DCS: Black Shark 1.0.1 Read Me

[th3flyboy]

everyone that just responded completely missed the smartass smiley at the end... otherwise you would have got the joke...

[kiss4luna]

everyone that just responded completely missed the smartass smiley at the end... otherwise you would have got the joke...

 

 

anyway,:P

[kiss4luna]

i found that DCS generate buildings in a very low efficent way, even i7 965+4850 will be sucked up when camera looking at urban areas. hope ED will find a better way to show those buildings soon.

 

and for the ka-50's self-casting shadow, i thought maybe you should use larger textures for it. i tried use 128x128 res shadow texture in crysis and found the same ugly jaggy shadows

[hendo97]

This is a huge list of improvments! Thanks for all the hard work!

I hope we can get better with the mulit monitor setup soon?

[EvilBivol-1]

One item not currently discussed in the v.1.0.1 ReadMe is the development of multiplayer anti-cheating measures in the patch. In 1.0.1, the server will be able to define specific game files to be checked for consistency on the client machine. If any of the files do not match the server's file (altered contents in the file), the client will not be able to connect. Note, the files to be checked are at the server's discretion, including no checks if so desired.

Edited July 23, 2009 by EvilBivol-1

[graywo1fg]

is the port randomization issue fixed? Coff said it should but i did not see it listed in the fix list.... also will we still be able to use Acedy's incredible "ServMan" toolz? :)

[EvilBivol-1]

Will have to confirm.

[skoiboy]

EvilBivol-1,

 

Can you speak to any fixes to the multimonitor setup? It's messed up in multiplayer now, and takes a lot of tweaking for single player right now. More options for what is on what screen would be great, too.

[Fudd]

One item not currently discussed in the v.1.0.1 ReadMe is the development of multiplayer anti-cheating measures in the patch. In 1.0.1, the server will be able to define specific game files to be checked for consistency on the client machine. If any of the files do not match the server's file (altered contents in the file), the client will not be able to connect. Note, the files to be checked are at the server's discretion, including no checks if so desired.

 

Awesome! No more Ka-50's with Aim-54's.... take that, cheaters!!

 

:)

[th3flyboy]

Awesome! No more Ka-50's with Aim-54's.... take that, cheaters!!

 

:)

 

as long as it doesn't gripe about my modded sound files to allow for russian betty and my high res textures i'm good :)

[Kenan]

Looking forward to the patch release! :thumbup:

 

I am a bit dissapointed no changes have been done to AI ie. I was hoping they'll make AI react when threatened and move around..this way, you just plant the unit and once you find it, it's a sitting duck.

 

Thanks for all the hard work anyway, especially with the new triggers and bug fixes, it looks to be an overall improvement to version 1.0! ;)

[Feuerfalke]

I doubt these changes and additions to the AI can be made with a simple patch. Considering they are probably also working hard on the A-10C, we can still hope they'll implement the changes in the next module.

[Razorback]

Sorry but for me this patch is like a joke.

A lof of things will be changed but when I see the production of the community, only 4 new vehicule skin ??????:megalol:

And trees still transparent ??

 

Maybe it will be smarted to wait two more...months or year :music_whistling: in order to receive a real update !!

[GGTharos]

Maybe you just don't know what a real update it.

Trees and skins? Are you kidding?

 

Sorry but for me this patch is like a joke.

A lof of things will be changed but when I see the production of the community, only 4 new vehicule skin ??????:megalol:

And trees still transparent ??

 

Maybe it will be smarted to wait two more...months or year :music_whistling: in order to receive a real update !!

[L4key]

Sorry but for me this patch is like a joke.

A lof of things will be changed but when I see the production of the community, only 4 new vehicule skin ??????:megalol:

And trees still transparent ??

 

Maybe it will be smarted to wait two more...months or year :music_whistling: in order to receive a real update !!

 

Everyone's allowed an opinion I guess but jeez! I thought the tree thing was an ok point but skins- WTF? Does it matter there is no pretty colours on the outside?

[Druid_]

Maybe you just don't know what a real update it.

Trees and skins? Are you kidding?

