meant to model anything. The pilot isn't even animated, he just sort of slides along the earth, but when viewed in first person, you get a nice wobble visual as if you're walking. Every time I eject, I walk around the crash site a little. If the chopper stays intact, it gives you a much better perspective of its size. I think they seriously wanted to add a side arm that you could fire to take the joke to it's ultimate end, but it doesn't look like we'll be seeing that yet. Maybe later.

 

 

Yeah I suppose its good to be able to do the walk around prior to take off, will they be modelling the oil checks from the walk around? I think maybe if they added a pistol in the next version it would take things a bit further although ARMA style FPS is the way to go.

[EricJ]

Seriously guys, and maybe I'm letting my emotions get the better of me, but here's somethings to remember:

 

1. Even if it's a "feature" BS is on a "feature freeze", so no FPS crap.

2. It's a flight sim, no more no less. The "walking around" feature is a by-product of using dismounted infantry, not in anyway a projected thing. The testing focus for the beta testers does not focus on the ability to walk around and possibly shoot stuff. The modelling focus is not on making buildings enterable, but making them better. And believe me they have made them better looking :thumbup:

3. Testing focus is using an attack helicopter, not making it a FPS and walking and killing infantryman with a pistol. You want that stuff, buy ArmA. Adding the FPS elements would just make it go on longer, as now you have more physics modelling going on. Oh by the way, did I mention other testing, such as physics modelling?

 

Now don't get me wrong... it'd be cool given the DCS engine to do alot of stuff but seriously, the topic is getting pretty stale with arguments that bear no fruit because it's not going to happen, and it's not the focus of Eagle Dynamics to make an ArmA style game. I figured GG would have answered it, but apparently again... more speculation on something that really does not exist.

[159th_Viper]

............Besides the focus is Ka-50, not CSAR, or any activities related to it..........

 

 

And therein lies the Niggle, that part of the set-up that's like an Itch that just cannot get scratched............Now do not get me wrong - I will be the first to get into the Whirly-Bird for a duel at Dawn with the 30mm........

 

However

 

To fly the Bird in a 'Vacuum' with no 'External Stimuli' to Breath a wee bit of Life/Reality into the simulation is gonna get pretty old pretty quickly. Would have been good to have at least a wee bit of focus, however small, on surrounding "activities relating to it".

 

Hell, even a small number of Maintenance personell aimlessly wandering around the base will do wonders for an otherwise 'devoid of life' landscape, or my personal 'Stake in the Heart' - the inability to Fly the T-Bird in a SEAD role next to the KA-50........

 

 

 

 

Everybody seriously seems to be losing focus on what the product is about, not what or how it can be exploited.....

 

 

 

And I daresay it's not a crime to do so, is it :)

 

IMHO all said submissions as above come from people who hope to see that extra bit of immersion in the SIM.......and one thing you cannot afford to ignore is mutterings from your clientbase, no matter how inconsequential some might deem them to be. As said - I'll settle for a few Techies wondering aimlessly about working on Craft, Vehicles etc etc.

 

After all, we're not all in the Fortunate position to be Beta-Testers: Our "Stale Arguments" are all we have to keep us going, all the while excitedly anticipating the release ;)

[EricJ]

Good points but consider the fact that us and the beta testers know or have a real good idea on the direction of the simulation, you don't. Is there anything wrong with immersion and ground crew? No of course not, but you're all wishing for something that wasn't planned, or isn't being implemented, and basically and seriously, stop wasting your time on something that may never happen. Honestly it's kinda funny watching how topics get out of control with speculation and this and that. And it's the beta team and partners that try and correct you, but you all sometimes just don't listen and realize what we tell you is what's going on, and you all just speculate to no end about stuff that isn't currently going on, that's my point about all this.

[SUBS17]

Look at it this way by having the walk feature there is always the possibility that more could be added to it later on. You could build on it and it will be a standard in future sims such as FS/FO to do a walk around prior to start up.

[kiss4luna]

Good points but consider the fact that us and the beta testers know or have a real good idea on the direction of the simulation, you don't. Is there anything wrong with immersion and ground crew? No of course not, but you're all wishing for something that wasn't planned, or isn't being implemented, and basically and seriously, stop wasting your time on something that may never happen. Honestly it's kinda funny watching how topics get out of control with speculation and this and that. And it's the beta team and partners that try and correct you, but you all sometimes just don't listen and realize what we tell you is what's going on, and you all just speculate to no end about stuff that isn't currently going on, that's my point about all this.

 

 

yeah. I totally agree with EricJ. Software development should be controlled under plan. Almost anything out of plan should be wiped out to ensure the software quality.

 

we just need to set a topic to comment advises and let ED know how much we care about those features we want. Then pray to god that ED will add those features into the next update of DCS. That's it.

 

And most important. I think DCS: Black Shark is very close to finish. At this stage of software development, any addings of new features are usually unconsiderable.

 

Clear?

[Weta43]

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.

[britgliderpilot]

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.

[CAT_101st]

I would assume i would be a ussr plain after 2 us aircraft.

[Weta43]

Thanks, & I agree with your first couple of additional points.

 

- Re: 'getting picked up' - playing single player & sitting around for a couple of hours waiting to get picked up to be able to continue a campaign would not be fun & not worth a whole lot of coding effort, but if it were simply a side effect of being able to 'pick up' troops, it could add some extra interest to online playing - anyone left on the other sides territory at the end, or quiting out from enemy territory, counts as captured & points against, it's in your team's best interest to 'come get you' so you can get back in the air again.

 

But maybe you're right - some aspects of realism just aren't fun...

 

I would assume i would be a ussr plain after 2 us aircraft.

 

Su-25A !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

(&T if you must :-)

[SUBS17]

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:

[kiss4luna]

oops

well. I think it's just a matter of software developing management ;)

[britgliderpilot]

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 :)

[SUBS17]

I already know how long it takes to walk since I have Arma I also know how long it takes to crawl a few miles.:D Maybe the ability to climb into a bus or jeep and you can get dropped off to your aircraft will save time. Animated people on the ground rocks in FSX its quite awesome to see same goes for Arma when you see people run up to your aircraft for a ride definately a good immersion factor for any sim.:thumbup: And SAR rocks in acceleration it definately is quite a challenge to hover a EH101 to pick people up or land on an erupting volcanoe.