Jump to content

Anyone starting to not like BS?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hmm... Where did you find that? Interesting.

Link?

 

-SK

 

Link - Russian page. Contains comparison as above not present on English page.

 

Link - English page.

Novice or Veteran looking for an alternative MP career?

Click me to commence your Journey of Pillage and Plunder!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

'....And when I get to Heaven, to St Peter I will tell....

One more Soldier reporting Sir, I've served my time in Hell......'

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just more boxes. Want graphics, look at FSX. Note, I said Graphics.

 

"Boxes" notwithstanding - it's the Advanced Flight Model I'm after; anything less just ain't good enough! So apart from the T-Frog the Shark is the next best thing that I'll use to blow things up and I'm afraid FSX just does not cut it ;)

Novice or Veteran looking for an alternative MP career?

Click me to commence your Journey of Pillage and Plunder!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

'....And when I get to Heaven, to St Peter I will tell....

One more Soldier reporting Sir, I've served my time in Hell......'

Link to post
Share on other sites
"Boxes" notwithstanding - it's the Advanced Flight Model I'm after; anything less just ain't good enough! So apart from the T-Frog the Shark is the next best thing that I'll use to blow things up and I'm afraid FSX just does not cut it ;)

 

Yup, the flight model is all what counts for me, all the graphics are nice and shit, flippable switches and knobs flying the Ka-50, errm, knobs in the ka-50 are all fine, but in the end, the flight model counts, and no damn FSX can come close. Maybe X-plane with more componenets and a good digital fly by wire simulation (lol, simulating a virtual system), but that is for FO to prove.

Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really enthused about the fact it's not a add-on and no jets in the initial release, but I will probably still purchase a copy.

 

Spoiler:

MSI 390 Carbon Pro, i7 9700K @ 4.9, Noctua NH-U14S, 32GB DDR4, MSI RTX 2080ti, Thrustmaster Warthog Throttle, VKB Gunfighter Mklll Pro, MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind Pedals, UTC MK II Pro, Dell AW3418DW Gsync monitor, 970 Pro M2 1TB (for DCS), Playseat Air Force Seat, KW-980 Jetseat, Vaicom Pro, 3X TM Cougar with Lilliput 8" screens.Tek Creations,UFC,HUD, controllers.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its funny to read some kind of oppinions when BS IS NOT RELEASED YET.

 

I think is better to wait only 2 o 3 months more ( i hope ) and make our oppinions based in true in game facts, no about thinkings.

" You must think in russian.."

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Windows 7 Home Premium-Intel 2500K OC 4.6-SSD Samsung EVO 860- MSI GTX 1080 - 16G RAM - 1920x1080 27´

 

Hotas Rhino X-55-MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals -Track IR 4

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will buy Black Shark as soon as it is released and I have the money... the first bit is the real issue.

 

I don't have any fear that I will be dissapointed etc...

 

I bought dissapointing games rushed out to get a buck and I didn't get pain in the liver for that. Only looking at the time and effort it takes to build (not from zero) a new A-10 model by a few fellows from this comunity it gives me an ideea of what Black Shark is in terms of amount of work.

 

And I don't even like helicopters... (they look dangerous :) )

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

I5 4670k, 32GB, GTX 1070, Thrustmaster TFRP, G940 Throttle extremely modded with Bodnar 0836X and Bu0836A,

Warthog Joystick with F-18 grip, Oculus Rift S - Almost all is made from gifts from friends, the most expensive parts at least

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is funny:

 

If we can found BS tomorrow in markets, we buy, install it and see hundreds of bugs, the comunity will start to post shouting what the hell is this.

 

If we wait more months to see a product well finished and well done, we shout again.

 

PLEASE ED TAKE YOUR TIME, WE WANT A GOOD PRODUCT 99 OR 100% FINISHED WITH LESS BUGS AS POSSIBLE, SO DONґT READ THIS KIND OF POSTS.

 

Greetings

Link to post
Share on other sites
"Boxes" notwithstanding - it's the Advanced Flight Model I'm after; anything less just ain't good enough! So apart from the T-Frog the Shark is the next best thing that I'll use to blow things up and I'm afraid FSX just does not cut it ;)

 

Didn't say it cut it. I don't like FSX series but I have to give them credit for the graphics environment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Beg to differ - that's Sukhumi, the capital of Abkhazia and the likely epicenter of a Caucasus conflict - only now it has its lake (easy to spot and navigate towards from a distance) and its railroad station is in the right place. Looks like a sports stadium in the right place too. And there are a lot more roads through the urban center now, so you'll have to search for driving vehicle targets instead of always ambushing them along the same one street.

 

The "boxes" are not just more numerous - they seem to be more carefully and accurately placed than before. Interesting..

 

-SK

 

I agree with your statement to a point. I am only saying it's the same old square, rectangle buildings, etc. Yes they have more roads etc. and that is good, the cities needed to be made larger and a little more accurate. All I am trying to say is it is not new but an upgraded to the old stuff, just more of it and yes more attention to what it should look like, re lakes, roads, sports fields as you have mentioned. It is still not new graphics just improvements to terrain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, there is the Six New Airbases as well as Animated Rivers etc etc and with this comparison shot to go by - it's looking pretty damn good from where I'm sitting :)

 

grnd_buildings_density.jpg

 

 

Where you are sitting is the usual place of a jetpilot - but BS will be a helicopter simulation until a fixed wing will be available. And helicopters tend to fly low - very low. Seen from this chair everything looks different. And what I have seen till today do not knock me out of my chair. It is a slightly improved version of the FC surrounding. Not a new terrain...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yup, the flight model is all what counts for me, all the graphics are nice and shit, flippable switches and knobs flying the Ka-50, errm, knobs in the ka-50 are all fine, but in the end, the flight model counts, and no damn FSX can come close. Maybe X-plane with more componenets and a good digital fly by wire simulation (lol, simulating a virtual system), but that is for FO to prove.

