Bad realism and realism that still needs to be enhanced...!

[cichlidfan]

As long as tire wear/flattening is properly modeled when DCS Big Wheel comes out...I am good!:P

[aaron886]

Is it because improvements are not being made quick enough to 'pet projects'?

 

In all seriousness, I think the issue is that everyone wants something slightly different, and ED cannot please everyone at one time. They can either choose to pursue their vision for the product, or work solely based on community demand. The latter, in my opinion, will not get them very far by itself.

 

It might not HURT to look at the biggest requests/complaints and tackle those, of course, but the franchise has to keep moving.

[AeroOrange]

...there seems to be some data in the config section .lua for weapons, etc.... check out nurs_table,lua as well - seems to me that those figures represent not just fuel mass (being labeled as such) but many other initial conditions for flight behavior.

[MaverickF22]

A review of the needed changes to be made,before this ends up into a much worse crap!

 

Although it's an year and a half since i've talked about the exagerated G-force effect and other exagerated missiles accelerations..., now..., before Flaming Cliffs 3 appears and it's still not late to change some things until it becomes even more rubbish than FC2, as it proved already, except for the graphics, cause YEAH, that's the only thing which made me stick to FC2 more and leave the most realistic Lock On so far (the FC 1.12) to roost..., so in the last moment, FC3 should change the bad reputation of some promises that were made about FC2, which proved to be even worse than they were before, there are some important tips that FC3 should respect, otherwise people would start wondering about buying any further Lock On's series anymore!:(

 

Here are the tips that have failed badly in FC2 (and they were told to improve realism, although we have shown that it made it even worse):

 

1. Make tha damn Gloc(loss of consciousness) occur only after standing at least 15-18 seconds at 9G's, not less, while the light loss initiation should only start at around 11-12 seconds after rapidly reaching 9G. So the tunnel view should last at least 4-6 seconds from the time it is initiated until the blackout occurs,- for a trained pilot-..., unless there is only a drunken monkey set to fly in Lock On (we hope not)! You might wonder where do i know this information from! Well, it came from people who have been through this, and even if there's an error of +/-1 or 2 seconds..., it's still way longer than the crap that we just have in FC2, as for FC1.12 it took a little bit longer to Gloc, and even if it was still too quick, compared to reality..., it was better than FC2!:P:mad:

 

2. FC2 was announcing some improvements over the flyable aircrats, before it was launched! Well hear this: the F-15, the A-10A and SU-27 have a much unrealistically higher roll rate...! Why? And WOW..., it seems that the best roll rate belongs to the SU-27:P! LOL...! Did you people even try to compare those roll rates to the real ones? I guess not! Because the SU-27 has a worse roll rate than the F-15(both for onset and constant), and both of them should also have it lower than it is atm, while the A-10A should have almost the same roll rate as the SU-33 (or at least "copy and paste" the damn roll rate that you have already optained in DCS A-10C, because it has to be just the same)! And to admit..., only the MIG-29, SU-33 and SU-25's are having their real roll rates, unmodified from FC1.12! So, as a simple conclusion..., again, they were way better modeled in FC1.12!:doh:

 

3. Another nowhere to go (probably another try for improving realism), is the limitation of visualy sighting ground vehicles above a certain distance...! Well the problem is that in FC1.12 you could see(visually) well contoured/darker ground units that were hard to confuse with the ground colours or other scenery, without any view zooming or FOV changing,by just keeping a decently realistic 60 deg FOV without any zoom, from about 7-10nm away..., which seemed ok, maybe a little far but at least closer to the real life ability to spot ground vehicles from that distance. In FC2 however, it is more realistic in that the contour/vehicle lighting may be easier to confuse with the ground colours/scenery whatever..., but on the other hand, it is way too hard to see any ground unit at all after a short distance(except for the civilian traffic which looks the way it should from high distance), meaning that you have to get as close as 2nm to a ground unit (tank, SAM, etc.) to be able to notice that it's a ground unit! So my suggest is that there is something wrong with the magnification of the vehicles/planes/helicopters in the distance..., because you initially can't see them almost at all(or rather as a pixeled dot on your screen) and then rapidly turn bigger as you get closer. And seriously, there's nothing wrong with my eyes or other people's eyes or resolution setting, which i keep on the highest setting!

Now the idea is that there is a little bit of high discrepancy at visual sighting a vehicle in FC1.12 and FC2. In FC1.12 you were probably seeing vehicles further than normal, but in FC2 you barely see them at all and that should not happen in real life.

So my question is, why didn't you make the vehicles appear the same way that they do in DCS Black Shark or A-10C? Because there they have the most realistic appearence upon visual sighting or by using the aircraft's TV for targeting, and DCS appeared before the release of FC2...! Why do these discrepancies exist for no reason?

 

I or we, all of the people who play and enjoy this awsome product (in some ways), aren't trying to be so ridiculously pretentious..., but we are all hungered for "REAL" realism, not bullshit, and so it's not the graphics that matter so much..., well yes, they matter too, they make it look better, but common..., the only thing that most of us enjoy is to really have the feeling and know it..., that things are as realistic as they can..., that kind of game/sim would buy all the money, not Tom Clancy's HAWX:P or other crap like that..., but you, the people who are behind this brilliant project!

 

 

Cheers, and i wish you the very best..., in making this a better sim, and at least, look at some of our advices regarding what real should normally look like!:thumbup: