#4255321 - 05/03/16 01:13 AM
Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus
[Re: streakeagle]
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
|
Call DCS a sim or a game... it doesn't bother me what you call it. I still have lots of fun with DCS. Because it doesn't float any one person's boat for reason X, Y, or Z doesn't mean it is utterly worthless for everyone or even a majority. It just so happens that DCS is the closest PC combat flight sim to what I would like to have. FSX with TacPack doesn't cut it for me. Falcon 4 doesn't cut it for me. Jane's F/A-18 doesn't cut it for me. I still like the Strike Fighters series, but I am having a lot more fun with DCS since the P-51D, UH-1, Mi-8, F-86, MiG-15, MiG-21, Bf109, and Fw190 have been released. There is enough variety in every aspect for me to never get bored.
As far as the original topic of the post: I have never enjoyed campaigns. It doesn't matter whether it is scripted or dynamic or something in between, campaigns are boring for me. It doesn't bother me that other people love campaigns. Nor does it bother me that someone who spends time making campaigns wants to get paid for it. If aircraft modules and/or terrain don't come with campaigns at all, no skin off my back. If a Korea, Vietnam, or Israel terrain/campaign ever gets released, I might try it out. But I have all of those in the SF series games and rarely played them.
How can anyone come to the conclusion that selling campaigns has become the "focus" of ED? Clearly, DCS 2/NTTR has consumed significant game engine development resources. If we can take ED at its word, it has also been simultaneously making progress on the F/A-18, Normandy map, WW2 fighters, etc. All of the third party developers seem to be focused on various aircraft (and in some cases terrain and possibly campaigns/missions to go with them).
You can argue all day about the lack of direction of EDs development and the pace of progress, but DCS has made tremendous progress since I first bought LOMAC. As I have little interest in ground attack or modern fire-and-forget air-to-air weapons, the addition of WW2 and Cold War era aircraft is what really got me to commit to DCS World. Not FC3. NOt the A-10 or Ka-50.
Since whether something is "a good game" or "worth playing" is extremely subjective, most of the above opinions about DCS (and they are just that, not facts) need to be qualified with "not a good game for me" or "not worth playing for me" etc. If liking something that you don't like makes me a "fanboi", then feel free to label me as such for disagreeing with you. But its not like I am blindly loyal to DCS -- I own just about every other sim that covers my interests. It is just that DCS has finally reached a point where it is the best air combat sim / game currently available FOR ME. Well said! Indeed, if what you are looking for is more along the lines of variety and less along "study sim," then DCS would be a good fit! I could never understand why someone would buy a Phantom or Viper or Hornet for use in FSX, but obviously that floats someone's boat, just not mine. Anyway, excellent post!
- Ice
|
|
#4255374 - 05/03/16 10:05 AM
Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus
[Re: - Ice]
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 8,771
Para_Bellum
Oberkriegkaboomführer
|
Oberkriegkaboomführer
Hotshot
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 8,771
Germany
|
Wouldn't the KA-50/Mi-8 be on the "other side"? See, that was our problem the last time my friends and I played DCS... there was no way to "integrate" the KA-50 and the A-10C in the battlefield, outside of the A-10C doing a "talk on" for the KA-50 pilot. Can DCS do this now? Is this now available for DCS?
How has CA improved over the last 3-4 years? Is it still ARMA-lite?
How difficult is it to script such a mission? "Talk on" is pretty much the preferred way of designating targets in the Ka-50 for A-10s. When flying the Huey I use a script that lets me release coloured smoke. I can then use the smoke location for further talk-on. CA has indeed improved, but it's still very basic. We mainly use it to direct ground forces and when playing JTAC. It's also good fun when manning an AA vehicle and surprising the flyboys.
"...late afternoon the Air Tasking Order came in [and] we found the A-10 part and we said, "We are going where!? We are doing what!?"
Capt. Todd Sheehy, Hog pilot, on receiving orders during Operation Desert Storm
|
|
#4255472 - 05/03/16 03:42 PM
Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus
[Re: - Ice]
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 17,632
SkateZilla
Skate Zilla Graphics
|
Skate Zilla Graphics
Veteran
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 17,632
Virginia Beach, VA
|
As soon as F-18C comes out that will change a lil, The F-16 is by far my favorite USAF Jet though. +1 Skate! Excited for the F-18C to be released and hoping for an F-16 in the future. Unfortunately, BMS already has an F-18 so it cannot be avoided to be compared to that one. I hope DCS does the aircraft justice, but even then, it'll have it's other issues to work out. I dont think that would be fair to the BMS F-18. As the DCS F-18C will be Authentic Systems of a Fleet F-18C (Block hasnt been announced yet). Where as the BMS Hornet is a F-18 w/ F-16 Systems Mapped to a F-18C Cockpit, and doesn't pretend to be anything more. As for DCS: F-18C, It'll likely get more comparisons between FSX and Prepar3d Offerings, In Which Case the FSX Acceleration F-18C is Abysmal, and the VRS Bug is the Super Bug.
HAF922, Corsair RM850, ASRock Fata1ity 990FX Pro, Modified Corsair H100, AMD FX8350 @ 5.31GHz, 16GB G.SKILL@DDR2133, 2x R7970 Lightnings, +1 HD7950 @ 1.1/6.0GHz, Creative XFi Fata1ity Platinum Champ., 3x ASUS VS248HP + Hanns�G HZ201HPB + Acer AL2002 (5760x1080+1600x900+1680x1050), Oculus Rift CV CH Fighterstick, Pro Throt., Pro Pedals, TM Warthog & MFDs, Fanatec CSR Wheel/Shifter, Elite Pedals Intensity Pro 10-Bit, TrackIR 4 Pro, WD Black 1.5TB, WD Black 640GB, Samsung 850 500GB, My Book 4TB
|
|
#4255506 - 05/03/16 04:54 PM
Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus
[Re: scrim]
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 17,632
SkateZilla
Skate Zilla Graphics
|
Skate Zilla Graphics
Veteran
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 17,632
Virginia Beach, VA
|
Just out of interest, since you seem so certain about DCS: F/A-18C not being vaporware: When will all of this be? Will it actually be before the last RL F/A-18C has been sent to a museum or scrapyard?
Besides, last time I checked the BMS team had stated they were aiming for much the same fidelity level for the Hornet. It's WIP, the U1 update featured updates to the Hornet FLCS. That's more than ED can come dragging with after years of claims. In BMS, FLCS and Flight Model are Unique to the Hornet, but ALL the Avionics and Combat Systems are from the F-16. The Combat Systems are Probably the most complex part of the coding process and they skipped it and stitched the F-16 Avionics to the F-18 Cockpit. As for DCS: F/A-18C.. This Year.
HAF922, Corsair RM850, ASRock Fata1ity 990FX Pro, Modified Corsair H100, AMD FX8350 @ 5.31GHz, 16GB G.SKILL@DDR2133, 2x R7970 Lightnings, +1 HD7950 @ 1.1/6.0GHz, Creative XFi Fata1ity Platinum Champ., 3x ASUS VS248HP + Hanns�G HZ201HPB + Acer AL2002 (5760x1080+1600x900+1680x1050), Oculus Rift CV CH Fighterstick, Pro Throt., Pro Pedals, TM Warthog & MFDs, Fanatec CSR Wheel/Shifter, Elite Pedals Intensity Pro 10-Bit, TrackIR 4 Pro, WD Black 1.5TB, WD Black 640GB, Samsung 850 500GB, My Book 4TB
|
|
#4255512 - 05/03/16 05:05 PM
Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus
[Re: SkateZilla]
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,614
theOden
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,614
|
[quote=SkateZilla.. As for DCS: F/A-18C.. This Year.[/quote] Damnit SkateZilla, you just triggered something in my veins
|
|
#4255541 - 05/03/16 06:20 PM
Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus
[Re: Paradaz]
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 17,632
SkateZilla
Skate Zilla Graphics
|
Skate Zilla Graphics
Veteran
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 17,632
Virginia Beach, VA
|
That's the Stated Time Frame from the Newsletter Dated 1/29/2016.
Word for Word it was: "Later in 2016 we plan to release the Hornet as an “Early Access” product"
HAF922, Corsair RM850, ASRock Fata1ity 990FX Pro, Modified Corsair H100, AMD FX8350 @ 5.31GHz, 16GB G.SKILL@DDR2133, 2x R7970 Lightnings, +1 HD7950 @ 1.1/6.0GHz, Creative XFi Fata1ity Platinum Champ., 3x ASUS VS248HP + Hanns�G HZ201HPB + Acer AL2002 (5760x1080+1600x900+1680x1050), Oculus Rift CV CH Fighterstick, Pro Throt., Pro Pedals, TM Warthog & MFDs, Fanatec CSR Wheel/Shifter, Elite Pedals Intensity Pro 10-Bit, TrackIR 4 Pro, WD Black 1.5TB, WD Black 640GB, Samsung 850 500GB, My Book 4TB
|
|
#4255577 - 05/03/16 07:10 PM
Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus
[Re: - Ice]
|
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Jedi Master
Entil'zha
|
Entil'zha
Sierra Hotel
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Space Coast, USA
|
You are indeed correct. There is no competition. You just have it the other way around. Once you have 100+ hours in DCS Module A and another 100+ hours in DCS Module B and another 100+ hours in DCS Module C, you might start to wonder how come some people have 1,000+ hours in just one other simulation.
No, I will never understand that. Ever. I don't have 1000 hours in any game of any genre, will never happen. I will be bored with it long before then. I think 500 hrs is my high mark in anything, after that I just have no interest in revisiting it. It could be a function of my memory. I remember things extremely well to the extent that a TV show I saw 10 years ago is still so fresh in my mind I can remember most of the show when I rewatch it. In fact, at the current development pace I think it's quite likely that by the time DCS World is what I want it to be, I will be tired of flying it and leave it to gather dust. Maybe if I'd waited 5 years to start I'd be in a better spot, but I just tire of them after a few hundred hours and that's why I can't bring myself to even try BMS. To return to the car analogy, it's like that sports car you had in college that you really loved, sold when you graduated, but would never consider buying again because a sports car no longer fits your needs. Like streak, my ideal DCS World is a larger, supported version of SF2...with the better multiplayer, graphics, and advanced modeling (in some planes, but not all) to make it a more well-rounded product than SF2's limited focus. I don't need more study planes, frankly I don't have enough time in any bird but the Ka-50 to call myself well-acquainted with them, I need FC3 planes with just a little more care. I'm getting the Hornet because I want the Hornet, not another A-10C-level plane, but I will fly it like it's a FC3 plane. I will never learn more than the basics I need to fly and fight. I've had the MiG-21 since release and still have barely managed to learn enough to fight a single underarmed fighter or a transport. The Jedi Master
The anteater is wearing the bagel because he's a reindeer princess. -- my 4 yr old daughter
|
|
#4255602 - 05/03/16 07:44 PM
Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus
[Re: Jedi Master]
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,183
Force10
I'm just a
|
I'm just a
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,183
CA
|
that's why I can't bring myself to even try BMS. Sorry Jedi...I'm not going to put much stock into someone that states "BMS can't be considered competition" from someone that hasn't even tried it. The rest of your argument is just noise since you don't have first hand knowledge of what you're talking about. BMS is NOT Falcon 4.0 or AF. I'm a long time Falcon 4.0 and AF veteran myself(since 98)...and BMS was a breath of fresh air. It's not just graphics...the systems have been upgraded substatially. Even with your excellent memory...you won't be able to deploy any weapons without learning the NEW procedures.
Asus Z87 Sabertooth motherboard Windows 7 64 bit Home edition Intel I5 4670K @ 4.4 ghz 16 gig 1866mhz Corsair Vengence Pro memory EVGA GTX 970 Superclocked 4gb Video Card Intel 510 series 120gb SSD (boot drive) Samsung 840 1TB SSD Onboard Realtek sound ______________________________________________________
Oddball from Kelly's Heroes: "If we're late, it's cause we're dead"
|
|
#4255768 - 05/04/16 01:41 AM
Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus
[Re: Jedi Master]
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
|
DCS has the option to go all study-hard-b4-u-fly where you need to stick with a certain module for weeks to really learn how to use it. Not really. I used to take people up on a flight where I'd teach takeoff, navigation, attacks with Mavericks, RTB, landing. Then another flight or two for CCIP/CCRP/ripple Mavs. So maybe 2-3 flights for a person to be able to kill stuff in the game. The nice thing about "study sims" is that once those "basics" are demonstrated, the simmer can spend years and years learning more and honing his skills. "Talk on" is pretty much the preferred way of designating targets in the Ka-50 for A-10s. I guess I was spoiled with data link and buddy lasing Unfortunately, BMS already has an F-18 so it cannot be avoided to be compared to that one. I hope DCS does the aircraft justice, but even then, it'll have it's other issues to work out. I dont think that would be fair to the BMS F-18. As the DCS F-18C will be Authentic Systems of a Fleet F-18C (Block hasnt been announced yet). Where as the BMS Hornet is a F-18 w/ F-16 Systems Mapped to a F-18C Cockpit, and doesn't pretend to be anything more. As for DCS: F-18C, It'll likely get more comparisons between FSX and Prepar3d Offerings, In Which Case the FSX Acceleration F-18C is Abysmal, and the VRS Bug is the Super Bug. See, that's the thing --- BMS F-18 has to work with what a 15+ year old engine can do. ED will have absolutely no excuse whatsoever. That's the Stated Time Frame from the Newsletter Dated 1/29/2016.
