Getting bored with it.

[Henchman14]

I think the DCS series needs more gameplay too, after you master the plane then what are you supposed to do?

That exactly what I think. Even good AI just doesn't cut it in the end. And the terrain reminds me of Kansas with large mountains.

[Henchman14]

Okay, so the a/c part is basically built from military money. So to bring that to consumers they would have plenty of resources to build a better game world. They have basically nothing to spend on the a/c since the military contract paid for that. Take out a few top secret functions and you have a civilian game. Now all that is needed is to add the game world. If you compare it to the a/c quality, you have to admit it appears to have been done in a weekend. I know it takes much more work, but in comparison to the excellent a/c quality its lacking for sure.

That is exactly what I've been trying to say. What happened to the world? Its straight from Falcon 4.0. At least you could have given us Arma. This is a helicopter sim. We don't need a whole a region. A map the size of Arma 2 would have been fine. You guys need to link up with that team that is using CryEngine 3, or I suspect they're going to leave you in the dust one day. The days of Pure Flight Sim are over. We have real computers now.

[Cali]

Got it!

 

Modern war aims to be unfair I can remember that the US forces even have a name for that.

 

I still like the fact that a XXX $ Unit can take out a XXXXXXX $or even a XXXXXXXX $ unit.

 

So at least it is somehow balanced or every war would be carried out like IRAQI Freedom :D

 

USA vs USA is balanced if you got a plane battlefield and clone soldiers that act all the same in the same situations.

 

Take THAT! :smartass:

 

Do you need someone to talk to?:crazy:

[BKLronin]

I don't have to take anything

 

Me either I´m clearly from the XXXXXXXX fraction.

 

Anyway you want see me from up there and you have to come down sooner or later :D

 

I enter my 50ie or 10 cockpit when I want to fly or load my G36K when I´m hungry for some hunting. I don´t need no "overall average" GTA with all possibilties.

 

Still not bored since the german KA50 release and I haven´t even spend more than a few hours in the campaign :D

[element1108]

That is exactly what I've been trying to say. What happened to the world? Its straight from Falcon 4.0. At least you could have given us Arma. This is a helicopter sim. We don't need a whole a region. A map the size of Arma 2 would have been fine. You guys need to link up with that team that is using CryEngine 3, or I suspect they're going to leave you in the dust one day. The days of Pure Flight Sim are over. We have real computers now.

 

Man, no disrespect here, but can you PLEAAAAASE stop comparing Black Shark with ARMA?!?!? Please!?!? A map the size of ARMA would NOT suffice, especially with FC compatibility or the future compatibility with other fast mover DCS modules. PLEASE STOP!? I find this thread interesting, but statements like this aren't cool.

 

You are assuming way more than you know here and you are singling yourself out as the man who knows it all. You don't i'm afraid, at ALL.

 

Just because a few people agree with you doesn't make it right or the way ED should do it. It sounds like you're more suited for ARMA or Crysis so you can enjoy those games while we enjoy ED's sims. For better or worse.

 

And lastly you need to stop telling ED what to do or what they should do, you have no idea business wise what this company should do to thrive, (neither do I for that matter, but I'm not telling them what they should do).

 

Going out and just buying a 3D engine costs a LOT of money, and that doesn't include the cost and the time it will take to fill that world with the better ai, dynamic campaign etc etc etc. Saying is very easy doing is much more difficult and complicated.

Edited January 17, 2011 by element1108

[Henchman14]

And we Crysis players are totally used to it. I've seen 30 people spaced far apart get killed when a mini-nuke hit the base. Doesn't phase us. Just got to send in more troops. This is the reality of war fought with modern weapons.

Look at Arma 2. In pitched battle, I've seen a Tunguska take down 3 A-10s before a maverick got him. Again, reality. There are nasty little weapons all over the battlefield that can take down a plane. No one is just going to hand you air-superiority. In the mission Battle, that's a pilots dream. In reality, there would have been far nastier AAA down there. Thats what countermeasures and cover were made for. But there seems to be very little cover, if any, in BS. This is why I really want to see a good heli mod in CryEngine 3.

