Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 46 of 54 1 2 44 45 46 47 48 53 54
#4309777 - 11/07/16 04:22 PM Re: Paradaz [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 277
xXNightEagleXx Offline
Member
xXNightEagleXx  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 277
One more thing, from a point of view almost all "saga" is a constant development or do you really think that every time a successive sequel is released (eg. COD, BF, TB, FIFA, etc...) they start everything from scratch? Hell no! They add new feature and completely change the models (eg. scenary) and scripts (eg. story), but all engines are still the same with just new features implemented.....does it sound completely different from DCS? Not much! Yet they are capable of releasing software with tons of bugs less than DCS why? ROAD MAP!

If the devs are trying to bite more than they can chew then that it's another problem!!!

Last edited by xXNightEagleXx; 11/07/16 04:25 PM.
Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4309791 - 11/07/16 05:19 PM Re: Paradaz [Re: xXNightEagleXx]  
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,477
HomeFries Offline
Air Dominance Project
HomeFries  Offline
Air Dominance Project
Member

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,477
Originally Posted By: xXNightEagleXx
One more thing, from a point of view almost all "saga" is a constant development or do you really think that every time a successive sequel is released (eg. COD, BF, TB, FIFA, etc...) they start everything from scratch? Hell no! They add new feature and completely change the models (eg. scenary) and scripts (eg. story), but all engines are still the same with just new features implemented.....does it sound completely different from DCS? Not much! Yet they are capable of releasing software with tons of bugs less than DCS why? ROAD MAP!

If the devs are trying to bite more than they can chew then that it's another problem!!!

I'm not saying that ED is good at project management (they violate almost every tenet) or have a repeatable process in place (they show symptoms of lacking a unified process), but comparing them to a shooter is apples and oranges. With a shooter, a AAA studio like Activision can license the Unreal engine, build some objects and textures, create a storyline and levels, port it to multiple platforms, and throw out the next CoD for $60 a pop and still have the sales to net millions. Same with Battlefield, Dishonored, et al. ED differs in these ways:

  • They had to create their own graphics engine, and they will be responsible for updating the same engine.
  • The difference in scale between a FPS (rendering a few hundred yards) and a flight sim (rendering 40+ miles) means that the engine must handle scaling differently.
  • 3D objects and texures are the easiest part of a flight sim, with the hard parts being systems design and integration. With shooters, objects, textures and level design are the hardest parts.
  • Rendering 360k square miles of theater with accurate terrain is an order of magnitude more difficult than rendering a level with repeating textures.
  • ED does not have the resources (i.e. manpower) available to a AAA like Activision.


This doesn't give them a pass for consistent delays and 11th hour communication (unless you read Cyrillic), but provides an insight into the scope they undertake. If anything, this makes a unified process that much more important; we can only hope that they are evaluating lessons learned after each project or milestone so that they can streamline things or provide better estimates in the future.


-Home Fries

"Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty."
- Robert A. Heinlein

The average naval aviator, despite the sometimes swaggering exterior, is very much capable of such feelings as love, affection, intimacy, and caring. These feelings just don't involve anyone else.

#4309803 - 11/07/16 06:09 PM Re: Paradaz [Re: HomeFries]  
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 277
xXNightEagleXx Offline
Member
xXNightEagleXx  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 277
Obvioiusly shooter and flight simulation are completely different products and i was a bit more generic (although i took shooters as example).

Originally Posted By: HomeFries
They had to create their own graphics engine, and they will be responsible for updating the same engine.
Most AAA use own graphic engine, what they do is use it as much as possible before rebuild a new one from scratch (sometime not even that but just a revamped one) and distribute their engine to other products inside their own company

Originally Posted By: HomeFries
The difference in scale between a FPS (rendering a few hundred yards) and a flight sim (rendering 40+ miles) means that the engine must handle scaling differently.

Drawing distance has nothing to do with whatever vs flight sims when the main topic is bug list and unfinished features! That said sure flight sims needs longer draw distance but the overall details fall by a lot, the inverse for first person game where you have way more details for a shorter distance. An Extreme example is where you might have a draw distance of 1 meters but if you add so many details (way more than normal) in that 1 meters which it doesn't mean that it perform worse.
Let's keep in mind that dcs has no global world but just a sandbox map, a huge one but still sandbox. Yet map size is about design not about core code (except for core code that loads that map and build the meshes dynamically like in edge which has nothing to do with the size and moreover is NOTHING NEW IN GAME DEVELOPMENT). So implying that the size of the map contribute on the bugs is just plain wrong, orange and apples.

