Getting bored with it.

[Bucic]

There are few things you may try:

- hooking up with an experience Ka-50 player over TS for an MP session

- flying campaigns with human as your wingman

- get better hardware (endless possibilities_

- do some "Do It Yourself" stuff for Ka-50

[KosPilot]

The merger of genres is also challenging in the sense of balance. With the introduction of more advanced and powerfull weapons, it would be rather boring walking around on the ground, in a map the size of a continent just to be swatted by something you cannot even see coming.

One question: how do you maintain the interest at every level in playing a multi genre (online) game where everybody want to be on top of the pyramid of power?!

[diveplane]

Well, this sims been interesting, and it was great learning how to fly a heli, but in the end, its kind of boring. Without any real FPS action, in the end, its just a shooting gallery. The AI is pretty stupid, and so doesn't give much fun. The tanks just sit there. The terrain is bland, flat, and uninteresting.

 

What the developers of this sim need to do is make add ons for Crysis or Arma 2. Especially Crysis. Now that would be interesting. As it is now, now that I've learned all the basics, there's just not much to do with that knowledge in game. There's just no multiplayer world.

 

recommend a xbox console for you and arcade gaming, study sims is not for you by the sounds of it.

 

respect your honest comments though.

Edited January 14, 2011 by diveplane

[diveplane]

I don't know. I think Arma 2 looks pretty good from 8000 meters in an Su-27. Now you may have a point with looking at the horizon, as Arma 2 has it fade out really quick. At that high, I always feel I'm in a pea soup fog with a hole in the middle.

 

does arma2 have realistic weapons/ aircraft systems/ and true to life flight physics?, i think not.

these things alone take massive processing, really is incredible how the DCS dev team pulled

it of to run on a home based pc platform.

 

DCS series in the a10c, its vastly improved as well in terms of visuals , we can also expect a future makeover for DCS black shark.

Edited January 14, 2011 by diveplane

[Headspace]

does arma2 have realistic weapons/ aircraft systems/ and true to life flight physics?, i think not.

these things alone take massive processing, really is incredible how the DCS dev team pulled

it of to run on a home based pc system.

ArmA 2's flight model (it is a rudimentary one AFAICT) is just good enough to make it so helicopters and other flying things can support the infantry game. It's not a flight simulator so it's difficult to make that comparison. The ballistics physics model is about an order of magnitude more realistic than a game like Cryisis--it is capable of modeling ballistic projectiles with air resistance. I am not sure how it stacks up against DCS', but once you have that as a factor it really doesn't matter from the average gamer's standpoint.

[msalama]

Really, I don't know how DCS can keep in business with flight sim only.

 

As far as I've understood ED gets most of their revenue from military contracts, not PC consumer products.

[Funkyjazz]

I own Arma II and i like it. But i like it as the game itself is. Yes, its fun here are options to fly some crafts. And it is also nice its not a COD or MOH shooter. But i cant recollect that i went to their forum "wining" about the fact that the helicopters or planes are not simulator enough. That i want ARMA II to have a heli flight model and systems like BS.

 

Buy Hawx and you will have fun. If you are not satisfied with BS or any ED or DCS product than go to google and find yourself a game you enjoy. Cant find it? Well...sometimes life is hell.

[Irregular programming]

World war 2 online is fairly neat in that it is exactly what henchman is looking for, a combined flight simulator/ground combat sim.

 

Then again, it's not at all as complex as this game is.

[Henchman14]

Yes, life is hell when they haven't made the sim your looking for yet. I've pretty much learned all the systems except for the radio now on the copter and am decent in its flight control. My problem now is there is no Arma 2 or Crysis like world to fly it in. The flight sim is great, but the world sucks. As for having people roaming around in a continent, you could do like Crysis does and just put in a player barrier around the high detail "sandbox" part of the map. The rest of the world could just be for aircraft. Most vehicle / infantry FPS battles take place on small parts of the map, even in Arma. I've yet to see anyone want to jog all over the map of Arma 2. The whole map is really meant only for flying.

 

They just haven't made the sim I'm looking for yet. Complete, real simulation in all aspects. BS combined with Arma 2 would be a start. Add in Crysis TOD and terrain detail, and it would be awesome.

[BKLronin]

BS combined with Arma 2 would be a start. Add in Crysis TOD and terrain detail, and it would be awesome.

 

Absoloutely but I already would be more as happy if they integrate the HoverControl Flight Physics into Arma2. It´s just fun to fly support chopper roles when so many soldiers are counting on you appearance after a City is cleaned.

[Bucic]

They just haven't made the sim I'm looking for yet. Complete, real simulation in all aspects. BS combined with Arma 2 would be a start. Add in Crysis TOD and terrain detail, and it would be awesome.

Nothing like that will happen for a decade. Deal with it for the sake of your own health :)

[Henchman14]

Oh, I wouldn't say a decade, lol. The way Nvidia and AMD want you to buy their new video cards, it will come. In order for them to sell, there has to be a game / sim that pushes the limits of their abilities. Plus, there are plenty of people like me who want to see real flight sims combine with hardcore FPS.

[Cali]

Oh, I wouldn't say a decade, lol. The way Nvidia and AMD want you to buy their new video cards, it will come. In order for them to sell, there has to be a game / sim that pushes the limits of their abilities. Plus, there are plenty of people like me who want to see real flight sims combine with hardcore FPS.

