Review: Black Shark gets 72% by GameStar

[jctrnacty]

Future modules are designed as stand-alone simulations, not addons. At the same time, they are designed to be backwards-compatible with previous modules (mainly by capacity to upgrade previous modules to the standards of the latest module, minus the new flyable aircraft for those who do not wish to purchase the aircraft).

 

After this reply I´m a little bit suprised because i thought that we will be able to fly all of these modules together. Making every module seperate is not very wise option. Something like IL-2 is good choice, all datadiscs integrated together is way better solution.

 

I´m a little bit dissapointed by this decision. :-(((((

 

I was looking forward to have everything in one pack and to have only one executable - dcs.exe

[EvilBivol-1]

You misunderstood, because that is the idea, hence "backwards compatible." Although, I think in this case "upwards compatible" may be more appropriate.

[Weta43]

Returning to the review - His comments regarding the scenery seem harsh. I may be choosing flattering shots, (but same would be true for the creator of the other shots) but it seems to me that from the air BS stand up reasonably well / looks better that ARMA 2 in these comparisons (esp as my comp is OLD & the graphics options for these screenshots are turned down):

vs

(that was an interesting failure - the entire rotor head came away after some sustained aggressive manouvering (rather than blades breaking off), with the shaft looking like it had ripped off & broken control rods flaping around - nice modeling)

 

or here (where ARMA 2 scenery looks "arcady"):

vs this (which could just about be a photo)

 

 

 

Not so good from the ground - maybe the reviewer spent a lot of time walking home after ejecting:

Edited March 29, 2009 by Weta43

[192nd_Erdem]

It's not "fair" to compare ArmA2 with BS because they are like apples and oranges. ArmA 2 is an infantry simulator rather than a flight sim, and the game engine is optimised for ground view.

 

Most of the details are turned off(texture resolution, shadows, grass and foliage) when flying in an aircraft. I also remind you those screenshots are from a pre-alpha build.

[GuntiNDDS]

comming up with a final "score" for a game in a review is a difficult and often not very well executed task. the reviewer gotta make a choice wether for example "realistic airodynamic behaviour" is more, less - or equally important as say "beutifull environments".

 

and off couse not only theese single points, but also how you apply them against each other are very subjective and differ from player to player.

 

Thats why generally i dont care about the score they come up with in a review, but read what they say about the game.

 

for example lots of games get a better score because they have "great campagins". however, i dont really care about campaigns. i like games without a fixed path to play through, and where each time i play them, they are different. so if a game is very campaign-focused, to me personally, thats more of a negative point to it.

[Jigsaw]

comming up with a final "score" for a game in a

Thats why generally i dont care about the score they come up with in a review, but read what they say about the game.

 

True. That's why I translated the rest of the review for you guys:

 

For years there were almost no well made simulations around anymore. So it's all the more reason for joy that developer Eagle Dynamics from Moscow (Lock On) added a new hardcore, ultrarealistic combat helicopter simulation named Digital Combat Simulator: Black Shark to the genre. You sit down in the tight cockpit of the Kamow Ka-50 that serves for almost 15 years in the Russian military. To cater the needs of beginners Black Shark offers an Arcade Mode besides the extremly demanding (in a positive sense) Simulation Mode. The Arcade Mode, among other things, highlights enemies with coloured markers, has simplified controls and the ammunition never runs out. Black Shark's strength definitely lies in the attention to technical details. This is already evident in the 488 page PDF manual. The list of keyboard shortcuts alone fills 9 pages. Reading the manual is a must, because the unflexible tutorials only present a handful of functions to you.

 

Deceptively real

 

Black Shark only simulates one helicopter, the Ka-50, but in a highly precise way. Not only visual details like the cockpit are a 1:1 replica, especially the flight model presents distinctive challenges; during extreme flight maneuvers the counterrotating coaxial rotors of the Ka-50 can clash, which leads to an inevitable crash. As a result even pros will have to take many flight lessons at first before they can even dare to go into combat. Once you have mastered the Ka-50, however, you're in for a bad surprise. That's when it becomes evident that the engine of Black Shark is based on Lock On, a jet fighter simulation. The landscapes have been designed for flying at high altitudes and often are completely flat for kilometers, even mountainous regions only consist of few polygons. The game thus nullifies the tactical advantage of a helicopter because you can neither stalk the enemy in low flight nor use the landscape as cover. Also hardware demands are relatively high. At least Black Shark provides a full 130 seperately choosable missions and a comforable mission editor. During the single player campaigns you are being assisted by AI controlled wingmen whose intelligence is lacking, as is the intelligence of your enemies. In exchange the cooperative missions vial LAN and internet with up to 64 are especially fun.

 

© Benedikt Plass-Fließenkämper

 

As you can see it's really not very in-depth and he probably only saw the tutorial missions, which indeed all take place in flat surroundings. If he really had started the campaignse he would have noticed that there is a lot of hills to use as cover. Ah well... guess I'll have to write that guy an email to correct some misconceptions. Maybe they even print it. ;)

Edited March 29, 2009 by Jigsaw

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

72% is ridiculously low mark for Black Shark. Well, a reason more to cancel subscription to such magazines that only know about shoot-and-kill one button games.

 

Those "reviewers" in these stupid magazines, don't they realize that Black Shark and other complex PC flight simulators is played by very mature audience, older players too? Some of us are playing flight simulators for two decades (yes I am old).

 

To be honest, these kind of reviews are insult to me.

[WynnTTr]

I for one don't understand how he can rate realism at 8 when he himself statest that it's ultra-realistic, and the same score for tuning.

If he's tried other sims, he'll know DCS:BS has set the bar for high fidelity flight model. Nothing attains this level of realism for the aircraft itself. And yet he still rates it an 8.

[Buran-Pilot]

lol

 

Ouuh yeah! Gamestar - the biggest crap i've seen in the german videogame magazine market.

 

though it has a big circulation (not sure if it is the right word, look it up in a translation) and a big fanbase... the reviews were always crap!

 

just to give you a brief history of their reviews on games:

the gave the game "Gothic 3" a very very good review - though the game was absolute crap! Full of bugs, unfinished etc.

I think they give games good reviews depanding on... well, lets say "advertisement payments from publishers"

 

By the way, they gave Sega Rally last year also something with 70% - but this game was an absolute classic! If you unterstand something about arcade racing games!

 

So my conclusion is that they only have a mainstream view on games and are corrupt

[Smoky]

Future modules are designed as stand-alone simulations, not addons. At the same time, they are designed to be backwards-compatible with previous modules (mainly by capacity to upgrade previous modules to the standards of the latest module, minus the new flyable aircraft for those who do not wish to purchase the aircraft).

 

 

I think I know what you are saying but I want to clarify anyway, just to make sure we are talking about the same thing...

 

"Add on"s and "stand-alone" are different from "integrated" which is what I believe the question was about. I think however you are using them interchangeably and saying what I think you are saying and that "the future 'chapters' of DCS will be 'stand-alone' but not 'integrated', ie. a DCS Black Shark player will not be able to join a DCS Apache player."

 

Is that what you meant?

 

Do you have this first-hand from ED? This would really surprise me because it would be a very, very stupid move to keep the sims independent. Or worse than stupid, it would be disappointing.

 

But it does sound realistic. A true Multi-Role online world with vehicles of this depth would be hard to pull off. But I really thought that is what DCS was meant to be.

 

 

If they really wanted to own the combat simming market they would make a ground-forces series as well. But I don't see that so maybe this is true...DCS sims will never play together? That would be very sad.

[EvilBivol-1]

No, that is not what I am saying. When did I use the terms "addon" and "standalone" interchangeably? I said future modules are not addons, they are standalone.

 

However, they are standalone that will be backward/upward compatible with previous/future modules (or, if you prefer, "integrated"). Meaning, a player which has at least one module will be able to play in multiplayer with all other players who have at least one other module. So yes, a DCS Black Shark player will be able to join a multiplyer game with a DCS Apache player, even if neither of them have the others module.

 

That is the plan anyway. You are correct in that actually making this work in code can be a technical challenge. Let's wait and see how well it works.

Edited March 29, 2009 by EvilBivol-1

[Zakk]

So yes, a DCS Black Shark player will be able to join a multiplyer game with a DCS Apache player, even if neither of them have the others module.

 

I can't wait to chew up some rotorheads with my A-10 in multiplayer!

[Smoky]

No, that is not what I am saying. When did I use the terms "addon" and "standalone" interchangeably? I said future modules are not addons, they are standalone.

 

However, they are standalone that will be backward/upward compatible with previous/future modules (or, if you prefer, "integrated"). Meaning, a player which has at least one module will be able to play in multiplayer with all other players who have at least one other module. So yes, a DCS Black Shark player will be able to join a multiplyer game with a DCS Apache player, even if neither of them have the others module.

 

That is the plan anyway. You are correct in that actually making this work in code can be a technical challenge. Let's wait and see how well it works.

 

Ok cool. That's what I understood, and what I was hoping for. Your post sounded like it was going the other way.

 

Add-on (aka "Expansion"): An additional module to an existing stand-alone platform. An add-on requires the "stand-alone" version and cannot run on it's own.

