LOMAC vs DCS: A10C

[Jinja]

can the executable be altered?

 

 

Say whaaaaaaaaa?

 

Are you going to pimp it with DX11 this weekend? :megalol:

[Dudikoff]

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.

 

Well, if these Call Of Duty games (and its close cousins - MOA, BF, etc.) with around 5 hours of single player gameplay, even more outdated engines and gameplay concepts which haven't changed from Doom can warrant such a price, I'd agree that this is a bargain.

 

I'm sure everybody would want an updated multi-threaded engine, but even if money was no concern and you wanted to buy a suitable off-the-shelf solution, I don't think there'd be one right now. Consoles have taken over the gaming and are in a way blocking the development of new concepts with their obsolete hardware (we have to wait for the next generation). Besides, developing anything has become so expensive to make that I'm happy that there is DCS in any form, however pissed I am that it never runs great performance wise :) And that the next plane won't be something like the Flanker, but a soulless Western clickology fest like the F-16.. ;)

[TDBONE1]

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 told him :megalol:

 

so because i want an updated game engine and physics "then i must want an arcade game like hawx"

 

that is why i told you i bought janes f15 and janes fa 18 and falcon4 and then lockon..

 

do any of those game start with "hawx"

 

ok dont pull that card please.

 

i just want a GOOD UPDATED SIM

is that to much to ask for?

[=4c=Nikola]

Well, I guess you can develop it all alone, because, obviously there are no men that can/want do that right now.

While you do that, please notice how much actually it cost to develop :)

[Dudikoff]

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

 

Gee, thanks for being so out of my league to grant my discussion with any counter argument but this rather condescending remark, but then go all the way down to answer every sentence from the TDBONE1's repeating rant about the price. Interesting. I'll leave it at that.

Edited February 22, 2011 by Dudikoff

[winz]

How many time do we need to tell you. The physics is updated and is beyond what physX is designed and capable to do. And is beyond any sim has done before.

It fludly simulates aerodynmic forces affecting the airframe.

[ArcticAge]

so because i want an updated game engine and physics "then i must want an arcade game like hawx"

 

that is why i told you i bought janes f15 and janes fa 18 and falcon4 and then lockon..

 

do any of those game start with "hawx"

 

ok dont pull that card please.

 

i just want a GOOD UPDATED SIM

is that to much to ask for?

 

Com'on stop trolling. If you don't want the game then DO NOT buy it...

[leafer]

He's just trolling, people.

[Mirtma]

I'm searching how many games are (or to be announced) to be dx11. Not all that much. http://www.gamertechtv.com/2010/directx11-games-for-2010-and-2011/

[GGTharos]

Nope, I just don't have time to go further into it right now (I also thought you'd gather some info on your own, I pegged you for that type). If you do want commentary I can do so later. Very briefly, I know people who worked with GPUs and the programming environment is challenging to begin with - they are simply not well suited to doing physics for a sim like this.

 

Gee, thanks for being so out of my league to grant my discussion with any counter argument but this rather condescending remark, but then go all the way down to answer every sentence from the TDBONE1's repeating rant about the price. Interesting. I'll leave it at that.

[Vullcan]

I'm searching how many games are (or to be announced) to be dx11. Not all that much. http://www.gamertechtv.com/2010/directx11-games-for-2010-and-2011/

 

You realize that DCS A-10 is #5 on the list of games for 2011? :doh:

[Kevlon]

dont want updated avionics.

i dont want updated cockpits

i dont want updated models

 

 

jeez, man. stop bitching and go play ArmA 2

[Mirtma]

You realize that DCS A-10 is #5 on the list of games for 2011? :doh:

 

Yes, I know. It was intended to at first.

[S77th-konkussion]

:wassat::thumbdown:

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

$59.00 is alot of money....that price should be for a game with a brand new engine that use multi-threading and dx11 i would think.

However, DCS is not a game, it is a simulator. Black Shark is a simulator as well. Real simulators used by real military pilots. And you get that for $60 bucks. Multi-threading was present in Flaming Cliffs and DCS for many years. And you do get multi-core software engine in DCS. DX 11 is not there yet, but this is not a FPS game for kids. All in all you get a lot for $60 dollars.

[nomdeplume]

i just want a GOOD UPDATED SIM

is that to much to ask for?

No it's not, and it's exactly what DCS: A-10C Warthog is. There have been many updates to the sim, such as the new AI task system and AI radio traffic, interactive JTAC/AFAC script, bullseye concept, improved graphics, modeling of laser-guided bombs, new CBU modeling, and lots of other things that enhance the simulation experience.

 

What you're asking for is a sim that has ticks some particular technology bullet points that you think enhance any game, without regard as to the practicality of implementing it or the actual benefits it would bring.

 

And again, $60 isn't a lot, at least not here - new titles are generally in the $80-90 or higher price range. So, even if you ignore all the improvements made and consider it just the "same old engine with a new plane", it's actually not in the "top tier" price range so why would you expect "top tier" features?

[Zomba]

Honestly I am amazed at the bitching and trolling going on in this thread. This is the bleeding edge in flight simulation that sticks obsessively to the whole concept of study sim, and yet since it doesn't have multicore or DX11 support (Yet) it's a massive failure? That is incredible logic right there, let me tell you.

 

ED only has so much resources at it's disposal. If they rolled out DX11 and multicore support with release then what parts of the sim would have to be neglected? Or more important, which parts would you prefer to be compromised to achieve this?

 

If it doesn't meet your lofty goals then why just sit here trolling?

[Speed]

$60.00 is petty cache to me.

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

 

<bla bla bla rambling bla bla bla whining bla bla bla ignorance bla bla bla...>

 

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?

 

Considering that the only thing you value is graphics, and you do not value realism, then HAWX is most definately the game for you. It's simple, mindless, you can blow stuff up all day, and you get a new game engine and graphics. You could play it while in a coma. Don't bother with DCS.

Edited February 22, 2011 by Speed

[Frostie]

$60.00 is petty cache to me.

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

I don't think being away from the community for almost half of your life combined with having no amount of knowledge on DCS gives you the right to judge on what is a deserved value.

 

Its not hard, you have a choice to fly and be a part of the most realistic public flight simulator series known to man or NOT.

 

Its not a tricky poser and no amount of whinning is going to change your options.

 

Choose wisely or sit on your hands for another 5 years. :thumbup:

[Total]

@TDBone:

 

I remember the first day I was able to run LockOn on full settings (that includes ramping up options not seen in GUI screen, but in the config file) without experiencing system lag over cities or in an intense AO. That was only two years ago.

 

The game engine IS updated.

 

I have run PhysX-based games. The effects are neat, but really have no place in DCS. PhysX was great in Trine and Mirror's Edge, but the games played just as well without Physx enabled. At this point, Physx is still a "neat thing when you have a reason to add it" but it's just not a requirement for DCS from a technology standpoint. Just because Physx is marketed as the end-all be-all, doesn't mean that it is. It's cool, but that's about it.

 

Load the stock version of LockOn and then load either Flaming Cliffs 2 or DCS and you'll see a completely different engine.

 

If you can't, then you're either blind or standing atop too much pride to admit it.

 

DCS A-10C started off with DX11 development. They ended it.

 

Why?

 

Simple - DX11 doesn't have the much impact when you're in the air, flying at high speeds, and distanced away from everything except your cockpit instruments. If this were an on-the-ground pound and smash shooter, I would agree with you. But this is a flight sim where it just wasn't economical to work something in that was, in the end, not going to give the sim any real visible advantage and would possibly kill system performance for those who aren't running $3500 dedicated gaming rigs.

 

I'm not an ED fanboy. They make decisions I don't agree with and other that I do. In the end though, they put out a quality product that I am willing to buy as I know I will get years of replay out of it. Blackshark was released at the end of 2008. I am still playing it after two years. LockOn was released in 2003. The updates have kept it enjoyable for going on 8 years.

 

Unless you've played LockOn through the Flaming Cliffs addon, then through Flaming Cliffs 2, and along with DCS Blackshark, then your accusations of a non-updated engine are baseless. You have no idea how this sim will actually tax your system.....and believe me, it will :D

Edited February 22, 2011 by Total

[EtherealN]

One further point:

 

Take Battlefield: Bad Company 2. Run it with Dx11. Then without Dx11. Did you see the difference? If you did, you need to check your eyes - because it's been confirmed by the developers that Dx11 was only used to make a few graphical effects render slightly faster; the end result of the graphics pipeline is exactly identical.

 

TDBone, basically, I just suspect you do not understand how this type of technology works. You think you do, but you don't.

[Dudikoff]

Very briefly, I know people who worked with GPUs and the programming environment is challenging to begin with - they are simply not well suited to doing physics for a sim like this.

 

Thanks. It's hard to understand what is meant by a short comment, exactly, especially when the next post is dissecting a post which was much more of a ever-repeating rant than my feeble attempt at making a meaningful discussion.

 

Mind you, you might have missed some of my posts in this thread, because I have never said that I expect PhysX in DCS as I commented on their limited resources. I was just trying to defend the idea behind PhysX as not being useless for flight sims in general (as some have said) just because the realization has failed because of lack of standardization and no actual need for it in today's (pitifully shallow) games.

 

If it was standardized (meaning, to work on both the ATI and Nvidia hardware) and thus used in every game and you had more complex games, I'm pretty sure you would have various much more advanced SDKs developed which could be put to good use even in DCS. The hardware is more powerful than CPUs for some tasks (with so many parallel execution units), stackable and rather affordable with today's competition. This is all I'm trying to say - PhysX is not maxed out at making the glass break down in more detail in Mirror's Edge as seems to be the general prejudice about it.

Edited February 22, 2011 by Dudikoff

[garengarch]

$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?

 

This is like an episode of "Handy Manny" - tools that can talk:lol:

[TDBONE1]

ok lets leave physx out of it.

i will let that one go as alot of devs dont use it as much of it can be done on newer cpus anyhow.

 

but im not going to leave out multi-threaded support when that has been around since 2000 when quake3 came out.

 

this is 11 years later and by not including multi-core/threaded support just shows that the original game engine (lockon) has not been messed with to much.

 

am i correct on this?

it sure does seem EVERYTHING out these days supports multi-core/multi-threads.

so not having it in this game seems strange.

im not talking about adding the sound to one of the cores/threads...im talking everything in the game engine should be multi-core that can be multi-core.

 

here is my take on it.

it just seems like the people who used to make the addon cockpits for lockon did the same thing for this game and then resold it as a new game when really it just has new sounds (radio messages) and new cockpits that are clickable.

 

i want to see new terrain and geometry.....for some reason when i watch the videos of DCS: A10C it looks just like i was watching lockon original.

 

im sorry but unless someone can show me a side by side comparison it looks the same to me for those 2 games.

 

its just like falcon 4 original vs allied forces.....you can completely tell its the same engine 100%

 

if you do look at hawx 2 gameplay it does look 100x better imho.....now its flying area might not be that big or what not but it does at least look newer.

 

same for IL2 and all its updates.....you can tell its off the same engine and nothing new.

 

when are we actually going to get a new game that was designed from ground up for todays hardware instead of coming off the same old game engine?

 

i dont want to sound ungrateful because without this update then we are left will nothing....i mean it would be il2 (latest version) or allied forces or FC2 or Blackshark.

 

so i am glad DCS did this game but for $60.00 shouldnt we really be getting something brand new?

 

i would think more like the $30.00 range would be more expected.

 

i sure wish there was a demo.

[EtherealN]

this is 11 years later and by not including multi-core/threaded support just shows that the original game engine (lockon) has not been messed with to much.

 

Yeah, it only has a new graphics engine (Dx7 to Dx9), completely new sound engine running in it's own thread, new net code, new GUI, new mission logic, completely new flight model engine, completely new instrumentation engine...

 

So...

 

am i correct on this?

 

...no.

 

it sure does seem EVERYTHING out these days supports multi-core/multi-threads.

 

Seems like it, yes.

But in most cases developers will report their game as being "multithreaded" as soon as it is spread out over more than one thread. In that sense - DCS:A-10C (and DCS:BS, and FC2) are indeed multithreaded.

 

I guess Eagle Dynamics just made the mistake of being honest about the exact extent of threading being done.

 

Similarly, any game using Dx9 or later on a Vista or 7 platform can also make a claim at multithreading if the developer is being slightly dishonest - since the driver itself does some threading stuff. In that sense - most games have multithreaded graphics and sometimes claim so on that basis alone. Eagle Dynamics however made the mistake of being honest and does not consider that as multithreading.

 

im talking everything in the game engine should be multi-core that can be multi-core.

 

Show me a game that has that. Any game.

 

it just seems like the people who used to make the addon cockpits for lockon did the same thing for this game and then resold it as a new game when really it just has new sounds (radio messages) and new cockpits that are clickable.

 

Again: you really do not understand this. Here's the list again:

New graphics engine.

New sound engine.

New flight engine.

New instrumentation engine.

New GUI.

New AI.

New netcode.

New weather engine.

New mission logic.

New avionics engine.

New hydraulics computation. (There wasn't any before)

 

i want to see new terrain and geometry.....for some reason when i watch the videos of DCS: A10C it looks just like i was watching lockon original.

 

...and new and expanded map with a much increased level of detail. Here's an idea: go watch some screenshots of Lock On. Then watch DCS:A-10C. Do some comparisons (resources on the digitalcombatsimulator.com site).

 

You are so far off mark it's not even funny.

 

im sorry but unless someone can show me a side by side comparison it looks the same to me for those 2 games.

 

Why not do it yourself? Google works.

 

if you do look at hawx 2 gameplay it does look 100x better imho.....now its flying area might not be that big or what not but it does at least look newer.

 

...

Just wow.

 

so i am glad DCS did this game but for $60.00 shouldnt we really be getting something brand new?

 

See the list above in my post.

 

Do you bitch at Bioware for taking 60 dollars for Mass Effect 2? I mean, for that money you'd expect something brand new, not just a re-use of the Unreal engine? Right?

 

You seem to just completely miss the point.

Edited February 22, 2011 by EtherealN