 

It's not just up to AMD/Nvidia, you have to throw in everything else. What I mean by everything else, developer, graphics engine, CPU, just to name a few. Also a project like that will cost a lot of money and take a lot of time. Even if they do somehow manage to merge Arma and DCS series....it will still take time and money.

[GGTharos]

More than a decade actually. You make it sound like it will magically happen ... forget it, not a chance. A couple products such as (IIRC) one TBS sim and I believe VBS were integrated for the military, and it cost a big chunk of money ... and time and resources. So no, your prediction isn't anywhere near realistic.

 

Oh, I wouldn't say a decade, lol. The way Nvidia and AMD want you to buy their new video cards, it will come. In order for them to sell, there has to be a game / sim that pushes the limits of their abilities. Plus, there are plenty of people like me who want to see real flight sims combine with hardcore FPS.

[power5]

I see a decade as a very lofty goal and only possible in a MP environment. The amount of AI programing to have smart enemies in the sky, or infantry, or armor would be so insane that you would need either 24 core threading, or would have to wait for the game to pause and load the next engine. Especially if you want realistic study sim interfaces for each mode. Say you crash land. Jump out and want to be in a crysis mode. No way the engine you were just using would still work. Would need to start a new physics and AI engine for close quarters combat. Graphics would need to scale up for close detail as well. Maybe a tree could have multiple maps available. For ground mode, it could use super high res maps, and for sky mode it could use low res maps. But maps only get you so far. A box building with an amazing bump map and texture map, still only looks good from a certain distance and angle.

 

I think we have more than a decade to wait for seamless transitions between flying, FPS, and armor especially in a single player environment. At least if you want realistic controls. Only thing close to realistic in FPS games are the environments. Player movements and shooting is so very arcade. No soldier runs full speed at a bad guy and dives behind cover through gunfire. No soldier heals by sitting behind a tree or by eating a candy bar either.

 

Look at FPS games like ArmA. They are FPS foremost and the flight dynamics are trash. Look at A10. Its flight sim foremost and the FPS dynamics are trash. I have the hardest time getting my pilot to walk where I want him to, I could not even imagine if I had to shoot an enemy.

[S77th-konkussion]

eh and why would hardcore simmers with $100's of dollars invested in realistic controllers and years of study and effort want to waste energy trying to fight in an arena where anyone that can fog a mirror can click a mouse 3 times and take you down with a 120mm howitzer that fires at 50 rds. a minute? All while cleaning his bong chamber.

 

In other words- It doesn't seem to me that the world of arcade & the world of simulation mix too good in many ways... The majority play the arcade because they're just not that into it. The funny part is when a console gamer shows up at this doorstep and starts mouthing off about whatever he is not "satisfied" with..

 

Pick one- or enjoy them both for what they are and offer. If you're bored- that's a you problem. Plenty of ways to mix it up.

Edited January 14, 2011 by S77th-konkussion

[power5]

Instant gratification is why people play games like ArmA, COD, Hawx, and the other arcade games. They do not want to learn to have fun. That is fine for people with that mentality. I like customizing stuff, and learning how it works.

[todd022]

I think bottom line is, it would be nice if DCS stuff was a little more "moddable"....the hardcore could only install hardcore (realistic) stuff, or install cheesey stuff to screw the game away; much like ArmA mods range. It would keep the game young if a group of modders could jump in there and make new terrains or enemy vehicles and storylines to alter scenarios, etc.

[winz]

Oh, I wouldn't say a decade, lol.

Take Falcon 4.0 i.e., it is a decade old game. Now, compare it to DCS: Bs, or DCS: A10C... Do you still belive that it will take only a less than a decade to elevate sims to the level you describe? ;)

[msalama]

Well, I'm not getting bored with it :joystick:

 

What this sim needs is a bit more AI (the weight is on the "I"), a better mission editor (one where you can view objects in 3D, cut & paste multiple objects, etc.) and perhaps a dynamic campaign engine (yah, easily said than done). After that, it's a solid 110/100...

 

PS. No, not a typo, the chopper itself is already a 100 ;)

[Bucic]

More than a decade actually.

I'm posting here for years - you all know I'm an optimist :smilewink:

[Henchman14]

Lol. I get the feeling some of you flight simmers are just scared of actual ground troops. Hopefully, after they get through making the ground vehicles better, the A.C.E. 2 mod team in Arma 2 will start working on the aircraft. And it won't take them a decade, lol.

[S77th-konkussion]

Lol. I get the feeling some of you flight simmers are just scared of actual ground troops. Hopefully, after they get through making the ground vehicles better, the A.C.E. 2 mod team in Arma 2 will start working on the aircraft. And it won't take them a decade, lol.

 

and thanks for confirming your level of maturity. You go have fun with your Nintendo DS- Mom will call you for dinner soon.

[Henchman14]

Hey, I was being nice till some people decided to get nasty. Guess what? I can be nasty right back.

[Grimes]

Again it comes down to DCS being a great SIM of an aircraft but many find it lacking in several other area's. And from the pace/type of things ED is working on that has come to be expected.

 

Honestly to make a flight sim type world viable in ARMA2 engine is more effort than its worth. I think your best bet is to write a letter to John Carmack, we could probably build a viable game engine :D