Falcon 4 was a milestone in Sims some 10 years ago...

[hassata]

Time for Asparagin to do work.

[asparagin]

Time for Asparagin to do work.

 

:megalol:...It doesn't work I tell you!

[GGTharos]

Because that's not how contracts work.

 

If you don't like it, you don't have to buy it.

 

To those who wishes things that you already have plenty of them somewhere else highly detailed: Why not something different?? Why not a full detailed russian fighter? I have enough of US hardware because it's simulated really everywhere.... good lord...

[Conure]

To the thread starter. You are wrong! It's just your excitement speaking out of you.

 

You forget something very important what DCS A-10 doesn't make a milestone:

 

A DYNAMIC CAMPAIGN. So the "Overall" king for me is Falcon. Still... after all these many many years there is no competition. And now look... what has happened in the last over 10 years... in politics, science... etc. ... unbelievable. DCS A-10 is comparable to FSX (look out for the new coming addon for the F-18 superbug... checkout simhq.com )

 

To those who wishes things that you already have plenty of them somewhere else highly detailed: Why not something different?? Why not a full detailed russian fighter? I have enough of US hardware because it's simulated really everywhere.... good lord...

 

If TOP GUN has taught me anything it's that Russian hardware doesn't work. Neither do Tomcat ejector seats but that's besides the point.

 

And what do you mean we already have enough of US hardware? There hasn't been a sim as detailed as A10 for US hardware in years....Personally I'd love to see an FA/18 simulator as that thing is a work of art...You also have the SU-27...Sure it's not great for switchologists but the FM is great. And you have the Shark...More Russian hardware...

 

This is irrelevant anyway as our desires have nothing to do with it!

[Teej]

I'm actually not joking, you do have all the tools required. You can output lua, you can parse the log files, etcetera. The thing is that for there to be any point in having it, it has to be able to generate a realistic campaign. Not an "immersive" one, even though that is of course nice. But the point here is realism - especially when looking at synergies with the military market. And no, Falcon 4 did not have a realistic DC. Immersive, sure. Realistic, no.

 

A realistic campaign would be pretty boring in most cases...at least in Falcon.

 

North Korea has ~ 35-40 MiG-29 and they're concentrated around pyongyang. How interesting would that really be in Falcon? Instead, in falcon (at least in ACE where most campaigns got flown online) they had ~ 150 or so, all in perfect working order with top notch pilots. ;)

[asparagin]

A realistic campaign would be pretty boring in most cases...at least in Falcon.

 

North Korea has ~ 35-40 MiG-29 and they're concentrated around pyongyang. How interesting would that really be in Falcon? Instead, in falcon (at least in ACE where most campaigns got flown online) they had ~ 150 or so, all in perfect working order with top notch pilots. ;)

 

I think EtherealN didn't meant strategic realism, but tactical realism.

[Cedaway]

About the Falcon 4 dynamic campain... :music_whistling:

 

http://www.cleared-to-engage.com/2011/03/12/interview-with-kevin-klemmick-lead-software-engineer-for-falcon-4-0/

 

:music_whistling:

[sylkhan]

It's fun.

So make one. :)

I'm actually not joking, you do have all the tools required. You can output lua, you can parse the log files, etcetera.

 

You are serious ?

 

DCS engine can't handle a dynamic compaigne (without true multicore engine or bubble)

DCS has no persistant world

IA will not work correctly, No true ATC etc ..etc...

 

It's not possible to developp a working dynamic campaign for DCS, it was not design in this way (flanker), Falcon was.

 

Dcs engine is not ready, too many limitations. the Devs are well aware of that.

 

Develloping a dynamic campaign now, would be a waste and time and energy.

 

It's fun.

no, Falcon 4 did not have a realistic DC. Immersive, sure. Realistic, no.

 

Do you think that DCS Blackshark campaign is more realistic ?

Less fun, yes, more realistic, not sure :)

 

You can say all you want about the falcon campaign, but for sure it's a true jewell for the vast majority of hardcore simer.