 

Stand-alone: An individual platform, capable of running on its own.

 

Integrated series: A series of stand-alone platforms capable of running within one another's environment.

 

 

I was just saying that the terms used in the discussion were tough to follow because it *seemed* like everyone was talking about an integrated series but folks were using terms like "add on" and "stand alone" interchangeably with "integrated series". That's why I got confused, and concerned. Glad it's cleared up though, and I can look forward to participating online in a variety of vehicles after the next few years' of development.

 

Now, what about that ground forces series? :D I'm hoping ED takes DCS in the long-term towards the MMMultiRole simulator route.. What ArmA tried to do but has so far been only mediocre at accomplishing... Some guys in planes. Some in helis. Some in tanks. Some in convoys. Some in T92s. Some on ships and submarines... Some guys commanding (for those who prefer Strategy to simulators), some guys on infantry (for those who prefer Call of Duty to simulators or Strategy), etc... ED is the only hope to accomplish a high-res world like that. By the time they have released their full line of air combat products bandwidth availability will be through the roof. It could be done.

[EvilBivol-1]

While ED might have some general ideas about expanding the environment to include controllable ground units (and have actually made some developments toward this), you have to understand the challenges this entails from both a developmental resources perspective and from a technical perspective.

 

If you take ArmA for example, as pointed out above, it is focused on high ground detail. The engine can do this, because the entire virtual world is relatively small and renders relatively short distances. DCS on the other hand, renders an area of hundreds of kilometers around any unit in a world covering hundreds of thousands of kilometers. Fulfilling both designs in one engine without lowering the quality of either is not a trivial matter, if possible at all. Technology advances though and ED will evolve their code with new capabilities over time. Today, no sim can do both well, as far as I know.

 

Regarding the review, I did find the reviewer's opionion of the terrain strange. While DCS may not be using the latest technologies, the world is covered with mountains, hills, cities, villages, forests. There is great variability and most of it offers full tactical cover for helicopter operations (except trees). So I'm not sure where he got the idea that the terrain is flat and is therefore useless for helicopter operations. Sounds like he flew a different sim. I would agree that the resolution of the mesh often means the slopes themselves consist of sharp angles and this is unattractive as far as eye-candy, but it's still functional.

Edited March 29, 2009 by EvilBivol-1

[Smoky]

And I think that Falcon's "bubble" model of campaign design could be leveraged to make the integration of ground and air possible without much a hit to performance. To recap, Falcon did not render the entire "world" of activities at one time. It rendered them in bubbles of behavior, and then "summed" the results of the behavior within a bubble, and across merging bubbles, to create the data needed to evolve the campaign. For example a pilot's world did not include a bridge destroyed in an earlier conflict until the pilots bubble merged with the bridge's bubble, unless that bridge being destroyed prevented an enemy bubble from advancing, thus changing the pilot's mission profile creating an indirect relationship.

 

A similar model could be used here. The ground bubble presents itself one way to the players on the ground...they could see "ArmA" graphics or even COD quality graphics. While the players in the sky could see the level of detail they have now. You only need to translate the pieces that interact so they appear in both worlds. The Ka-50 pilot may see two groups of infantry, just some dots on the ground and some tracers, but to the infantry players it could be much more detailed and involved experience.

 

Then you just pass data between the bubbles as needed, so each world sees what it needs to see in order to interact.

 

Regarding the review, I think it will be good to wet everyone's appetites for A-10. Isn't it supposed to used a new engine for rendering the ground textures?

[Weta43]

It's not "fair" to compare ArmA2 with BS because they are like apples and oranges. ArmA 2 is an infantry simulator rather than a flight sim, and the game engine is optimised for ground view.

 

Most of the details are turned off(texture resolution, shadows, grass and foliage) when flying in an aircraft. I also remind you those screenshots are from a pre-alpha build.

 

Things I actually meant you to take from the screenshots I posted:

1/ first 2 shots - despite what the reviewer said, the terrain in BS is (in places) mountainous - at least as much so as ARMA 2, which I doubt he would say was boring wasteland.

 

2/ 2nd pair of shots - Arma may be primarily a ground war simulator, but has an arial component too.

Arma 2 is pretty much a 'cutting edge' graphics engine, but once you're in the air, the level of detail is roughly comparable to that in BS, with BS having a greater draw range that makes it more photorealistic than the ARMA s/shots. The point is that ARMA cannot have it's full level of detail once you're up in the air, and it would be crazy ot expect BS to have that level of detail drawn when at altitude

 

3/ last pair of shots; Down in the weeds, BS suffers & needs something like another LOD - for ground details like building details, actual grass & bushes.etc. Given that the mudmovers live down in the weeds, I'd say this is an area in need of work..

[DaWu]

thats one of many reason why I do not buy gamestar mag for over a year now. in these days only arcade games with the newsest graphics have a chanc for a high rating. I stopped reading this mag cos 99% of the hyped games in there are crap and bore me to hell.

 

P.S. I just received my german copy of DCS :) I felt seldom so good with spending 40€

[SSneg]

Very strange review...

1) How is "lots of keyboard shortcuts" a minus? Would they prefer less shortcuts as in "mouse-only cockpit" or as in "three button design: gear, fire, change weapons"?

2) How is "only one helicopter" a minus to a simulator of only one helicopter? Were they promised fifteen (flyable) helicopters by anyone? Did they give a minus to Quake for "one playable character"?

3) I see why they mentioned low-detailed landscapes and terrains as a minus. But why do it FOUR times?! They did it in graphics, atmosphere, realism and flight terrain.

[Shaman]

Future modules are designed as stand-alone simulations, not addons. At the same time, they are designed to be backwards-compatible with previous modules (mainly by capacity to upgrade previous modules to the standards of the latest module, minus the new flyable aircraft for those who do not wish to purchase the aircraft).

 

Erm.. maybe not a good place to ask, but I fire anyway.

Is there still a possibility to merge installations together somehow? So they share same texture, models, sound file folders and such?

[AlphaInfinity]

I don't agree with the landscape comments on the review. How many times have we all flown over a ridge and been surprised by enemy fire. I pull a 180 and get back behind the ridge and plan my attack. Saying that the terrain is useless is a little harsh. He must have spent the whole time flying on completely flat terrain.

 

I really hope that ED continues what they are doing and doesn't put too much stock in magazine reviews. I certainly don't want them to dumb down the simulation or make the theater smaller. Black Shark does have its problems but ED is headed in the right direction.

[joey45]

BS is purrfect. They shouldn't go with a review when the reviewer isn't going to play the game/sim all the time like we do...

 

ED should listen to us not THEM!

[GGTharos]

Rather, he must have not spent time in a real aircraft. The DCS terrain may be lacking in very low altitude detail compared to say, ARMA, but the terrain layout itself is very realistic.

 

While improvements are undoubtedly being discussed behind closed doors, keep in mind that you can have little terrain with a lot of detail, or a large amount of terrain with less detail. The terrain layout in DCS might not be the pretties, but it is realistic. In other words, barring certain small existing issues that would have to be corrected first, you could use this terrain for real life flight training.

 

I don't agree with the landscape comments on the review. How many times have we all flown over a ridge and been surprised by enemy fire. I pull a 180 and get back behind the ridge and plan my attack. Saying that the terrain is useless is a little harsh. He must have spent the whole time flying on completely flat terrain.

 

I really hope that ED continues what they are doing and doesn't put too much stock in magazine reviews. I certainly don't want them to dumb down the simulation or make the theater smaller. Black Shark does have its problems but ED is headed in the right direction.

[weasel75]

While 72% is a truly disappointing score - at least *some* mag reviewed the sim - after all it needed a fan of the genre to know anything about the release.

It is a pain, how much attention HAWX got (okay, they had UBI-PR running and a demo (hint, hint ;) )) ... compared to one of the very few realistic simulators in 2008 and 2009.

 

But .. there is a bright side: at least people might have noticed, that there is a new ultra-realistic flight-simulation out there ;)

 

BTW - "EKRAN beachten" ... or was that voice just in my head/mind?

It was German, wasn't it?

(but true, radio-chatter is in English, tutorials are in English, ... but then again, fully translated manuals, labels in German ...)

[Pilotasso]

There used to be legions of flight sim critics in magazines. There used to be sections for Space and flight sims. All but gone for many years now. The critics are now nervous finger FPS gamers. You guys surprised by the score? Im not, but not DCS fault

[Jigsaw]

But .. there is a bright side: at least people might have noticed, that there is a new ultra-realistic flight-simulation out there ;)

 

Yeah... if I hadn't known of Black Shark before, I would have looked into it after reading that article. And I would have found out that it's a lot better than they made it out to be. So, it's definitely a positive thing. Anyone who is craving for a new simulation and didn't know about it yet will be interested after this review. And the sell a lot of copies of their magazine every month. Around 172.000 every month, according to their numbers.

 

 

BTW - "EKRAN beachten" ... or was that voice just in my head/mind?

It was German, wasn't it?

(but true, radio-chatter is in English, tutorials are in English, ... but then again, fully translated manuals, labels in German ...)

I wouldn't know. I bought the English version.
Edited March 30, 2009 by Jigsaw