Anyone else getting a little bit bored with BS?

[Doggy]

I think that DCS:BS has a lot of potential to create not boring missions/campaign that still has not been explored. Campaign Deployment and GOW are way "quick cooked" but worth going through in the begining.

Actually I'm working on campaign that woud be different from the two:

- I'm trying to follow some storyline

- A pilot (player) has to know the flight manual seriously. Not just startup, flight, lock and shoot. How about to prepare a flight plan by pilot himself that will be sychronized with given data, times and informations.

Hopefully will finish it this year

[talisman]

Im getting a little bored with BS but i still just love flying it randonly.

 

What i would like to see are more campaigns being posted, i cant figure out the mission editor and i figure most others cant as well. I love the 2 campaigns that i have now - deployment and oilfields, but i really hope some more are made by the wonderful community we have here.

 

Just a little wisper, but wouldnt it be bloody awesome if ED made a few missions in the Afgan theatre. I would give my back teeth to be able to refly a Jugroom Fort style mission. And i am sure it would povide a LOT more interest to those flying the Shark now.

[Agg]

I too am a bit bored with BS these days. While there is a lot to love about the sim, like the complexity, and the feel of flight, it just isnt enough to keep me coming back for more in the long run. I take the Shark out for the odd spin every now and then, but I have to admit that I spend alot more time playing Flaming Cliffs than I do playin BS nowadays. I dont think I will spend a whole lot of time in the DCS "universe" until a multirole fighter is released (preferably an F-16). I have been trying to find other simulators to play in the mean time, but I havent really had any luck, Strike Fighters is too much of an arcade game for my taste, and Falcon 4 is simply way too outdated. Ive spent the last couple of months playing FSX with the Aerosoft and Iris F-16s, and while it certainly isnt a combat sim, it will have to do for the moment until we get a DCS module of the F-16.

[Kuky]

This is 1/2 OT but anyway, I wanna say I am getting bored with LockOn in its surrent state :disgust:

[Warbird_242]

Was not intended as an incrimination of lifestyle. How you choose to live youe life is not for me to decide. For all I know, you run 26 mile marathons between bi-weekly rugby matches and have 35 friends at the pub. Just a point of conversation that walking away from the PC can be refreshing. I have gone months without playing games and come back when I feel like it and things are a lot fresher. Things change, better patches, more content. Some times it's like a new game is waiting.

 

Sorry I see what you meant now. Apologies for that.

And no I don't run marathons :D

[-Nighthawk-]

It's a fantastic game, key to keep it good is by not playing it all the time ;)

 

I've mainly been playing FSX and BF2142 lately to give a break. Then when I WANT to play it it's far more fun. That and I'm more of a fixed wing person waiting for A-10 :)

[Boberro]

As ground bomber guy I am not bored :P I like Ka-50 and Vikhrs and when I have free time I play it. Also i enjoy Falcon, where I put harm or GBUs or GPS bombs mixed with 2 AIM-120 and fly toward enemy ;]

[Eddie]

I got bored with it ages ago to be honest, but then I'm a jet jockey not a rotor head. Don't get me wrong, I do still play BS from time to time but I find I've had enough very quickly. Generally I'll only fly to the target once, if I get shot down I won't bother doing another start up and flying all the way back again. Choppers are just too damn slow. And while it's be said so many time before, the lack of a dynamic campaign as somewhat limited it's playability for me.

 

My boredom will disappear in seconds as soon as I can call out paveway over the radio again.

[jpm1]

when planes modules will come out DCS will become the new flight sim reference

[wolf_288]

BS boring online??

 

Hi

boring, no ka-50 and opposite Apatche helicopter,something in the future ??

[Mustang]

Hi

boring, no ka-50 and opposite Apatche helicopter,something in the future ??

 

I take it you totally missed this?

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=47143

[vortex360]

Before everyone hates me :D let me explain

 

I love DCS and think it is a brilliant game, probably the best ever, but I find that without any more campaigns and missions the game gets a little bit boring. There's only so many T-72s you can aimlessly blow up. I loved the deployment campaign, and the GOW is good but has no real story - just tasking. Anyone else agree with me?

