update january 15

[GGTharos]

No, I talked about AI (Artificial Intelligence) Radio Chatter. Not human;)

 

AI Radio Chatter is not possible because there is no dynamic battlefield/campaign.

 

 

... and you would be completely and utterly wrong, like most of the falcon crowd who cry 'dynamic campaign' without understanding that is a glorified statistical engine. ;)

 

No DC is needed for AI chatter, and anyone who has played JF-15 or JF-18 would know this. Programatically speaking, one does not depend on the other in the direction you are speaking, but rather the other way around.

 

You need smarter AI first, then you can have a solid DC.

[EvilBivol-1]

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

 

Over 800 posts of largely positive feedback about the FC2 announcement.

 

Some simmers may not be interested in FC2, that's understandable. We don't expect a united opinion among the thousands of online flight simmers. The community is made up of many sub-communities of even more individual opinions about what "everyone" wants. Consider the almost weekly polls on which aircraft you would like to fly most. Even if we happen to model the one chosen by the majority, you are sure to hear complains about it from all of the different minority supporters.

 

Warthog is still in development and will no doubt cater to those interested in the development of the hardcore branch with DCS. So is the only issue that somebody else is getting their product first? Is that a complaint anyone can take seriously? FC2 is a much smaller-scope product for much less money, is faster and easier to create and release.

 

Warthog continues development will come when it's ready.

[SUBS17]

... and you would be completely and utterly wrong, like most of the falcon crowd who cry 'dynamic campaign' without understanding that is a glorified statistical engine. ;)

 

No DC is needed for AI chatter, and anyone who has played JF-15 or JF-18 would know this. Programatically speaking, one does not depend on the other in the direction you are speaking, but rather the other way around.

 

You need smarter AI first, then you can have a solid DC.

 

I wonder about that it would be awesome for the A-10C to have AI radio chatter and also to have the need to switch radio channels for stuff like CAS and AWACs etc. AI radio chatter in Falcon is quite good but IMO a combination of that and the type of chatter in Topgun Fire at will would be the ultimate.

[Steel Jaw]

It's a dead end trying to diss the Falcon DC: it has yet to be replicated or surpassed in its genius.

[Feuerfalke]

... and you would be completely and utterly wrong, like most of the falcon crowd who cry 'dynamic campaign' without understanding that is a glorified statistical engine. ;)

 

No DC is needed for AI chatter, and anyone who has played JF-15 or JF-18 would know this. Programatically speaking, one does not depend on the other in the direction you are speaking, but rather the other way around.

 

You need smarter AI first, then you can have a solid DC.

 

To be perfectly honest, that comment makes me wonder a bit. If the DC-engine has nothing to do with the chatter AT ALL, if it's just the plain AI, does that in return mean, that the AI in DCS is so much worse than than in JF-15, JF-18 and Falcon, that it can't handle chatter? :(

[Krippz]

... and you would be completely and utterly wrong, like most of the falcon crowd who cry 'dynamic campaign' without understanding that is a glorified statistical engine. ;)

 

 

Your entitled to your opinion but that wasn't very constructive....I don't care how Eagle does it (e.g. improved trigger mechanic, or the implementation of a dynamic campaign) but I would just want to feel more immersed in the battle field.

 

Eagle has done some great things with BlackShark:

 

1. 
   Great mission editor
   Great training tracks
   Good multiplayer stability
   

 

Maybe the dev team is too small and spread a bit too thin for the amount of projects that they are currently undertaking but the pace of everything now is soooo slow.

[GGTharos]

It's a dead end trying to diss the Falcon DC: it has yet to be replicated or surpassed in its genius.

 

It has nothing to do with dissing. It has to do with people not really understanding what's what, which I don't have a problem with. It's when they come around talking like they know what's what while not knowing that is irksome.

 

To be perfectly honest, that comment makes me wonder a bit. If the DC-engine has nothing to do with the chatter AT ALL, if it's just the plain AI, does that in return mean, that the AI in DCS is so much worse than than in JF-15, JF-18 and Falcon, that it can't handle chatter? :(

 

It isn't a matter of the AI not being able to handle chatter. The AI experiences and reacts to certain events, which could in turn trigger chatter - but the groundwork for this just hadn't been laid. Keep in mind that this AI hasn't received as much as attention as it could have. ED are working on it, but it won't be a sudden, revolutionary change.

 

 

Your entitled to your opinion but that wasn't very constructive....I don't care how Eagle does it (e.g. improved trigger mechanic, or the implementation of a dynamic campaign) but I would just want to feel more immersed in the battle field.

