Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 25 of 54 1 2 23 24 25 26 27 53 54
#4273458 - 06/25/16 11:58 PM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 467
nadal Offline
Member
nadal  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 467
Originally Posted By: - Ice
Originally Posted By: bkthunder
The avionics are always those of the F-16, and IIRC that's one of the things that are "hardcoded" from the original Falcon 4.0.

Sure, but what about the other aircraft's FM? Or being able to display 4 MFDs instead of just 2? Won't that be "new code"?


Which aircraft allows to display more than 2 mfds in bms4.33..?

Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4273462 - 06/26/16 12:51 AM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Sorry, not yet, I guess, but I have high hopes for the 3rd "MFD" in the Hornet! biggrin Doesn't that have more functionality than just a HSI? It's been decades since I've flown Jane's F/A-18.


- Ice
#4273491 - 06/26/16 05:55 AM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: bkthunder]  
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,342
Remon Offline
Member
Remon  Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,342
Greece
Originally Posted By: bkthunder
Ice, you took these sentences out of context. Basically I agree with you.

The bottom line of my post was/is: ED has access to the code and can modify it at will, but they haven't done anything remarkable with it, basically only eye candy and modules on the same old code.
BMS have done a tremendous job on something they can't modify. Luckily, that base code was visionary, and it's still the best war simulator.
So ED are lazy/lacking skills.


"Only eye candy". rofl.

Yes, BMS has done the truly hard work, like the Dynamic Campaign...

#4273496 - 06/26/16 06:58 AM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: Remon]  
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 378
mrskortch Offline
Member
mrskortch  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 378
Originally Posted By: Remon
Yes, BMS has done the truly hard work, like the Dynamic Campaign...


BMS didn't create the dynamic campaign. Kevin Klemmick and the Microprose team that developed Falcon 4 made the DC. Now thats not to downplay anything the Benchmark Sims team did to it, I honestly have no idea how the DC has evolved over the years, but I think its disingenuous to attribute it solely to the BMS team. Even if most know what you are talking about, theres still plenty of new players around who don't know the history behind Falcon 4 and its iterations.

#4273498 - 06/26/16 07:33 AM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: Remon]  
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 207
bkthunder Offline
Member
bkthunder  Offline
Member

Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 207
Originally Posted By: Remon
Originally Posted By: bkthunder
Ice, you took these sentences out of context. Basically I agree with you.

The bottom line of my post was/is: ED has access to the code and can modify it at will, but they haven't done anything remarkable with it, basically only eye candy and modules on the same old code.
BMS have done a tremendous job on something they can't modify. Luckily, that base code was visionary, and it's still the best war simulator.
So ED are lazy/lacking skills.


"Only eye candy". rofl.

Yes, BMS has done the truly hard work, like the Dynamic Campaign...


Lol, Remon, if you spent a nanosecond reading (and understanding) my post, you would see that I never said that BMS developed the DC engine, on the contrary, this was done by Microprose.

What BMS did is a pretty long list of amazing things, within a code that they don't own and is inaccessible in some parts.
What ED did is an equally long list of things, which unfortunately for me and you, doesn't include fundamental stuff such as:

- AI
- Efficient rendering of objects on a large scale scenario
- Dynamic Campaign

Those are all things that, given ED is the owner of the code, should be within reach if they had the plans/motivation/skills to do it.

Really it is sad that the commercial (paid-for) work of a company whose main business are flight simulators, can be compared (and in many aspects pales) to the achievements of a group of spare time modders that work for free on a 18 years old code they don't own...

But hey, "everything is subject to change" no? Let's stay optimistic :P

#4273500 - 06/26/16 07:48 AM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: bkthunder]  
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,342
Remon Offline
Member
Remon  Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,342
Greece
Originally Posted By: mrskortch
Originally Posted By: Remon
Yes, BMS has done the truly hard work, like the Dynamic Campaign...