Word for Word it was: "Later in 2016 we plan to release the Hornet as an “Early Access” product" And we are all familiar at ED's ability to meet their own targets. "Early Access" can also mean alpha, beta, or alpha-labelled-as-beta. No, I will never understand that. Ever. I don't have 1000 hours in any game of any genre, will never happen. I will be bored with it long before then. I think 500 hrs is my high mark in anything, after that I just have no interest in revisiting it. It could be a function of my memory. I remember things extremely well to the extent that a TV show I saw 10 years ago is still so fresh in my mind I can remember most of the show when I rewatch it.
In fact, at the current development pace I think it's quite likely that by the time DCS World is what I want it to be, I will be tired of flying it and leave it to gather dust. Maybe if I'd waited 5 years to start I'd be in a better spot, but I just tire of them after a few hundred hours and that's why I can't bring myself to even try BMS.
To return to the car analogy, it's like that sports car you had in college that you really loved, sold when you graduated, but would never consider buying again because a sports car no longer fits your needs. Like streak, my ideal DCS World is a larger, supported version of SF2...with the better multiplayer, graphics, and advanced modeling (in some planes, but not all) to make it a more well-rounded product than SF2's limited focus. I don't need more study planes, frankly I don't have enough time in any bird but the Ka-50 to call myself well-acquainted with them, I need FC3 planes with just a little more care.
I'm getting the Hornet because I want the Hornet, not another A-10C-level plane, but I will fly it like it's a FC3 plane. I will never learn more than the basics I need to fly and fight. I've had the MiG-21 since release and still have barely managed to learn enough to fight a single underarmed fighter or a transport. First off, your argument is now moot as you've not even tried BMS. How can you diss the 2016 Mustang and say it can't compare to the 2015 Corvette on the basis of the 1969 Mustang you used to drive? Secondly, if you get bored that easily, then I guess BMS/DCS/in-depth study sims are not for you. You said so yourself, you fly stuff like an FC3 aircraft, you want FC3 aircraft. Personally, when I went back to fly the Su-27/-33, having to manually dump chaff/flares and not being able to program a countermeasure-dispensing system just felt odd. As far as hours go, well, when buying a new car and I realize people have 100+ hours in Car A then 100+ hours in Car B then 100+ hours in Car C, then I realize some people have 1,000+ hours in Car D, I would at least investigate Car D and figure out why people seem to love Car D so much. Car D must have something going for it. Is it more durable? Better economy? Better driving feel? Refusing to investigate is just being close-minded, or just-don't-care.
- Ice
|
|
#4255820 - 05/04/16 04:05 AM
Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus
[Re: Paradaz]
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,749
streakeagle
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,749
Seffner, FL USA
|
BMS is not Falcon 4.0? It may be heavily modded with new graphics and all kinds of refinements. But fly BMS or vanilla Falcon 4.0 the way I like to fly (focused purely on close range air-to-air) and there is very little difference after all of these years: in a 1 vs many air-to-air fight that goes WVR, get ready for the Conga line. If you have enough ammo, a dog chasing his own tail can eat it right up.
Whereas the "lite" SF series modeling of multiplane dogfights approaches historical results when given an accurate initial setup and the right pilot quality settings. I like clickable cockpits, but that is the last thing I am looking for in a combat flight sim. First would be flight modeling (including the look and feel when starting up, taking off, and landing), then the performance of weapons and systems (which is quite separate from the detail of the controls), then the AI's ability to fly and employ weapons and systems, fully detailed clickable cockpits is the icing on the cake.
Most DCS aircraft now have flight and system modeling equal or better than any PC flight sim out there. The AI is somewhere between Falcon 4 and Strike Fighters. Its biggest flaw besides cheating with simplified flight models is that the DCS AI responds predictably. If you play the same mission and follow the same path/actions, the AI will almost react exactly the same 100% of the time. Once you find the correct series of actions to misdirect the AI, you can consistently beat them.