 

Eagle has done some great things with BlackShark:

 

1. Great mission editor
   Great training tracks
   Good multiplayer stability
   

 

Maybe the dev team is too small and spread a bit too thin for the amount of projects that they are currently undertaking but the pace of everything now is soooo slow.

 

Comments like 'the AI is stupid because there's no DC' aren't helpful, either. DCS is moving forward, but if you think it's slow? ED really has just started - falcon took ten years to get where it is AFTER it was released.

[digital_steve]

Really looking forward to both L0/FC 2.0 and the release of the A10C . This should be a great year.

I'd agree... except i doubt we'll see A10C this year.

I wonder if this will push back the Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog?

[Duke49th]

... and you would be completely and utterly wrong, like most of the falcon crowd who cry 'dynamic campaign' without understanding that is a glorified statistical engine. ;)

 

No DC is needed for AI chatter, and anyone who has played JF-15 or JF-18 would know this. Programatically speaking, one does not depend on the other in the direction you are speaking, but rather the other way around.

 

You need smarter AI first, then you can have a solid DC.

 

Yes, that is what I always said. We need smarter AI. ;)

 

GGTHaros, sorry, that was an own goal:)

 

And what you guys not understand is that the DC is not only a statistic thing.

Sometime I have the feeling that some of the people that say things like that, never seriously played Falcon 4 Allied Force.

 

It is more then statistics. Within the player bubble you can see how smart the AI reacts to their surrounding field.

 

They can autonomousley attack flights(for self-defence), even when their task is CAS/OCA or anything else that is not their primary task.

They do not need exact instructions in detail via flags&trigger. They are smart enough! The AI routines are complex enough!

And when they can't handle the situation, they call for help. And if you are close enough, the Awacs ask you if you are able to help.

Same goes around if you are in trouble.

 

I mean this kind of Radio Chatter and AI behaviour. This is what we need.

 

The above is only an example. Play it for your self and you understand how limitated and stupid/simple ED's AI is.

And you also understand and see for your own, that the engine from Falcon4:AF is not only statistic;)

 

 

 

 

Some simmers may not be interested in FC2, that's understandable. We don't expect a united opinion among the thousands of online flight simmers. The community is made up of many sub-communities of even more individual opinions about what "everyone" wants. Consider the almost weekly polls on which aircraft you would like to fly most. Even if we happen to model the one chosen by the majority, you are sure to hear complains about it from all of the different minority supporters.

 

Warthog is still in development and will no doubt cater to those interested in the development of the hardcore branch with DCS. So is the only issue that somebody else is getting their product first? Is that a complaint anyone can take seriously? FC2 is a much smaller-scope product for much less money, is faster and easier to create and release.

 

Warthog continues development will come when it's ready.

 

Again, there is nothing to say against the release of a patch 2.0 for FC. Go and release hundreds of patches in the next 50 years for FC.

It is absolutely exemplary behaviour on the community and customer.:thumbup:

 

BUT:

 

The priority is wrong. The time to release that patch is a slap into BS customers face. And not only in my opinion ;) I heard that from many other customers too. And here also not only from my squad teammates.

 

 

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

 

Over 800 posts of largely positive feedback about the FC2 announcement.

 

And if you wonder why you only get positiv feedback and only a very small amount of negative....I have to ask you, are you serious?

 

It is no wonder that people are not complaining. Espacially in Forums like this one, where you get muzzled if you say something against the holy game:rolleyes:

 

 

 

I have the bad feeling that ED has overextend themselves capability and now try to gain time and meantime trying to pacify the community with such a kind of release.

 

I mean, can you remember Wags words in the FAQ?

"We are trying to release a module every 9 month" or something like that.

 

As we all can see, that is much to less time scale for develope a module;)

 

 

 

Your entitled to your opinion but that wasn't very constructive....I don't care how Eagle does it (e.g. improved trigger mechanic, or the implementation of a dynamic campaign) but I would just want to feel more immersed in the battle field.

 

Eagle has done some great things with BlackShark:

 

1. Great mission editor
   Great training tracks
   Good multiplayer stability
   

 

I agree. The Idea of the ME is great. The muliplayer stability is good. The training tracks are good.

But the limitations of the engine&editor are too big:(

 

Maybe the dev team is too small and spread a bit too thin for the amount of projects that they are currently undertaking but the pace of everything now is soooo slow.

 

Thats what I think and said too.

 

 

 

 

Edit:

 

It has to do with people not really understanding what's what, which I don't have a problem with. It's when they come around talking like they know what's what while not knowing that is irksome.

 

 

That is exactly what I think whe I read postings like yours ;)

 

I played it for a couple of years now. And I now exactly what the DC is. And not only the DC is making funny and interestig multiplayer missions.

The Mission Editor in Falcon is really really simple. But you can have much more fun and needs a lot less time to build big scenarios(like in BS and/or FC) which are semi-dynamic because the situations are (or getting) always a bit different.

 

I'm really no fanboy of falcon. I complained much against something in Falcon4 AF. And I don't fly Falcon for month now.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Duke49th

[GGTharos]

And what you guys not understand is that the DC is not only a statistic thing.

 

Actually yes, it is.

 

Sometime I have the feeling that some of the people that say things like that, never seriously played Falcon 4 Allied Force.

I seriously played F4AF.

 

It is more then statistics. Within the player bubble you can see how smart the AI reacts to their surrounding field.

It isn't. It is a logistical matrix that does things that make sense. This is on TOP of other things that can be done. A DC is like a real-time AI mission commander, but it is entirely based upon its logistical matrix.

 

I mean this kind of Radio Chatter and AI behaviour. This is what we need.

You don't need DC for this.

 

 

The above is only an example. Play it for your self and you understand how limitated and stupid/simple ED's AI is.

Gee, thanks. Like there's someone who didn't know - as I already said, ED is working on things, and they are progressing. I suggest you try coding something on the level of ED's 'simple/stupid' AI and come back and tell us how easy it was ;)

 

And you also understand and see for your own, that the engine from Falcon4:AF is not only statistic;)

Yeah, it is :)

Stop saying it like it's something more, because it really isn't. I suggest you try JF18 and see where it gets you. There are a lot of pieces that need to be in place to make a good DC happen, but you don't really need DC to have them happen.

 

This includes radio chatter, calling for help, autonomous decision making and other neat things. If you do not understand this, then you really don't understand what a DC actually is, and that is actually very important when it comes down to programming and talking about wanting this, that, the other, and what's easy to make and what isn't.

 

There's a huge difference between user experience and what the underlying parts of code are, and what they do - so please, quit trying to tell me you know what the guts of the darned sim do. I appreciate that you want that level of experience. I do too, and ED wants to give it to you, but as I have said before, they will do so on their schedule.

[SUBS17]

Again, there is nothing to say against the release of a patch 2.0 for FC. Go and release hundreds of patches in the next 50 years for FC.

It is absolutely exemplary behaviour on the community and customer.:thumbup:

 

BUT:

 

The priority is wrong. The time to release that patch is a slap into BS customers face. And not only in my opinion ;) I heard that from many other customers too. And here also not only from my squad teammates.

 

 

No its not FC2.0 allows DCS to work with FC in mp its quite a big improvement for MP overall having all the aircraft in one sim. It also opens up alot of possibilitys for Squad MP allowing helicopters to fly alongside jets. Janes were going to do this with LB3 and A-10 but didn't get around to doing it for ED to accomplish that is a world first. Considering the price is only $15 it certainly is good. Generally though most games make such patches free but in this case the features are quite alot(like the difference between FSX and FSX deluxe) including the ability for FC aircraft to fly alongside DCS and vice versa. I think the possibility is there for futher addons for LO but DCS is a better direction. BTW the radio chatter for F4 AF also is in TEs so its not a thing related to the DC although I do agree such things would be great for DCS.

[Duke49th]

Actually yes, it is.

 

I seriously played F4AF.

 

It isn't. It is a logistical matrix that does things that make sense. This is on TOP of other things that can be done. A DC is like a real-time AI mission commander, but it is entirely based upon its logistical matrix.

 

 

Now I know what you mean;)

 

You're right on that point.

 

In this case I mean the whole Falcon Enigne with its DC. Sounds better?

 

 

And ehm, no, I cannot coding AI. I am no programmer. And I do not get money for it.

 

But I can see so many games which have much better AI. And their dev's are not a staff of hundreds of well payed coder ;) (Don't want to say that ED'S staff is that big ;))

Edited January 19, 2010 by Duke49th
typos...damn

[EvilBivol-1]

And if you wonder why you only get positiv feedback and only a very small amount of negative....I have to ask you, are you serious?

 

It is no wonder that people are not complaining. Espacially in Forums like this one, where you get muzzled if you say something against the holy game:rolleyes:

Please, point me to this forum, where hundreds of people are critical of ED's priorities regarding FC2 and DCS.

 

In reality, you are pretending that your opinion, while certainly shared by some, is somehow larger than it really is. I'm sure there are people that agree with you, but having browsed a number of flight sim forums, I've yet to see any where there is more criticism than support for FC2, let alone one that can demonstrate almost 1,000 posts on the matter. Are you really trying to argue that there are hundreds of posters who would otherwise be critical of FC2 on this forum, but are not, simply because they are afraid of our moderation? Those who were critical of FC2 have said so in our own FC2 announcement thread and their posts are open for viewing.

Edited January 19, 2010 by EvilBivol-1

[StrongHarm]

I think the point is that ED didn't just put together a sim that supports a certain type or number of aircraft. They've created a platform... a sim programming language, if you will. That is no simple endeavor, and I'm sure that in the full scope of things, it's still in its very infancy. I've been in the computer industry for 18yrs, and before that I worked on aircraft for the USNavy and flew supercomputer controlled F18/14, etc. sims for fun. This is the only time I've ever played a sim (and I've played all of them I believe) on a PC that I've received the same pucker factor that I did flying in the big ball sims at Navy bases. I can tell you from looking at the config files etc, that they're making a simulator platform that is dynamic and user centric. The coders are obviously laying down code that has no, or very few, hard coded or restrictive aspects. They and the community will build on this for many years to come. The Falcon community has done a good job of taking the ball, but they only have so much field to play in. I submit to you that DCS will not be limited by the same restrictions. With this in mind, I think it's important that we encourage the people responsible for the sim that we all want to give more attention than we give our wives. With that analogy, Falcon was Mary Jo Cherry in the backseat of the Buick back when you still had zits. DCS is your wife on a long winter weekend in Vermont. A lot can be said for both, but dude, there's really no comparison.

A cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin.

H. L. Mencken

A cynic can chill and dishearten with a single word.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

We should all speak our minds concerning what we'd like to see in the future, as I'm sure they're listening, but for God's sake man have enough self respect to give some.

 

StrongHarm out

[GGTharos]

Well, I'll tell you right now that ED's AI isn't that bad. It can use improvement, there is no question about this. But it isn't that bad.

 

Even this level of AI is not easy to code - it too requires a supporting structure. While the FC AI does lack some features, and the ones in FC2 will lack them as well (but they will already be better than those in FC by a wide margin IMHO), we will see major improvements in DCS. But not all at once. It all has to be done little by little, otherwise we would have to wait another five years for ANYTHING. Also realize that ED is not -just- working on the A-10C for the public sector, but on other projects also, at the same time.

 

All this work is very time consuming, and some features have greater priority than others.

 

I can tell you that you will see some interesting things in A-10C already. No, don't ask, I'm not telling until EB or Wags makes an announcement late in the future. :)

 

But I can see so many games which have much better AI. And their dev's are not a staff of hundreds of well payed coder ;) (Don't want to say that ED'S staff is that big ;))

[Duke49th]

Please, point me to this forum, where hundreds of people are critical of ED's priorities regarding FC2 and DCS.

 

In reality, you are pretending that your opinion, while certainly shared by some, is somehow larger than it really is. I'm sure there are people that agree with you, but having browsed a number of flight sim forums, I've yet to see any where there is more criticism than support for FC2, let alone one that can demonstrate almost 1,000 posts on the matter. Are you really trying to argue that there are hundreds of posters who would otherwise be critical of FC2 on this forum, but are not, simply because they are afraid of our moderation? Those who were critical of FC2 have said so in our own FC2 announcement thread and their posts are open for viewing.

 

Where did I say that it is your moderation what prevent people form complaining in this Forum?

And were did I say that the majority of the people/customer are complaining about the release adn developement priority?

And I did not mean that thread only, I mean the whole DCS Forum when I say "Forums like this".

 

I (now) ;)) say that the fanboys of this forum do prevent people complaining.

 

Well, I'll tell you right now that ED's AI isn't that bad. It can use improvement, there is no question about this. But it isn't that bad.

 

 

I didn't know the code. And maybe it is not bad in overall.

 

But for the usability as a mission creator it is crap. Sorry, thats how it is. When I have to test and trial&error hours over hours about let them defend an airbase and/or bomb a runway or something else and must read Forums for help, there is definitely something wrong.

 

 

Edit:

 

 

I can tell you that you will see some interesting things in A-10C already. No, don't ask, I'm not telling until EB or Wags makes an announcement late in the future. :)

 

Sounds good. I'm eager :)

I point you on that after the release when I'm not happy :D

Edited January 19, 2010 by Duke49th

[GGTharos]

But for the usability as a mission creator it is crap. Sorry, thats how it is. When I have to test and trial&error hours over hours about let them defend an airbase and/or bomb a runway or something else and must read Forums for help, there is definitely something wrong.

 

The ME needs to be more user-friendly, check. This will either be likely slow in coming, or ED might suddenly surprise us with something.

 

Sounds good. I'm eager :)

I point you on that after the release when I'm not happy :D

 

I'm sure you will be - like I said, new stuff yes, but don't expect the next module to be falcon, either. :)

[Speed_2]

I am having a hard time seeing how FC2.0 will NOT necessitate at least a small DCS patch. You cannot currently set a fixed wing aircraft that is flyable in LO: FC to be "client" in the DCS mission editor.

[Duke49th]

The ME needs to be more user-friendly, check. This will either be likely slow in coming, or ED might suddenly surprise us with something.

 

No. The ME (the GUI) is user friendly. :)

The AI (I surely mean Aircraft-AI) is what is not user friendly;)

 

The ME is really easy to use, overall. (The GUI)

 

But to make things in missions that you need....that is what is not user-friendly! Because you have to do workarounds that would be unneccessary if there would be more functions, logics and routines.

 

But maybe you don't mean the gui but the functions, AI and so on...

 

As I said, I sometimes make missions in ArmA. Belive me that is really hard to do, because you have to write your own scripts for every little shit. Espacially if you are not a coder, like me:)

 

But you can do nearby everything in this ME with the scripts. Thats the difference.

 

Or

 

In Falcon the ME is very very easy to use. Select "Add Flight", select an airbase where you wanna start from, select the type of plane, select the mission type and the target, adjust the time and voila, you have a Squadron on a Base, the flight and all Waypoints you need to.

 

You know what I mean? It could be sooo easy...;)

 

A) Easy Editor with automated basic functions like in Falcon. And therefore not so much functions.

 

B) Not so easy Editor^^ with lots of functions. Then I am ready to spend hours or days for good missions.

 

 

But what we now have is anywhere in the middle which is user unfriendly.

[GGTharos]

You really want to say that we have to compare ED's product with this piece of crap??

 

Sort of yes, for a simple reason:

 

DCS, while using some pieces of old code has really only had about 3 years of development, where that version of falcon had five.

 

 

 

Too make a long text short:

 

You try to tell me that I have to wait 5+ years for a product from this company which is playable?

 

The game is playable right now, and you know it :) It may be missing some stuff, but it works right out of the box, and I think it has plenty of things in it!

 

You think ED is taking even the half time of dev time to get what LP is done?

 

I think even ED is not agree with this attitude;)

 

 

P.s.: I do not read the rest of your post....

 

I'm not sure what you mean about LP etc ... keep in mind that ED is working on multiple projects in parallel, and the features that militaries want tend to get priority.

[Eddie]

I'm sorry Duke49th, but you really are just trolling now. I'm an avid Falcon addict, I am the first to point out the things it does better than DCS, HOWEVER Falcon is not perfect and has many of it's own flaws. It's also not as realistic as some people, including yourself seem to think. So please stop flaming and quite frankly insulting the guys at ED. DCS is a very good study sim and will only get better, if you don't like it nobody is forcing you to fly it.

 

And if you can't post in a more positive respectful way then please go away and stop giving us Falconers such a bad name. MOST of us do not think like you.

 

That's it from me, may I suggest this issue is just left alone and we go back to discussing the latest news from ED in a more constructive manner.

 

Seriously, people wonder why Wags and co don't give us more updates?!? :hmm:

[GGTharos]

Okay, phew, that was a lot of housekeeping, as if I don't have to do enough of that at home!

 

Next one to make me have to go get the broom should start listening to their RWR ... and these aren't FC missiles, you won't be able to barrel roll'em ;)

[liotczik]

Actually, I'd like to ask devs to slow down a little with their work on FC2 and A-10. Why? Because I'm not done with Ka-50 yet, I have other sims to fly, as well as life outside of the screen. Releasing anything will seriously turn my whole world upside down :D Another thing is, I'd prefer to wait for a completed and feature rich product, instead of getting another half-baked Rise of Flight, which I'm about to uninstall, despite all my initial sincere enthusiasm for it...

[GGTharos]

The way development happens (As far as I can tell) is this:

 

ED sets a bunch of features for a given project - these features are pretty much 'set in stone'. Then, potentially some things may sneak in, or get dropped.

 

The release is made when the featureset is considered complete and the sim is stable and as bug free as can be.

 

This is why ED doesn't give release dates: That last part? Sometimes you can run into surprises that will extend development time for a while.

[GGTharos]

Okay, one more OT post and I'm locking the thread.