Review: Black Shark gets 72% by GameStar

[DMarkwick]

I'm speaking from Unreal Engine experience, as that's the only one with which I have working knowledge.

 

Yeah it's the same for me, only I'm familiar with the Armed Assault terrain. I would say, in a very general way, that the ArmA terrain & objects are quite closely matched to the DCS terrain & objects. Both engines supply unrestricted gameplay movement over massive areas, and have roughly similar object density once you've factored DCS's much larger area. I still think effective LoD management is the key to blending both gameplay styles (pilot & soldier) together :)

[martinistripes]

I will NEVER read GameStar. EVER.

[Like A Wasp But With Guns]

That's also my only beef I have with BS - that the trees don't block enemy LOS.

 

Not entirely relevant, but I saw a programme about Vietnam, where two American Hueys cut through some foilage with their rotors to clear a landing space.

 

Perhaps trees aren't as invincible as they're cracked up to be?

[rrohde]

With 'LOS and trees' I was more after the idea that a tree line would conceal my helo from enemy troops better. So I can hover behind them, and the enemy would not readily see me sitting there... :)

[wickedpenguin]

Not entirely relevant, but I saw a programme about Vietnam, where two American Hueys cut through some foilage with their rotors to clear a landing space.

 

Perhaps trees aren't as invincible as they're cracked up to be?

 

I've read several books by Vietnam War helicopter pilots where they'd do that. One of my favorites is this one. Some truly harrowing stuff in there.

 

However, given that our BS has (A) helicopter blades designed to break off and (B) explosive charges in the blades to help them break off, I wouldn't recommend that.

 

Besides, they only did it with thinner, younger trees. I wouldn't go trying to mow a sequioa with a Huey anytime soon. :)

[Vapour]

Not entirely relevant, but I saw a programme about Vietnam, where two American Hueys cut through some foilage with their rotors to clear a landing space.

 

Perhaps trees aren't as invincible as they're cracked up to be?

 

 

Saw that show, it was excellent, mind you it was bamboo they were cutting through.

[emenance]

I think they're being overly harsh on the graphics.

 

They're not perfect, but they're fine. I'd rather get good framerates than see every shadow of every blade of grass.

 

My imagination can fill in the gaps of lower-resolution models and textures. Poor framerate is just plain annoying.

 

 

Yes, I aggree and ofcourse they are way to harsh on the graphics. This has been debated before :rolleyes: these reviewers sit in thier offices , play games all day on the LATEST in hardware and consequently become out of touch with reality.

 

 

There is a sad lesson to be learned here. Wanting too much too soon of biting off more than you can chew can screw things up. FOR EXAMPLE What did the vast majority of OLD Ghost recon fans want? Basically the same game with some better graphics. Zit faced idiots go nuts in france and the whole Tom Clancy franchise crumbles to the ground. The reviewers sound like they got UBI syndrom from reviewing too many UNfinished and buggy as hell games . UBI = Dnt listen to your customers and dont balance or engineer the game and then destroy the whole tom clancey franchise and wind up on FAIL Blog...Thats UBI. Obviously it is impossible for a serious flight sim to make those kinds of mistakes. The people at the Rag need some perspective. They have failed.

[element1108]

I'm not even sure what this reviewer has to compare terrain graphics against. It's not a confined area such as battlefield or even ARMA 2. You have to have a draw distance of 75+ km's on a clear day.

 

Or maybe it's a 72% as in you use 72% of your 10% brain capacity to fly and fight in it ;)

 

Anyway these games aren't made for the masses so it's tough to take their reviews seriously.

 

Maybe in another 15 years we'll get flight sim graphics that match the expectations of reviewers. ;)

 

For me it's important (and this is just me) for a flight sim to run well above 50fps at all times. The illusion of flight is essential to the immersion and if even the best computer is getting choppy graphics then I can't really have much fun playing it.

 

I remember when I first played xwing on a 386 and how choppy it was. That's how I thought all games were, got a new computer *486 with 16mb RAM and SVGA monitor*...the game ran smooth as silk and I felt like a WHOLE new game.

 

Anyway a bit of a tangent there I apologize, I bought black shark a year ago today (russian version then englisn version) and I still don't play any other game/sim more.

 

15 years of simming...I give it a 92% ;) <-- I think I'm really evading the fact I have to go to work now, I don't want to stop typing cause then I have to leave. *sigh*

 

;)

 

edit: emenance makes a good point. ARMA 2 was almost unplayable upon release and OFP is proving to require some major fixing as well. With a sim that's got a ZILLION internal working functions that we can't even see (hydrolics, electrical etc) it was released almost flawlessly. That's impressive!

 

work time ;)

Edited October 13, 2009 by element1108

[Martillo1]

- no German speakers

 

Maybe they expected a Grundig Audiorama included in the box for the same price.

 

 

P.S.: no offense to Germans intended ;)