Anyone else getting a little bit bored with BS?

[Hunt3r.j2]

Don't think its been mentioned but there is a great graphic's updated version of Falcon 4.0

 

its a FREE mod for FALCON, a google search would help you find it. It

Falcon 4.0 to some

.

 

DCS is great, but until it becomes a living breathing battlefield (a la F4) i'll stick with F4 for campaigns.

 

DCS is fun for startups, and flying but lacks that feel of being the pilot

DCS: BS is fun for rotary heads. You do a mission, and during said mission, tanks shoot at you, AA nearly hits, a Hind tries to kill you, and you manage to destroy an entire convoy and most of the helos.

 

That is fun. Until we have a DCS: Viper I doubt that a Falcon 4 junkie would enjoy the game.

[Feuerfalke]

That is fun. Until we have a DCS: Viper I doubt that a Falcon 4 junkie would enjoy the game.

 

I'm the living proof against your theory. :D

[lawndartleo]

It speaks volumes that 11 years later (4 if you consider Allied Force), we are still talking about Falcon 4.0 in a forum dedicated to a far more modern sim.

 

They are both good, no, make that great sims in their own right and both have their fans and detractors. Leave it at that.

[Kuky]

I said F4 should die out because for years they've been trying to update and improve, fact is because the graphics engine is so outdated it will never be much better... so instead of clinging to it it shoud be accepted it's age and deficiences and something better worked on... and I think DCS is heading this path

[EtherealN]

Which is exactly my point- isn't that about a third to a half of the land on the DCS "map"?

 

Except, as far as I know, it's not counted when the size of the map is reported. ;)

 

My problem is that if the theater is not extended, the size of the detailed area is going to be a hinderence to realism starting with DCS A-10.

 

It has worked quite nicely for LockOn and their fast-jet fights. I do not see it becoming an issue for a CAS aircraft. Remember - we aren't flying a Tu-95 simulation.

 

Is there any way to jump into control of a flight in the middle of that flight's mission?

 

No. And being able to do so is worthless for mission design, since that AI flight won't be doing what you'd be doing in there anyhow. I've designed quite a few missions for myself in both LockOn, LockOn:FC and DCS, and I don't even understand what it is you want to achieve as a mission designer through being able to fly an AI aircraft.

 

Or, in the case of multiplayer maps - well, no. You can't. And I still don't see the need to be able to do so. An aircraft either has a human player in it, where to be "tested" you'd want the flight manned with humans anyway since otherwise you won't be getting information about the balance.

 

Can you manually add flights from the F10 map in DCS in the middle of a mission? Because you can in Falcon 4.

 

No, because DCS is a simulation. Not an RTS. I am aware that Falcon attempts to be both, and I have been amused for quite some time about "realism junkies" wanting to be both strategic commander and pilot at the same time.

 

As for in-flight stuff, it's also massively exploitable. Get up in the air with an AI wingman each, and if the enemy players take you down you just spawn into the other's wingman aircraft and the enemy will have gained little in managing to take you down. As has been mentioned, travel distance is a fully real part of air combat - and these methods of cutting down on it seems to counter your own argument about map sizes.

 

But still not nearly as varied as what a true dynamic mission generator will give you.

 

I'd say it's actually more varied, because there has been a human hand looking at all those missions. My experience of these fabled "dynamic" campaigns from IL2, Rise of Flight, Strike Fighters, Falcon etcetera is that it seems more like "I can't be arsed to make missions" than "let's have a varied battlefield". That's my impression of course and obviously we disagree, but I seriously cannot see why you are so enthused about those "dynamic" campaigns.

 

And this is not the first time I've had a Falcon4 afficionado first talk about how realistic Falcon is and then start giving a list of effectively RTS gameplay as strongpoints of it. I just do not understand the logic in that.

 

So the ending point is that you and me obviously have vastly differing experiences of the campaigns in Falcon and DCS, as well as a differing set of priorities in several areas. In my personal opinion I also think you have shown cases where you argue against deficiencies that aren't even there - as in the map modding area, which makes discussion even more difficult. It mustn't have been more time intensive to search for that stickied thread or open the wiki that's linked on every single page of the forum than to argue about it?