BMS didn't create the dynamic campaign. Kevin Klemmick and the Microprose team that developed Falcon 4 made the DC. Now thats not to downplay anything the Benchmark Sims team did to it, I honestly have no idea how the DC has evolved over the years, but I think its disingenuous to attribute it solely to the BMS team. Even if most know what you are talking about, theres still plenty of new players around who don't know the history behind Falcon 4 and its iterations.


Don't worry, I knew that, it was sarcasm.


Originally Posted By: bkthunder
Lol, Remon, if you spent a nanosecond reading (and understanding) my post, you would see that I never said that BMS developed the DC engine, on the contrary, this was done by Microprose.

What BMS did is a pretty long list of amazing things, within a code that they don't own and is inaccessible in some parts.
What ED did is an equally long list of things, which unfortunately for me and you, doesn't include fundamental stuff such as:

- AI
- Efficient rendering of objects on a large scale scenario
- Dynamic Campaign

Those are all things that, given ED is the owner of the code, should be within reach if they had the plans/motivation/skills to do it.

Really it is sad that the commercial (paid-for) work of a company whose main business are flight simulators, can be compared (and in many aspects pales) to the achievements of a group of spare time modders that work for free on a 18 years old code they don't own...

But hey, "everything is subject to change" no? Let's stay optimistic :P


And you, of course, proceed to list stuff that neither the BMS group has coded.

Last edited by Remon; 06/26/16 07:49 AM.
#4273511 - 06/26/16 10:39 AM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: Remon]  
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 207
bkthunder Offline
Member
bkthunder  Offline
Member

Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 207
Originally Posted By: Remon
Originally Posted By: mrskortch
Originally Posted By: Remon
Yes, BMS has done the truly hard work, like the Dynamic Campaign...


BMS didn't create the dynamic campaign. Kevin Klemmick and the Microprose team that developed Falcon 4 made the DC. Now thats not to downplay anything the Benchmark Sims team did to it, I honestly have no idea how the DC has evolved over the years, but I think its disingenuous to attribute it solely to the BMS team. Even if most know what you are talking about, theres still plenty of new players around who don't know the history behind Falcon 4 and its iterations.


Don't worry, I knew that, it was sarcasm.


Originally Posted By: bkthunder
Lol, Remon, if you spent a nanosecond reading (and understanding) my post, you would see that I never said that BMS developed the DC engine, on the contrary, this was done by Microprose.

What BMS did is a pretty long list of amazing things, within a code that they don't own and is inaccessible in some parts.
What ED did is an equally long list of things, which unfortunately for me and you, doesn't include fundamental stuff such as:

- AI
- Efficient rendering of objects on a large scale scenario
- Dynamic Campaign

Those are all things that, given ED is the owner of the code, should be within reach if they had the plans/motivation/skills to do it.

Really it is sad that the commercial (paid-for) work of a company whose main business are flight simulators, can be compared (and in many aspects pales) to the achievements of a group of spare time modders that work for free on a 18 years old code they don't own...

But hey, "everything is subject to change" no? Let's stay optimistic :P


And you, of course, proceed to list stuff that neither the BMS group has coded.


Again, please read before you write...
As I have said, BMS didn't code the DC, AI, ATC etc (although they modify and improved a lot). As I wrote before (reading would again be beneficial when quoting someone...), BMS didn't have to code these things because Microprose did it.

So BMS didn't code the DC etc. Why? No access to the original code / already coded by Microprose = No need to code it.

ED didn't code the DC etc. Why? They have access to the original code (they own it), so why is it that almost 20 years later they still haven't developed things that Falcon 4.0 had in 1998? Maybe you can answer?

#4273524 - 06/26/16 01:02 PM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: bkthunder]  
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,342
Remon Offline
Member
Remon  Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,342
Greece
Because they don't want to, yet? Maybe because changing from dx9 to dx11, and everything that comes with it, is a much more difficult task than making a 3d cockpit*? Most of the engines that change APIs don't take to the transition too well, especially with smaller companies (Arma 3, almost non existent dx11 benefits, and Il-2 CloD, dx10 implementation was really buggy and almost no one uses it, come to mind in the sim world), the exact opposite of what happened with DCS.

* Not trying to say that BMS hasn't done some amazing work, they have.

Last edited by Remon; 06/26/16 03:01 PM.
#4273574 - 06/26/16 05:51 PM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 337
Art_J Offline
Member
Art_J  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 337
Warsaw, Poland
Many good companies developed great sims and features in the past, when cost-vs-benefit was not an absolutely primary factor. These days are long gone though and won't come back.

Apart from sim-flying, I do a lot of sim-racing. Still play heavily modded Grand Prix Legends from 1998 - an excellent and unorthodox sim for that time, but a commercial failure, thus never succeeded by anything in the same spirit; GTR2 from 2006 - the best endurance racing sim ever was, but also not a commercial bomb, and again never succeeded by anything remotely similar. Never played Geoff Crammond's GP4 from 2002, but I know it is still considered a benchmark of how moder F1 sim should be made, and yet, feature-wise, today's F1 offerings by Electronic Arts don't even come close to it (while we know EA doesn't suffer from shortage of funds and workforce, does it?)

I stopped wondering why modern sim-racing developers don't put some obvious gameplay features in modern titles, even when technically they could. They just don't bother, as the number of anoraks who appreciate these features will not provide sufficient revenue.

Same applies to flight sims. If the Falcon 4 devs were to build their sim in 2016, I don't really think they would develop Dynamic Campaign engine for it either.

If ED ever develops something similar to DC, or provides options for the community to do so, I'll be happy. Not holding my breath for it though.

#4273586 - 06/26/16 06:46 PM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 662
cdelucia Offline
Member
cdelucia  Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 662
Pittsburgh, PA
Sure we know why there's no DC - was stated earlier in this thread: ED's main source of revenue is the private contract/military market. Why did we get a hi-fi A-10C module from them? Because they wanted to give the commercial market [us] what it wants? Of course not - they wanted to make a little more off of something they'd already made for the Air National Guard.

Likewise, the private contract/military market have no need of a DC. The only thing they really care for are cockpit and flight dynamics familiarization. The only reason we have a FAC module is so the ANG could step its pilots through working with one in the updated A-10C cockpit.

There's really no mystery here, the commercial market plays second fiddle to their main customers. We get the long delayed left-over fruits of their labors from the private contract/military market. I just wish ED would admit as much.

And yes, today F4 would have any even smaller market with which to appeal to recoup its enormous development costs. Just how things turned out; opium-of-the-masses FPS like DOTA and whatnot reap the biggest revenues, so they get the best programmers/companies. Hi-fi modern combat flight sims on the other hand are very niche. That's all there is to it.

Personally, I'm not buying anything until the F-18C is finalized. Until then I'll get back to fixing the settings that 1.5.4 messed up with my TrackIR, and praying they fix SLI someday.

#4273590 - 06/26/16 07:00 PM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,180
scrim Offline
Member
scrim  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,180
Where have people gotten that twisted idea from? If they were mainly making simulators for military customers, how come there's only 1 single plane from this side year 2000? Why is there not a single map of a war zone any of these imagined customers operate in? Why are ED developing Soviet trainers and WW2 planes? And why, exactly why would mil customers be asking for an F/A-18C module? The biggest military customer there is is currently in the progress of replacing their legacy Hornets.

People have found exactly one single website where ED is trying to get into the mil market, mostly advertising stuff they don't even have finished yet. Sorry, but there is no "we're not the main market, that's why they're treating commercial customers like trash" excuse. The commercial market has always been their main focus, and it still is.

Last edited by scrim; 06/26/16 07:03 PM.
#4273596 - 06/26/16 07:40 PM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: scrim]  
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,183
Force10 Offline
I'm just a
Force10  Offline
I'm just a
Senior Member

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,183
CA
Originally Posted By: scrim
Where have people gotten that twisted idea from? If they were mainly making simulators for military customers, how come there's only 1 single plane from this side year 2000? Why is there not a single map of a war zone any of these imagined customers operate in? Why are ED developing Soviet trainers and WW2 planes? And why, exactly why would mil customers be asking for an F/A-18C module? The biggest military customer there is is currently in the progress of replacing their legacy Hornets.

People have found exactly one single website where ED is trying to get into the mil market, mostly advertising stuff they don't even have finished yet. Sorry, but there is no "we're not the main market, that's why they're treating commercial customers like trash" excuse. The commercial market has always been their main focus, and it still is.


So did I imagine the military simulator that was running Nevada about 3 years ago? You can't count the 3rd party stuff (WWII etc.) as we're talking about ED and their priorities. The A-10, Nevada and the L-39 are all from private contracts I believe. What other DCS level items have ED created other than the Blackshark and those 3?

Here's Jim Mackonochie talking about their military contracts:


Last edited by Force10; 06/26/16 07:42 PM.

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"



#4273607 - 06/26/16 08:25 PM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 337
Art_J Offline
Member
Art_J  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 337
Warsaw, Poland
@ Cdelucia - re. TrackIR f-up - If You have another install, 1.5.3 stable or 2.0, copy the default.lua file from TrackIR folder and put it in OB 1.5.4. That will get Your TiR back to as it was.

If You don't, here's the edited one, to be turned on via JSGME:
http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2822725&postcount=134

#4273628 - 06/26/16 10:25 PM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
The discussion is not just DC and who created it and when. I think you're missing the point though -- BMS has done well with a code they had to "reverse engineer" in order to add new stuff and this makes ED look like they're sat twiddling their thumbs.

How much work do you think was done in order to add new aircraft into BMS? "But -Ice, those are just re-skinned F-16s!" Sure, the F-16 can hover, I forgot about that. And the undercarriage is strong enough to do carrier traps, I'm sure they didn't have to mod that. I'm positive that the Harrier, Hornet, and Viper have the same flight characteristics too.

What about adding new theatres? Or adding high-res ground textures? What about incorporating TrackIR support (was TIR present in 1998?/99? ) and a full 6DoF, fully-clickable pit with working gauges?

What is DCS missing that BMS has? How about being able to control your wingman or talk to the tower "normally"? "Two, RTB!" "Kunsan tower, Viper 1 requesting emergency landing." "Texaco, Ghost flight requesting rejoin." Has DCS changed it's comms menu yet? Instead of talking normally, I was limited to saying the "number" of the option I wanted. Remember, they have control of their code, they can change into a BMS-like comms menu if they wanted to.

"But -Ice, ED can do all that if they want to, but their priorities are elsewhere at the moment!" Really? How big was the outcry for DCS World 2 and Nevada terrain on the EDGE engine when they started the project? What would make them shift their priorities from modern-ish aircraft to WWII aircraft to Korean/Vietnam era aircraft? What would make them shift eras without even fleshing out a previous era?

How important is the shift to DirectX 11/12? Will ED collapse if it kept whatever engine it had before? How in the world does BMS survive if DirectX implementation was that important?


- Ice
#4273656 - 06/27/16 12:25 AM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,342
Remon Offline
Member
Remon  Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,342
Greece
Originally Posted By: - Ice
The discussion is not just DC and who created it and when. I think you're missing the point though -- BMS has done well with a code they had to "reverse engineer" in order to add new stuff and this makes ED look like they're sat twiddling their thumbs.

How much work do you think was done in order to add new aircraft into BMS? "But -Ice, those are just re-skinned F-16s!" Sure, the F-16 can hover, I forgot about that. And the undercarriage is strong enough to do carrier traps, I'm sure they didn't have to mod that. I'm positive that the Harrier, Hornet, and Viper have the same flight characteristics too.

What about adding new theatres? Or adding high-res ground textures? What about incorporating TrackIR support (was TIR present in 1998?/99? ) and a full 6DoF, fully-clickable pit with working gauges?


AF and Freefalcon had 3d pits and tir support. New theaters aren't a BMS thing. It doesn't have to do with code either.