 

Sorry ED but the transparent trees shouldn't have been in the original release. And especially NOT for a Heli Sim. Wouldn't have mattered too much in an aircraft sim but in a Heli sim its a huge mistake and a BIG flaw. At least have the balls to admit it!

[Feuerfalke]

Sorry ED but the transparent trees shouldn't have been in the original release. And especially NOT for a Heli Sim. Wouldn't have mattered too much in an aircraft sim but in a Heli sim its a huge mistake and a BIG flaw. At least have the balls to admit it!

 

I'm sorry, but you are missing the point.

 

1. As there is no simple way to fix the lack of collideable vegetation in a simple patch, it's pretty naive to be upset, now it's confirmed it won't be fixed in the coming patch.

2. There are plenty of threads on this topic and there are also some official statements about it, but this one is about the patch. So let's stay on topic, please.

[GGTharos]

Sorry Druid, but like the poster above said, it's already been hashed out. Feel free to use a search function before challenging people admit this or that.

 

Furthermore, if you think it's so easy to do, by all means, show us how. ;)

 

Sorry ED but the transparent trees shouldn't have been in the original release. And especially NOT for a Heli Sim. Wouldn't have mattered too much in an aircraft sim but in a Heli sim its a huge mistake and a BIG flaw. At least have the balls to admit it!

[goldfinger35]

I do hope some day that the ground unit AI will be improved so that they scatter and move about when under attack. Sometimes it can feel a bit like a shooting gallery when attacking ground targets.

 

Well... to be honest im a little dissapointed.

The listed improvements to the ME are pretty limited and havent removed the labour intensive nature of making half decent missions. Theres been no attempt to improve ground ai behaviour

 

I am a bit dissapointed no changes have been done to AI ie. I was hoping they'll make AI react when threatened and move around..this way, you just plant the unit and once you find it, it's a sitting duck.

 

 

+1

I would trade ALL features listed in the 1.01 patch list for better ground AI. :huh:

 

 

... development of multiplayer anti-cheating measures in the patch. In 1.0.1, ...

Good! :thumbup:

Edited July 24, 2009 by goldfinger35

[Druid_]

Sorry Druid, but like the poster above said, it's already been hashed out. Feel free to use a search function before challenging people admit this or that.

 

I have no wish to get into a bun fight here (english expression). My post was in support of a previous post. I know it has been hammered out and to be honest in the posts I read there was no admition by ED that invisible trees were a mistake, especially for a heli sim, only "it is under development". However, it is impossible to keep tabs on every discussion (type trees into search and see number of hits).

 

Anyway, if something has been said before I don't believe saying it again hurts. I have to do it regularly with my wife and kids :noexpression:

 

Obviously after 9 months from release of DCS a few of us had expectations that were too high. No doubt ED have been working on the A-10 since the release of DCS and maybe some of us were hoping that some of this development would find its way into BS.

 

 

Furthermore, if you think it's so easy to do, by all means, show us how.

 

I never said I thought it was easy and I gave up programming a long time ago, but there is no doubt that the clever people in the LO and DCS community have improved your products. Times have changed and it seems that developers are now more than happy to cut down on testing and release their product to market only to follow it afterwards by 'large' patches.

 

Personally, I would just like to purchase software and have it work flawlessly straight out of the box. Unrealistic in todays market (not impossible mind you) but something I yearn for nonetheless ;).

 

As a final comment, a huge amount of posts have mentioned improvements they would like to see in the ME and as far as I can see not one of them was included in the patch. Would have been nice if at least 1 or 2 of the requests had been included, I dont think that was asking too much in the way of keeping your community happy.

[GGTharos]

I have no wish to get into a bun fight here (english expression). My post was in support of a previous post. I know it has been hammered out and to be honest in the posts I read there was no admition by ED that invisible trees were a mistake, especially for a heli sim, only "it is under development". However, it is impossible to keep tabs on every discussion (type trees into search and see number of hits).

 

It isn't a mistake; it's something that cannot be rectified without a new engine. You can't do a day's or two worth of search, but you want ED to call the trees a mistake and/or do a year's development on nothing other than a graphics engine to fix it - this is what your argument is.

