Getting bored with it.

[GGTharos]

There is no such thing as two equal air to air combat planes.

 

You can look at posted ranges of missiles. AIM-120A: Useful range of about 25nm. AIM-120C, about 30nm. The R-27R was a bit short of that. The R-27RE has about 40nm of range or so. The AIM-120D is supposed to have an 80nm capability. These are maximum ranges, typical engagements will be at shorter ranges than those.

 

Ferry range is unrefueled flight range going from point A to point B without returning.

Edited January 18, 2011 by GGTharos

[Grimes]

In terms of how far they can travel whilst carrying a combat payload according to wikipedia...

The F-15C

 

Combat radius: 1,061 nmi

 

OR, several hundred km more than the distance between the two bases with the greatest distance between them in DCS:A10C.

[Renato71]

Are you bored with it Renato?

 

I am now :D

 

Missiles, ferry ranges... ? AIM this, AIM that... Well, mount them on B767 and lets be done with that. I'm into aircraft simulations, not aircraft managing.

 

This fancy-shamncy stuff turned pilots into "Cockpit CEO's". As exciting as SimCity.

[GGTharos]

Aircraft management is part of flight simulation.

 

I'm into aircraft simulations, not aircraft managing.

[Conure]

Aircraft management is part of flight simulation.

 

If management is what you'd call my efforts in the KA-50 then my work force was running riot..

[Cali]

Hi Cali, what is the actual range of most fighter aircraft??

 

Range for what? Ferry range can reach 3000nm for certain fighters. Combat radius tends to be between 300 and 500nm.

 

GG answered it already, although there is tanker support. I suggest you read some books about desert Storm. I'm reading a book now called "F-15 Eagles engaged by Steve Davies" I have had the privilege to speak to a few pilots about it.

 

Here are a few other good books to read

Vipers in the Storm by Keith Rosenkranz

Strike Eagle by Willaim Smallwood

[Conure]

thank you Cali, I will look those up!

[Cali]

thank you Cali, I will look those up!

 

I even emailed Keith Rosenkranz after I read his book. He was stationed at Hill AFB in Utah, have a guy in my squad that was there at the same time. He seems like a nice guy. I wondered if he was going to write another book. If you like fighter jet aviation, then those books won't disappoint you.

[element1108]

Henchman14 you are aware that basing 100% of your opinion on a few video's can be...somewhat disappointing in the end. Promo video's are there to promote so they will only show off the most capable features of a game engine and even those are grossly over simplified.

 

I think you liked what you saw and your imagination filled in the rest to create a beautiful picture in your mind, impossible for anything else to live up to those expectations.

Edited January 18, 2011 by element1108

[bogusheadbox]

A discussion stops being a discussion when one is unwilling to listen to what the other says.

 

This thread was supposed to be about boredom and how he can aleviate that. Now its just an advertisement for the CE3 engine.

 

This thread has gone far enough and its this thread and not the black shark that bores me.

 

:poster_spam:

[Groove]

I fully agree with you bogus!

 

Either you guys bring the discussion back on topic or the mods will close the thread.

[BKLronin]

Back to topic->

 

I´m sure you would get bored with that awesome multirole game in while too. Pretty much everything is boring after a while If you don´t ideas that keep it interesting (wifey for example :D).

 

Try to find a suitable squadron and you will see how colorful the multiplayer experience can be. Just flying "solo" on public servers in no compare to fly organized.

 

Good Luck.

[Napa]

Anyhow.. Even if CE3 or CE4 or CE10 manage to accomplish what Henchman14 dreams about, they'll never be as realistic as DCS for one simple reason:

 

DCS is the commercial product of the PC-based military simulator trainer (DTS). All the data the TFC/ED dev team are gathering to produce DCS and DTS are from military contracts and they are as accurate as they can be. In other words they don't produce anything on pure imagination or wet dreams:P

 

And THAT is the reason DCS will NEVER be boring. ED is the first combat flight simulator producer company that actually uses REAL data from REAL aircraft to produce commercial military flight sims with almost unlimited access.

 

I find the TFCSE engine quite satisfying at the moment and its going to get even better in the next module. As CE evolves, so will TFCSE.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Innerloop

[Henchman14]

Well, lets end it. I would love to see BS in a CE3 map. For those of us that are interested, were really going to have to wait to see what CE3 is going to be able to do though, because so far, Crytek is being really secretive about it, even though Crysis 2 is only 3 months away from release. I love the heli, I just want to see it in a better, more capable world. The videos and pics from RealTime Immersive give me a lot of hope.

 

Anyhow.. Even if CE3 or CE4 or CE10 manage to accomplish what Henchman14 dreams about, they'll never be as realistic as DCS...