Quote:
What is DCS missing that BMS has? How about being able to control your wingman or talk to the tower "normally"? "Two, RTB!" "Kunsan tower, Viper 1 requesting emergency landing." "Texaco, Ghost flight requesting rejoin." Has DCS changed it's comms menu yet? Instead of talking normally, I was limited to saying the "number" of the option I wanted. Remember, they have control of their code, they can change into a BMS-like comms menu if they wanted to.


I must admit, I haven't flown BMS for a while and I don't understand what you mean. I remember pressing T for the ATC menu, and then you had to press 1-5 for different options? And yes, DCS doesn't have a very good comms system. Also, I don't get what you mean with "normally".

Quote:
"But -Ice, ED can do all that if they want to, but their priorities are elsewhere at the moment!" Really? How big was the outcry for DCS World 2 and Nevada terrain on the EDGE engine when they started the project? What would make them shift their priorities from modern-ish aircraft to WWII aircraft to Korean/Vietnam era aircraft? What would make them shift eras without even fleshing out a previous era?


What outcry?

Quote:
How important is the shift to DirectX 11/12? Will ED collapse if it kept whatever engine it had before? How in the world does BMS survive if DirectX implementation was that important?


It survives by being old and free. And dx11/12 support is pretty huge. Unless you want your maps to look like flat images of cities painted on a couple of polygons.

Last edited by Remon; 06/27/16 12:28 AM.
#4273657 - 06/27/16 12:26 AM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 662
cdelucia Offline
Member
cdelucia  Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 662
Pittsburgh, PA
Art_J, thanks for the info - helped get things squared away.

/Rant mode on

As for the entertainment market (as Jim Mackonochie referred to it in the vid above) not being their main stay, well, interviews like the one posted above seem to point in that direction; but then there's also the complete lack of urgency with which they treat the entertainment market (again, we simmers). Hadn't thought about it, but I suppose they could just suck - I'd prefer to believe they've had other irons in the fire though (more trainers!).

What more can be said? ED's the only show in town for the modern jet combat sim and I'm sick of it. Not much I can do about that though. Except post here from time to time. Maybe I'll pick up the Mirage once that's actually finalized. Oh, and they get SLI working with EDGE. Shouldn't be too much to ask but then again they've ignored specific issues with it thus far.

/Rant mode off

#4273663 - 06/27/16 12:44 AM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: Force10]  
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,180
scrim Offline
Member
scrim  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,180
Originally Posted By: Force10
So did I imagine the military simulator that was running Nevada about 3 years ago? You can't count the 3rd party stuff (WWII etc.) as we're talking about ED and their priorities. The A-10, Nevada and the L-39 are all from private contracts I believe. What other DCS level items have ED created other than the Blackshark and those 3?

Here's Jim Mackonochie talking about their military contracts:



Well, that's an extremely dated film. It's from way before there even was a DCS World to talk off. Now, how much more have they churned out for the mil market since that was recorded? There's been some mentioning of BST's Mi-8 maybe being used as a sim for what, the Afghan air force? And then there's the "Battle Space" website, that's advertising mainly vaporware, the A-10C, and the Legacy Hornet that only the USMC is currently using, and is getting rid off soon.

#4273670 - 06/27/16 01:16 AM Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,183
Force10 Offline
I'm just a
Force10  Offline
I'm just a
Senior Member

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,183
CA
You're gonna have to help me out here on your point Scrim.

At the time of that video...Blackshark was already under developement...and yes...that seems to be a consumer level only module. After Blackshark and the video...there have been 3 major releases from ED:

A-10C
Nevada
L-39

These 3 releases seemed to be based on military/private projects ported over to consumers. What am I missing? What other DCS level module has been released with just the consumer in mind? I suppose you could make a case for the Edge engine...but it seems to be an engine that allows them to port their private contracts into more than anything else. I'm talking about ED only...3rd party devs for ED aren't what were talking about.


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"



#4273731 - 06/27/16 11:15 AM Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus [Re: Remon]  
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: Remon
AF and Freefalcon had 3d pits and tir support. New theaters aren't a BMS thing. It doesn't have to do with code either.

