Protos Posted July 2, 2010 Posted July 2, 2010 I agree, asking for modern graphics is not too much. Too many want to fly a 'modern' jet sim on their netbook, craptastic laptop or old 486 system. A good Hotas costs money. No less should be expected of the machine it runs on ...... and modern machine would have ZERO problems rendering any of this. Don't have the rig to play max, or even medium ...... life is tough.... live with it. Personally speaking, tired of people complaining about hardware requirements. Get job/life, work hard, buy sim gear. Its what the rest of us do. 1 Ο ΤΟΛΜΩΝ ΝΙΚΑ http://www.hellenicsqn.com (under construction)
AndyHill Posted July 2, 2010 Posted July 2, 2010 Vapor effects would of course be nice, but I have to admit I've been waiting to see wing flex in a sim for a while now. DCS would probably have enough details in different aspects of modeling to include such features, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see. There's of course much more important stuff to tackle first, but then again the features might not be mutually exclusive. My blog full of incoherent ramblings on random subjects: https://anttiilomaki.wordpress.com/
HitchHikingFlatlander Posted July 2, 2010 Posted July 2, 2010 I don't feel the DCS-Black Shark was behind at all. ED has already delivered the most detailed consumer flight simulation ever and I'm sure A10C will be no exception. I know you're not bagging the ED or the DCS series, but seriously how many people come requesting features or eye candy then use the comment "it shouldn't be that hard to implement....." (along those lines). The only people who really know how much of a PITA it would be is ED. And I have to agree with Peyoteros' comment......... to die for. http://dcs-mercenaries.com/ USA Squad
wildone_106 Posted July 2, 2010 Author Posted July 2, 2010 :thumbup: I agree, asking for modern graphics is not too much. Too many want to fly a 'modern' jet sim on their netbook, craptastic laptop or old 486 system. A good Hotas costs money. No less should be expected of the machine it runs on ...... and modern machine would have ZERO problems rendering any of this. Don't have the rig to play max, or even medium ...... life is tough.... live with it. Personally speaking, tired of people complaining about hardware requirements. Get job/life, work hard, buy sim gear. Its what the rest of us do.
Peyoteros Posted July 2, 2010 Posted July 2, 2010 it's like talking to the wall... I agree, asking for modern graphics is not too much. Too many want to fly a 'modern' jet sim on their netbook, craptastic laptop or old 486 system. A good Hotas costs money. No less should be expected of the machine it runs on ...... and modern machine would have ZERO problems rendering any of this. Don't have the rig to play max, or even medium ...... life is tough.... live with it. Personally speaking, tired of people complaining about hardware requirements. Get job/life, work hard, buy sim gear. Its what the rest of us do. "Eagle Dynamics" - simulating human madness since 1991 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] ۞ ۞
wildone_106 Posted July 2, 2010 Author Posted July 2, 2010 Of course, I have some background in game development (been working in it since 1995) and altho Im no 'FX' artist I know about some of the process for non simulation titles. While the actual effect is pretty simple to achieve with a variable series of textures perhaps (Im not even talking particle emitters here!) there would be some overhead with the equations I imagine, as to when the vapor trails/wing effects would happen and the testing of that feature to make sure its accurate. So yea its not just a matter of slapping on the texture and calling it good. Im well aware of it. Even IL2 models vapor trails if I remember and they have how many planes? Just sayin. I don't feel the DCS-Black Shark was behind at all. ED has already delivered the most detailed consumer flight simulation ever and I'm sure A10C will be no exception. I know you're not bagging the ED or the DCS series, but seriously how many people come requesting features or eye candy then use the comment "it shouldn't be that hard to implement....." (along those lines). The only people who really know how much of a PITA it would be is ED. And I have to agree with Peyoteros' comment......... to die for.
Booger Posted July 2, 2010 Posted July 2, 2010 It's not as simple as "it should be there". There will no doubt me some missions where there won't be any due to the environmental factors. Where the possibility of it is likely in Russia, it will be greatly decreased in Nevada due to the climate. Just sayin.
