LOMAC vs DCS: A10C

[nomdeplume]

I think it's very strange you would base your buying decisions on technical things like "version of DirectX supported" and "is it multithreaded?" and "does it use PhysX?". I would think someone considering buying a flight sim would be more concerned with the accuracy of the flight model, how detailed the avionics are, interaction with the game world, etcetera.

 

As for a "rebadged game", you clearly don't understand the difference between the DCS series and LOMAC. Did you play Black Shark at all? The amount of detail in the avionics and flight modeling is on a completely different level to LOMAC. This is a study sim; the former is a survey sim. It's only one aircraft, but every relevant system (and some irrelevant systems) are simulated in as much detail as possible.

 

There's no demo and so far as I know, none is planned. There are many videos on YouTube which should give you an idea as to the detail of the flight simulation.

 

If all you're looking for though is a bunch of company logos to appear on the splash screen, you're probably not just looking at the wrong game, but entirely the wrong genre.

[Mirtma]

@TDBONE1: No comment... I'm going to start A10 and enjoy this great dx9c sim. :pilotfly:

[Jinja]

im not complaining about the price.

im complaining about the price of a rebagged game at a new $60.00 price.

 

Bone(head),

 

So you've been away for 4-5 years, and with no research or reading of FAQs, forums, you wade in with an attitude and a bag full of incorrect assumptions???

 

Nice going.

 

"A-10C is a rebadged game"?? Have you ignored everything that people have said in this thread?

 

I'm not even going to bother pointing you in the right direction....

[Para_Bellum]

...anyhow if im paying $60.00 the game engine should be a DX11 game and support PhysX...

 

That statement shows such an utter lack of understanding of what DCS:A-10 is all about that it's simply mind-boggling.

 

:doh:

[=4c=Nikola]

im not complaining about the price.

im complaining about the price of a rebagged game at a new $60.00 price.

 

if the original game engine hasnt been updated to support DX10 or DX11 and there is no PhysX added for a game that would LOVE PhysX acceleration then why would i pay $60.00?

 

 

if i wanted to play a dx9 game i would get rid of my win7 machine and my vista machine and step back to the days of winxp.....lets see that came out in 2001 or something didnt it?

well really dx9c came out in the days of win98 didnt it?

 

anyhow if im paying $60.00 the game engine should be a DX11 game and support PhysX.

 

im not trying to get anyone ticked off....im just speaking for myself.

 

is there a demo out so i can test it?

 

Did you tried HAWX and HAWX 2? I just feel it's perfect game for you. :)

[Mirtma]

I've tried to suggest those games, but couldn't remember title.:music_whistling:

[winz]

anyhow if im paying $60.00 the game engine should be a DX11 game

Yes, tesselation and shaders are the most important things for a flight sim...

support PhysX

...followed by hw accelerated object interaction physics...

 

Atleast you got your priorities right...

[TDBONE1]

you can say anything you want.

 

but this is 2011 i checked

 

if the dev team cant program the game in DX11 i am going to believe something is wrong.

 

i will think either its a team that just dont know how to do it or they dont have the rights to mess with the game engine.

 

any game company these days (that charge $60.00) for a game will be making the game in DX11.

 

tell me why the game is not programmed in DX11 and multi-threaded?

 

i mean single core (well 2 cores if you count the 2nd for the sound)

 

come on....this is year 2011.

[Dudikoff]

PhysX is the most useless tool for flight model. Amen.

 

That's a rather bold statement as these things seem to be well suited for a flight-model based on fluid dynamics and 3d model shapes.

 

The problem is that it's not standardized and basically no games nowadays (shallow linear path narrow mapped action shooters) need something like such complex calculations so nobody is investing into developing anything useful for it gaming-wise. Not a bad idea, though.

 

tell me why the game is not programmed in DX11 and multi-threaded?

 

Because developing a completely new engine from scratch (to be really multi threaded) takes too much time and resources which they cannot afford?

Edited February 22, 2011 by Dudikoff

[NoJoe]

[EDIT] This is directed to TDBONE1:

 

So, wait... Tell us, what advances from DX11 are you expecting to see that can't be done in DX9?

 

I think you're getting too focused on the technology behind the sim, and not looking at what the sim itself provides. It really is an astounding simulation! Graphics are great, sound is awesome, and the simulation of flight model/systems/switches/procedures... Love it! :D

 

Take a step back and try to look at the sim for what it is, not for how you think it should be built. :thumbup:

 

--NoJoe

[muamshai]

60$ is a lot, really?

Ok, let's make this easier for you. Suppose that you are out on a date:

 

Movie tickets for 2: 20$ if you are going to a good cinema

Dinner + drinks for 2: 30$ at least

Popcorn if she likes it: 1$

Fuel price : 5$ (depends upon distance)

Buying her flowers : 3$

Preparation for date : 20 min.

and throw in the factor that you are not sure about getting laid..

 

...and you still think that 60$ is a lot? :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

[Mirtma]

PhysX is for Nvidia cards or am I wrong?

[=4c=Nikola]

you can say anything you want.

 

but this is 2011 i checked

 

if the dev team cant program the game in DX11 i am going to believe something is wrong.

 

i will think either its a team that just dont know how to do it or they dont have the rights to mess with the game engine.

 

any game company these days (that charge $60.00) for a game will be making the game in DX11.

 

tell me why the game is not programmed in DX11 and multi-threaded?

 

i mean single core (well 2 cores if you count the 2nd for the sound)

 

come on....this is year 2011.

 

This is not game, this is simulator.

[winz]

Because there is no actual benefit gained from DX11 other than fancy graphical gimmicks, that you wouldn't even notice.

And the manhours required to implement them is better spent in areas that actually matters for a flight sim - flight model, avionics, AI, mission generator...

 

There aim of this flight sim is to deliver the best possible representation o A-10C with all its properties and abilities.

[Eddie]

Because it's a big elephant and needs to be eaten in small bites. DCS is a modular series, A-10C is the second module more will follow. And with more modules will bring more improvements such as DX11.

 

As to why physx isn't used, because it's useless for flight modelling, as Yo-Yo stated above. And he should know given that he wrote the flight model and most of the physics modelling.

 

This is not an FPS, it is not HAWX, it is a study flight simulator and as such requires different things.

 

At the end of the day, if eye candy features such as DX11 and Physx are more important to you than accurate flight, avionics and weapon modelling, then DCS is not for you and never will be.

[winz]

That's a rather bold statement as these things seem to be well suited for a flight-model based on fluid dynamics and 3d model shapes.

Does the fluid dynamics model also simulates lift and other aerodynamics effects caused by the fluid? Or is it only able to demonstrate how the fluid flows over some object? And if so, how good can it be fine-tuned (as we want the characteristic of the plane to be spot on). And what about complex situations, would it be able to simulate i.e. increased roll rate with speed brake extracted? And how efficient would it be?

Just a few questions that immediately popped in my head.

[WynnTTr]

you can say anything you want.

 

but this is 2011 i checked

 

if the dev team cant program the game in DX11 i am going to believe something is wrong.

 

i will think either its a team that just dont know how to do it or they dont have the rights to mess with the game engine.

 

any game company these days (that charge $60.00) for a game will be making the game in DX11.

 

tell me why the game is not programmed in DX11 and multi-threaded?

 

i mean single core (well 2 cores if you count the 2nd for the sound)

 

come on....this is year 2011.

What games are coming out that are in dx11 and multi-threaded? - heck, what games currently out meet those two requirements.

 

Reality check for you - very few are both. It's just not worth the man hours to code for both. Plus it's not viable commercially as you won't be catering for the majority of people out there with older systems.

 

Have you seen the prices for Call of Duty or Hawkx these days? This is cheap compared to that brainless pos.

 

You can say anything you want, buy it or not, no skin off my back. I know what the game is like already and it's definitely worth more than a night out alone, at the pub (which is probably $60).

[nomdeplume]

tell me why the game is not programmed in DX11 and multi-threaded?

"Time constraints" seems like the likely answer to that question.

 

They started on the DirectX 11 implementation and it was actually slated as a 'feature' of the game in early 2010, but they decided not to go ahead with it for the release. Basically, it would take too much time to get anything worthwhile out of DirectX 11, and I think it's still a bit premature to do DX11-only titles (still lots of Windows XP out there).

 

And for multi-threading, again it's a very complex engine and pulling it to multi-thread it without breaking anything would take a long time. The game performs well enough as-is.

 

Personally, I'll take a well-performing, nice-looking, excellent simulation that I can play today over a multi-threaded, DirectX 11 simulation I can play maybe next year.

 

... and what Eddie said. Seriously, if you don't even care about the actual simulation features then I'm pretty sure this isn't for you. You're not going to be able to pick it up and fly in 5 minutes like you can with LOMAC. (Well technically you can, but you won't have a clue what you're doing. :D)

[Dudikoff]

Does the fluid dynamics model also simulates lift and other aerodynamics effects caused by the fluid? Or is it only able to demonstrate how the fluid flows over some object? And if so, how good can it be fine-tuned (as we want the characteristic of the plane to be spot on). And what about complex situations, would it be able to simulate i.e. increased roll rate with speed brake extracted? And how efficient would it be?

Just a few questions that immediately popped in my head.

 

Look, I'm not an aeronautics engineer and not working for NASA, I'm just ranting on the forum instead of going to bed :)

 

I'm just making assumptions (read: talking out of my ass), but, that would be the ideal flight model where the shape of the object and it's speed determines how it behaves in flight. That way you would not have to tweak lots of flight model engine parameters for each airplane to get convincing enough behaviour in (at least) the most used flight regimes and sacrifice the behaviour in some transitional states. But I guess it would not be a flight model anymore per se, but more like a real-time aerodynamics simulation :)

 

Also, I'm not trying to sell you the PhysX, it doesn't seem to go anywhere, but I'm just saying that it's a sound concept to put to good the rather affordable GPU power for some very complex calculations which could one day find their way into consumer flight simulations. Too bad the software is lacking behind hardware so much. At least for the graphics, you can add a lot of shader effects to an old graphics engine and hide its origins and deficiencies. But you can't do that to the software because the multi-threaded engine concepts are not well conceived yet so the extra CPU cores are rather useless while the performance still suffers. It would be great if they could move the AI to a separate thread(s) as they did with sound - I think that would give us the option of making rather more populated scenarios.

Edited February 22, 2011 by Dudikoff

[TDBONE1]

$60.00 is petty cache to me.

im not just going to give my $60.00 away when it is undeserved.

 

this is 2011 and the game should support DX11 and hardware physics and definately be multi-threaded.

 

i dont think there is anyone around that can argue that it should not be at least multi-threaded.

 

 

you can say whatever you want about dx9 but that technology is OLD....you can not deny it.

 

i pay good money for my system.

 

i have a Phenom II x4 955BE OC to 3.6ghz

dual 5870`s in crossfire

4gig ram

ssd

windows 7 64bit

 

ok if im paying $60.00 the game better be able to take advantage of my system

oh and yea i know its a sim but in the end it is a game/software.

 

oh and i used to play falcon4....i had the original binder etc...and followed it for a LONG time.

i also had janes F18 and F15 before F4

 

lockon stole me away from F4.

 

now if i am going to shell out $60.00 the game needs updated TECHNOLOGY wise.

 

and for the people that say DX9 is good enough......then lets just go back to DX6

im sure DX6 would be super fast....

 

it wouldnt look as nice or have some of the nice features of DX9 "but the flight model is great in DX6"

 

ok come on...if im going to pay $60.00 then give me a game that warrants that price.

 

i dont want updated avionics.

i dont want updated cockpits

i dont want updated models

 

I WANT updated GAME ENGINE.

 

thanks

 

ps:

it reminds me of F4 and the freefalcon developement.

can the executable be altered?

Edited February 22, 2011 by TDBONE1

[Boberro]

$60.00 is petty cache to me.

i dont want updated avionics.

i dont want updated cockpits

i dont want updated models

 

I WANT updated GAME ENGINE.

 

You have other priorities than you can demand from product which tries to simulate something. Those things which you don't want are priorities in this genre. It is very good if another aspects like graphics, tech solutions are added - but they are NOT the main goal of product - they're around of that what you don't want to have :)

Edited February 22, 2011 by Boberro

[GGTharos]

I'm just making assumptions (read: talking out of my ass)

 

Yes, you mostly are. I'll leave it at that ;)

[GGTharos]

i dont think there is anyone around that can argue that it should not be at least multi-threaded.

 

I can, but I guess that's because I have a clue. It isn't that there is not a desire to have it multi-threaded, but it is not a requirement. As if you'd be able to tell.

 

you can say whatever you want about dx9 but that technology is OLD....you can not deny it.

So are 707's.

 

ok if im paying $60.00 the game better be able to take advantage of my system

It does.

 

now if i am going to shell out $60.00 the game needs updated TECHNOLOGY wise.

It is already updated technology wise.

 

and for the people that say DX9 is good enough......then lets just go back to DX6

im sure DX6 would be super fast....

LO was DX7. What huge changes have you seen between that and DX9? Oh, wait ... 'not much'. ;)

Just what are you expecting to see?

 

it wouldnt look as nice or have some of the nice features of DX9 "but the flight model is great in DX6"

 

ok come on...if im going to pay $60.00 then give me a game that warrants that price.

 

i dont want updated avionics.

i dont want updated cockpits

i dont want updated models

 

I WANT updated GAME ENGINE.

 

thanks

 

ps:

it reminds me of F4 and the freefalcon developement.

can the executable be altered?

It does warrant the price, the exe cannot be altered, and I think what you want is HAWX. You also like to work for free.

[leafer]

PhysX is the most useless tool for flight model. Amen.

 

:D

[=4c=Nikola]

i dont want updated avionics.

i dont want updated cockpits

i dont want updated models

 

I WANT updated GAME ENGINE.

 

thanks

You DO NOT have to buy this simulator. Your money, your call.

 

This simulator does not offer fully multi-core usage, nor DX-11, so this is not game for you, so if that's only things you really care about, you definitely should not buy this simulator

 

I think what you want is HAWX.

 

I told him :megalol:

Edited February 22, 2011 by =4c=Nikola