Keeping the SFM alive

[GGTharos]

I believe you just contradicted yourself.

[Steel Jaw]

Flapjack still on the griddle I see.

 

FC2 is IMHO a dead end. I would prefer to see ED dev resources go towards more high def jets etc.

 

The market is already flooded with lite weight...stuff... like LOMAC/FC2. The lowest common denominator is already serviced very well.

[GGTharos]

This 'light weight stuff' is played by RL pilots, and works reasonably well.

Don't make me lower-common-denominate you, I'm always on stand-by! :P

 

[GhostDog]

I believe you just contradicted yourself.

 

Not from my perspective. As I see it, the standalone DCS product and the multiplayer environment are separate things. You could add all sorts of extensions to the MP environment (new maps, new AI aircraft and vehicles, even interfaces for synchronous play with 3rd party games) and not change the standalone DCS aircraft simulation one iota.

[GhostDog]

P.S. simplified flyable != LOMAC/FC2

[GhostDog]

I would prefer to see ED dev resources go towards more high def jets etc.

 

More revenue from MP add-ons = more dev resources. Obviously I don't know the specifics about ED's financials, but I would guess the revenue stream they get from their civilian DCS releases is a small trickle, comparatively speaking.

[Steel Jaw]

More revenue from MP add-ons = more dev resources. Obviously I don't know the specifics about ED's financials, but I would guess the revenue stream they get from their civilian DCS releases is a small trickle, comparatively speaking.

 

Maybe but on the military contract side I am sure they do quite well.

 

Perhaps the public DCS offerings are more for pretige than profit.

[Steel Jaw]

Don't make me lower-common-denominate you

 

Get in line behind the prone-to-violence-cop-wife. I'm already a broken man. :helpsmilie:

[Exorcet]

I said 5+.

 

 

Not from my perspective. As I see it, the standalone DCS product and the multiplayer environment are separate things. You could add all sorts of extensions to the MP environment (new maps, new AI aircraft and vehicles, even interfaces for synchronous play with 3rd party games) and not change the standalone DCS aircraft simulation one iota.

 

Why can't multiplayer be realistic too. Adding unrealistic elements to MP will make it less realistic. MP is as much of the game as single player. I'd say it's the superior half (or at least the half with more potential) until AI gets 100+ IQ's.

[GhostDog]

I said 5+.

Why can't multiplayer be realistic too. Adding unrealistic elements to MP will make it less realistic. MP is as much of the game as single player. I'd say it's the superior half (or at least the half with more potential) until AI gets 100+ IQ's.

 

With respect to tactics, procedures and physical environment, the DCS multiplayer environment is already highly realistic. Making simplified flyables out of existing AI aircraft won't change that. The only thing that would change is the individual player's flying experience if they choose to fly a simplified aircraft. Obviously, no one would be forced to fly a simplified aircraft in MP.

[galagamo]

SFM in DCS again? Blasphemy!! The idere is for 'one' Aircraft to be modeled in a ridiculously complex, yet satisfying detail.

You learn it, you employ it, and enjoy it, that's it.

We already see how this integration concept is working out with FC2 and BS, its not.

Lets leave the vaunted SFM to rest. we don't need cool aid in our coffee.

[Steel Jaw]

With respect to tactics, procedures and physical environment, the DCS multiplayer environment is already highly realistic.

 

Yes, too bad it's not forcing the air quakers to abide by its rules though.

 

I do not care if A10 ever gets integrated into FC2.

 

I speak for many in a sizable hardcore community that will be very happy to fly the A10C by itself without the air quakers.

[InFireBaptize]

Yes, too bad it's not forcing the air quakers to abide by its rules though.

 

Mower, with BS you have to use stealth tactics, hiding behind building, mountain etc... that's why you don't get shot often when flying BS, with Jets you're more prone to attacks. I don't take chances when flying BS once you're detected it would be hard to maneuver and evade the missile.

 

Even with BS, many people use WIN+HOME to start up the shark, what do you call those people?

[aaron886]

You call them half-citizen gamers... not simmers. :D

 

He's got a point, it's a very good one. You can't go down the road of mixing simplified avionics with complex ones... just like you can't have some people in a server flying with immortality, and some without. I agree.

 

 

That said, I hope we can hack around in DCS:A10C and make the SFM's flyable again, just for those of us in the virtual aerobatic community who need something besides the A-10C, but still want the engine improvements. :(

[Steel Jaw]

Even with BS, many people use WIN+HOME to start up the shark, what do you call those people?

 

Hard to say. Need more info. But on hair trigger I'll say "lite weights".

 

Is that what you wanted to hear? :P

[GGTharos]

I found that learning the startup procedure, as well as emergency procedures around it, helps to understand the systems and how it all comes together - what your needles should be showing, etc, etc.

 

But after that? WIN+HOME and go get some water. Just personal preference.

 

You wanna call me a lightweight? :P

[Steel Jaw]

You wanna call me a lightweight? :P

 

Not until I have A10 in my hands. Maybe not even then: you could always put an anit-Mower filter on it, it's been tried by others in the past...who can blame them?

[3Sqn_TomAce]

SFM or not I think it’s fair to say most of us are fed up with the lone wolf Air Quake unrealistic flying tendency’s we are exposed to daily. Anything community driven as far as realism would need to be agreed and applied across all major servers for it to have any impact. If just one large player capable server does not abide then 80% of the community will fly there and nothing will change.

 

We have the ability to make changes, as a community I think we should stop blaming lack of resources and start getting resourceful, work together and make some decisions, compromise, implement, and move us closer to where we want our Sim/Game time to be.

 

* I know that sounded a little like Tony Robbins :)

[GGTharos]

I think you named the problem though. You're trying to change what the community -wants- to play. Not going to happen.

 

You want the community to do it your way? Start training them, yep, including your secrets :)

 

Don't wanna do it?

 

See what I mean? We're not getting away from that so easy.

[3Sqn_TomAce]

Well it's what I see most people in these forums say that's what they want.

 

I did mention "agree" so that's the first part, without this nothing else will succeed.

 

It would take leaders such as yourself GG to help this along, otherwise it's wasted comments on something that has no chance. To be honest I would have expected something constuctive at least rather then saying not going to happen.

 

I'm happy to train when time permits, airfield ops was something I posted a while back to the community as something we should be doing to help newer people gain skills that would help us all on busy servers. Anyone who is keen just PM me and I'll set it up no strings.

[SilentEagle]

That said, I hope we can hack around in DCS:A10C and make the SFM's flyable again, just for those of us in the virtual aerobatic community who need something besides the A-10C, but still want the engine improvements. :(

 

 

Agreed. I couldn't care less about ED spending any time working on SFM aircraft for DCS, nor would I want them to. But, I really hope the ability to manually unlock them for personal use in the new engine is still there. Will be a sad day if that is removed.

[GGTharos]

Well it's what I see most people in these forums say that's what they want.

 

I did mention "agree" so that's the first part, without this nothing else will succeed.

 

It would take leaders such as yourself GG to help this along, otherwise it's wasted comments on something that has no chance. To be honest I would have expected something constuctive at least rather then saying not going to happen.

 

Like me? :P What about you? I'm kinda tied up and getting my own squad in order currenlty :)

 

I didn't mean to be negative though, just stating the problem. And you can dig deeper and deeper into it, and basically what you end up with is a community somewhat like the Falcon community, I think.

 

I'm happy to train when time permits, airfield ops was something I posted a while back to the community as something we should be doing to help newer people gain skills that would help us all on busy servers. Anyone who is keen just PM me and I'll set it up no strings.

 

That is always a good initiative, and thanks for doing it! Nothing beats flying with someone who knows what they're doing.

[hannibal]

LMFAO. Have you actually flown the DCS: Ka-50?

 

The only reason I bought DCS: Ka-50 was when it was inter operable with FC 2.0. Still on the fence about DCS: A-10C. I'm a A2A guy at first, and A2G when demanded. Looks like I'll be sticking with FC 2.0 until DCS Fighter. Maybe they'll be something else out from someone else in the meantime.

 

AGREED!!

SFM GO AWAY!

