Am i doing something wrong?

[xXNightEagleXx]

Am i doing something wrong or the campaign is that boring? I mean always the same war zone, almost the same missions, and starting base unrealistic close to the target point. I hope i'm doing something wrong!

[Nate--IRL--]

You could try these two campaigns too.

 

The Devil's Cross and The Shore campaigns for DCS A-10C

 

Nate

[Dudester22]

Am i doing something wrong or the campaign is that boring? I mean always the same war zone, almost the same missions, and starting base unrealistic close to the target point. I hope i'm doing something wrong!

 

Same Warzone? Unless it's a World War, then that is precisely why it's called a WarZone, because it's around an area of the map. You can also make your own missions in the editor.

Edited June 23, 2013 by Dudester22

[xXNightEagleXx]

Same Warzone? Unless it's a World War, then that is precisely why it's called a WarZone, because it's around an area of the map. You can also make your own missions in the editor.

 

I hope you are kidding me! You should get a little bit more information about REAL war scenario and not a limited gaming scenario. Are you trying to say that real war stands on close starting base? Everyone fighting for the only one SMALL portion of the map? yeah yeah this is so realistic, specially for a FLIGHT SIMULATOR. I wonder how those real generals are so dumb to let their headquarters and aircraft's base far about 100 nm from war line, i wonder how dumb they are to diversify targets and missions instead of sending every single man to the same point....yeah probably they are so dumb!

I wonder why someone invented air refueling, what a dumb man, why use it when you can by choice let the enemy get close 30 nm and just fight that close.

ohhh maybe you are talking about worm?! ....yeah that game is a real war scenario....for worms!!!!

Edited June 23, 2013 by xXNightEagleXx

[Hamblue]

In some pacific battles during WWII, planes were dropping bombs within minutes of taking off. Sometimes within site of the airfield.

[Dudester22]

I hope you are kidding me! You should get a little bit more information about REAL war scenario and not a limited gaming scenario. Are you trying to say that real war stands on close starting base? Everyone fighting for the only one SMALL portion of the map? yeah yeah this is so realistic, specially for a FLIGHT SIMULATOR. I wonder how those real generals are so dumb to let their headquarters and aircraft's base far about 100 nm from war line, i wonder how dumb they are to diversify targets and missions instead of sending every single man to the same point....yeah probably they are so dumb!

I wonder why someone invented air refueling, what a dumb man, why use it when you can by choice let the enemy get close 30 nm and just fight that close.

ohhh maybe you are talking about worm?! ....yeah that game is a real war scenario....for worms!!!!

 

No I am not saying this far from it, but what do you expect? At the end of the day this is a game which also simulates real aircraft. I know I wouldn't want to be sat in the cockpit for over 1 hour twiddling my thumbs until I reached any action. You already said you were bored with the same scenario, so I'm not sure how you would feel sat in the cockpit for any length of time doing nothing. Atleast you get to the action a lot quicker instead of sat in a cockpit waiting hours to do the same boring scenario as you put it.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Dudester22

[shagrat]

look up the term CAS... the plane is build, to deliver Close Air Support. The campaign uses the stages system, to get a semi-dynamic campaign... so based on your success you may find things repeating themselves.

As Nate suggested: try the other two campaigns Devil's cross is quite good and challenging. Better, go multiplayer and enjoy complex battlefields with missions like Operation Bactria from Bahger or deephouse's missions... much realism, and if you like flying for 2 hours plus, that is what you need.:D

[Cyb0rg]

Am i doing something wrong or the campaign is that boring? I mean always the same war zone, almost the same missions, and starting base unrealistic close to the target point. I hope i'm doing something wrong!

 

Yeah i agree with you, we need better missions and more realistic campaigns. Maybe you could use your knowledge in this matter and build more realistic war scenarios. The mission editor is very flexible.

[ENO]

Am i doing something wrong or the campaign is that boring? I mean always the same war zone, almost the same missions, and starting base unrealistic close to the target point. I hope i'm doing something wrong!

 

Yeah well if the flight times into the "warzone" were half an hour to an hour you'd be moaning and groaning too.