 

And that'll be my final words to this well derailed debate.

[GGTharos]

Actually the dynamic campaigns in Falcon are deliberately unrealistic for gameplay reasons - this is a well known thing, AFAIK ... or perhaps it isn't?

 

And this is not the first time I've had a Falcon4 afficionado first talk about how realistic Falcon is and then start giving a list of effectively RTS gameplay as strongpoints of it. I just do not understand the logic in that.

[weasel75]

Despite the dynamic campaigns in F4.0 - nowadays the sim strikes me as the worst nightmare I could possibly have about long-term relationships.

 

Yes, I know how those switches and knobs work, there are surely hundreds of them (depending on the purpose and situation), and yes, we have done almost everything together (from a head-on to close-combat and spectacular showdowns) .. but you know, after such a long time .... the landscape seems ... less colorful, almost shallow ... just plain and not exciting anymore.

And it is true, no plastic surgery (enhancement) will turn those hills/curves into those I saw back then ... a decade ago.

 

I will always remember you for a real and true and deep love ... but ... it is almost 2k + 10 ... so I start looking for other sims and new excitement, I am male after all, I really need new challenges, some new beauty to look at, something that takes my breath away ... again!

Edited December 1, 2009 by weasel75
still fighting with words...

[EtherealN]

Actually the dynamic campaigns in Falcon are deliberately unrealistic for gameplay reasons - this is a well known thing, AFAIK ... or perhaps it isn't?

 

I should perhaps have been more clear: I have seen many Falcon afficionados first say that the good thing with Falcon is that it is so realistic, touting realism as the selling point. Thereafter they will go into the merits of this quite less than realistic campaign system. To my mind this is a bit of doublespeak - if DCS had a system where I could give orders to all those other AI flights around me I would consider that harmful to the realism of a combat simulation since part of combat is that you are a small piece on a chessboard that other people move.

 

I don't think anyone has said that it is necessarily a more realistic way of doing things, but it's a bit of shifting goalposts. It feels like the equivalent of a tactical shooter that wants to be realistic allowing a private order the entire brigade around to suit his or her needs. It sparks some cognitive dissonance in my head. :P

[Speed_2]

Actually the dynamic campaigns in Falcon are deliberately unrealistic for gameplay reasons - this is a well known thing, AFAIK ... or perhaps it isn't?

 

No, it is well known. Falcon 4's campaigns feature horribly unrealistically powerful enemies (DPRK with hundreds of MiG-29s and veteran pilots? GIMME A BREAK!) AND you fly many more missions than is realistic, and the wars take much shorter than they do IRL. It's compressed. I would definately PREFER the option to play a more realistic campaign, but they don't exist.

 

As far as it not being realisitic to have both an RTS and flight sim in one package, there is only so far I'm willing to let realism go. Should I have to sit through 6 hour briefings before every flight? Should I have to train for years before I am even allowed to step into the pit of my virtual jet? Should I shoot myself in the head when I die in game?! I mean, don't be dumb. Realism MUST have limits.

 

And, as far as the dynamic mission generator goes- it's dumb as hell. It follows no real strategy. I think it is MUCH more realistic to be fighting an air war where there is an overall strategy, rather than flying in one where no strategy exists at all. I mean, go look for yourself- you'll see the dynamic mission generator tasking aircraft to do CAS missions in an area where 40 MiGs are patrolling, or it will task a flight to take out an airbase that has NO enemy squadrons based at it when there is another air base right beside it where three squardrons of MiG-29s are based. Or, the worst example of them all, enemy aircraft will be all over friendly airspace, and not a SINGLE BARCAP mission will be created, even with the sliders set to max on defensive counter air. So if you want to fly and be part of an air war that has an overall direction and intelligently responds to enemy actions (just as a real air war would), you HAVE to task the missions yourself.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Speed_2

[Feuerfalke]

Actually the dynamic campaigns in Falcon are deliberately unrealistic for gameplay reasons - this is a well known thing, AFAIK ... or perhaps it isn't?

