another nail in the coffin of the sim industry

[EtherealN]

Weaponized LAPD... Pfff...

 

Give me a DCS quality simulation of the Littlebird! :D

[Sherlock]

I'd say GTA4 is a sim. Its a simulated depiction of New York City. Yah the physics are over the top and its not exactly a replica of the city, but when you are driving through town you FEEL like you are in NYC. Its got a certain atmosphere about it that I believe is lacking in BS/FC2 even though the map is physically accurate.

 

But GTA4 and all cross platform/PC games FPS performance on consoles vs PC can be understood by a simple fact. Xbox 360, PS3, and Wii all have a unified codebase behind them. If you make a game for PS3 it will work on all PS3s. Thus they can focus and make the code as optimized as possible. If you make a game for PC, you have to consider the wide variety of hardware and software that can be used by the player base.

 

Dude... You did not say that... GTA4 is not a sim in any way. lol!

 

Also, you don't really have to program for a bunch of different hardware on PC. Between the HAL, WFC, and DirectX everything is pretty automatic. There are things that directx doesn't inherently do though- like binary space partitions. The developer has to write their own based on their own graphics engine, so some do this better than others. Who knows- either way this game cranks on my PC. I have an i7 920, 6 gigs, and GTX 280. I don't imagine i've seen less than 50 fps ever- I think it's generally much, much higher.

[Steel Jaw]

Racing sims do NOT compare to flight sims, especialoly COMBAT flight sims.

[GGTharos]

Racing sims can be pretty complex in terms of the physics though. Each sim has its specialty.

[Steel Jaw]

Racing sims can be pretty complex in terms of the physics though. Each sim has its specialty.

 

I know I have rFactor.

 

Still not much of a learning curve though. More akin to console gaming.

[GGTharos]

I guess you could say it that way Mower, but is this not because you already drive a real car?

Also a car should be easier to learn, you're mostly dealing with 2-dimentional motion, and pretty constrained at that. No special hardware etc ...

I guess if you are looking at it from the 'what do I have to do to ... ' perspective, you're probably correct. Of course I'd claim that flying a Katana DA-20 is just as easy :D

[Steel Jaw]

Katana DA-20...aren't those made from kits at home? :D

[GGTharos]

Surprisingly, no. They in fact cost as much as a large house.

Though they're obviously slow and the TWR isn't anything that resembles a fighter, they are flown with stick (not yoke!) and are pretty responsive. I would guess it's almost like flying a mini-A-10.

 

There's also quite a bit more to just flying like that than what you do in a sim, though it's pretty routine once you do it a few times.

 

... then you graduate to flying your friends around and scaring the bejesus outta them :D

[topdog]

I have enough respect for the virtual aerobatic display teams to understand flying a fighter-type jet in a non-combat situation/application, but it's a niche and won't appeal to everyone.

 

I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned though (or my speed reading overlooked it).

[nscode]

Ok.. I swore I wouldn't, but since someone brought back GTA, just have to...

 

 

 

:D

[Speed]

I find that an unfair statement, Mower. There is more to flight than combat. In fact, combat is something that fighter pilots train a lot for, but do the least of in RL.

 

Simply having an accurately modeled plane to fly is a very nice thing. I prefer also being able to do combat, but there's nothing wrong with skipping it, either.

 

We certainly do our best to be capable of general aviation in the 44th, even if it is just with FC2.

 

Yup. VRS is going to simulate what a real pilot does 99% of the time with high fidelity. However, personally, while I love flying, and training isn't bad either, at the end of the day, I just need to blow something up. If I didn't need that, I'd just be flying FSX all the time!

[Speed]

Yeah, do recall that the A10C has fire-and-forget missiles. Fly to within 6nm of target, release 6 mavericks on threats, overfly and release JDAMs on heavy stuff, then mop up with the GAU-8.

 

It all depends a lot on what the target area looks like.

 

I thought the A-10 would only carry 4 mavericks, with the inner rail of each triple rail rack left empty?

 

Which leads me to a question you may not be able to answer, but which I have been wondering- what is the best loadout for tank busting? What loadout allows them to kill the maximum number of tanks in one sortie? Don't count rockets or guns. For example, say they are carrying the max number of mavericks and GBU-12/22s. How many of each is that, and do they have any weapons stations left over, and if they do, what can be fitted on those weapon stations? Maybe reference the REAL A-10C if you can't talk about DCS A-10C.

[GGTharos]

I thought the A-10 would only carry 4 mavericks, with the inner rail of each triple rail rack left empty?

 

The problem that caused this to be true has been fixed. You could have still done it before if you had to, anyway. IF you had to.

 

Which leads me to a question you may not be able to answer, but which I have been wondering- what is the best loadout for tank busting? What loadout allows them to kill the maximum number of tanks in one sortie? Don't count rockets or guns. For example, say they are carrying the max number of mavericks and GBU-12/22s. How many of each is that, and do they have any weapons stations left over, and if they do, what can be fitted on those weapon stations? Maybe reference the REAL A-10C if you can't talk about DCS A-10C.