Originally Posted By: HomeFries
3D objects and texures are the easiest part of a flight sim, with the hard parts being systems design and integration. With shooters, objects, textures and level design are the hardest parts.

I don't understand what do you mean by hard here? Obviously some genre requires more story/design work like shooters and others require more code work like flight sims, but still both relies on similar engine with specific difference in their behavior (ex. total war series has an engine that has been made specifically to allow huge army). Still you have the same old issues to deal with with customization per game genre, nothing new in gaming development!!!

Originally Posted By: HomeFries
Rendering 360k square miles of theater with accurate terrain is an order of magnitude more difficult than rendering a level with repeating textures.

Again you are bringing the whole topic to the design and rendering side which is not where most of DCS bugs are. Missile bugs has nothing to do with how big or how the map is rendered. Besides i didn't even mentioned performance, yet just because an engine is used for let's say a shooter it does not imply that with proper alteration (small or big) might also perform well for a sim. What we know is that DCS engine has a really awful performance!

Originally Posted By: HomeFries
ED does not have the resources (i.e. manpower) available to a AAA like Activision.

I get it and it is pretty fair, but at this point as i said before start working on new projects at least try to not bite more than you can chew and stick to a ****ing road map instead of stack projects thus bugs.

You also brought to the table UE4 but in the wrong way, usually are those who doesn't have a pool of cashes that rely on third party engine and not the other way around, because you can start to be productive as soon as possible. However, as a rendering engine professor would say, there is no universal rendering engine that fits all games, some really require a customized one, so i cannot say whether or not UE4 would be easier to fit for flight sim project.. I doubt;

Last edited by xXNightEagleXx; 11/07/16 06:12 PM.
#4309805 - 11/07/16 06:17 PM Re: Paradaz [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 277
xXNightEagleXx Offline
Member
xXNightEagleXx  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 277
All i see is this, people praising their beloved game full of bugs like if the game is revolution in game development, which would justify somehow all the bugs.....it is not like that.

#4309820 - 11/07/16 06:52 PM Re: Paradaz [Re: xXNightEagleXx]  
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,477
HomeFries Offline
Air Dominance Project
HomeFries  Offline
Air Dominance Project
Member

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,477
No point getting bogged down in details; I was merely contrasting the differences in task and scale between shooters and high fidelity flight sims. With your reply, we are obviously on the same page.

I agree that some bugs are nerve-wracking. My biggest pet peeve is the BMP gunners who have all been personally trained by Vasily Zaitzev. Combined with the vehicles' flawless, 360, x-ray visibility, this makes CAS missions ridiculously difficult without some tweaking in the ME. The missile issue has also turned me off to the F-5, which is a shame because the aircraft is so well done. However, it's no fun when you get behind a bomber, fire two sidewinders, these are both spoofed by flares, and then when you close for guns you get hit in the cockpit by the tailgunner (who was also trained by Zaitzev) before you even make it into guns range. If I wanted to fly high obliques to avoid gunners, I would fly WW2.

I also think that much of the bad stuff we see is symptomatic of a lack of process, which I already addressed (both my last post and previous posts in other threads). But I still have fun with the sim. When you get a good mission/mission developer, you can have lots of fun, especially in multiplayer. It's a grind to balance the mission to account for the aforementioned shortcomings, but at the end of the day we still have fun flying dissimilar high-fidelity combat aircraft in multiplayer.


-Home Fries

"Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty."
- Robert A. Heinlein

The average naval aviator, despite the sometimes swaggering exterior, is very much capable of such feelings as love, affection, intimacy, and caring. These feelings just don't involve anyone else.

#4309823 - 11/07/16 06:58 PM Re: Paradaz [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,614
theOden Offline
Member
theOden  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,614
Damn you Zaitzev!

#4309851 - 11/07/16 08:40 PM Re: Paradaz [Re: theOden]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Wow... somebody's been busy. Okay, let's do this!

Originally Posted By: David_OC
Once Snoopy's ban was lifted he gave Yo-Yo some great documentation about the hydraulic's found here Ice.