Last edited by streakeagle; 05/04/16 04:05 AM.
forum: a public meeting or assembly for open discussion discussion: an extended communication (often interactive) dealing with some particular topic censorship: practice of suppressing a text or part of a text that is considered objectionable
|
|
#4255867 - 05/04/16 09:25 AM
Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus
[Re: streakeagle]
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
|
BMS is not Falcon 4.0? It may be heavily modded with new graphics and all kinds of refinements. Where do you draw the line between Falcon 4.0 and something different? Where do you draw the line between LOMAC and DCS? Stable MP, full 6DoF cockpit, clickable cockpit with working gauges (even AF did not have this!), new theatres, refined flight models, and so on... sure, it may be heavily modded and refined, but just because a 1969 Mustang had an engine and 4 wheels doesn't mean the 2016 Mustang is just a "heavily modded and refined" 1969 Mustang. So where do you draw the line? But fly BMS or vanilla Falcon 4.0 the way I like to fly (focused purely on close range air-to-air) and there is very little difference after all of these years: in a 1 vs many air-to-air fight that goes WVR, get ready for the Conga line. Well, end of the day, it still simulates the F-16 so if Falcon 4.0 got that right, nothing much to change for BMS. I like clickable cockpits, but that is the last thing I am looking for in a combat flight sim. First would be flight modeling (including the look and feel when starting up, taking off, and landing), then the performance of weapons and systems (which is quite separate from the detail of the controls), then the AI's ability to fly and employ weapons and systems, fully detailed clickable cockpits is the icing on the cake. The icing is quite delicious, really! I used to fly AF and had a button on the HOTAS to switch between 2D and 3D view and it was alright doing that at the time, but when I transitioned from that to a fully working 3D pit, there was less disconnect in the immersion and the end result is a much more involved and enjoyable flight. I'll leave the arguments of FM and weapons/avionics to the guys that actually code and/or fly the F-16.
- Ice
|
|
#4256030 - 05/04/16 03:28 PM
Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus
[Re: Force10]
|
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Jedi Master
Entil'zha
|
Entil'zha
Sierra Hotel
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Space Coast, USA
|
that's why I can't bring myself to even try BMS. Sorry Jedi...I'm not going to put much stock into someone that states "BMS can't be considered competition" from someone that hasn't even tried it. The rest of your argument is just noise since you don't have first hand knowledge of what you're talking about. BMS is NOT Falcon 4.0 or AF. I'm a long time Falcon 4.0 and AF veteran myself(since 98)...and BMS was a breath of fresh air. It's not just graphics...the systems have been upgraded substatially. Even with your excellent memory...you won't be able to deploy any weapons without learning the NEW procedures. That's what you're not getting--I don't care about that. The first time I tried the F4 RP in like 2002 I quit after an hour when I realized I couldn't drop an LGB because they added numerous steps to the procedure. The original F4 was as realistic as I needed it to be. I went for the RP/SP and so on because they added more depth to the world and corrected some of the deficiencies, not because I felt like it was too easy to drop bombs in F4. I don't get enjoyment from switches. I don't get enjoyment from learning systems. I enjoy a plane that flies and fights realistically, but it's not my job. The systems on the plane is NOT the end game for me, it's using the plane in a realistic battlefield. I've found many of the "no more FC3 planes, only DCS!" people seem to have latched onto using them as procedures trainers as the fun. I don't find that fun. It's the airplane equivalent of Linux vs Windows. When I fly, I want to use Windows, I don't want to have to worry about command line switches and remembering which command for which directory. Here's the thing--I'm flying a sim. A sim which is to simulate not only an airplane, but a battlefield, and a pilot. I'm not in it to learn so much that I could hop in the actual plane and use it. That is too far. I don't care about radios, navigation beyond using a map (ie VOR/DME/ADF), tank pressurization, any of that. The pilot in the plane has to know that, but I expect it to happen automatically. Imagine if you had to keep pressing a button on the keyboard to inhale, another to exhale, one to blink, one to make your mouth move to talk...there is a certain amount of work that is manual yet automatic. I expect the pilot I'm playing as to know that stuff already. I issue a command such as "drop gear" and I expect the gear to go down because the pilot knows how to do it. I don't want to have worry about unlocking it, moving the lever, all that stuff you need to do in MiG-21. Yeah, it's real, but no, I don't want to have to worry about it. The problem is sims tend to fall into two extremes--do almost everything for you with a totally unreal world where 30 planes get thrown at you in one mission while success or failure hinges 100% on you, or do nothing for you at all while success or failure seems based less on your skills flying and fighting and more on whether you remember which button to hit in which sequence to make the missile actually come off the rail and guide, just so it can sail off to nowhere. I want the middle ground, the one that could actually appeal to people by being grounded in reality but not requiring weeks of classroom study to be competent. Extra systems can be added in for the people that want it, but I don't want the two options to be "god mode radar and one button lock-shoot-kill" or graduate level avionics course work. The Jedi Master
The anteater is wearing the bagel because he's a reindeer princess. -- my 4 yr old daughter
|
|
|
|