 

Lol, you weren't the first, and you won't be the last. Your just currently the best. Others will follow. I'm sure there are people like me in the military who are thinking they also want a better world, with combat against human ground troops. RealTime Immersive looks like they're going that route. And I'm hoping they release something to the public.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Henchman14

[GGTharos]

The better way to put it is ... 'the engine is just math, too'.

[power5]

There is already ArmA 2 for people who want battle in all situations. DCS is a much much higher fidelity sim than that game. I would love to see better terrain in DCS world, but I could care less about human targets on the ground. I really doubt you would want to be on the ground in a simulation battle ground as well. How many soldiers in a company have RPGs? Not every soldier like in the FPS game world. Now hold your little M4 up and shoot at my BS from 8km away while a vihkr is coming at you.

 

I agree that its boring flying in the DCS world only because of the terrain quality. Its fun to just fire up BS and fly about as long as you are not really LOOKING at the terrain. Would be so much more fun in those high quality worlds. Then with enemy added, I would never be bored.

[Henchman14]

How many soldiers in a company have RPGs? Not every soldier like in the FPS game world.

 

Actually, not many in the more serious Crysis Wars servers either. Anything anti-armor or anti-material like is usually very expensive. So, they become kind of rare. And you could do other things to make it more realistic. Actually, I think being able to reload on vihkers is somewhat unrealstic. Those things must be pretty expensive. The boss is going to want you to use those rockets and cannon before you come back for more vihkers.

 

 

Now hold your little M4 up and shoot at my BS from 8km away while a vihkr is coming at you.

.

 

Real battles aren't fought on dry plains. If you've ever played Crysis with its realistic terrain, your going to realize you'll have to get a lot closer than that. You might catch some tanks out in the open, but your going to have to get some height, and that going to bring some attention to you.

But like I've said before, were used to mass death. While you shooting your vihker, some team you failed to see has gotten near you with a anti-aircraft weapon. There's lots of cover in game. Or even some sniper with a 12.7 or 20mm Anti-Material rifle.

 

And on another note, I just found out RealTime Immersive is actually one of Crytek's Studios, not a seperate company. I was thinking Crytek sold them an Engine license, and they had put in more stuff. But actually, this is the standard CE3 engine at work! :p

Edited January 18, 2011 by Henchman14

[winz]

I'm sure there are people like me in the military who are thinking they also want a better world, with combat against human ground troops.

The problem is that what you want from a sim - "I want to lift of, fly for 5mins, and engage an enemy in a beautifull and lush world ", and what army needs from a sim "We need a platform to practice various procedures again and again" have very little in common.

 

Army doesn't care about fancy graphics and high poly world, nor does they care about gameplay (what army uses sims for is, from a gamers point of view, dull as hell). And if they don't care about that, then they are not willing to pay for that.

 

If they want a battle againts human troops then they can, you know, organize an exercise.

 

edit:

The boss is going to want you to use those rockets and cannon before you come back for more vihkers.

The heli is more expensive then vikhrs, not to mention pilot training, so no... they will not force you to engage a tank column with your cannon, just because you haven't used all ammo

 

While you shooting your vihker, some team you failed to see has gotten near you with a anti-aircraft weapon. There's lots of cover in game. Or even some sniper with a 12.7 or 20mm Anti-Material rifle.

I will be long gone before they get so close, that they can fire their missile. They would have to cover about 3km to get to operational range, and that takes some time IRL with 20kg package on your back.

If I will be there by then, or they get to me sooner, then I screwed up, either during planning (ingress) or during execution.

Stop thinking in crysis world, when you can cover the whole map in about a minute...

Edited January 18, 2011 by winz

[S77th-konkussion]

Well.. they do care. Let's call it "more than they used to, but not quite to the level that we do". Real life size military simulators are becoming more lifelike with every version- both in terms of feel and the outside world graphics.. Although I am no longer in the service my horse sense tells me that there is no shortage of [involved] people pushing for improvements to anyone in the chain of command who will listen.

 

Then -as you say- it becomes a balancing act of funding, effectiveness, etc.. (like everything else)

[Henchman14]

Well.. they do care. Let's call it "more than they used to, but not quite to the level that we do". Real life size military simulators are becoming more lifelike with every version- both in terms of feel and the outside world graphics.. Although I am no longer in the service my horse sense tells me that there is no shortage of [involved] people pushing for improvements to anyone in the chain of command who will listen.

 

Then -as you say- it becomes a balancing act of funding, effectiveness, etc.. (like everything else)

 

Well said.