 

If you're looking for something more dynamic I'd recommend multiplayer- without the 'tude, that is.

[Wichid]

I'd love a DCS A-10C campaign that was the same quality as the BS or Huey ones. There's lots of voice over and story there.

[Weedburner]

The Campaigns are different,today there comes only 1 with game but like mentioned before try the other 2 which was originaly ingame too.

 

Also the A-10s Role is to be close to the Combat Zone,its not a strategical or tactical bomber which starts in USA to Bomb Iraq and then fly back to USA... its a close Air Support Plane,designed to start from short and improvised Runways close to the Frontline.The Campaigns also not simulate a World War 3 so dont expect World-Wide Missions NAtO-vs-Pact.

Other Important thing is,when you start too far away from combat,you have to use time accleration,and for time accleration you need a extreme strong pc which not everybody has.

 

And,the Mission Editor is easy to Handle,you can make yourself big and long range mission as much as you like.And Air Refueling is possible too in A-10 ;)

[xXNightEagleXx]

First of all simulation is what I enjoy, I would rather fly for 30-40 min to get on the target and enjoy it than flight 2 min, attack, fly back and land (THIS IS NOT REAL). Some people argue that close air support means close airbase to the front line ...this is so wrong! XD

 

Now you might ask why to fly 30-40 min just to get on target, 2-10 min of engage and then 30-40 min flying back? Well first of all this is a common real scenario (close front might happen but that’s an exception), second flying for that long increase random event just like real life (unexpected situations like crossing enemies path, encountering unknown lands units, having to defend from an attack thus consuming fuel that might lead to a forced mission abort, etc..).

 

Someone argued that this is not a world war 3 simulator, well thanks man I love to play modern aircrafts like if we was in a WW I scenario with enemies at 30 nm because the general was so dumb to let them get close enough before starting to retreat…this is so realistic….fantastic!!!! XD

 

I could stay here to point out all these extremely bad things for a day long but fanboys will always be here defending this game.

Don’t get me wrong, I find this game with so many potential. In terms of avionics and physics it is one of the best (honestly even F4 fall behind specially for physics), but in term of FLIGHT COMBAT SIMULATOR this game falls behind by a lot to F4 to an unacceptable level because the scenario is just too far away from real world.

 

Could I develop a mission by myself using the editor or at least try? Surely I’m a programmer, I have experience in game developing in C++ and DirectX, I know a lot of programming languages so I ‘m used to new things, I have done an offline dynamic for ARMA 2 and worked almost like F4 (auto generation of troops and mission planning, for both the blue and the red force, according to random intelligence information or missions result) but honestly I don’t have time and I don’t want to do it again.

 

This piss me off because the potential here is very big they just have to fix/add some features that are not balanced….a very realistic avionics but a very unrealistic flight combat war environment.

Edited June 24, 2013 by xXNightEagleXx

[ENO]

I could stay here to point out all these extremely bad things for a day long but fanboys will always be here defending this game.

 

And here is about the time you go from having an opinion to just being an ignorant, self-inflating jackass. You may join their leagues if you wish (there are PLENTY of you) however it will not make the game any better for you nor them.

 

We and many others like us may be fanboys- but I can assure you that most of the guys who defend the game have encountered and overcome their own challenges with how the game didn't EXACTLY fit with PRECISELY EVERYTHING THEY NEEDED it to be and instead worked at adjusting their expectations to what the product delivers very well.

[xXNightEagleXx]

And here is about the time you go from having an opinion to just being an ignorant, self-inflating jackass. You may join their leagues if you wish (there are PLENTY of you) however it will not make the game any better for you nor them.

 

We and many others like us may be fanboys- but I can assure you that most of the guys who defend the game have encountered and overcome their own challenges with how the game didn't EXACTLY fit with PRECISELY EVERYTHING THEY NEEDED it to be and instead worked at adjusting their expectations to what the product delivers very well.

 

first of all a fanboy for me is not someone who love or defend a game but someone that deny facts in defense of something. Second as a user and someone who works in software development i know that there are a lot of fanboys and being offended for this is just ignorant. For last but not least this is not about "fit with PRECISELY EVERYTHING THEY NEEDED" but rather about giving the right proportion....it is ludicrous to have a realistic avionics but a really arcade environment.

It is like having a racing simulator where the car dynamics is really realistic but everything else arcade (tires, fuel consumption, race, etcc....). Would you consider to be more real a product where keys factors might not be extremely realistic but all proportionally realistic or a product where the car dynamics is extremely realistic (spring and weight transfer) but tires does not affect driving, consumption does not affect driving, race last 5 laps, you don't have qualification, you cannot setup you car, you don't have to deal with being constant, tracks are all flats, etc..

 

Now about your "being an ignorant, self-inflating jackass", if you think that i meant to offend someone than i tell you that you have something wrong if you stay in defensive. I just said something without offense and used the vocabulary, if you misinterpret my words wrong or see offense where there isn't it is your problem. About my experience as programmer was just o highlight the fact that it is not about having skill to create mission but rather missing features that should be included if this game is a complete simulation. Besides i don't care about showing what i can do and i cannot do, this isn't a employment office but just a forum.

Edited June 24, 2013 by xXNightEagleXx

[Wolf Rider]

So, in your humble opinion... what Features do you believe are missing?

[Dudester22]

Now you might ask why to fly 30-40 min just to get on target, 2-10 min of engage and then 30-40 min flying back? Well first of all this is a common real scenario (close front might happen but that’s an exception), second flying for that long increase random event just like real life (unexpected situations like crossing enemies path, encountering unknown lands units, having to defend from an attack thus consuming fuel that might lead to a forced mission abort, etc..).

 

Someone argued that this Could I develop a mission by myself using the editor or at least try? Surely I’m a programmer, I have experience in game developing in C++ and DirectX, I know a lot of programming languages so I ‘m used to new things, I have done an offline dynamic for ARMA 2 and worked almost like F4 (auto generation of troops and mission planning, for both the blue and the red force, according to random intelligence information or missions result) but honestly I don’t have time and I don’t want to do it again.

 

So you have time to fly a 30-40 minute mission just to get on target, but you don't have time to set something up in the editor you would like? Seems to me like you don't like the game full stop, if you did you would look at the editor like others have. Did you even try the other campaigns people suggested?

Edited June 24, 2013 by Dudester22

[Frostie]

Just open up all the missions move your aircraft to the other end of the map, add a tanker doing loops, job sorted. This will take you about 1-2 mins per mission tops.

 

You could even add in a trigger that announces your arrival such as , 'oh finally, you've arrived, just mop up what's left we're all rtb for tea and medals'.

[Davros23]

I think my troll radar went off with the first post.

[KaspeR32]

Am i doing something wrong or the campaign is that boring? I mean always the same war zone, almost the same missions, and starting base unrealistic close to the target point. I hope i'm doing something wrong!

 

Interesting. If you don't like the default campaign just download another one. Or better yet, create your own. I mean, honestly, how could you complain about a campaign when the developer has left ALL their tools available to you? You can not only create your own missions/campaign, but you can modify the already existing one to suit your needs.

 

But to answer your original question, no, you're not doing anything wrong. Yes, there are areas of the default campaign that could be better.

 

But why complain about it if there are other options available?

[Wags]

The stock campaign starts in a very geographically restricted area with friendly forces close to their remaining airbase. As the campaign unfolds and operations move northward, the area of the battlefield increases as well as flight times with tankers on station.

 

Also, when dealing with a fixed amount of time to create a campaign, there is often the difficult choice of: many missions but with less scripting, voice overs etc. (more re-playability and semi-dynamic), or a fewer missions with much more effort/time to each mission (more immersion but little re-playability and linear missions). The various campaigns for DCS aircraft we have experimented with both.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Wags

[schkorpio]

come online :)

 

If you can fly the plane and know how to shoot and release weapons you'll have a blast, you don't need to be a seasoned pro! You will learn quicker too.

 

plenty of missions with unique content! :D