[BKLronin]

Do you need someone to talk to?:crazy:

 

Yes and I found plenty of them.

[Henchman14]

Right, but I remember at least a few threads where manpads have been declared as the worst nightmare of our "super gunships".

 

I think it´s balanced or it has to be somewhat balanced in RL like it is in a game of chess.

War is not chess, and who ever said fair is fun? There's nothing fair about the VTOLs in Crysis, and their fun because they make you really have to think, adapt, and try harder to accomplish your goals. At first, I really hated them, but now, I'm used to them, and have gotten better because of the little nasties like them.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Henchman14

[Henchman14]

I don't have to take anything ... you can whine all you want about some A-10C dropping JDAMs on your head from 20000' where your MANPAD won't reach him ;)

LOL, exactly!

[winz]

We don't need a whole a region. A map the size of Arma 2 would have been fine.

Are you serious? Chernarus is 225 square km, thats 15x15km. Are you realy trying to suggest that it is ok to almost fire vikhr from one end of the map to another? Even if Arma 2 is the best infantry sim, it has lots to be desired in the terms of long range engagements.

 

You can see further in DCS than is the size of the Arma 2 map, that's why the scenery has to be so sparse and low-poly. Also, what has scenery and map size to do with gameplay?

Edited January 17, 2011 by winz

[element1108]

And we Crysis players are totally used to it. I've seen 30 people spaced far apart get killed when a mini-nuke hit the base. Doesn't phase us. Just got to send in more troops. This is the reality of war fought with modern weapons.

Look at Arma 2. In pitched battle, I've seen a Tunguska take down 3 A-10s before a maverick got him. Again, reality. There are nasty little weapons all over the battlefield that can take down a plane. No one is just going to hand you air-superiority. In the mission Battle, that's a pilots dream. In reality, there would have been far nastier AAA down there. Thats what countermeasures and cover were made for. But there seems to be very little cover, if any, in BS. This is why I really want to see a good heli mod in CryEngine 3.

 

You simply cannot fly A-10's the way they're meant to be flown in ARMA buddy. You obviously haven't played A-10C beta yet otherwise you'd know that. No avionics in ARMA, view distance is pathetic, you can't operate from proper altitudes without being able to see anything but pea soup.

 

Have you tried APache Air assault?? From the sounds of your likes and dislikes...I think you would really enjoy it. (seriously)

 

To also add: You joined what? Dec 2010? You haven't been apart of this community for long. New members are always welcomed, but when you come in off the street you don't start telling the company what they should do to "survive in the game" isn't really a great way for your voice to be heard.

Edited January 17, 2011 by element1108

[Henchman14]

And lastly you need to stop telling ED what to do or what they should do.

 

Were customers, its what we do. As for Arma, I could fly the BS over an area that size, hiding and popping. I would like to see, say, four times bigger for a heli sim. I do agree its too small for jets and the A10 though.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Henchman14

[element1108]

Were customers, its what we do. As for Arma, I could fly the BS over an area that size all day. I would like to see, say four times bigger for a heli sim. I do agree its too small for jets though, and a little small for the A10.

 

It's not what we do, I don't do that, I don't enjoy reading it, I don't enjoy the circles it creates. Having a educational discussion is one thing, a lot of what you're doing here is being belligerent.

 

I hate flying in ARMA so you represent one side, I represent the other. I'd much rather have a huge world to fly around in without the limits of map size or vis distance just to have a higher textured ground environment.

 

There's no point creating a smaller world for Black Shark because the idea is to have all DCS modules compatible with one another, so in order for that to happen you have to run the same engine for all of them. Do you have FC 2??? Black Shark can fly in the same online environment as LOMAC airframes...that's pretty cool.

 

 

Seriously, look into Apache Air Assault I think it will have almost everything you're lookming for...at the expense of "realism".