That depends ... what is the environment you are fighting in? THe more SHORAD, the better the chance you'll be focusing on dropping smart bombs.

The lower you fly, the more likely you will be using mavericks. Just my opinion. In game you can obviously do both, but the you are probably not flying a single mission profile.

 

The other thing is the 'need-to-destroy-everything' mentality, for which games are partially at fault (you do not get points for destroying singletons, you must destroy the whole group). Once you get rid of this mentality, you'll suddenly find that you are able to employ weapons and exit the danger area very swiftly while essentially doing the most damage you can to an enemy. This part is more strategy than air combat.

 

To answer you question though, IIRC you can haul 6 mavericks + 4-6 smart bombs.

[EtherealN]

Depends too much on scenario. If AAA/MANPAD/SHORAD threats are negligible, the whole "don't count guns" thing is a bit of a shame. But in practical use aircraft very seldom pack a "full load" anyhow - this holds true for the Ka-52 as well. A typical combat sortie simply will not see you using everything you've got, but rather you load up for CAS and thus keep your options open to ensure that whatever the guys on the ground end up needing you to do, you can do it.

 

This is a big difficulty in mission design: how do you make a mission in a simulator that simulates a real mission close enough without making it too difficult for a computer gamer?

 

But basically: don't focus too much on carrying tonnes of weapons on those hardpoints. Extra hardpoints is nice to ensure that while in the air you have a wide set of options and can decide on the optimal weapon to use. As an example, most RL A10 use I've seen referenced didn't even involve double racks, but rather two hardpoints with one Mav each. But even that is not quite representative of the situation we might be simulating: if we are simulating a world war three mechanized war, nothing that has been done IRL since 1991 is even close to representative.

[Sherlock]

Racing sims do NOT compare to flight sims, especialoly COMBAT flight sims.

 

LOL no totally wrong. I have my PPL (+complex) and done quite a bit of amateur racing. Each is easy on it's own- but flying in combat is no more difficult physically and mentally than say, winning a GT1 race. Knowing how to drive a car doesn't mean you've mastered it. You need to learn all about weigh transfer and how it affects grip, throttle-on and liftoff oversteer, heel-and-toe shifting, apexing, suspension types, brake biases, camber, toe-in, etc.

 

For a sweet racing sim, check out iRacing. In the same vein Ed Macy loves BS, Earnhardt Jr and Danica Patrick both play iRacing and speak volumes about it's authenticity. Keep in mind any good racing sim has EASILY as complex a physics engine as most flight sims. iRacing has a full 6DOF of freedom physics model with complex suspension modelling, grip and temperature, gearbox, downforce, torque, blah blah. It's not a simple 2D thing by any stretch.

[Speed]

The problem that caused this to be true has been fixed. You could have still done it before if you had to, anyway. IF you had to.

 

That depends ... what is the environment you are fighting in? THe more SHORAD, the better the chance you'll be focusing on dropping smart bombs.

The lower you fly, the more likely you will be using mavericks. Just my opinion. In game you can obviously do both, but the you are probably not flying a single mission profile.

 

The other thing is the 'need-to-destroy-everything' mentality, for which games are partially at fault (you do not get points for destroying singletons, you must destroy the whole group). Once you get rid of this mentality, you'll suddenly find that you are able to employ weapons and exit the danger area very swiftly while essentially doing the most damage you can to an enemy. This part is more strategy than air combat.

 

To answer you question though, IIRC you can haul 6 mavericks + 4-6 smart bombs.

 

Thanks for the answer. Really, part of what creates the "need to destroy everything" mentality is the lack of a debriefing system. We have to keep flying till we see the "Mission accomplished" message because that's the only place we can ever see it without a debriefing system. That you can re-arm and refuel also helps create this mentality, as does, obviously, bad mission design. You may know I'm a mission creator, and in my next missions, if I ever find an idea I like and I stick to it long enough to complete the mission building process, I plan to use mission score triggers or binary counters to avoid having to use the "group dead" trigger in determining mission success or failure.

[Speed]

But basically: don't focus too much on carrying tonnes of weapons on those hardpoints. Extra hardpoints is nice to ensure that while in the air you have a wide set of options and can decide on the optimal weapon to use. As an example, most RL A10 use I've seen referenced didn't even involve double racks, but rather two hardpoints with one Mav each. But even that is not quite representative of the situation we might be simulating: if we are simulating a world war three mechanized war, nothing that has been done IRL since 1991 is even close to representative.

 

Nothing has ever been done like it, period, save maybe in 1967 or 1973, and that was a long time ago and technology has changed alot. This is an arguing point I had with some guys in my squad once, because I was flying "SWEAD" (a combination of the words SEAD and Sweep) missions- you take AMRAAMs and HARMs, take out as many SAM sites as you can and then take out as many fighters as you can. They said, no one ever flies stupid 'SWEAD' missions, and I said, 'I'm just adapting to battle conditions the like the world has never seen'. You can't fight a WW3-like scenario with Desert Storm tactics!!!!