[Bushmanni]

All the real military simulators that I have seen have pretty crappy graphics compared to modern gaming standards. Functional side of the graphics is way more advanced than in the modern games but the artistic side is lacking. Smoke dissipation takes a realistic time, explosions create craters, object visibility is realistic but there's no fancy shaders or hi-res textures. For a military simulator it's important that you can differentiate T-64 and T-72 but it doesn't have to look like a photograph. The best graphics that I have seen in military simulators is in the ones that are based on games like ARMA or Unreal (Americas Army). Maybe it's just the simulators I have seen are of 80-90s era machines and their graphics quality is stuck in the same era. But I would think that artistic quality is still lacking as content creation would cost more and provide nothing the military needs.

[S77th-konkussion]

How many times have you watched your typical Discovery / History network doc. that spotlighted a simulator? First listening to the host's dumb questions and then as a final insult- having to endure the host attempting to fly...

 

Don't you just wanna SLAP that guy and say get the *^%! outta my chair... anyway...

 

I can see the differences in the graphics in those alone. Older docs - you could see the terribly pixelated terrain, and comic book looking explosions... A more recent doc highlighted a USN F/A 18 (forgot where) that was VERY impressive by comparison... but still pretty bad for our purposes..

Edited January 18, 2011 by S77th-konkussion

[element1108]

How many times have you watched your typical Discovery / History network doc. that spotlighted a simulator? First listening to the host's dumb questions and then as a final insult- having to endure the host attempting to fly...

 

Don't you just wanna SLAP that guy and say get the *^%! outta my chair... anyway...

 

I can see the differences in the graphics in those alone. Older docs - you could see the terribly pixelated terrain, and comic book looking explosions... A more recent doc highlighted a USN F/A 18 (forgot where) that was VERY impressive by comparison... but still pretty bad for our purposes..

 

That "dumb host" is tailoring to the lowest common denominator (audience wise) so yeah he can't really go into this intricate detail of what proper air combat simulation is all about, it's a COMPLEX PROPERTY, if he did, the majority of the audience would have NO clue what they're talking about and would change the channel. I know something about this because I work in TV, TV is all about making sure your target audience has a clue what you're talking about. The second you're lost is when you change the channel, advertisers do not like that and therefore networks do NOT like that.

 

Anyway this thread really has run it's course, how can you argue a personal perspective. It's obvious the author of this thread doesn't want the experience DCS series offers. The fanboy CE3 and constant Crysis comparisons to DCS gameplay are perfect examples for that. Perhaps this game isn't your demographic Henchman14?

 

The DCS series tailors 100% to my preferences, there are always things to improve, but like life, games aren't perfect, you make an educated guess and commit financially to the cause. Virtual reality will never surpasss the real world, so either accept the fact that you're getting military grade desktop simulation experience or not? If not, there is a larger more diverse market out there (battlefield, COD, arma, CRYSIS) that can give you more what you want.

 

I've wanted what you've wanted for 15 years now, hasn't happened in that timeframe and I don't see it happening in the next 15 years....even with all those CE3 engine videos.

 

to the author:

 

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3182167

 

shows more potential in flight sim capable engine than CE3 personally.

Edited January 18, 2011 by element1108

[Tango]

DCS:BS can be very difficult if you've got a target set up reasonably well.

 

I guess by your standard, the recent strike by Israel on Syria's suspected nuclear plant wasn't "realistic" because they didn't lose at least 10 aircraft to AAA. The plant is now a big crater. They just flew in there one night, bombed it to hell, and left again.

 

I'm still expecting to wake up one morning to find Iran has suffered a similar fate. Israel already did a test run.

 

One thing about these sims is they can be very realistic, and most of us wouldn't appreciate just how realistic until we did it or saw it being done for real.

 

There can be a lot of strategy involved in figuring the best way to approach a given target, determining priority targets, and then executing the plan. That alone can take some effort. It is a real buzz when the mission is completed successfully and everyone is back home. Combine that with realistic comms between pilots, maybe someone acting as FAC, and it is as close to combat as you're going to get without actually going into combat.

 

I wish DCS:BS and DCS:W had a campaign engine like that of Falcon 4.0 - the re-playability is incredible, all things considered. That is probably why I'm still flying it over 12 years later (originally released Dec. 1998! 8) ) That said, DCS:BS and DCS:W are ahead of Falcon slightly in terms of systems modeling. Given that Falcon did it 12 years ago though shows how far ahead Falcon was for its time.

 

...but given your comparison with ArmA, I think this post was a waste of time.

 

Best regards,

Tango.

[Frostie]

I've read this thread from the start and all I can gather is that Henchman wants a full realism helicopter sim merged into an fps world of crazy gamers bunnyhopping over vikhrs to capture the flag... well while were at it, I want an orgasmatron.

 

Bearing in mind the extent that DCS takes realism and combining it with leet DEagle headshot kills with pretty graphics somehow brings a chill to the spine. Im a big boy now, gaming is fun, simming is serious sh**.