[Henchman14]

And in the end, you have nothing again but pure flight sim with no world. Eventually, no matter how good your sim is, other sims, who got the message and used something like CryEngine 3 will totally surpass you. And we don't have to have small worlds like Arma. CryEngine can do immense worlds. CWright on CryMod has proven that, even though Crytek didn't exactly want to support that in CE2. I'm pretty sure they are going to do so in CE3. I love a good flight sim, but I need a world to fly it in.

 

It's not what we do, I don't do that, I don't enjoy reading it, I don't enjoy the circles it creates. Having a educational discussion is one thing, a lot of what you're doing here is being belligerent.

 

And if you don't like good debate, don't post. Ignore the thread. Go find others to read. Don't think you can limit free speech here.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Henchman14

[winz]

Your knowledge of what it actualy takes to create a flight sim is astonishing.

You are not looking for a world, your are looking for pretty graphics and action-packed gameplay, that's the only thing cry engine can provide, not advanced avionics and aerodynamics modeling.

[element1108]

And in the end, you have nothing again but pure flight sim with no world. Eventually, no matter how good your sim is, other sims, who got the message and used something like CryEngine 3 will totally surpass you. And we don't have to have small worlds like Arma. CryEngine can do immense worlds. CWright on CryMod has proven that, even though Crytek didn't exactly want to support that in CE2. I'm pretty sure they are going to do so in CE3. I love a good flight sim, but I need a world to fly it in.

 

 

 

And if you don't like good debate, don't post. Ignore the thread. Go find others to read. Don't think you can limit free speech here.

 

This is a good debate I pointed out that some of your comments were somewhat belligerent is all. Telling a company how they conduct business for the sake of their future...given it's within your free speech right, doesn't validate it in any way.

 

There is no magic engine out there right now that can do it all and you're crazy if that's what you think. To understand if this engine would be MORE suitable for the DCS series you'd have to understand the inner workings of the DCS series and you simply don't. The same can be applied to this genius Cry Engine you speak of, you don't know it's limitations or if it would be useful at all for a complex study flight sim. It's like you read one thing on it and have taken the words of the author at face value and ignored everything else.

 

Why do you think flight sims are so rare? They cost LOADS to make and most gamers want exactly what you want? A larger than life game experience with realism, great graphics, immersion, dynamic campaign, mission editor, multiplayer, instant gratification, player is the hero, player makes a difference etc etc. They want it all for under $50.

 

Video games aren't going to replace the real world, not in the next 15 years anyway (after that who the hell knows) so ... yes we can improve on many things in the DCS series (of which they have admitted to and are striving towards) but that's not going to happen over night and it's not going to satisfy all of those needs. The wishlist is easy as hell to snap up, factor in each bullet point takes about 11 weeks to properly implement and you've got some time on your hands.

[GGTharos]

Which sims would those me?

 

Eventually, no matter how good your sim is, other sims, who got the message and used something like CryEngine 3 will totally surpass you.

 

There is no free speech on most forums.

 

Don't think you can limit free speech here.

[Henchman14]

Dude, there's a total amateur programmer over at Crymod doing just the things you say can't be done. Its an engine. You can change it to do whatever you want. And flight models are just math. I think you are mistaking the Engine with the Game.

 

@Tharos - you saw the videos. Obviously, that company is ready to go the next step, and use CryEngine 3 for their sim's world. In the end, my purchase will always be with the company that pushes the limits the most.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Henchman14

[GGTharos]

I think you're mistaking an engine with the required effort in all aspects of said game ;)

[element1108]

Dude, there's a total amateur programmer over at Crymod doing just the things you say can't be done. Its an engine. You can change it to do whatever you want. And flight models are just math. I think you are mistaking the Engine with the Game.

 

@Tharos - you saw the videos. Obviously, that company is ready to go the next step, and use CryEngine 3 for their sim's world. In the end, my purchase will always be with the company that pushes the limits the most.

 

You're talking about this engine right?

 

If not I need to see what you're talking about here, might help me understand more where you're coming from.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=65705

 

You think that is the sim changing engine? From a ground perspective it looks pretty cool, but i don't see the potential it has for aircraft capable of flying 20,000. If you're being helicopter specific again DCS (digital combat series) is making individual flight sims that are (the hope is) to be compatible with one another. If you create a low terrain outstanding graphic engine than you're limited to just helicopters, fixed wing aircraft would be useless. This would in the long run limit what ED can produce module wise (only helicopters) and limit they're potential military contracts to just rotary craft. THAT would hurt their business more than blindly switching over to this magic cry engine that although looks cool, doesn't look like a flight sim capable engine.

 

Outerra has more potential for flight sims than this and again, looking at the engine alone isn't really the best way to educate your conclusions.

 

And math is never just math man, don't over simplify ;)

[winz]

You can change it to do whatever you want.

Engine is build around doing a specific area of things. Because different problems (i.e. draw optimalization) have different optimal solutions in different situations. There is no universal solution, you have to make compromises. Computers still have limited power, limited memory, limited bus bandwith.

 

And making a map the size of chernarus with mostly flat terain and no objects is not even a start for a flight sim.

 

You cannot force cryengine do be a full flight simulator no more you can force Starcraft 2 engine to be a FPS.

 

And flight models are just math.

Math can be get pretty complex, you know?

[BKLronin]

http://combathelo.blogspot.com/

 

Getting back to the original topic - Combat helo sounds pretty promising when it comes to an interesting campaign. Definetely something that adds the feeling you can reach something with your action something like a dynamic and big goal.

[Conure]

Hi guys,

 

I've been overthinking again and thought...Is it a possibility to have 2 distinct game engines that only interact.

 

For example..Arma 2s ground level graphics for the guys on the ground, and DCS graphics for the guys in the air, where DCS calculates the physics etc, for aircraft position and then sends aircraft position simply as a set of coordinates to the Arma engine...No calculating needs to be done on the part of the Arma engine regarding that...DCS could have extremely low textures for the Infantry...The Arma engine on the other hand could calculate bullet positions etc which would then be sent back to the DCS engine purely as hit or miss with a rough location (i.e outer left wing)

 

That was 2 engines could calculate entirely what each was specialised for, whilst communicating with the other in a very real but ultimately cosmetic way.

 

Impossible?

[bogusheadbox]

Well i suppose this brings us back to one of the hottest debates we have had regarding DCS series.

 

And that is a dynamic campaign. A truly dynamic campaign (available in co-op and singleplayer) would give traffic and life to the sim and the ongoing dynamic understanding that what you do will effect the cause of the ongoing war.

 

If DCS had a dynamic campaign, i am sure the "I'm bored / what to do now" threads would / should not appear.

 

Hell, the dynamic campaign kept falcon 4 going way past its used by date quite simply as nothing could (and still can't) offer anything close to it.

 

.

.

.

.

@ conure, Its a good idea and in essence we all would like it, but realistically..... How many Arma 2 players would sit on a plane for a minimum of 25 minutes to get to where they can start to move towards the hot zone.

Edited January 17, 2011 by bogusheadbox

[Henchman14]

Hi guys,

 

I've been overthinking again and thought...Is it a possibility to have 2 distinct game engines that only interact.

 

For example..Arma 2s ground level graphics for the guys on the ground, and DCS graphics for the guys in the air, where DCS calculates the physics etc, for aircraft position and then sends aircraft position simply as a set of coordinates to the Arma engine...No calculating needs to be done on the part of the Arma engine regarding that...DCS could have extremely low textures for the Infantry...The Arma engine on the other hand could calculate bullet positions etc which would then be sent back to the DCS engine purely as hit or miss with a rough location (i.e outer left wing)

 

That was 2 engines could calculate entirely what each was specialised for, whilst communicating with the other in a very real but ultimately cosmetic way.

 

Impossible?

 

 

An interesting thought, and probably somewhat doable, but it still leaves the pilot with a somewhat bland world. My bets still on putting a sim in CE3.