Anyone else getting a little bit bored with BS?

[Zorg_DK]

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

 

I think it's fine with a discussion of what we like in different sims. Maybe some day we can have all strengths of the different sims combined in one package. One can hope :)

 

H-Street: Well said.

[Warbird_242]

Yes I know what you mean I was just complaining at these 'Falcon rules, DCS sucks' types and vice versa

[Speed_2]

Yes I know what you mean I was just complaining at these 'Falcon rules, DCS sucks' types and vice versa

 

No one has said that, so why are you complaining? The fact that this thread is about people getting bored with DCS, it is natural that we are only pointing out faults of DCS when compared to other games and not the advantages that DCS has over them.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Speed_2

[Warbird_242]

Sorry you're right that was an exaggeration - you have to admit some were getting quite hostile though!

[Total]

I never got the whole "This sim is better than that sim" bit.

 

I play each as their own creation. As far as DCS goes, we all have to remember that Blackshark is the first installment of a planned SERIES of DCS releases. As each one gets released, the involvement on the battlefield will grow.

 

Personally, I'm not bored with it as of yet.

 

One thing I would like to see is some randomization in enemy unit placements. Knowing what to expect each time can wear thin after a while, but then again who says we have to approach it the same way each time?

 

One thing I would really like to see implemented in BS is to actually use the radio to communicate with one another (VOIP). This will make online play alot more immersive in terms of team coordination. With the advent of selectable frequencies, individuals flight groups could operate stand alone, but switch frequencies as needed.

 

Nah, not getting bored with BS, Falcon, IL-2, LockOn, nor ArmA2. Each is a great combat sim in their own right.

[Krippz]

I never got the whole "This sim is better than that sim" bit.

 

I play each as their own creation. As far as DCS goes, we all have to remember that Blackshark is the first installment of a planned SERIES of DCS releases. As each one gets released, the involvement on the battlefield will grow.

 

 

Agreed. I mean I haven't even fully mastered the Shark yet; so I don't have time to find things to nitpick.

[EtherealN]

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

 

[...]

6. the Damage modeling of IL2

[...]

 

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.

 

Huh? I know the list you made was a sort of dream scenario list, so it's not quite a "request", but why did you put in one of the lower-resolution damage models out there? IL2's damage modeling was very good for it's release time, but nowadays* I don't think there's anything significantly better in it compared to even LockOn - and that's not even starting to discuss DCS where a single well-placed 23mm round can knock out a very specific part of your chopper (I recently managed to lose only my Shkval when flying on Panzer's server like that), or it can enter the machine and knock out one of the hydraulic cirquits, or both, or take out the generators, or any of a myriad other things that in IL-2 is only simulated in the way of "oh... Hydraulics. Well, let's leak for a few moments and then make the bird harder to control".

 

Similarly, the actual 3D-modeling of damage is nothing special in IL-2 either. Add a few decals, switch a few textures, and have a few extra 3D shapes to show a hole in a wing and stuff like that. DCS probably uses the same method deep down under the hood (no point repairing something that isn't broken), but with a lot more details There's more things that can fall off, and they have real effects on the flight characteristics.

 

I dunno, I guess I was caught into making another rant again, I just had another cognitive dissonance when I saw IL-2 in there. And make no mistake, I love that game and have flown it from the first release (with several 1941-1945 dynamic!!!1eleven campaigns finished :P), but it's strengths lie in really being the ultimate WW2 survey simulator and allowing people to dogfight with the cannon-equipped Stuka - that's really one-shot-one-kill and very fun for a head-to-head over LAN - not in being detailed.

 

*Nowadays I am very interested in seeing what Oleg's next creation will have in that department, though.

[Krippz]

I agree the DCS Black Shark's damage model is by far the best flight sim damage model that I've seen.

[Tango]

+1

 

The damage is not just random - it is realistic.

 

#2 had a loss of power and I lost the right wing (due to a SAM I think), and a slow hydraulic leak. I didn't lose any blades or the hydraulics completely. Due to the assymentric weight/drag the thing wanted to yaw like crazy, and the asymmetric weight coupled with unimpeded lift of the right side (because the wing wasn't in the way) made for some interesting flying.

 

Application of collective resulted in a realistic roll to the left, whilst high speed flight saw a marked yaw to the left due to the drag, and right roll tendency due to the lift from the remaining wing.

 

It is worth getting shot just to appreciate how realistic it is.