Protos Posted July 2, 2010 Posted July 2, 2010 it's like talking to the wall... Not true, the wall would care more .... Thats what this forum is for Peyoteros, to discuss features, provide a meeting place for constructive negative feedback and debate. Asking for a feature that was in Flanker & IL2 is hardly going to tax the system .... also the poll seems to be pretty one sided 95.39% for including vapor fx either during development or shortly thereafter. Ο ΤΟΛΜΩΝ ΝΙΚΑ http://www.hellenicsqn.com (under construction)
snowman123 Posted July 2, 2010 Posted July 2, 2010 Wrong... This forum listens to its customers... Thats why I LOVE ED. Go ahead, Make it idiot proof, someone will just find better idiots...;)
Agg Posted July 2, 2010 Posted July 2, 2010 Agreed, I really love the fact that ED actually listens to the community :)
kingneptune117 Posted July 3, 2010 Posted July 3, 2010 can any of the testers confirm whether or not vapor ON the wings is present? We already know wingtip vapor is. "When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci Intel i7-4790k | Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo heat sink | Thermaltake Core V71 case | 750W EVGA PSU | 8gb G.SKILL Ripjaws DDR3 RAM | MSI Z97 Gaming 5 LGA 1150 motherboard | Samsung SSD | ASUS STRIX GTX 970 | Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog | TIR 5 | Razer Deathadder | Corsair K70
GGTharos Posted July 3, 2010 Posted July 3, 2010 ED listens to its customers. It doesn't mean that every one of your pet peeves (or specifically your chosen pet peeve) will be implemented or resolved. But just because YOURS was not, does not mean that someone else's was not. ED does listen, and acts with care to do things that make the most sense given resources available. And no, currently there are no vapor effects beyond what is already there, and I don't know if there will be. And FYI, I'd love to see those myself. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
GGTharos Posted July 3, 2010 Posted July 3, 2010 Not much of a threat :P As I said, there will be NO G-cloud even if you threaten ED with the nuke you don't have. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Protos Posted July 3, 2010 Posted July 3, 2010 Positive rep to the original poster. I think he deserves some rep for some outside the box thinking. It would have never occurred to me to ask for 'vapor fx' cause I am usually focused on something more core, but on reflection I think its a great idea I am with GG, would LOVE to see. Ο ΤΟΛΜΩΝ ΝΙΚΑ http://www.hellenicsqn.com (under construction)
DaoKakao Posted July 3, 2010 Posted July 3, 2010 I think the result is predictable :) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
kingneptune117 Posted July 3, 2010 Posted July 3, 2010 ED listens to its customers. It doesn't mean that every one of your pet peeves (or specifically your chosen pet peeve) will be implemented or resolved. But just because YOURS was not, does not mean that someone else's was not. ED does listen, and acts with care to do things that make the most sense given resources available. And no, currently there are no vapor effects beyond what is already there, and I don't know if there will be. And FYI, I'd love to see those myself. Do you think the community could produce a mod to implement it? I mean even the original Falcon has it...even though it isnt very detailed it still adds to the overall experience. "When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci Intel i7-4790k | Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo heat sink | Thermaltake Core V71 case | 750W EVGA PSU | 8gb G.SKILL Ripjaws DDR3 RAM | MSI Z97 Gaming 5 LGA 1150 motherboard | Samsung SSD | ASUS STRIX GTX 970 | Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog | TIR 5 | Razer Deathadder | Corsair K70
aaron886 Posted July 3, 2010 Posted July 3, 2010 Boy I'd love to see an improved FX engine. Really, it's hardly changed since the original LockOn. With all the switchology being implemented, I think it's fair to say visual effects are being overlooked. I'll be the first to stand behind high fidelity aircraft modeling before eye candy, but you can't deny it matters. With the hardware available, DCS:BS is still ridiculously hard to run at full visual settings. Based on the appearance, it ought to be easy! A few tweaks to textures and shaders and you have the apparent difference between the original LO and DCS. Just 2c. By no means trying to condemn ED, they do amazing things for a small market!