Haha! He shouldn't have been banned in the first place! Nice passive-aggressive mod response on that thread too! Makes them look really professional, yes? Even with the response Yo-Yo's given, they're not even committing to fix anything. In this case, I'll believe it when I see it. If I see it. How much you wanna bet?

Originally Posted By: David_OC
Their forum is run like it is, so it doesn't go out of control, we don't have to agree with it Ice, I know I wouldn't want to clean a product forum up, especially a passionate flight simming one! Be there all day everyday cleaning house. This would not help with development at all. So the rules are set, You only need to be a little bit professional when on their forum and you wont run into any problems. I see a lot of kids kick and screaming if they don't get attention and there way over there.

You and I both know this is a lie. You want evidence? Talk to the people who have been banned.

As for forum cleanup, well, if you had a good product and good dev response to dealing with product issues, then you DON'T need to do product forum cleanup. If you knew how to respond to customer concerns like a normal person would do, you'll get a happier customer base and that means less or no cleanup to do.

Speaking of forum cleanup, you do know that this is EXACTLY what they're doing over there, right? They're there all day cleaning house! As for "a little bit professional," I call a big, massive BS on this one. Evidence? See the thread Skate linked, where the OP had to grovel first and last on his post.

Originally Posted By: David_OC
Why do you keep talking about evidence? Somethings evidence is needed (Yes the ITT is out by the manual (evidence)"Answer" What should I change it to tho? This is the "detailed" Information I have to go off), sometimes just perception or how someone feels about something. I see your way and do understand why you perceive it the way you do. I just see what I have with ED's products and feel it outweighs the negative. Yes even with the faults for a while, there not show stoppers anyway.

First of all, you were the one who asked me about evidence first. Suxx to be put on the spot without a leg to stand on, huh?

Evidence is available about the ITT issue. Evidence is available about the AMRAAM issue. Evidence is available about the BMP issue. Evidence is available about ED's moderation practices. Nothing about perception, nothing about feelings. Facts.

You, on the other hand, have yet to supply evidence for the claims you've made here on these threads. And no, you definitely do not see things from my perspective.

Originally Posted By: David_OC
See the line about "tactics" so you are questioning ED's business tactics. You think it was a bad call worrying about DX11 and should have cleaned up all the other big/small problems instead. The problems too are perceived differently by many people too. To me most are small because how I play and use DCS perhaps. The ITT being out can be a real pain for some and I get that too, because that's how they use DCS.

Nice try there bud. Unfortunately for you, even talking about business tactics, there are tons of evidence to support the fact that ED have no clue about what they're doing. No roadmap. No focus. Constant delays. Why? No business tactics.

Originally Posted By: David_OC
What I see is some of the underlying problems that need fixing are on the back burner until the core is more stable and the direction or how things will be with the core are a little more set in stone and moving forward.

Again, no. Do we really need 2.5 and a new graphics engine to fix AMRAAMs? Or BMP accuracy? Bomb-explosion stutters did not exist in A10C beta, and the view distance was much further out as well. So what's the need for DX11 engine?

Originally Posted By: David_OC
ED will get back to fixing all the other problems, perhaps they want to put the time in and redo a lot of it to make it way better and not just spend time trying to tinker with the old code to get it somewhat right. They seem to be perfectionist, perhaps too much sometimes and this slows things down.

You really need to stop taking whatever it is you're taking, bud. This may be ED 10 years from now, but this sure isn't ED now.

Originally Posted By: David_OC
DCS is good enough to be on the ground in a tank too.

Evidence?

Originally Posted By: David_OC
It is cool to hook up real ATC recorded chatter to different stations in the A10, I do this all the time, even real firefights sounds off YouTube, so you feel you need to help out big time.

Yeah, but you're faking it. In BMS, it's real.

Originally Posted By: David_OC
I still build missions in DCS like a standard mission in F4 that has random spawn intercept paths and events. You just don't get the, “I made a difference to the big war picture”

Delusional. How long does it take you to frag a mission in BMS? How long does it take you to make a mission in DCS? I wager an hour's work in BMS will take well over 5 hour's work in DCS, and then you can't play the damn thing because you've tested it that much that you know all the triggers and where everything is.

Originally Posted By: David_OC
Can the AMRAAM be better or more accurate? Sure and ED will make it better, but someone will always complain it's not quite right forever

Sure, but being "way off" is a far cry from "not quite right."

Originally Posted By: David_OC
BMP accuracy? Wasn't it better now? More random. Anyway this may come under redoing parts of the overall AI plan perhaps? And not wasting time trying to fudge it better, same with the ATC and ground AI. Just some speculation here tho.

Baseless speculation.

Originally Posted By: David_OC
I’m a F4 fanboi too, I had falcon 3.0 on the amiga. I like all the sims I own in different ways and I do own a few.

No. You own F4 and other sims. That's it. You're not a fan boy, much less a "fanboi." Please do not use terms inappropriately. You are, however, a DCS fanboi. THAT is using the term correctly.

Originally Posted By: David_OC
ED made the massive big call and has paid the price no denying this; it's caused very big delays and massive setbacks with module updates and major fixes. I feel we were lucky to get Nevada and a taste of what is to come with the maturing of EDGE.

Yeah, you're lucky ED is making DCS in the first place, otherwise, it'll be the death of combat flight simming!! OH NO!!

Originally Posted By: David_OC
So I agree with the direction ED went

Still making this statement without support.

Originally Posted By: David_OC
I look at ED and the 3rd party’s high fidelity SimArt, at the same level as PMDG. Not many developers are anywhere near this level with aircraft. ED just needs to get their New World stable and have edge mature over the next few years.

How much longer are you willing to wait?

Originally Posted By: David_OC
Some of my evidence is just how fn cool it is to fire up say the Gazelle and speed around low level and fly under bridges. I am really enjoying this little chopper, would love to get proper cyclic controls, would settle for mfg crosswinds. Perhaps that will be next on the sim shopping list soon.

Again, you show how you really fly the sim. You don't need DCS for this, you can do this in FSX/P3D/XP10. This is the reason you're content with what ED offers; you have no desire to fly and fight in the sim. So what if the view distance is low? You're too busy watching the waves and flying under bridges!! So what if the game stutters when bombs go off? You probably never drop ordnance anyway!! So what if the AMRAAMs are off or the BMPs are silly-levels accurate? You probably don't even know what a Master Arm switch is or Rmax/Rmin and as for BMPs, you never go near them anyway!! They only clutter up the landscape and scratch your paintjob!



Originally Posted By: Paradaz
You can't build a mission in DCS like you can in F4 either, unless you are talking about very simplistic parameters, there are far too many limitations, and this is a throwback to the engine in use and one that is unlikely to change - EVER. You have also just spent a long time talking about F4 after previously having a go at ICE for exactly the same thing.

Yeah, he's starting to say he flys BMS now and that he agrees with a lot of points that we're making. Funny how that happened after being put on the spot, huh?



Originally Posted By: David_OC
They will not allow kicking and screaming and spamming of complaints in multiple sections tho. The forum mods probably have to consolidate the mess for the testers to test and report it to ED etc. Could be why they get tick off easily?

First off, nobody is kicking and screaming.
Second, their spam tolerance must be really low. Like 3 or something. Then they get their ban hammer out.
Third, why worry about the mess? The irrelevant threads get buried after a while, the good ones stay up. This is the case for, um, all the other "normal" forums. So that's not the reason ED mods keep cleaning house.
Fourth, it's not like they tick off easily only on the bug-report thread, they tick off easily over their ENTIRE forum and even include OTHER people's websites and forums. Want evidence? See Force10's thread.

Originally Posted By: David_OC
About the F4 thing I just was trying to show Ice how I see and use the different simulators that's all.

You call me out for using BMS as an example, then do the exact same thing yourself and even agree with me on some points? Way to be consistent, bro!

Originally Posted By: David_OC
You can make a mission in DCS like F4 missions with as many or more randomness things going on.

Time to put your money where your mouth is. Let's see your DCS mission with "as many or more randomness things going on." Put up or shut up.


Originally Posted By: David_OC
They should do what BMS did and hide, it's not very viable for them.

Oh my god!! This is so rich!! You tell me to stop using BMS as an example and lambast them for "hiding away" and now you do the exact same thing and even say that ED should hide as well!

Finally coming 'round, eh?