 

Anyway, if something has been said before I don't believe saying it again hurts. I have to do it regularly with my wife and kids :noexpression:

 

You are not ED's wife and kids, and no one is going to go around repeating that something they did was a mistake. Sorry. ;)

 

Obviously after 9 months from release of DCS a few of us had expectations that were too high. No doubt ED have been working on the A-10 since the release of DCS and maybe some of us were hoping that some of this development would find its way into BS.

 

Some of it will, but trees are not included.

 

I never said I thought it was easy and I gave up programming a long time ago, but there is no doubt that the clever people in the LO and DCS community have improved your products. Times have changed and it seems that developers are now more than happy to cut down on testing and release their product to market only to follow it afterwards by 'large' patches.

 

I would say this is indicative of you not know what's going on behind the scenes. First, developers need to spend a LOT of time creating the game AND content. A LOT. They do this both because they love simulation (or whatever other genre of gaming) and for a paycheque. This means resources to create the simulation are limited.

Things like Yoda's LRM took MONTHS to do, and I know because I spoke with Yoda throughout the time he was making it. He also did it for free.

ED has other priorities, and they probably aren't willing to code for free: This is their main job.

 

 

Personally, I would just like to purchase software and have it work flawlessly straight out of the box. Unrealistic in todays market (not impossible mind you) but something I yearn for nonetheless ;).

 

Unrealistic in anyone's market. One of the most bug-free pieces of software is produced by the Space Shuttle's Software group. We're talking five bugs for every 10000 or so lines of code, not completely bug-free.

Any modification to ANY ONE LINE is decided upon in a meeting, and recorded in a database with reasons and analysis. It is an extremely time consuming and extremely expensive process (you can value a developer's time at $1500/hour easily) which is NOT POSSIBLE with gaming software, or for that matter, just about any other consumer software out there.

 

As a final comment, a huge amount of posts have mentioned improvements they would like to see in the ME and as far as I can see not one of them was included in the patch. Would have been nice if at least 1 or 2 of the requests had been included, I dont think that was asking too much in the way of keeping your community happy.

 

Oh, no? I know at least one of the improvements I asked for is in there. There's a bunch of other improvements that got in there from the community posts also. I also know a bunch of my own improvements that I asked for that did NOT make it in, either.

There's a bunch of big-ticket items that didn't make it, and, sorry, but they were simply infeasible at this time. ED has to pick and choose things they can add based not just on the desires of the community, but also their own needs and the time available to accomplish the tasks.

 

It is rather disingenuous to claim that ED is not trying to please the community. They can't please everyone, and that's all there is to it.

[ruprecht]

Stoked about the patch, can't wait, and thank you for all the hard work.

 

(lets face it there is no ai behaviour unless the mission author goes to the extravagent lengths to manually 'script' it

 

Name a flight sim that has all that. I'll be waiting

 

GG, I know it's easy to get defensive, but the ground AI is definitely rubbish. Sorry. It, and the lack of LOS-blocking vegetation, are the worst parts of this all-round excellent and splendid sim and I hope they get more love in future updates/patches.

Edited July 25, 2009 by ruprecht

[GGTharos]

GG, I know it's easy to get defensive, but the ground AI is definitely rubbish.

 

Name a flight sim that does better. ;)

[joey45]

one of the major draw backs of any game is the A.I.

[Feuerfalke]

Guys, we're not talking about just another out of the box - game here.

 

DCS is a whole new series of combat flight simulations and BlackShark is the first step. It's not perfect. Granted. Nobody ever said it is. It's not without flaws and not all around brilliant and shining, no first step ever is. But on the other hand, I personally rarely ever saw a release with so few bugs for YEARS!

 

And DCS will be constantly being worked on, expanded by new modules, in extremely short terms for the gaming market. Those modules will not merely add new models and cockpits, no doubt.

 

And this process is not one-sided. The devs opened a wish-list to hear about your wishes and ideas, you can mod the game and add your knowledge and ideas to the project and I have no doubt that ED would love to get your competent help, if you have ideas how to expand DCS or eliminate flaws.

 

Give them time, have faith, be happy with the many things you already got instead of being upset with what you not have.

 

So let's get back to the topic. :smilewink:

Edited July 25, 2009 by Feuerfalke