bogusheadbox Posted July 3, 2010 Posted July 3, 2010 i'd love to see collidable trees rather than vapour effects, but thats just me and another topic:music_whistling:
Chillspider Posted July 3, 2010 Posted July 3, 2010 i'd love to see collidable trees rather than vapour effects, but thats just me and another topic:music_whistling: same here those trees really need some work and I for one would rather that be worked on than the vapor. Dell XPS 630i w/ Dell nForce 650i Sli ,Intel Q9650 @3.0 ,6.0 GB Ram @800Mhz, 2xGeforce 9800 GT 512 MB ,Saitek X52, Saitek Pro Rudder Pedals ,Dell 24" 1080P HD monitor, Klipsch THX Pro Media 2.1 ,TrackIR 4, Logitech MX518 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Sarge55 Posted July 4, 2010 Posted July 4, 2010 I agree, sort out the trees before vapor. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] i7 10700K OC 5.1GHZ / 500GB SSD & 1TB M:2 & 4TB HDD / MSI Gaming MB / GTX 1080 / 32GB RAM / Win 10 / TrackIR 4 Pro / CH Pedals / TM Warthog
Sticky Posted July 4, 2010 Posted July 4, 2010 i'd love to see collidable trees rather than vapour effects, but thats just me and another topic:music_whistling: You shouldnt be flying that low anyway am i right? I mean if you are close enough to hit trees you are doing something wrong?? We are talking aout the a-10 right? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] My Sim/Game CV: Falcon 1,3,4. Gunship. A10 TankKiller. Fighter Bomber. Strike eagle 2&3. F19 Stealth Fighter. F117. Wings. F29 Retaliator. Jetfighter II. F16 Fighting Falcon. Strike Commander. F22 Raptor. F16MRF. ATF. EF2000. Longbow 1&2. TankKiller2 Silent Thunder. Hind. Apache Havoc. EECH. EAW. F22 ADF. TAW. Janes WW2,USAF,IAF,F15,F18. F18 Korea. F18 Super Hornet. B17 II. CFS 2. Flanker 2&2.5. BOB. Mig Alley. IL2. LOMAC. IL2FB. FC2. DCS:BS. DCS:A10C.
Nate--IRL-- Posted July 4, 2010 Posted July 4, 2010 You shouldnt be flying that low anyway am i right? I mean if you are close enough to hit trees you are doing something wrong?? We are talking aout the a-10 right? The same simulation engine is planned to be back-ported to Black Shark too. Nate Ka-50 AutoPilot/stabilisation system description and operation by IvanK- Essential Reading
cctoide Posted July 4, 2010 Posted July 4, 2010 I agree, sort out the trees before vapor. One might be more important than the other, but from what I've read it would take a whole lot longer to "sort out" trees than to add vapor FX, as the way trees are currently implemented probably has a lot of strings attached and might require engine modifications, as well as redoing the entire map. I'm not stating an opinion on either, it's just that a dev explained exactly what the problem with trees was some time ago but the explanation didn't seem to get much attention, and the tree issue keeps popping up in discussions. :) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
SFJackBauer Posted July 5, 2010 Posted July 5, 2010 My wishlist is for maps much bigger than Caucasus and a dynamic campaign engine. :pilotfly:
pyates2104 Posted July 5, 2010 Posted July 5, 2010 Mission editor Most of my wishes would be todo with the editor interface: Ability to show Sat, contour data in editor map (detailed 3d map placement for units would be cool) Ability to show unit description/model when selecting and inserting units Ability to use dissimilar aircraft types in Units (easer for escort creation etc Ability to create a FARP template! (Include static objects in Units) Theres also a lot of stuff I don't like about the AI used by units, but I can't easily quantify this, it would probably require a lot of work to implement, you could be argue that this would be a project in itself...... so its probably not going to happen. Overall, the sim has an acceptable balance of good flight models, semi-realistic systems modeling and battlefield AI. Nothing else out there comes close, but there will always be room for improvement.
Recommended Posts