 

Who doubts that it is? But let me put it with an old saying:

 

Among the blind, the one-eyed is the king.

 

 

I said F4 should die out because for years they've been trying to update and improve, fact is because the graphics engine is so outdated it will never be much better... so instead of clinging to it it shoud be accepted it's age and deficiences and something better worked on... and I think DCS is heading this path

 

Yes, it IS old. NO doubt about that. Yes, it looks outdated. Yes, I do believe that DCS is going down a path that will sooner or later replace Falcon4. But also no doubt, that DCS isn't there, yet. So it makes little sense to compare something that is to something that probably will be at some point.

[EtherealN]

I so shouldn't get back into this, so I'll keep it to a small quickie:

 

And, as far as the dynamic mission generator goes- it's dumb as hell. It follows no real strategy. I think it is MUCH more realistic to be fighting an air war where there is an overall strategy, rather than flying in one where no strategy exists at all. I mean, go look for yourself- you'll see the dynamic mission generator tasking aircraft to do CAS missions in an area where 40 MiGs are patrolling, or it will task a flight to take out an airbase that has NO enemy squadrons based at it when there is another air base right beside it where three squardrons of MiG-29s are based. Or, the worst example of them all, enemy aircraft will be all over friendly airspace, and not a SINGLE BARCAP mission will be created, even with the sliders set to max on defensive counter air. So if you want to fly and be part of an air war that has an overall direction and intelligently responds to enemy actions (just as a real air war would), you HAVE to task the missions yourself.

 

So what we have is:

1) The Dynamic Campaign doesn't work.

2) It replaces good AI with requiring the player, a pilot, to also be theater commander. (What of those who just want to play the pilot role?)

3) That's after the product has been in use for 11 years, with several fully equipped mod squads.

 

Basically, what you just now listed is probably at least half of the reasons why ED felt that there was no point in making a dynamic campaign for DCS. ;)

[Feuerfalke]

I should perhaps have been more clear: I have seen many Falcon afficionados first say that the good thing with Falcon is that it is so realistic, touting realism as the selling point. Thereafter they will go into the merits of this quite less than realistic campaign system. To my mind this is a bit of doublespeak - if DCS had a system where I could give orders to all those other AI flights around me I would consider that harmful to the realism of a combat simulation since part of combat is that you are a small piece on a chessboard that other people move.

 

I don't think anyone has said that it is necessarily a more realistic way of doing things, but it's a bit of shifting goalposts. It feels like the equivalent of a tactical shooter that wants to be realistic allowing a private order the entire brigade around to suit his or her needs. It sparks some cognitive dissonance in my head. :P

 

You can order all units around you to do what you want in Falcon4? :blink: - Got to admit that I never heard of that.

 

I also don't think that this is the major point of this argument stated. The point is the opposite, that you are just one piece in a war, including air and ground units, with flexible C3 and other units interacting with you. You hear units calling for support, you can ask AWACS for nearest enemies or groundtargets, you can hear other tasks of the packages. Even more, the battlefield you fly on stays the same from mission to mission, which also means that targets you destroyed have a direct effect on later missions, on supplies and connected units.

 

So in fact in Falcon you get a lot better feeling of being just one small figure in a larger game than most of the time in BS, when the war obviously starts when you fly, only takes place X meters to the left and right of your flightpath and ends when you end the mission, with all parameters being reset for the next mission.

 

I'd also like to point out, that I am in the luxury position of being a fan of both simulations (as I posted before). IMHO each has it's pros and cons and I honestly don't see why fans from either side have to be converted or convinced of the pros of the other side. Reminds me to kindergarten to see so much "Mine is better than yours"-statements.

 

When DCS is ready to surpass Falcon in every single aspect, we won't need to discuss why Falcon should be abandoned or not.

[EtherealN]

You can order all units around you to do what you want in Falcon4? :blink: - Got to admit that I never heard of that.

 

A dynamic campaign system that allows you to set the missions for your side is effectively that, yes. And a dynamic campaign that is required to allow that because they didn't manage to make smart enough AI for it is broken.

 

IMO.

 

The rest of your post I largely agree with though (except that it was a while since I had Falcon installed, so I can't really say I'm a "fan" of both).

[Feuerfalke]

A dynamic campaign system that allows you to set the missions for your side is effectively that, yes. And a dynamic campaign that is required to allow that because they didn't manage to make smart enough AI for it is broken.

 

Are you referring to ATO, mission priorities or really the missions?

[EtherealN]

I'm talking about this:

 

And, as far as the dynamic mission generator goes- it's dumb as hell. It follows no real strategy. I think it is MUCH more realistic to be fighting an air war where there is an overall strategy, rather than flying in one where no strategy exists at all. I mean, go look for yourself- you'll see the dynamic mission generator tasking aircraft to do CAS missions in an area where 40 MiGs are patrolling, or it will task a flight to take out an airbase that has NO enemy squadrons based at it when there is another air base right beside it where three squardrons of MiG-29s are based. Or, the worst example of them all, enemy aircraft will be all over friendly airspace, and not a SINGLE BARCAP mission will be created, even with the sliders set to max on defensive counter air. So if you want to fly and be part of an air war that has an overall direction and intelligently responds to enemy actions (just as a real air war would), you HAVE to task the missions yourself.

 

He summed it up better than I could.

[Feuerfalke]

Got to admit that I never witnessed that in such an extend. Maybe because I am mostly playing AF or modded versions of Falcon4?

 

But I'd also got to point out that defensive counter air is aimed to intercept bombers, not fighters like the Mig29. You have to assign target: Aircraft to get BARCAP and SWEEP missions.

( Just tested it and got 100% BARCAP after setting Aircraft to high. )

 

I also don't think that everything is just a bug. You know, if you are just a piece in the machinery, you won't know what the big picture is most of the time, and you can't expect to get a decent briefing of why to bomb that target and if it's a good strategy or not. I don't think that ruins realism, even if it makes your life harder or it makes you lose the war. To be honest, I think that rather adds to realism, but hey, that's MHO again ;)

[davek1979]

Just because Crytek doesn't choose to create a game like Black Shark doesn't mean their engine is incapable of it running something like Black Shark. I fail to see why many sim/ PC players tend to look down upon others who choose to play games with less realistic modeling of aircraft physics. I don't know why this is so common, maybe simmers have a sense of elitism about it, possibly there is too much pride involved, or perhaps they are just upset that others are intentionally trying to have fun in their games. Simply because someone doesn't appreciate games that accurately recreate the hydraulic system of a combat helicopter doesn't mean they are lesser beings.

 

The point is quit looking down at those who play FPS, Hawx, BF2, enjoy flying in Arma, or any other game that doesn't "meet the standards" of DCS. But rather, look at them as a potential market to expand the genre to. "Say, you liked dog fights in Battlefield 2 huh? Well if you want something more complex out of the a game, then check out "xxxxxxxx" (< Any decent flight sim game).

 

I have to reply to this, as this might probably be a reaction to what I happened to say a few pages back.

No one ever said CryEngine is incapable of running BS. Modifications, modifications. With a whole bunch of them, why not ?

But the point is this: CryEngine is not MEANT from SCRATCH for simulations. It was meant for FPS. Nice looking, very fluid, feature-filled FPS. Got it ? FPS. Ground fight. Ground units. Short distances (read - not meant for trips from ADLER to NOVOROSSIJSK with all the shiny grass and trees swept by the wind...). Nice physics. Realistic looking hut falling onto a realistic looking Korean soldier.

I don't see why you would mention "elitism"... Why I certainly can't say there are no pilots who frown upon FPS games (I certainly don't, thus my previous vivid description of a normal Crysis experience), don't just assume that whoever likes simming, absolutely dislikes FPS. When I start up BF2, I feel like shooting the other guy with a shotgun. When I start up BS, I feel like shooting that damn ZU-23 Emplacement with a Vikhr, while trying to not lose some mechanical parts of my Shark. :-) And I equally like both experiences.