*takes a knee*


Originally Posted By: David_OC
Is it pic time? Playin with the new graphics card settings.

*takes a knee again*
Is anyone keeping score?


Originally Posted By: David_OC
ED closes down the debates when it has gone far enough and hits a wall and gets silly.

Please stop lying, David. I'd normally encourage this behavior as it gives me more material to respond to, but it's getting sad now, really.


Originally Posted By: David_OC
Can you tell me or show me a hidden or deleted questionable subject?

I could, but some of them are hidden and those that aren't have been deleted.


Originally Posted By: David_OC
If you have (good documented) info, Yo-Yo will debate it with you head to head no doubt in my mind when he has a little bit of time spare. Just don't go there and say he said she said type of conversation with no documentation to back it up.

Yeah, except that "no doubt in my mind" vs. what actually happens in real life are two different things.


Originally Posted By: David_OC
Surely you could think of one of these black bag subjects that ED has hidden away?

Evidence. Anecdotal, sure, but what can you do with such practices by ED?

Originally Posted By: David_OC
you can make this stuff up just to make it look bad.

We don't have to. It's right there for all to see. No belief or blind faith necessary.


Originally Posted By: HomeFries
I'm not saying that ED is good at project management (they violate almost every tenet) or have a repeatable process in place (they show symptoms of lacking a unified process), but comparing them to a shooter is apples and oranges. With a shooter, a AAA studio like Activision can license the Unreal engine, build some objects and textures, create a storyline and levels, port it to multiple platforms, and throw out the next CoD for $60 a pop and still have the sales to net millions. Same with Battlefield, Dishonored, et al.

That's with a AAA studio making AAA titles. Wiht a smaller studio making a game for a smaller niche market, ED should be as good as if not better than big, bloated companies with regards to project management! The less efficient they are, the longer the project takes, the less their profits become.

If you can make a sim for 2 years and sell it at $50 per copy, why develop it for 4 years? You're not going to sell it at $100 per copy, even if it has "more features"... at that price, you've probably priced yourself out of the market! At the very least, you'll have low uptake of your product!



Originally Posted By: theOden
Damn you Zaitzev!

Hehehe.... Indeed!! biggrin



Whew! That was fun! I hope you guys have as much fun reading it as I had writing it!! biggrin


- Ice
#4310015 - 11/08/16 10:02 AM Re: Paradaz [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 196
David_OC Offline
(OC) Pythagoras
David_OC  Offline
(OC) Pythagoras
Member

Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 196
Australia
DCS Will have DCS level tanks one day Ice, M1A1, M2 Bradley, BMP? Hay this would be a good way to stop the sniper shots, have a real person in it. lol

Listen Ice, I agree with you this whole time with a lot of your points you have said. I enjoy what is available in DCS now and it's money well spent for me. Yes annoyed by delays and all. But what I get out of it outweighs the bad for me and is only going to get better. Yes annoying long waits because Sim tech is fn hard to do. Inventing sim tech code would be well really hard?

I wish Eagle Dynamics was in the position back in 1991 and spent the 11 million on Su-27 Flanker. Well they were not that big to throw money around like that back then. Maybe it was lucky for us they didn't because Eagle Dynamics are still here today setting the future in combat flight simulation. Yes BMS too Ice...

I agree DCS is no where near polished BMS has got F4 to now. The graphics are starting to struggle tho.

But I like to go low and experience full 3D battles in VR. I want to do SEAD off the carrier in VR.

DCS is going to get me that. OK Eventually two weeks....

Look Ice 3D low down and the stryker apc. This is one big difference a sandbox simulation gives you.


#4310023 - 11/08/16 10:41 AM Re: Paradaz [Re: David_OC]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Originally Posted By: David_OC
DCS Will have DCS level tanks one day Ice, M1A1, M2 Bradley, BMP?

Sure, and maybe one day pigs could fly. Your point?


Originally Posted By: David_OC
Listen Ice, I agree with you this whole time with a lot of your points you have said.

I'm not here to convince you to agree with me. I'm here to challenge what you said. Sure, you agree with me on a lot of points (o rly?), sure, you like BMS. You still have to back up the statements you have been called out on though. Otherwise, I'll probably just get that Freddy Mercury meme picture and post it here. My knee's getting tired.


Originally Posted By: David_OC
Look Ice 3D low down and the stryker apc. This is one big difference a sandbox simulation gives you.

That pic has absolutely nothing to do with "sandbox simulation." Anyone with skills can do that off of Photoshop or create it from scratch on 3DSMax (or whatever 3D program they're using now).

That pic has everything to do with "pretty graphics," but you don't need a simulation to do that.


How's the DCS mission creation going? mycomputer


- Ice
#4311553 - 11/12/16 08:44 PM Re: Paradaz [Re: HomeFries]  
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,922
Paradaz Offline
Senior Member
Paradaz  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,922
UK
Originally Posted By: HomeFries

This doesn't give them a pass for consistent delays and 11th hour communication (unless you read Cyrillic), but provides an insight into the scope they undertake. If anything, this makes a unified process that much more important; we can only hope that they are evaluating lessons learned after each project or milestone so that they can streamline things or provide better estimates in the future.


That's also my hope, but there is noghting to suggest it has ever happened in the last 8 years. If anything the announcement of further 2.5 delays probably shows that the scope they have undertaken and the amount of work they currently have is far too much for the resources they have as it's multiple entities that are delayed.


On the Eighth day God created Paratroopers and the Devil stood to attention.
#4312626 - 11/16/16 04:18 PM Re: Paradaz [Re: David_OC]  
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 207
bkthunder Offline
Member
bkthunder  Offline
Member

Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 207
Originally Posted By: David_OC


I wish Eagle Dynamics was in the position back in 1991 and spent the 11 million on Su-27 Flanker. Well they were not that big to throw money around like that back then. Maybe it was lucky for us they didn't because Eagle Dynamics are still here today setting the future in combat flight simulation. Yes BMS too Ice...



WARNING: THE FOLLOWING COMMENT IS MILDLY INFLAMMATORY AND INCLUDES FACTS THAT SOME READERS COULD FIND DISTURBING


It might give you some comfort to know that the A-A radar code used in DCS World is still exactly the same that was used in Flanker 1. Untouched.
Maybe if they spent a little more back then, we'd have some better BVR engagements in 2016 (almost 2017), maybe we'd even have an A-G radar!

I say while we wait for ED to set the future of combat flight simulation (after the last newsletter, I'd say the distant future), how about we enjoy the present of combat flight simulation?

I know in the darkness of the night, when Sith can't see you, you click on that BMS icon....you little F-16 fetishist you... :P


Last edited by bkthunder; 11/16/16 04:29 PM.
#4312627 - 11/16/16 04:23 PM Re: Paradaz [Re: bkthunder]  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,892
GrayGhost Offline
Hotshot
GrayGhost  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,892
Originally Posted By: bkthunder
It might give you some comfort to know that the A-A radar code used in DCS World is still exactly the same that was used in Flanker 1. Untouched.


Incorrect. While the preference might be to completely redo all that, it has definitely been 'touched'.


--
44th VFW
#4312689 - 11/16/16 09:51 PM Re: Paradaz [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
But how much is the original code?


- Ice
#4312760 - 11/17/16 03:13 AM Re: Paradaz [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 6
jbrking Offline
Junior Member
jbrking  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 6
QLD
This might be a bit off topic but..

I would like to know how many other people out there were lured to DCS World years ago when they heard that the
F/A-18C was in the cards?

Possibly even buying modules simply to pass the time before this module was released as it has always seemed to be just around the corner.

I love the Mirage and Fishbed modules but I had never had enough interest in these aircraft to warrant the time to delve into every aspect of the plane and learn all the systems. And it probably wont ever go beyond taking off, basic navigation and landing for these planes. I had always told myself that I would get serious when the Hornet was released as study sims can be quite time consuming.

Having heard the recent news of more delays I have sold my HOTAS and decided to boycott Eagle Dynamics by not spending any more of my money until the F/A-18C is released. I know Leatherneck have some exciting projects in the works and it will probably hurt me more than Eagle Dynamics but I am going to stick to my guns on this.

I just had to post my thoughts here after seeing a comment somewhere where a person stated that it was only a small few that were complaining. DCS World forums are heavily censored and SimHQ doesn't have that much traffic so that should be no measure of peoples growing disdain for this sim. Trust me when I say there are a lot of disappointed people out there.