[EtherealN]

To be honest, my own preferred solution to the whole "kill-everything" mentality is: fly online with a good squadron. Do a proper briefing, fly the mission, and do a proper debriefing. This bypasses the inherent issues of computer gaming as a "commander".

 

The obvious drawback of course being that not all squadrons care about that kind of flying (when you first spend 30-60 minutes briefing and planning, and then 30-60 minutes flying, and finally 30-60 minutes debriefing, a lot of people will start yawning). But that all goes down to "to each his own" etc. The other drawback obviously being that it locks out the singleplayer crowd from the solution, which is a tougher deal to solve. Myself though I've found the "roleplayer approach" to work pretty fine: just pretend that you are actually the real pilot, and fly as if you are actually there. Fly as if it's your life on the line, then just keep the briefing in mind and return when you think you've finished your job. The biggest impact of computer simulators is that we know we can take risks we wouldn't take in real life - if we get shot down on that extra pass against those tanks it's barely any worse to us than pressing F9 in a shooter to quickload the previous savegame...

 

And, again, that's a "fix" you can do on your own. Don't need any programming to be done, just do it yourself. :)

[EtherealN]

Nothing has ever been done like it, period, save maybe in 1967 or 1973

 

I assume you are talking about 6-Days and Yom Kippur?

If so, I would point out that the Iraqi side alone (not even counting coalition forces) involved more mechanized forces than all sides in both those wars combined... :P

 

Unfortunate for them that they didn't know how to use them and that the coalition had even more + absolute air dominance, but still... What I basically meant was a war where an A10 could reasonably expect to expend all of it's payload without waste.

[Speed]

I assume you are talking about 6-Days and Yom Kippur?

If so, I would point out that the Iraqi side alone (not even counting coalition forces) involved more mechanized forces than all sides in both those wars combined... :P

 

Unfortunate for them that they didn't know how to use them and that the coalition had even more + absolute air dominance, but still... What I basically meant was a war where an A10 could reasonably expect to expend all of it's payload without waste.

 

The point of those conflicts was not the size, but the nature. Two sides duking it out in the air AND on the ground. The US hasn't really fought anything like that since the Korean war or WWII (there weren't enough MiGs in Vietnam to really count). The 1973 Yom Kippur would be a better example really, since it wasn't over in just six days :lol: I guess if I think about it, the Six Day War really had more in common with Desert Storm than the Yom Kippur war.

Edited August 12, 2010 by Speed

[sweinhart3]

That depends ... what is the environment you are fighting in? THe more SHORAD, the better the chance you'll be focusing on dropping smart bombs.

The lower you fly, the more likely you will be using mavericks. Just my opinion. In game you can obviously do both, but the you are probably not flying a single mission profile.

 

SHORAD is a radar guided sam isnt it? Why would you attempt to get well within its strike range to drop bombs? In FC2, pretty much all sams launch at me well before Im even close to bombing range.

[GGTharos]

No, SHORAD is SHOrt Range Air Defense.

[aairon]

LOL no totally wrong. I have my PPL (+complex) and done quite a bit of amateur racing. Each is easy on it's own- but flying in combat is no more difficult physically and mentally than say, winning a GT1 race. Knowing how to drive a car doesn't mean you've mastered it. You need to learn all about weigh transfer and how it affects grip, throttle-on and liftoff oversteer, heel-and-toe shifting, apexing, suspension types, brake biases, camber, toe-in, etc.

 

For a sweet racing sim, check out iRacing. In the same vein Ed Macy loves BS, Earnhardt Jr and Danica Patrick both play iRacing and speak volumes about it's authenticity. Keep in mind any good racing sim has EASILY as complex a physics engine as most flight sims. iRacing has a full 6DOF of freedom physics model with complex suspension modelling, grip and temperature, gearbox, downforce, torque, blah blah. It's not a simple 2D thing by any stretch.

This one's Dead out of the box lol, Ed Macy didn't get a paid endorsement.

Look into the endorsement deal that those two got for their "approval" it is very well known, you can even find it by googling even.

Although they admit to being paid they will not divulge the amount.

I won't even to waste both our time attempting to explain how the physics for your 'GAME' are very simple relative to what takes place in this SIM, It has already been explained many times, and you just can't understand it.

Once again we are comparing turds to apples.:pilotfly:

Edited August 12, 2010 by aairon

[159th_Viper]

SHORAD is a radar guided sam isnt it? Why would you attempt to get well within its strike range to drop bombs? In FC2, pretty much all sams launch at me well before Im even close to bombing range.

 

Again, smart bombs ;)

[Steel Jaw]

Once again we are comparing turds to apples.:pilotfly:

 

But which is which? :megalol: