Flaming Cliffs 3

[blkspade]

Yes, at a rate of one aircraft per year. That's the part you were missing. Current AFM models take a long time to develop.

 

So what you are telling is that the AFM is most likely the bulk of the work in building a DCS title, and there is more going on than having the data to plug into engine to handle the math. The statement also suggests the FC Su25t is nearly a DCS level aircraft, only missing the full 3d clickable cockpit. Thus by extension could be a relatively quick to market DCS title.

 

Where I was mostly going with my original post has more to do with the handling of the Lock ON series as whole. As a long time flight sim lover, I bought LOMAC the moment I saw it on the shelf. Since I had been on a break from the genre and my aging copy of Jane's USAF was having issue's, I wanted something new. Great experience minus the obvious bugs that existed. Instead of patching them, a new product was released (FC1), which was mostly a paid for patch that hadn't quite cured issues of the initial release. The inclusion of starforce (classic) was the slap in the face the insured my money was going to stay in my pocket. Previous history with a certain splinter cell title rendering an optical drive useless there.

 

Fast foward to 2010 new LOMAC title FC2 to be released and I was absolutely ecstatic. Same 8 flyable planes as the last (or 7 + 1 for me as I skipped FC1)...:doh: OK well does it at least not have the same issues as the last, :thumbup:. So there was an actual online community that played I had never know about, and the game now has built-in internet multiplayer features, :pilotfly::thumbup:. Oh and no longer using crappy version of Starforce, at that point I was sold. A product that has something positive to offer the customer, and the company to some degree must listen to its customers by getting rid of starforce.

 

So with this hypothetical FC3, if they aren't going to at the very least fix whats remains broken in FC2 have do things that genuinely benefit their consumers, and at a 'reasonable' price. I haven't bought A10c yet for several reasons, one is the $60 asking price.

[GGTharos]

So what you are telling is that the AFM is most likely the bulk of the work in building a DCS title, and there is more going on than having the data to plug into engine to handle the math. The statement also suggests the FC Su25t is nearly a DCS level aircraft, only missing the full 3d clickable cockpit. Thus by extension could be a relatively quick to market DCS title.

 

You know, when you ASSUME ... no, what I said is that the AFM takes this long to create for a single aircraft with a single person. An experienced FM creator might shave a bit of time off it.

 

However, there are many, many, MANY other systems that DCS models in detail (hydraulics, engines, electrical, navigation, etc) that FC does not. The Su-25/T is nowhere /near/ DCS level. Not even close. Also, its AFM is out-dated.

 

So with this hypothetical FC3, if they aren't going to at the very least fix whats remains broken in FC2 have do things that genuinely benefit their consumers, and at a 'reasonable' price. I haven't bought A10c yet for several reasons, one is the $60 asking price.

 

I'm sorry, what exactly is there in this hypothetical FC3 that you don't like again? Compatibility with A-10C? The fact that you get all this nifty stuff that has been implemented in A-10C in FC? What? ;)

The graphical, terrain (look at the airfields!) and mission editor updates are huge, allowing for new possibilities of all kinds.

As for $60 for A-10C ... uhm ... I have to ask. Seriously? I mean you pay for it once, and then its all yours. If you fly it for just 10 hours you have a hi-fi sim for just $6 an hour. Fly it for 100 and the cost goes down. I'm sorry, but the price always has been, and always will be a BS excuse IMHO.

[Moa]

> I haven't bought A10c yet for several reasons, one is the $60 asking price.

 

So, save your pennies, for me it was entirely worth it.

 

When you hear discussion on these forums you might think that the Su-25T's Advanced Flight Model means it is on par with the A-10C. It is not. The A-10C is a quantum leap ahead in virtually all areas of the experience. It looks better, the flying feels better, the immersion is better, there is a huge amount of cool new stuff you can do (buddy lasing, JTAC, fuzing, PGM use, datalinking, TACAN, ILS, navagation computer, weapon release profiles, etc etc etc ....).

 

It took me a while to really appreciate the A-10C (thinking it would be a yawn-fest of turkey shoot bombing from 20 k feet) but now I'm totally hooked - as there is so much more you can do (night operations with NVG blew me away). For me FC2 is now a simple pleasure to fly, just like Rise of Flight. A distorted view for sure, but that is just how good A-10C is, and how much a better virtual pilot you'll become. Plus, if you get up to speed on the systems of the A-10C some of the knowledge will carry over for DCS:Next (where you are doing the work at twice the airspeed).

 

In short, save up (a few less beers for a while [did I really just write that?]) and get yourself A-10C.

[GGTharos]

You might be interested to know Moa that the DCS:A-10C edge of the envelope simulation is quite superb as well, though you've no doubt noticed :)

[159th_Viper]

.....The A-10C is a quantum leap ahead....

 

Sobek just died a little bit inside.......:D

[HiJack]

Agree with you Moa, the A-10C flight experience have really evolved sinse the beta 2 ! It is great now. And as you say it is not comparable to FC2.

 

> .. - as there is so much more you can do (night operations with NVG blew me away)

I have not done any night missions yet. Good to know I have something to look forward to :D

 

> In short, save up (a few less beers for a while [did I really just write that?]) and get yourself A-10C.

:drunk:

 

(HJ)

[aaron886]

the DCS:A-10C edge of the envelope simulation is quite superb as well, though you've no doubt noticed :)

 

Hasn't really seemed like it to me, if you mean aerodynamically. It does some pretty ridiculous flipping around when departed (mostly at low airspeeds) that make it seem like there are just random torques acting on the airframe. A little hard to describe, and you'll probably think "no, it's right!" but it's far from perfect.

 

With a more complex advanced flight model, I think you're just going to have some of this stuff, because the vast amount of variables at play when you start encountering loss of lift are just too much for a desktop simulator.

 

I still think the consistent tendency for extreme wing drop after the stall even in relatively coordinated flight is just a little overplayed.... but this is now seriously OT. :D

 

A-10C has the best high-performance jet flight model ever incorporated into a desktop flight simulator.

[GGTharos]

No, it isn't perfect, it's probably just a limitation of the amount of ... force sections, or whatever they are called, that they can practically model :)

[sobek]

[OT]

 

quantum leap

 

People may call me a pain in the ass, but my crusade continues.

 

You are aware that a quantum leap is actually a miniscule state change of a quantum, that is, a small particle?

 

It is like saying that duke nukem spent a plank time in dev hell, where the plank time is the smallest unit of time theoretically measurable.

 

The peril of being called anal has nothing on the fits i get everytime i read quantum leap being used as denotation of what is supposed to be a huge step.

 

[/OT]

 

Please, continue. ;)

Edited June 22, 2011 by sobek

[EtherealN]

The peril of being called anal has nothing on the fits i get everytime i read quantum leap being used as denotation of what is supposed to be a huge step.

 

Agreed.

For those who are curious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_electron_transition

 

Anyways, there are worse things, like people saying "Would of" instead of "would have", or "could care less" instead of "couldn't care less". The latter especially has me wondering if people think before they type. :P

 

That said, with quantum leaps specifically I tend to try to be generous due to the colloquialism involved - the "leap" in this case isn't actually the scientific effect, but rather the "leap" in knowledge gained through the discovery, formalisation, understanding and implementations of quantum theory.

 

But when it comes to DCS, we really should talk about a "blade leap" or "element leap" instead. :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_element_theory

[sobek]

Anyways, there are worse things

 

Hence the repeated exposition of myself to ridicule :)

[blkspade]

You know, when you ASSUME ... no, what I said is that the AFM takes this long to create for a single aircraft with a single person. An experienced FM creator might shave a bit of time off it.

 

However, there are many, many, MANY other systems that DCS models in detail (hydraulics, engines, electrical, navigation, etc) that FC does not. The Su-25/T is nowhere /near/ DCS level. Not even close. Also, its AFM is out-dated.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, what exactly is there in this hypothetical FC3 that you don't like again? Compatibility with A-10C? The fact that you get all this nifty stuff that has been implemented in A-10C in FC? What? ;)

The graphical, terrain (look at the airfields!) and mission editor updates are huge, allowing for new possibilities of all kinds.

As for $60 for A-10C ... uhm ... I have to ask. Seriously? I mean you pay for it once, and then its all yours. If you fly it for just 10 hours you have a hi-fi sim for just $6 an hour. Fly it for 100 and the cost goes down. I'm sorry, but the price always has been, and always will be a BS excuse IMHO.

 

You know, when you ASSUME ... no, what I said is that the AFM takes this long to create for a single aircraft with a single person. An experienced FM creator might shave a bit of time off it.

 

However, there are many, many, MANY other systems that DCS models in detail (hydraulics, engines, electrical, navigation, etc) that FC does not. The Su-25/T is nowhere /near/ DCS level. Not even close. Also, its AFM is out-dated.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, what exactly is there in this hypothetical FC3 that you don't like again? Compatibility with A-10C? The fact that you get all this nifty stuff that has been implemented in A-10C in FC? What?

The graphical, terrain (look at the airfields!) and mission editor updates are huge, allowing for new possibilities of all kinds.

As for $60 for A-10C ... uhm ... I have to ask. Seriously? I mean you pay for it once, and then its all yours. If you fly it for just 10 hours you have a hi-fi sim for just $6 an hour. Fly it for 100 and the cost goes down. I'm sorry, but the price always has been, and always will be a BS excuse IMHO.

 

Heh, I was intentionally careful to not use the word 'assume' in my reply, as it would be the precursor to such a reply, but you caught me regaurdless. Great as it still lead to the fuel I was looking for. I was being largely sarcastic there which I'd 'assume' you did not catch.

 

So now, I wouldn't have known they have one guy building the AFMs. Also would your statement about it taking up a year per aircraft be accurate for the DCS which is further more detailed than FC or for the FC AFM. If its the former, well I was never suggesting the DCS AFM in the first place. Not only would offer a great improvement, since new flyables with even SFM may not happen, its still an area that segments FC & DCS. AFM 1.0 vs 2.0? Is the person responsible for the 1st AFM no longer around?