 

I hope one day the DCS serie will have a true dynamic campaign, the sooner the better :)

[SUBS17]

Never bought AF, but all the different versions of F4 from the beginning to OF and FF versions you have to manually set the times of packages so the sweep/sam suppression/strike/escort/recon arrived at the right times and often re-do flight paths over obvious sam sites. No way you could do this for every tasking over the whole theater which led to inefficient strikes and massive attrition that would often grind the campaign to a halt within a few days as all the assets are gone.

 

You need to read the how to win the DC file yes there is some strategic thinking involved and you do have to manually set a few flights but not to many. In fact I have flown and helped guys win full ACE realism with ACE AI on the hardest campaign setting. For my own DC that I've beaten required just rescheduling of a few flights and some ground units it was over on just a couple of days in real time. The beauty of F4AF is to be able to do this in MP and help other people win campaigns also the Tactical Engagement is awesome for inter Squardron fights as you can actually plan each package/flight for each side and it works out like a chess game between each(yes limited assets for each side and reschduling of flights) commander for each squadron and doesn't end utill the victory condtions are met which is why F4AF is the best and most stable version of Falcon. OF is also capable of this stuff but my problem with it was always MP stability.

 

Heres a handy guide for the DC:

 

http://www.lead-pursuit.com/downloads/contrib/Guide_Part_1.pdf

 

http://www.lead-pursuit.com/downloads/contrib/Guide_Part_II.pdf

[SUBS17]

I always thought it did anyway....

 

BTW...nice to see you again Subs

 

Hi Spectre I'm still lurking about.

[DayGlow]

You need to read the how to win the DC file yes there is some strategic thinking involved and you do have to manually set a few flights but not to many. In fact I have flown and helped guys win full ACE realism with ACE AI on the hardest campaign setting. For my own DC that I've beaten required just rescheduling of a few flights and some ground units it was over on just a couple of days in real time. The beauty of F4AF is to be able to do this in MP and help other people win campaigns also the Tactical Engagement is awesome for inter Squardron fights as you can actually plan each package/flight for each side and it works out like a chess game between each(yes limited assets for each side and reschduling of flights) commander for each squadron and doesn't end utill the victory condtions are met which is why F4AF is the best and most stable version of Falcon. OF is also capable of this stuff but my problem with it was always MP stability.

 

Heres a handy guide for the DC:

 

http://www.lead-pursuit.com/downloads/contrib/Guide_Part_1.pdf

 

http://www.lead-pursuit.com/downloads/contrib/Guide_Part_II.pdf

 

Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed F4 and find the DC very immersive, I'm responding to the poster who said that programing a DC is easy and DCS should have one. to ignore the warts of the DC isn't the way to go and I would never expect ED to put out a sim with a broken DC simply because F4 was. The fact that tasking has never been fixed, even 15+ years later is a very good indication that a DC isn't a simple proposition.

 

Haver picked up AF because I run a 3 screen setup and since Falcon is a dx6/7 product won't run across the monitors. I'm kinda interested in the BMS/Dark Falcon if it ever comes out since supposably it's now dx9 and could run at filly high resolutions.

Edited March 16, 2011 by DayGlow

[PlainSight]

About the Falcon 4 dynamic campain... :music_whistling:

 

http://www.cleared-to-engage.com/2011/03/12/interview-with-kevin-klemmick-lead-software-engineer-for-falcon-4-0/

 

:music_whistling:

 

"Well, it’s just really hard to do. Looking back on it, I think the only reason we took on what we did is because we were too inexperienced to know better." Coming from the guy who created F4s DC.

 

So there you have it. ED did the right thing to stick with simulator part and got that one right, than implementing DC and cause even more bugs and delays. ED builds its games around the plane they simulate, i don't expect a DC from them. DCS are already complex products on their own.

[SUBS17]

ED is planning a Dynamic Campaign for DCS and no they are not impossible to make although the one for the original Falcon 4 was buggy I believe LP did a great job in fixing it. As it is now they are using a similar method to mission creation as to Janes F/A-18E which is heading towards a DC eventually as is the Tacpac which at some stage may also have a dynamic campaign system for FSX.:huh:

[TheCabal]

And what do you mean we already have enough of US hardware?

 

This is irrelevant anyway as our desires have nothing to do with it!

 

You got US-hardware in almost every media format, it's starting to get tired. Just watch back and tell me, what planes you were able to fly in the past 15 years. So after a DCS F/A-18, you will want another one after 5 years? And another one after 10 years for the same reasons?

 

Do you even know, how European, Chinese etc. aircrafts cockpit look like? Do you know more Weapons except of the AIM-9, AIM-120, Mavericks etc.? It just feels one-sided.

 

Instead of the F-18... I would be more happier flying a full detailed and realistic MiG-21.

Edited March 16, 2011 by TheCabal

[Napa]

You got US-hardware in almost every media format, it's starting to get tired. Just watch back and tell me, what planes you were able to fly in the past 15 years. So after a DCS F/A-18, you will want another one after 5 years? And another one after 10 years for the same reasons?

 

Do you even know, how European, Chinese etc. aircrafts cockpit look like? Do you know more Weapons except of the AIM-9, AIM-120, Mavericks etc.? It just feels one-sided.

 

Instead of the F-18... I would be more happier flying a full detailed and realistic MiG-21.

 

It won't make everybody happy. I want a DCS F/A-18 because there won't be other F/A-18s sims like DCS... simple as that. If you tried A-10C and Ka-50 you know what I'm talking about. Those who also own a TM Warthog also know how realistic it is because they don't get to touch the keyboard from the minute the sim starts till you exit.

[TheCabal]

F-15, F-16, F-18... give me (and other folks) a break.

 

SU-27, MIG-29, Tornado (with 2-seater online support), Harrier (VSTOL) etc. => Fresh, interesting, revolutionary.

Edited March 17, 2011 by TheCabal

[Mugenjin]

F-18? A damn waste of time....

 

SU-27, MIG-29, Tornado (with 2-seater online support), Harrier etc. => Fresh, interesting, revolutionary

 

Get in line, we all have favorites :P

My point: the next one is going to be a US fixed wing, nothing you can do about it.

[GGTharos]

No thanks. F-15C. Not a pound for air to ground.

 

F-15, F-16, F-18... give me (and other folks) a break.

[Succellus]

F-15, F-16, F-18... give me (and other folks) a break.

 

SU-27, MIG-29, Tornado (with 2-seater online support), Harrier (VSTOL) etc. => Fresh, interesting, revolutionary.

 

ALLthought i would be happy to have some non US military in DCS, SINCE it cames to F something.

I welcome the F18 only because of naval ops.

 

But if after F18 its still some US hardware i ll buy it formely by respect.

I m really tired of Fsomething (except F14).

Since A10 FC doesn t cut it much anymore, it already didn t cut it much because of F4 (even if i was never a ace on F4 and sloooooowly learning F4).

 

As DC i understand its tuff and hard, DCS is doing good steps forward as the instant randomic mission. I hope it will be implemented (not necessarily in F18)because if there s no DC, and a US plane it ll be installing for grafic upgrade only.

[joey45]

from the front page of SimHQ >> F4 the bloke who done the DC

[Steel Jaw]

No thanks. F-15C. Not a pound for air to ground.

 

And spend your whole mission boring holes in the sky waiting for someone to try something. Yaaawwwwnnnn. :lol:

[joey45]

A2G pilots see more action.

[Steel Jaw]

A2G pilots see more action.

 

That's what I just implied. :P

[EtherealN]

A2G pilots see more action.

 

Only after the A2A pilots evicted the enemy air force. ;)

[winz]

Only after the A2A pilots evicted the enemy air force.

If not, they see even more action ;)