No experience with FF, but yes, AF had a 3D pit. I can't remember if MFDs were working in it, but only some gauges were and even then, I learned not to trust those that "worked." That's why I flew with RPM counter on the HUD. I also had a switch on my Cougar to toggle between 2D pit for pit work and 3D pit for SA. That was quite an immersion breaker when you compare to a fully-working 3D pit.

"New theatres aren't a BMS thing"??? Sure it isn't. But that's not what I'm saying. I said that in support to the claim about the work BMS devs have done on a very old sim compared to DCS devs on code they control. Heck, if it's not even a code thing, why do we have only two maps in DCS but so many planes? Why is the "new work" on the Black Sea map limited to re-skinning the textures? Because ED won't release the tools to make new maps? If we follow this train of thought, we just go down the rabbit hole of "ED doesn't know what it's doing."

Originally Posted By: Remon
I must admit, I haven't flown BMS for a while and I don't understand what you mean. I remember pressing T for the ATC menu, and then you had to press 1-5 for different options? And yes, DCS doesn't have a very good comms system. Also, I don't get what you mean with "normally".


Because of the consistent way of how the Falcon comms menu is structured, you know that if you press Y-1, that is "Tanker rejoin." Y-2 is "Tanker ready refuel." That is always, always the case. DCS comms menu (if they've not changed it) was dependent on your last transmission. Pressing 1 would be different depending if you were talking to tower previously or if you were talking to your wingman.

With this, it is much more fun and immersive using voice commands in BMS. You can make it simple and say "Tanker, request refuel" and the voice command program (VAC, Shoot, Voice Attack, LMC, etc.) will "send" Y-1 to the sim. You can also make it more "professional" and increase the immersion factor by saying "Texaco, Ghost flight requesting rejoin." Either way, it's way, way, WAY better than saying "Y-1" or even having to press Y-1 on the keyboard. So by "normally," I meant what a pilot would normally do inside an aircraft -- which is to SAY a phrase. With DCS's comms menu system, it's next-to-impossible to do this.

Hope that clears it up smile

Originally Posted By: Remon
What outcry?

Er, substitute "outcry" for "demand" and it'll make sense.

Originally Posted By: Remon
It survives by being old and free. And dx11/12 support is pretty huge. Unless you want your maps to look like flat images of cities painted on a couple of polygons.

Oh, yes. I have FSX, DCS A-10C, DCS BS2, FC2, FC3, I have access to Nevada (A10C Beta backer), I have EECH, Jane's F/A-18, and so on, but the reason I play BMS is because it is "old and free." Haha! Nope!

You know what the surprising thing was? I thought this "ugly terrain textures on a flat map" would bother me, especially since I thought everything above Angels 5 was "too high" in the Warthog. Heck, even the 3D cockpit of the Viper is quite "old-looking" and the shadows are definitely grainy! However, once I'm at Angels 20-30 and having my head on a swivel watching out for that SAM launch or pulling 9Gs and trying to keep cornerspeed at Angels 1 as I try to come 'round in a knife fight.... what textures? biggrin


- Ice
#4273734 - 06/27/16 11:21 AM Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus [Re: cdelucia]  
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: cdelucia
What more can be said? ED's the only show in town for the modern jet combat sim and I'm sick of it.


I keep getting confused about this statement. What exactly is barring people from flying BMS? The £6.99 Falcon Collection requirement? But that's just new for 4.33.1. 4.32 and 4.33.0 didn't need that. And what's £6.99 compared to how much other forms of entertainment costs nowadays? That even went down to around £1.50 during the sale, and I'm pretty sure you can even get it for cheaper! wink

If all you're asking for is a modern jet, isn't the F-16C/J Block 52 a modern jet? If you want a combat sim, well, the DC in Falcon will fill your need easily and is a totally different experience compared to ED's scripted-mission system.


- Ice
Page 25 of 54 1 2 23 24 25 26 27 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