 

I never said I was actually against FC3. I also said there was more than one reason I have not bought A10C, only one was cost. One of the others is the lack of compatibility with FC2 (non-existance of FC3?). Its a matter of compounding factors not adding up to $60 worth of product to me personally. I don't pay that for titles of other genres attached to big publishers and has done tons of marketing. Example Starcraft 2, which it intentionally incomplete with no info on when the other 2 parts are to be released. I waited for ARMA II: OA to drop in price before I bought it, that wasn't even $60. I already stated fidelity is missing the potentially 'full' experience not having human air cover.

 

Also was amused that the last A10C patch added surround sound support to the engine (awesome btw). I definitely recall it was asked about a long time ago, and the response was that it would offer no realistic benefit.

[Krippz]

sobek and EtheraIN get a room you two :lol::D:P

[Cali]

I haven't bought A-10C yet either, but I will buy it. I don't have time to mess around with it right now and I don't like flying single player or coop all the time. I have flown it at a friend's house a few times when it was in beta and it was excellent.

[GGTharos]

Fail on the save. Almost a nice try, but no buy ;)

 

Heh, I was intentionally careful to not use the word 'assume' in my reply, as it would be the precursor to such a reply, but you caught me regaurdless. Great as it still lead to the fuel I was looking for. I was being largely sarcastic there which I'd 'assume' you did not catch.

[Krippz]

I haven't bought A-10C yet either, but I will buy it. I don't have time to mess around with it right now and I don't like flying single player or coop all the time. I have flown it at a friend's house a few times when it was in beta and it was excellent.

 

I bought it in beta but haven't gotten a chance to put in some serious stick time until the last month due to school/work/wife (life really). Just buy it now to put some money in the devs pocket's; think of it as an investment :D

[Moa]

[OT]

 

 

 

People may call me a pain in the ass, but my crusade continues.

 

You are aware that a quantum leap is actually a miniscule state change of a quantum, that is, a small particle?

 

It is like saying that duke nukem spent a plank time in dev hell, where the plank time is the smallest unit of time theoretically measurable.

 

The peril of being called anal has nothing on the fits i get everytime i read quantum leap being used as denotation of what is supposed to be a huge step.

 

[/OT]

 

Please, continue. ;)

 

Yes I am well aware, thanks (from a former life, have a PhD in Physics, and some of that junk still remains in my head). A quantum transition is the change in any two discrete states. On the atomic electronic (electron) scale this can be the smallest change in energy state of a bound electron (free electrons are generally considered to have continuous energy states for all useful intents and purposes).

 

The phrase "quantum leap" is a colloquially used to mean something else, and is more akin to the wavefunction having a non-zero probability on the 'far' side of a potential barrier (aka 'tunneling') that is an unexpected result from Classical (intuitive) physics.

 

Yes, you are perfectly precise when you point out the phrase "quantum leap" is inaccurate from a physics perspective. However, from a common culture perspective I don't think there was any ambiguity in the intended meaning, and sometimes you just gotta *get down* when you talk with regular joes :).

 

If we are going to be fussy about it, then you needn't use the (incorrect) colloquialism "anal" (shortened from "anal retentive" in slightly discredited Freudian psychoanalysis), you can use the word "particular" instead. It all depends on what you'll let slip and what gets your personal 'goat'. However, don't stop the corrections - they have interesting explanations.

Edited June 22, 2011 by Moa

[aaron886]

This thread is hilarious.

[rattler]

To correct a statement made earlier, couple pages back. It was about aerodynamics and simulation.

 

You can with a desktop computer have AFM but requires more than what ED uses. Plus it would be cost prohibitive for ED or any Games Company to try but yes it can be done and has been done and is still being done but not by Game Companies, way to high a price tag.:cry:

[Moa]

I don't think you need a full compressible fluid dynamics simulation to have a great game.

 

Perhaps the biggest barrier is the fact that the core engine is single threaded (plus another thread for sound). That means that the calculations must be very fast or they'll hold up everything else that has to go on. Once you can run the calculations in another thread you'll have several multiples of the time available now to do them (as then the calculations can run in parallel and just have to take the same amount of time or slightly less than *all the other stuff*).

 

What is remarkable (if you haven't already considered it) is that the ED team have 'good enough' calculations at the moment given they must have difficult time constraints within the single thread.

 

nb: ED are looking at additional multi-threading where they can (it's not an easy thing to put in an existing system).

 

Edit: didn't realise 'quantum leap' was a peeve of sobek. Sorry man. Although part of me wants to slip that in future discussions ("oh noes, he dropped the "Q' bomb again!") :)

Edited June 22, 2011 by Moa

[Cali]

FC2 was a quantum leap! FC3 would be Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!

[EtherealN]

FC2 was a quantum leap! FC3 would be Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!

 

Nah, it would just be a Higgs leap. :D

[Steel Jaw]

I don't like flying single player or coop all the time.

 

What does that mean? Is there a third option I am missing?

[EtherealN]

Adversarial? ;)

[Cali]

What does that mean? Is there a third option I am missing?

 

Maybe multiplayer, blue vs red, H2H just to name a few. Something you wouldn't know anything about. I don't know if it's cause your scared you'd get worked over.