It's just we don't all have the energy or the time to register and post our concerns across multiple forums.

#4312795 - 11/17/16 09:50 AM Re: Paradaz [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 207
bkthunder Offline
Member
bkthunder  Offline
Member

Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 207
I first got into "DCS" with Lock-On. The graphics were spectacular and I was still a kiddo, so I got fooled. I played a little bit and the first thing I noticed was "why the hell does my wingman stay glued to my wing and replicate each and every move I make?" It was dumb. I went back to Flacon 4.0 which I already had.

After a while Lock On Flaming Cliffs came out, and I bought the DVD, which arrived by post.
At the time it was cool, because of the AFM for the Su-25T. Again, after a few missions it became dull, and I went back to Falcon.

Then DCS Black Shark came out, I bought it immediately. It was a real novelty because of the helicopter, the great flight model etc.
It was crashing A LOT on my pc but I studied and enjoyed the Ka-50.

When they announced DCS A-10 I was very happy. I always loved the A-10 and finally, together with the F-16 in Falcon, I had the chance to fly two of my most favourite airplanes. Instant buy. It was quite buggy, but it finally became quite stable ith version 1.1.1.1
I joined a serious squadron and we trained and flew a lot. It was a pain to be honest, because the game was crashing and lagging a lot, and so each mission had to be restarted multiple times. Anyway it was a good time.
After 1.1.1.1 it all went very much downhill, the game became so badly broken and unplayable that we all gave up and disbanded our small squadron. People lost interest and only a few hardcore simmers were left...
1.5 was a good step forward, some stability has been brought back but apart from improved graphics and new modules, the core "simulation" is not much more than what I remember from Lock-On.

I fly DCS regularly, it's a good airframe simulator and i enjoy the different aircraft and switchology. I treat it pretty much in the same way as FSX. Mostly free flights, circuits etc. The Mirage brought some A-A fun for me, it's a good module with a good, open developer behind. Other than that, when I want to feel like I'm a fighterpilot at war, rather than a rich guy with a lot of warbirds in the hanagar, I fire up BMS.

#4312876 - 11/17/16 02:32 PM Re: Paradaz [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Jedi Master Offline
Entil'zha
Jedi Master  Offline
Entil'zha
Sierra Hotel

Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Space Coast, USA
I can safely say all my feelings, positive and negative, were established long before Hornet, SoH, or any of the WWII stuff was announced.

The problem with DCS is while individual planes' systems modeling has improved from the days of Flanker and LOMAC, the rest of it has stayed kinda static. The visuals obviously have improved greatly with the release of 1.5/2.0, but I mean more how it plays.

We still have the same issues with AAMs. We still have the same issues with gunners using the Force to always hit your plane with nothing but visual guidance. We have AI that's about the same. We still have guided missiles locking on and then missing the target by mere feet at the very end for no ascertainable reason, assuming they're not shot down by weapons that would never have a chance of shooting down a missile. A Shilka isn't a CIWS!

DCS World is a Turner Films' colorized version of LOMAC, for those of you who ever saw an old B&W film get that process. It looks much better but underneath the same strengths and weaknesses persist.

The delay for this plane or that terrain is really low priority to me at this point. They get here when they get here. What's the difference?

TBH, I'm not excited for the Hornet--if I'm going to be still watching my AAMs fall out of the sky prematurely, my AGMs miss or get shot down, and my belly get perforated by a BMP because I flew by at 1500 ft and 400kts.



To be clear, I don't enjoy "learning" a plane. It's called a study sim but I don't get my enjoyment out of the "study" part. I get it from using them in combat. It could be a TS/SCi-level 100% accurate modeled Hornet and it will STILL let me down with DCS World's current game environment.
Fix the A-10C's ITT gauges? Sure, fine, whatever, how about a bomber intercept mission in my F-15C that doesn't degenerate to guns-only as 75% of my missiles miss and the rest only damage, not destroy, the targets they hit.

I feel like DCS World development has become so focused on individual details that the overall picture is getting missed.



The Jedi Master


The anteater is wearing the bagel because he's a reindeer princess. -- my 4 yr old daughter
#4312890 - 11/17/16 03:14 PM Re: Paradaz [Re: Jedi Master]  
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 207
bkthunder Offline
Member
bkthunder  Offline
Member

Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 207
Originally Posted By: Jedi Master


I feel like DCS World development has become so focused on individual details that the overall picture is getting missed.



