Getting bored with it.

[mikoyan]

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.

 

First the f-16 used for the mission were not supposed to fly that far(they were modified); so no one ever expected to see then reaching that far. They were new fighters; no one expected to see the Israeli using them so soon. they flew very low until they reached the target (VERY LOW; LOMAC CRAZY LOW). No one though that the israli would dare to attack on the first place! and they provably timed the attack knowing at what hour the radars were turn off or the crews changed soooo there you go.

[Napa]

First the f-16 used for the mission were not supposed to fly that far(they were modified); so no one ever expected to see then reaching that far. They were new fighters; no one expected to see the Israeli using them so soon. they flew very low until they reached the target (VERY LOW; LOMAC CRAZY LOW). No one though that the israli would dare to attack on the first place! and they provably timed the attack knowing at what hour the radars were turn off or the crews changed soooo there you go.

 

Thats a proper intelligence there. Its a process done months and even years before that attack. Sending in spies, agents and using superior technology to gather enough intel, so that they could strike and destroy all primary and secondary targets using minimum resources and with 100% accuracy and with 0% loses. Thats how real operations are executed.

[XarBat]

Just exit out and load up ArmA 2 after you eject; or better yet, STALKER: Call of Pripyat; you could pretend that it was the beginning of your Call of Pripyat story.

[element1108]

With attitudes like this it's not surprising that this game has barely changed graphically in the last 7-8 years.

 

You think the attitudes of people are what hold developers back? Try money, time, resources etc. The attitudes of the community don't really differ great from the dev's, the dev's have proper jeopardy $$$$$$$$$ the community dont have proper jeopardy in the matter...wish lists don't cost anything...in time or money.

 

There have been significant changes since 7-8 years ago, DCS A-10C and Lomac shouldn't even be compared (graphically there may be a few similarities) but the overall experience is very different.

 

Giving the community the IP tools right now may not be the best business model for ED to follow, you have to consider that. Consider as well the fact that if improvements in some of these areas seem to be lacking there is proper reason for that attitudes of the community have nothing to do with it either.

 

These sims are made by people just like us, they probably love the exact same things from a flight sim view, but they are dealing with proper roadblocks whereas we don't understand the full picture. Business is complicated no matter how you try to break it down.

 

ANyway I do apologize for my constant bloody forum "policing" ... done too much of that lately, I just feel many of these posts are lacking in common sense or a general understanding of the bigger picture.

 

I want my 1000 post to be epic, not .... this. :music_whistling:

[S77th-konkussion]

alright alright.. subscription canceled...

[aairon]

stick this heli into a much more realistic world like Crysis or Arma 2

 

Ahh yes I fully agree that melding this flight sim with the ultra realistic crysis would undoubtedly be a huge improvement as far as realism is concerned.

Being a war vet I can remember clearly the alien threat we faced as ground soldiers.

The M-16's just weren't effective against the huge flying octopus monsters. Odd how this info was cleverly kept from the public all these years.

 

I fully agree we need more of these "realistic" sims. :megalol:

[Smokin Hole]

Henchman,

 

On page One you had a bit of my sympathy. Not that you needed or asked for it but a part of me shared some of your observations about the cubic unpopulated world that is the DCS Caucasus. But you brushed away any sense of shared concern by making a complete A$$ of yourself. I've put probably 1-2000 hours into the flanker/LockOn/DCS family since the early nineties. When you say, "Getting bored with it..." mention another piece of entertainment software that gets that amount of return play from so many users. It's time to drop it and walk away. GG and others have explained to you (and to me) why the rich world you desire just isn't possible. That's the answer. Period. In 10 years things may be different. I happen to believe they won't be but that's me. I'm happy nonetheless. You are not so move on. This thread is a waste of your time which could be better spent in the rich, lifelike worlds of more popular titles.

[Conure]

:p Secondly, I think the guys at Crytek really enjoy what they do and want to push the limits.

 

@Element - Oh, give me a break. You never had respect for anybody. Of the raving fanboys, you were the worst.

 

Benjamins?? Is that military?

[Henchman14]

Oh, sorry, I see your from the UK. American slang. 100 dollar bills. Called "Benjamins" because of the picture of Benjamin Franklin on them.

[element1108]

 

@Element - Oh, give me a break. You never had respect for anybody. Of the raving fanboys, you were the worst.

 

:smartass::thumbup:

Edited January 21, 2011 by element1108

[Conure]

Henchman as I've said before, it'd be fantastic to play this game in a world with the graphics of Crysis BUT...We have 2 options...ED can spend their resources making a beautiful graphics engine which nobody can run, and which the military don't care about (meaning we'd probably never get the sim at all), or we can have a brilliant sim with lesser graphics...

 

Look how long it's taken Beta 5 to get sorted...They're adjusting things like velocities of missiles through the air and extremely complex systems through a multiple layered sim..Their target market (i.e most of us here) simply don't care about how good the graphics are. Yes it's great we have HDR now, sometimes flying through the clouds is really quite beautiful, however I'd take well represented and realistic systems and avionics over Crysis style graphics.

 

I also think that statement probably represents most people heres views - Look at the community playing IL-2 still (hell, even Falcon 4.0!), versus the community behind Crysis..The communities speak for themselves, and graphics definitely didn't win that battle! The fact is, Crysis will disappear as soon as a new graphics engine surpasses it...DCS-A10 will be around considerably longer.

 

If we wanted graphics over realism we'd all be playing Wings of Prey. I am not willing to accept second rate systems so I can have shiny graphics. Neither are most of us here!

Edited January 21, 2011 by Conure

[Henchman14]

Conure, I see you have an i5 750. I imagine it handles Shark great. Cause i've got a low end 2.2 Ghz AMD Turion, with a Radeon 5400 Mobile in it. And it handles Shark pretty well. So, I don't believe that a high end machine with Shark and CE3 together couldn't handle it. And from what I've seen of the military, they like PCs.

[Conure]

Conure, I see you have an i5 750. I imagine it handles Shark great. Cause i've got a low end 2.2 Ghz AMD Turion, with a Radeon 5400 Mobile in it. And it handles Shark pretty well. So, I don't believe that a high end machine with Shark and CE3 together couldn't handle it. And from what I've seen of the military, they like PCs.

 

True, but sometimes A10 totally kills my FPS, granted it's not entirely optimised though. I think my PC would cry if I combined Crysis graphics with DCS physics, lol

[Henchman14]

Well, I've heard a lot of bad things about A10 so far, so I don't think my computer could handle it. I think this is what happened with Arma 2, and why it runs so badly. As for Crysis, from some of the old benchmarking videos shown, it looks like were going to be able to double our FPS. They completely redid the lighting system, which was probably the most power hungry element. Were just going to have to wait for a few more months to see what the engine can really do. But those videos sure look promising. Someone on MyCrysis had said they thought Crytek was being secretive because they didn't want the XBox types to see what the PC could do with CE3, keeping them hooked on the thought that the PC wouldn't be any different, and thus they would just go out and by the XBox game. Which of course, they're going to charge the hell of out of them for. I scoffed at that till now. I wondered why they were keeping the PC version so secret and not showing any video or even pics of it. I think now, that Crysis 2 really never was made for the PC. Its just a money making venture to build a simple XBox game for mega sales to kids. Any real PC game/sim built on CryEngine 3 is yet to come. I kind of wonder now, if they're going to give us the sandbox editor and modding tools like they did last time. They seem to have far loftier goals in mind this time.

[Grimes]

Until a CryEngine 3 game is released we will never know what it is capable of. Likewise we must wait till a Frostbite 2 game is released to see what it can do.

And Unreal Engine 4

And Tech 5.

 

 

But my guess is Tech 5 will rule them all. I mean, do the makers of CryEngine 3 also make FREAKING ROCKETS FOR SPACE!?. No. They don't.

 

Can we close this thread now?

[SonofEil]

Henchman, five letters:

GTA:SA

Word on the street is that's got the best heli sim around. I think it's right up your alley.

 

the most enjoyable heli-sim is the apache missions in GTASA

sure it is a simplified flight model but you have to fly it like a helicopter

and chasing people around skyscrapers, inside tunnels and shopping centers takes lots of skill - plus you can earn over $20,000,000 if you are good enough - if it gets too easy just use the cannon only and that runs on a PS2

with simpler flight model but much superior contact physics

[Groove]

Unfortunately that thread made it's circle without any real progress.

 

Thanks for participating everyone.

 

/closed