 

I make my own missions. You almost always are surprised by the battles. I shoot down Stealth bombers, Apache gunships and all kinds of other enemy including soldagos I've raked down personally. I've seen some wild things in the game and it is nice to be able to operate the gunship fully. I am waiting until tomorrow when one of my Optical Audio cables gets here. Once the cable gets here my audio for the game is goming to be even wilder.

[luke88]

This is a great discussion and I'm glad somebody came out and said this because its something thats been on my my for a while as well.

 

To me Black Shark is a brilliant start to what can potentially be THE defining game in the genre (although admittedly, there is not much else out there right now). But it does fall short in a few critical respects that have been brought up in this thread. I think ED has has gotten the priority correct though, in that they concentrated on creating the high fidelity aircraft first. Without that, the rest would be garbage.

 

I imagine that there have been many discussions in back room meetings as to which direction to take take the simulator next to satisfy the greater market and remain true to their vision. I don't envy the role of a game developer in this regard, considering there are many fans out there waiting with baited breath on ED's next move.

 

So far, I am happy with the way DCS has unfolded, and any project this ambitious takes time. I just hope ED reads threads like this and gets it right again.

[ARM505]

I wish we could liven up the game world somehow, and how we interact with it. I've been playing a lot of ARMA II, and Combat Mission: Shock Force, and even though it would entail a lot of work, there's a lot of complexity that needs to be added to break up the 'sterile' feel of the DCS world. This is something that ARMA has (despite it's flaws) and the simple systems that CM has (for example, damage to vehicles, vehicles popping smoke and evading, troops thinking, moving, taking up positions in buildings) are really nice examples of what could be done. I like starting the helo up, taking it around the circuit, but then.....?

 

I want troop interaction, JTAC controlling from the ground type of stuff. Reading Ed Macy's book again reminded me of how utterly incapable DCS is of simulating a lot of the fighting that a helo would do, triggers or not. I don't see this improving with the A-10 module. A2A is one thing, you're up in the sky, and all the platforms are there and are simulated - but the ground needs PEOPLE. A-10's are CAS platforms, not bombers striking fixed targets. It'll be tank plinking again, just from different ranges and angles. I'm certainly looking forward to a hi-fi sim of the A-10 though. I just wish we could have it all....a bit impossible I suppose though. So this is by no means a criticism of ED - they're doing a stellar job, and all out realism is exceptionally hard to do, probably one of the most challenging and niche (read: small customer base) thing to do in the pc world.

[jpm1]

once i asked to myself how many modelized objects were in Lock on . never counted but i believe there are a lot

[weasel75]

I think the boredom with DCS:Black Shark comes from the lack of world fidelity. Sure, the Ka-50 itself is a masterpiece of simulation but outside of the aircraft the world is pretty bland.

 

I have to admit, that the ww2online's flight-model is far from LOMAC or even FC/BS, but as a MMOSimulation it is highly addictive and will keep your stress-level high ;)

.. no AI comes close to that ... from enemy fighters to deadly (and tricky) AAA, flying CAP, bomber-missions or a paratrooper-transporter, strafing (human-player controlled) ground-troops and transporters, bombing hidden tanks with some human FAC-help, sinking ships, having (a) human gunner(s), trying to reach friendly lines after taking damage, etc.pp. - it is always a unique experience.

 

.. compared to that experience, the world in BS looks really dead, sterile and clean :-(

[Warbird_242]

 

I want troop interaction, JTAC controlling from the ground type of stuff. Reading Ed Macy's book again reminded me of how utterly incapable DCS is of simulating a lot of the fighting that a helo would do, triggers or not. I don't see this improving with the A-10 module. A2A is one thing, you're up in the sky, and all the platforms are there and are simulated - but the ground needs PEOPLE. A-10's are CAS platforms, not bombers striking fixed targets. It'll be tank plinking again, just from different ranges and angles. I'm certainly looking forward to a hi-fi sim of the A-10 though. I just wish we could have it all....a bit impossible I suppose though. So this is by no means a criticism of ED - they're doing a stellar job, and all out realism is exceptionally hard to do, probably one of the most challenging and niche (read: small customer base) thing to do in the pc world.

 

WELL SAID

 

Exactly my thoughts only better choice of words :D

 

I hope that this sets the ED machine whirring

[Agg]

What I think would increase DCS's playability and popularity quite a bit is if ED released some decent mod-tools, so we, the end users, could add new aircraft, new ground troops, and what not.

[159th_Falcon]

What I think would increase DCS's playability and popularity quite a bit is if ED released some decent mod-tools, so we, the end users, could add new aircraft, new ground troops, and what not.

:(:(:(

 

Please let that be the last thing ED gives to the community, don't want to end up fighting space ships.......

(now don't say it wont happen cause it will happen if such tools are released)

Besides, can you name some type of ground troops that would make an real addition to the game but is not in it?

Would rather see AI improvement and better support for multiple cores and 64bits.:joystick::pilotfly:

Something that would give better playability right now is cooperative flying in the multilayer mode as opposed to everyone for himself (Rambo style), programs like team speak are very useful in this scenario.

[Warbird_242]

Panzertard this isn't really about opinion - I think the fact is that some of us are bored and we are trying to find a way around this :D

[Speed_2]

Yes, DCS desperately needs FAC interaction- both AI and human controlled FAC interaction. No matter how realistic the avionics and flight models are, the simulation itself is not very realistic without FACs, especially after we get DCS A-10. A simplistic way to create packages, and for the AI to actually follow them, is also needed (like in Falcon 4). Not much of a "Battle Simulator" without these features...

[Glowing_Amraam]

OT: Your name is a constant reminder of something ......... :P

 

Back on topic.. ;)

[Speed_2]

:(:(:(

 

Please let that be the last thing ED gives to the community, don't want to end up fighting space ships.......

(now don't say it wont happen cause it will happen if such tools are released)

Besides, can you name some type of ground troops that would make an real addition to the game but is not in it?

Would rather see AI improvement and better support for multiple cores and

 

Obviously, you have never heard of Falcon 4, a game that was released in an unfinished state, and abandoned by its creators in an unfinished state. When the source code was leaked shortly thereafter, the game was finished and bugs were patched by AMATUER modders modifying both the executable and databases. It kept the game alive and Falcon 4 is still the most realistic (overall) jet fighter sim. So, really, your concern that you'll be fighting "spaceships" is just silly. You know how we are stuck with just ONE SINGLE theater in DCS? Well, in Falcon 4, we have about a DOZEN theaters to choose from- all but one of these created by modders. Oh and adding new theaters and planes to Falcon 4 does not require making source code edits- you only need to create new data files.

Modders vastly improve the quantity of content in a game, and can also improve the QUALITY of content in a game.

 

Your second point- that we don't need more ground troops- is also wrong. There is a vast number of types of ground vehicles that are not present in the game. For example, towed artillery, large caliber AAA guns, many different kinds of tanks, infantry ATGMs, etc. One thing that we desperately need to simulate realistic ground battles is crew-served weapons, like fixed machine guns, motars, infantry launched ATGMs (where are the Javelins?!?! HELLO?!?!, rockets, etc).

[Agg]

:(:(:(

 

Please let that be the last thing ED gives to the community, don't want to end up fighting space ships.......

(now don't say it wont happen cause it will happen if such tools are released)

Besides, can you name some type of ground troops that would make an real addition to the game but is not in it?

I dont see any problem with this at all, if you dont want space ships in your sim, then dont install the "space ship add on" or whatever. Its not like you have to use every mod that comes out, there are a whole bunch of Lock-On and DCS mods that I dont like, and therefore dont use, but other people may like them, and thats just fine. So even if you dont want space ships in DCS, someone else might, I probably wouldnt install any space ship mods, but I would be happy to try out some user made aircraft.

[EtherealN]

Please let that be the last thing ED gives to the community, don't want to end up fighting space ships.

 

Not that we really need to keep derailing, but that one just has to merit this here leaked picture from FC3:

 

 

Anyway, Speed_2 - while I do agree that modders can indeed improve quality of a simulation. The problem would be in judging what actually is an improvement of quality. A commercial product has the advantage that it can be officially endorced and thereby display it's pedigree in an understandable manner.

 

Not that I am too worried about Falcon 4 in that respect (and it has the advantage of being a simulation of a very well proliferated aircraft, which increases the pool of authoritative "testers" even in an amateur setting), but the issue is there.