The Jedi Master


So true...

#4312922 - 11/17/16 05:31 PM Re: Paradaz [Re: Jedi Master]  
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,922
Paradaz Offline
Senior Member
Paradaz  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,922
UK
Bang on Jedi.......the only questionable bit for me is;

Originally Posted By: Jedi

The delay for this plane or that terrain is really low priority to me at this point. They get here when they get here. What's the difference?


Many of us have realised the mistake in buying 'early access' content now realizing that we should have seen much more progress by now. The frustrating thing is that we have a 'world' in various incomplete states......and the way its gone so far means we're another 8-10 years away from having something that actually integrates all these random entities of the jigsaw puzzle.

Next module? DCS Blimp


On the Eighth day God created Paratroopers and the Devil stood to attention.
#4312926 - 11/17/16 05:47 PM Re: Paradaz [Re: Jedi Master]  
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 191
Eddie Offline
Registered Lunatic
Eddie  Offline
Registered Lunatic
Member

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 191
Originally Posted By: Jedi Master

I feel like DCS World development has become so focused on individual details that the overall picture is getting missed.


Not sure I agree. Or should I say, not sure I agree with the wording you've chosen.

I'd say that it's become focused on the wrong details. Details can/should be nothing but a good thing, but details in isolation without the depth surrounding them are largely worthless.

I do feel that recent debates around certain details have been somewhat erroneously presented. Don't think for a second that Noodle, I, or others would suggest that ITT modelling or other details are more important than something such as AI modelling (quite the opposite in fact). But if something can be improved then the aim of all parties should be to do so.


Eddie

#4312931 - 11/17/16 06:12 PM Re: Paradaz [Re: Jedi Master]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Haha!! I remember that! If I flew too low and my wingman was on my left side and I banked aggressively to the left, ka-boom!! biggrin

I started here with the old Flanker 2.0, but I was really too young to fully appreciate that sim. When I came back a few years later, it was Lock-On Modern Air Combat, and I kept my finger in the pie since then. FC1, FC2, then DCS A10C. The group I was flying with in FC2 had a wing that flew the A-10A, so it was cool to "transition" from the A-model to the C-model.

Thanks for voicing your viewpoint on the forums, jbrking. Some people seem to think that just because a few of us are a vocal minority, that we're the only ones unhappy with the sim. Others like yourself don't have the time or energy, others simply move on to other things. biggrin


Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
The delay for this plane or that terrain is really low priority to me at this point. They get here when they get here. What's the difference?

True! If a module gets in on time, I'm going to be amazed but if not, I'm going to be not-amazed. The difference will be the content of my posts at that time.


Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
TBH, I'm not excited for the Hornet--if I'm going to be still watching my AAMs fall out of the sky prematurely, my AGMs miss or get shot down, and my belly get perforated by a BMP because I flew by at 1500 ft and 400kts.

*puts hand up* I'm excited for the Hornet because of my fond memories of Jane's F/A-18 and I'm excited for the Tomcat because... well... Tomcat. Enuf said! I'm open minded enough to realize that DCS can be a really good airframe simulator so I'm looking forward to learning about these airframes. Hopefully they'll come with an aircraft carrier so I can practice trapping as well.

The optimistic side of me hopes that by the time I'm comfortable enough with these airframes, maybe ED has made major changes that the World environment would be worth spending time in... we can only wait and see. For the record, I'd very much like to be proven wrong... but I'm not accepting any bets nor am I holding my breath.


- Ice
Page 46 of 54 1 2 44 45 46 47 48 53 54

Moderated by  Force10, RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
CD WOFF
by Britisheh. 03/28/24 08:05 PM
Carnival Cruise Ship Fire....... Again
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:58 PM
Baltimore Bridge Collapse
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:51 PM
The Oldest WWII Veterans
by F4UDash4. 03/24/24 09:21 PM
They got fired after this.
by Wigean. 03/20/24 08:19 PM
Grown ups joke time
by NoFlyBoy. 03/18/24 10:34 PM
Anyone Heard from Nimits?
by F4UDash4. 03/18/24 10:01 PM
RIP Gemini/Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford
by semmern. 03/18/24 02:14 PM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0