 

if i want to fly an A-10C, then i wana to be flying an A-10C..

hence if i want to fly a F15E, let it be the dynamics of an F-15E...

a once size fits all, just dont make sense... in a High Fidelity sim..

[3Sqn_Sven]

No there is not. And here's why.

 

Having flown on the FC2 servers for a few months as Bramage, I see the Ka50 hardcore guys serious as a heart attack and the "gamers" cruising in with their survey jets and blasting everything in sight.

 

Takes, what, 10-15 minutes to get your Shark in the air and a while to fly the hardcore beast to the combat area, now comes some clown in a survey F15 or Su27 who took 1 minute to start his jet and go air quaking, gettiing shot himself inside 15 minutes, rinse and repeat. Makes me sick.

 

The dude in the hardcore mount has a vested interest in flying real world survival tactics when it takes so long to get into the action. The survey joker couldnt care less if he gets spanked cause heknows his turnaround is measured in minutes.

 

I disagree. IMO, Lock On has been the best there is as far as multiplayer air combat simulation goes for a long time. Sure, there's Falcon 4, but my god it's complicated. Falcon 4 is, no joking, like flying a real jet. It's that complicated. And how many people have the time to learn a real jet when they're not getting paid for it? Not many. The fact is that the MEAT and the reason COMBAT simmers come to any combat sim is in the action. Lock On gives you the choice to fly the best of the worlds air-air fighters and CAS aircraft, and skips over 90% of the individual avionics modelling in order to provide you the best feel of air combat. Ideally the devs would like to give you the 100% solution of perfectly realistic avionics and flight models for all jets, but it's not doable. They wanted to give you the chance to fly essentially 5 types of aircraft with as realistic flight model and weapons as they could provide, so they gave you the 80% solution of simple flight model and simplified but as close as reasonably practical avionics. And it works. Sure, we don;t have all xxxx modes of the radar in the Eagle, or a clickable cockpit for the radar modes in the Russian jets, but it's close.

 

It's not novalogic F-22 style, or Tom Clancy Hawx. You can achieve a realistic feel of air combat in lock on, if you make the appropriate mission. Ka-50 guys, much like Falcon 4 guys, love the in depth simulation of the platform, getting into the start procedures etc, but most of us just don't have the time for it while working a full time job. Not to mention you don't have the back up of proper instruction like a full time pilot in training does...it's all self taught, which takes even more time.

 

The average Lock On guy wants to enjoy his 1 hr a day of free sim time doing the business...killing bad guys. Taking 60 minutes to properly brief a mission, another 60 to get the platform fired up, taxi out, etc, only to get killed after 10min airborne because, guess what, you're in a high threat environment, is no fun. That's why for real, military aviators continue the mission even after they are dead in order to gain experience. You can't do that in an online sim...if you die you are dead. And thats why military aviators spend 50 hours a week doing that job. Who's got 50 hours a week to sim? Almost no one.

 

Lock On is a compromise. There are definitely some things the devs can improve on. But how much difference would an advanced flight model for an F-15C really make a difference? 5% of the time? It's not worth it. Put the effort into making the SFM as close to realistic as practical, making the weapons as close to realistic as practical, and give us the chance to fly the best jets in the western and eastern world. We, the community, will make the scenarios and make it fun online. We'll airquake during the week and once every 2 months or so we'll do a Red Flag with some realistic scenarios. If you get sick of airquake, join a squad that trains weekly. This gives us all the flexibility to fly in the same game in a good differential of aircraft, and funds the devs to further develop the platforms they wish to (KA50, A-10). A single platform game (ala Janes F-18, and as you suggest, DCS A-10) will not satisfy everyone (I want to do air-air).

 

At the end of the day, in the vain of fairness, in all my hours flying airquake online, I've only ever ONCE found a freaken KA-50. You guys fly too slow for our radars anyway. We need diversity in order to keep us all flying the same sim, so that we can pool our money into the devs coffers to build us all what we want in the future.

[aaron886]

Not until I have A10 in my hands. Maybe not even then: you could always put an anit-Mower filter on it, it's been tried by others in the past...who can blame them?

 

That's a proven fact. Robust anti-Mower filters were a favorite of F4 devs. :D