 

Best regards,

Tango.

[Warbird_242]

Yes IL2's damage model is just not comparable to DCS

[H-street]

...

 

Don't get me wrong, BS has a great damage model (you are right that it is technically superior). But to be honest, i have never relived or just sat there and inspected my damaged aircraft more than in IL2.

 

maybe its because the nature of IL2s combat is close in dog fighting, but there is something about being in the heat of battle, having 20mm rounds shredding through you, seeing pieces fly off .. surviving, landing, and then just looking at the damage :)

 

call it perceived damage modeling, or call it what you will, in the end its the experience and immersion that counts at least for me.

 

and you are right, maybe once I get into that A10C and get some air to air battling and see the DCS damage model applied to the A10, i'll have just as much fun inspecing my broken, shot up, pushed around plane :)

[EtherealN]

Ehm...

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=791000&postcount=693

That post I made the other day is my response.

 

And I'll add these by other users:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=749420&postcount=672

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=743479&postcount=670

 

I invite you to make IL2 get anywhere close to that. I think you just haven't been shot at enough in DCS so far. ;)

Edited December 2, 2009 by EtherealN

[Feuerfalke]

@ H-street:

 

That lies in the nature of the simulations.

 

 

In WW2 planes and weapons are simulated that fire single rounds that cause limited damage. Most of this damage is even visually notable by just looking out of the window.

 

In DCS weapons have a lot more punch, so most of the time you get hit hard, you're already dead. And even if you are not and you chose not to punch out immediately, backup-systems and other security measures will kick in, when applicable and of course you will rarely see the damage from the cockpit.

 

So, it's a little comparing apples and oranges.

 

@EtherealN: Got to admit the apples and oranges also apply to your final comment, though. I invite you to make anywhere as many damage-models for flyables as IL2 has for DCS :D

[EtherealN]

I'll have to grant that point. :)

[Logan9773]

Well, I've pretty much learned all the basic stuff of BS, and some of the advanced. And that's all there is to do in this sim. The problem with this game is its a flight sim in the truest sense. i.e There is very little else you can do with it. You can only fly the one aircraft, and you can do very little with the editor. That's where it becomes boring. Once you have learned the aircraft, that's about it. Nothing else to do. Campaigns and missions are really just simple shooting galleries. Feels like shooting ducks in a barrel. Heavily armed ones, but really just ducks none the less.

 

What you need to do is get together with the FPS people and put your aircraft into games like Crysis and Arma 2. You know, give us a living, breathing world. Then you would have something that is enduring, modable, and sellable to much more than a very niche market.

This would take a high end machine to play well, but with Nvidia's new DX11 card coming out and decently priced i7 motherboards and chips already out, I don't see this as much of a financial problem for the average end user. Both players and companies would benefit from it, and you would sell many more copies of your game.

[GGTharos]

Well, I've pretty much learned all the basic stuff of BS, and some of the advanced. And that's all there is to do in this sim. The problem with this game is its a flight sim in the truest sense. i.e There is very little else you can do with it. You can only fly the one aircraft, and you can do very little with the editor. That's where it becomes boring. Once you have learned the aircraft, that's about it. Nothing else to do. Campaigns and missions are really just simple shooting galleries. Feels like shooting ducks in a barrel. Heavily armed ones, but really just ducks none the less.

 

Oh, really? Can you program the PVI? Do you know how to (And have you) used every HSI mode for navigation?

Have you tried creating a mission where the enemy might be realistically defended, with surprise MANPADS and AAA popping up?

 

What you need to do is get together with the FPS people and put your aircraft into games like Crysis and Arma 2. You know, give us a living, breathing world. Then you would have something that is enduring, modable, and sellable to much more than a very niche market.

This would take a high end machine to play well, but with Nvidia's new DX11 card coming out and decently priced i7 motherboards and chips already out, I don't see this as much of a financial problem for the average end user. Both players and companies would benefit from it, and you would sell many more copies of your game.

 

You can pretty much forget about that sort of thing for now. Not only are there legal hurdles, but technical ones as well, namely, making the terrain the same for everyone, as one example ... and no, you can't just 'use the same engine for everything'.

[Endoplasmic Reticulum]

Graphic is ugly it's true, but rest of game gives you 100x more than LO. ;]

 

How right you are...:thumbup:

[InFireBaptize]

i have actually just started having fun with BS, now i start the BS manually instead of using (window + Home) and i received my trackir 5 not too long ago so this is an added bonus, I have been playing online and been learning a lot everyday, How can you get bored when there is a long path to learn from this sim? i mean unless you're a pilot but still this beast takes time to learn. Graphics are fine, i would like to fly in Iraq maps.

[VMFA117_Poko]

I would play DCS even if there wouldn't be any textures used - just simple 3d models. You shouldn't look for eye-candies in such a product. However, BS isn't ugly at all imho. I'd rather say that this kind of graphics perfectly fit to the combat flight sim.

[Endoplasmic Reticulum]

Oh, really? Can you program the PVI? Do you know how to (And have you) used every HSI mode for navigation?

Have you tried creating a mission where the enemy might be realistically defended, with surprise MANPADS and AAA popping up?

 

You're absolutely right, GGT.

The goal of this sim is not to master the Hokum just enough to fulfill the missions and campaigns. You should learn to fully control your machine. I don't want to sound like a smartass or like one that masters the beast perfectly, cuz I don't know my baby as well enough as I should either, but everytime I jump in my Hokum I learn new sides of the machine and understand how it works much better. And I find that very exciting.

If you would buy a Viper (Dodge), would you just drive it or would you study the whole beast? I think it is much more fun 'knowing' what you drive, instead of just driving a nice looking car. Knowing your car does'nt make you faster, but more confident in controling it.

[GGTharos]

I would take it to the race track, just on account of not wanting to do anything illegal ;)

 

I think you got my point right, too - DCS is a full-fledged flight sim. You can learn more than just combat - the flight part is important.

 

Yes, DCS lacks some things ... currently. It is a product in motions, and things are getting added to it all the time. I will point you towards the SimHQ article featuring the A-10C as displayed at IT/ITSEC 2009 (Assuming I got the acronym right) as an example, not to mention the screenshots displaying graphical improvements as well as a few interesting things that people probably won't notice unless they are pointed out to them.

Edited December 7, 2009 by GGTharos

[vrv]

I won't be impressed with DCS until we get an entire Klingon raiding fleet simulated in 6DOF.

[Endoplasmic Reticulum]

I would take it to the race track, just on account of not wanting to do anything illegal ;)

 

I think you got my point right, too - DCS is a full-fledged flight sim. You can learn more than just combat - the flight part is important.

 

Yes, DCS lacks some things ... currently. It is a product in motions, and things are getting added to it all the time. I will point you towards the SimHQ article featuring the A-10C as displayed at IT/ITSEC 2009 (Assuming I got the acronym right) as an example, not to mention the screenshots displaying graphical improvements as well as a few interesting things that people probably won't notice unless they are pointed out to them.

 

Well, this car makes you want become illegal ;).

 

I also like to know a lot more than just the combat capabilities of the Hokum. Since I can think, I'm very curious and always wanted to know even the tiniest detail of anything that interests me. On the other hand we have to accept that interests may vary in its' detail. Some look for more detailed graphics, some want realistic combat and some want to know even more, non-combat based details, for instance not how you use the radar, but even how it works in its' detail.

 

The ones thinking a sim would be perfectly realistic don't think realistically. Every sim has many things to work on to make it even more realistic, but it's like "pi": you can come closer to the solution, but will never reach the final solution. That's impossible.

 

 

 

I won't be impressed with DCS until we get an entire Klingon raiding fleet simulated in 6DOF.

Kaplaa!!!!!:evil:

[Chibawang]

Just seeing the ten or so lines of printed radio chatter in that article was like Christmas morning. Though, It seems that the real Christmas will come soon after the 25th this year.

 

Yes, DCS lacks some things ... currently. It is a product in motions, and things are getting added to it all the time. I will point you towards the SimHQ article featuring the A-10C as displayed at IT/ITSEC 2009 (Assuming I got the acronym right) as an example, not to mention the screenshots displaying graphical improvements as well as a few interesting things that people probably won't notice unless they are pointed out to them.

[Endoplasmic Reticulum]

I would play DCS even if there wouldn't be any textures used - just simple 3d models. You shouldn't look for eye-candies in such a product. However, BS isn't ugly at all imho. I'd rather say that this kind of graphics perfectly fit to the combat flight sim.

 

Yeah. Dito. I still love Falcon 4 and have nothing negative to say about its' graphics. Same with BS. Sometimes we should be happy with things we have and make the best out of it.