But in this hardware-limited world we have to be reasonably realistic in our expectations. CryEngine, where it is NOW, is incapable of simulating BS - no joke there, no elitism there - it's a fact. Too much attention to smaller scale makes it a HOG when it comes to big scale.

That's not looking down on other games, that's just where things are at the moment.

[Zorg_DK]

A kitten dies everytime someone hops into an aircraft in ArmA.

Stop the kittencide now!

 

LOL :lol:

[Grimes]

davek1979, while the first sentence in my post was likely in reference to your comment about Crysis, the rest of the post certainly wasn't focused on any one person. It was more of a commentary regarding a long standing opinion that has been present in PC gaming, which to be fair, has been voiced numerous times regarding a variety of topics on this forum. Perhaps "fanboy" maybe have been more suitable than "elitism" regarding the subject. You may not actively make posts about it, but plenty of other people do, and I feel doing so serves no positive purpose.

[davek1979]

Grimes: OK, np. :-)

[Zorg_DK]

After flying Falcon 4 for over 5 years I still learn new things every time I fly, both about the jet and the avionics and about tactics.

 

I will give a few examples to why I love F4:AF so much and why I hope something similar can be implemented in DCS in the future.

 

The dynamic campaign really shines in multiplayer. When I connect to my favorite MP server, it is interesting to see how the war has played out since that last time I was online. Maybe the red side has repaired some bridges (if there were engineers in the area) I took out the day before or maybe they have received reinforcements from China…

 

I like planning a mission for 20 mins with 6 people placed in 3 flights in the same package, doing a ramp start, carry out the mission and finally do a formation landing and park the jet at the parking area while watching the traffic and tuning to the tower frequency and hearing the ATC at the airport. There might be a flight of Cobra gunships and C130’s taking off and A-10s landing. Or if bandits are inbound fighters will scramble and the Patriot batteries will light up. All activity can be monitored and modified in the 2D campaign screen.

 

Or like yesterday where I flew a night time mission with 4 people: We were returning to base, winchester, some damaged and low on fuel, chased by several Mig-29A’s and Mig-21’s.

We call for help on teamspeak, and someone was in 2D and scrambled a two ship F-15C’s from Japan and came to our rescue. While flying low with Migs on our tail it was a relief to see the contrails of the Eagles overhead and a volley of radar missiles on their way to the Migs. We landed safely...

 

Back to DCS – The integration between Lock On and BS sound very good and I’m sure that will make me want to fly BS more and maybe get Flaming Cliffs too.

[Warbird_242]

And just to remind everyone this isn't a flipping DCS/F4AF competition!

[159th_Falcon]

Back on topic, NO i am not bored yet.

In fact im just starting to get into the mission editor.

Im making an mission in which you have to "protect" in some sense yet another airbase.

Yet im trying to give it a nice twist i hope to have it online somewhere near the end of the week or maybe a bit later.

Not sure about the missions name yet but probably something like

Emergency Response

 

As for the topic, Ive said it before and ill say it again, people get online in BS and TS and COOPERATE in the online missions.

Even if you get shot down twice as much then you will still have a hundred times more fun.

[H-street]

I'd also like to point out, that I am in the luxury position of being a fan of both simulations (as I posted before). IMHO each has it's pros and cons and I honestly don't see why fans from either side have to be converted or convinced of the pros of the other side. Reminds me to kindergarten to see so much "Mine is better than yours"-statements.

 

When DCS is ready to surpass Falcon in every single aspect, we won't need to discuss why Falcon should be abandoned or not.

 

 

I think it has more to do with the fact that we , as flight sim enthusiasts, see the great qualities in other products and want to take all those great features and mush them all together in one final great sim.

 

the dynamic campaign is just one of those "great features" (the DC is working btw in the latest F4 mod, see my last post) that IMO DCS missed the mark on. Its been discussed to death in the past, but to sum up. Its the creation of the that living battlefield that DCS misses more than anything. The idea that your actions affect the outcome of the war by your being a small part of a much bigger picture.

 

Being a combat pilot is much more then knowing how to flip switches :)

 

right now DCS BS lacks that feeling of being part of the war, in a big way.

 

don't get me wrong, i love BS. it is great right up to the point to where you take off, once you take off there is no world to be in. There are targets, and missions, but it just doesn't have that feeling. There is a reason F4 still has a good size player base.

 

but i love DCS for what it is, we talk about DCS being the future sim platform of choice. So take a lot of this criticism with the idea that I would like to see DCS evolve into that ultimate sim.

 

i guess when i think about it, if i could have a wish list it would be.

 

1. The living war of F4 (feeling of being part of the war, including the radio chatter)

2. the Multiplayer aspect of F4

3. the Fidelity of aircraft modeling of DCS BS

4. the Fidelity of ship modeling of SIlent Hunter

5. the Fidelity of infantry modeling of Armed assault

6. the Damage modeling of IL2

7. the graphics of Crysis

8. the Navy aspect of Janes F/A 18

9. The Armor Fidelity of WWII Online and Steel Beasts

10. the Destructable everything of Soldiers, Heroes of WWII (buildings , terrain etc.)

11. the Physics of Crysis

 

just to name a few, i'm sure if we really thought abuot it we coudl come up with the ultimate sim feature list taking from all the current games and ideas that are out there.

[Speed_2]

You can order all units around you to do what you want in Falcon4? :blink: - Got to admit that I never heard of that.

 

I also don't think that this is the major point of this argument stated. The point is the opposite, that you are just one piece in a war, including air and ground units, with flexible C3 and other units interacting with you. You hear units calling for support, you can ask AWACS for nearest enemies or groundtargets, you can hear other tasks of the packages. Even more, the battlefield you fly on stays the same from mission to mission, which also means that targets you destroyed have a direct effect on later missions, on supplies and connected units.

 

So in fact in Falcon you get a lot better feeling of being just one small figure in a larger game than most of the time in BS, when the war obviously starts when you fly, only takes place X meters to the left and right of your flightpath and ends when you end the mission, with all parameters being reset for the next mission.

 

I'd also like to point out, that I am in the luxury position of being a fan of both simulations (as I posted before). IMHO each has it's pros and cons and I honestly don't see why fans from either side have to be converted or convinced of the pros of the other side. Reminds me to kindergarten to see so much "Mine is better than yours"-statements.

 

When DCS is ready to surpass Falcon in every single aspect, we won't need to discuss why Falcon should be abandoned or not.

 

I couldn't agree with you more on feeling that you are just a single chess piece in a bigger game during a Falcon 4 campaign mission. Falcon 4 really creates that feeling with all the activity that is going on- missions are very lively and unpredictable. Now it's true that part of this activity is caused by the frantic pace of the dynamic campaign, but not all. You can take off on a BARCAP and never see a single enemy, or you can be hopelessly overwhelmed and have to bug out or die. Just like in real life, and unlike DCS, no one has gone through and balanced the missions or tested them to make sure that they are doable. If you fail because the mission is impossible or you get shot down, you don't have to fly it again- the war just goes on.

 

Compare that to DCS, where I don't get nearly the feeling that I am just a single unit in the larger game. In general, there is not as much air activity or ground activity, and missions are more predictable.

 

Feuerfalke, as far as running the air and ground wars, you can do it from the UI in Allied Force. Right click on the map on the area you want to send up a flight and hit "Add package". Clicking on ground troops will give you their current waypoint and you can move it so that they advance, defend, or retreat. In the ATO, you can remove packages- heck, you can even tell aircraft you see on the UI map to return to base. You have A LOT of control, and it's a hell of a lot of fun.

 

In non-allied force versions of Falcon, I don't believe you can run the air war in a campaign (you can still run the groud war), but I do believe that "Add Package" still works in TEs.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Speed_2