 

Dear god, when I said FSX , I made it perfectly clear GRAPHICS, not texture upgrade. I know FSX does not cut it. DID NOT SAY THAT. A lot of people here have texture and Graphics mixed up. That is what I am trying to point out. Yes DCS:BS has much better texture than LOFC. Hence a little more realizium.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im pretty sure we all dream about some kind of perfect terrain. Unfortunately flight sims aren`t 1st person shooters where the depth of rendering is mostly under 100 meters.

 

So we will have to live for quite some time in the future until we can see our "dream" terrain / scenery.

 

And believe me, once you can play BS you will be focused on other things than shape and details on some buildings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well....but we were all in anticipation of finally using the A-10, the su-25T and su 25 in the new improved ME, ground AI and so on in loamc. At the end ED just come out with this shocker saying they want to make a new line. I would have been happier if they said they scrapped the project engine and are makinga brand new one with more detail at ground level with nice 3d trees, infantry, effects and so on. Now it seems like lockon 2.0 but not like a completely different game (which they want it to be). I will still get it though..but I got to say I am disappointed that I cannot use the ground pounders in the new game. :(

WHISPR | Intel I7 5930K | Nvidia GTX980 4GB GDDR5 | 16GB DDR4 | Intel 730 series 512GB SSD | Thrustmaster WARTHOG | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR4 pro |

|A-10C|BS2 |CA|P-51 MUSTANG|UH-1H HUEY|MI-8 MTV2 |FC3|F5E|M2000C|AJS-37|FW190|BF 109K|Mig21|A-10:SSC,EWC|L-39|NEVADA|

Link to post
Share on other sites
well....but we were all in anticipation of finally using the A-10, the su-25T and su 25 in the new improved ME, ground AI and so on in loamc. At the end ED just come out with this shocker saying they want to make a new line. I would have been happier if they said they scrapped the project engine and are makinga brand new one with more detail at ground level with nice 3d trees, infantry, effects and so on. Now it seems like lockon 2.0 but not like a completely different game (which they want it to be). I will still get it though..but I got to say I am disappointed that I cannot use the ground pounders in the new game. :(

 

You're making a small mistake by thinking that Black Shark is the "next huge leap" forward for ED. In one way, yes it is, but in other ways, it's not.

But you have to think further ahead in the future ;)

Black Shark is only the beginning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Betrayed by who ? Nobody owe you something here as far as i know.

 

So please calm down. We dont need drama. Wait for the game, im sure you will like it !

 

Groove: BS meaning the ka-50 will be just awesome to fly, we do not doubt that. I think IMO that the betrayed attitude is that for quite some time , since LOFC that the community were promised fixes. Now I am not saying they won't be done but they certainly have been put on the back burner so to speak. We are not sure where the fixes fit in the ED plan as the Apache and A10 have been mentioned as the next installments in DCS:BS so as a community we see the resources busy with this. the "if resources are available" does have a lot of people upset and I am sure you can appreciate that. We know ED is a small company with limited resources and they have to make money, that is understood as well. Somewhere in all of this the customer has to come into play as well. For a small company this is a very thin line to walk as patches don't bring in revenue. Yes LOFC has been patched for that we are grateful but even ED knows that a Patch should be done before they are through with the older Flight Sim and continue on their road of DCS:BS. To get rid of UBI, it was a logical move. ED also has a very large community with their LOFC sim. and it does deserve better attention IMO than their statement says. This is the main problem and I understand from an ED point of view , a very hard one. Sometimes we just got to swallow that pill and finish something that was started and then continue into the future. I think I will leave it here as this is getting to long, hope you understand what I am trying to say. Cheers.:thumbup:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there a 15 in it? - no

Will I have to buy it to keep flying me 15 online? - no!

 

So i like it just as much as before; not at all :), but at least I wont have to buy it.

 

Totally agree :drunk:

I don't fly "15" though.

 

I've bought Flaming Cliffs for fighters related improvements. Radar modes, new cannon logic, damage modeling and visualisation. That was really something. Thought it's going to be something like this with BS. Unfortunately it won't be...

Man, mixer-lovers are so lucky:music_whistling:

 

"New sim" is FAR to big word to call BS. IMHO new graphics engine (OpenGL:thumbup:), Linux support and Dynamic Campaign would be more than enough to call it New.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Black Shark -is- a new sim. While the graphics engine is an upgraded version of the LOMAC engine, there are a LOT of things that were ripped out and replaced in terms of 'under hood' stuff.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear god, when I said FSX , I made it perfectly clear GRAPHICS, not texture upgrade. I know FSX does not cut it. DID NOT SAY THAT. A lot of people here have texture and Graphics mixed up. That is what I am trying to point out. Yes DCS:BS has much better texture than LOFC. Hence a little more realizium.

 

AH641.jpg

 

 

AH642.jpg

 

Does more need to be said about improved graphics?

Nevada map contributer

EDM Modeling tools FAQ:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1418067&postcount=1

Seo libh a chairde is chanadh liom. Líonaigí'n oíche le greann is le spórt. Seo sláinte na gcarad atá imithe uainn. Mar cheo an tsléibhe uaine, iad imithe go deo

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would have been happier if they said they scrapped the project engine and are makinga brand new one with more detail at ground level with nice 3d trees, infantry, effects and so on.
From the DCS FAQ:

We plan however to provide such features in our new simulation engine that is currently in development for later versions of DCS.
It doesn't happen overnight and this way, you don't have to wait empty handed for something that is significantly in the future.

- EB

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Nothing is easy. Everything takes much longer.

The Parable of Jane's A-10

Forum Rules

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...