Author Topic: Simulated Aerial Combat Roundtable  (Read 37673 times)

Offline knorB

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 676
Re: Simulated Aerial Combat Roundtable
« Reply #1515 on: May 11, 2024, 09:09:08 PM »

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12179
Re: Simulated Aerial Combat Roundtable
« Reply #1516 on: May 11, 2024, 10:24:00 PM »
I programmed computers with cassette tapes and troubleshot them with switches and LEDs in the 70's. I was in awe of that technology. A couple of decades later when a multiplayer WWII air combat simulator (Air Warrior) became available I knew technology had arrived. Simulations becoming ever closer to reality was always the highest goal of technology imo. Real simulated systems. Real simulated physics. Real simulated visuals. That's what's important. Not "pretty". 
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline Tumor

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4172
      • Wait For It
Re: Simulated Aerial Combat Roundtable
« Reply #1517 on: May 11, 2024, 10:45:17 PM »
The first time I saw AW in 88 had nothing to do with the draw of graphics, it was the human furballs. The genre changed, I didn’t. Farewell old friend.

Game
vs
Sim

The lines are less blurred every day... and hopefully it will only get better.  Unfortunately, plenty of "Gamers" are already doing everything they can to dumb-down the best simulation ever(so far) and turn it into a clown-show.  Pretty much just like they did Aces High.  Unfortunately, the riffraff are what pay the bills. 
"Dogfighting is useless"  :Erich Hartmann

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12179
Re: Simulated Aerial Combat Roundtable
« Reply #1518 on: May 11, 2024, 10:57:37 PM »
My bet was on the Eagle.

Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline CptTrips

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7873
Re: Simulated Aerial Combat Roundtable
« Reply #1519 on: May 11, 2024, 11:12:07 PM »
I programmed computers with cassette tapes and troubleshot them with switches and LEDs in the 70's. I was in awe of that technology. A couple of decades later when a multiplayer WWII air combat simulator (Air Warrior) became available I knew technology had arrived. Simulations becoming ever closer to reality was always the highest goal of technology imo. Real simulated systems. Real simulated physics. Real simulated visuals. That's what's important. Not "pretty".



I understand that the human brain has an incredible ability to fill-in missing detail and suspend disbelief even with limited graphics.  We’ve all been experience that for decades.

But two equally well done sims in all factors but graphics, if one has marginal graphics and the other fantastic graphics, that is going to tip the balance.  There still has to be a great sim underneath, but graphics are not irrelevant.

If you took the current AH and removed all texturing and reduced poly count to AW level and made it just green wire frame rendering on black background, are you telling me that would not lose you any customers?  Prove it.  I dare you.

There still has to be a great sim underneath, but graphics do matter.  They are increase the player enjoyment and increase their level of immersion.  Anyone who won’t admit that is either delusional, or disingenuous.

I’ll tell you where they really matter, that is being able to attract new players.  Graphics, will be a new users very first impression of your product through ads or videos.   Like it or not, the visual impression is really going to tilt the sales potential in your favor or against it.  It’s going to tilt the sale to pedaling up hill vs downhill.  If your graphics don’t stack up to the competition, your sales job is going to be that much harder.  It is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition.  You still have to have a great game underneath, but if the graphics do not provide “Curb Appeal”, then often the potential customer will not bother looking further.  Throw in a subscription model that is out of date with the market...

Now you can take the approach, then so what?  Who care about these kiddies nowadays?  We don’t need any new players!  OK, then the current base will continue to age out and not be replaced, and numbers will dwindle until you reach colony-collapse trigger thresholds.  Bon appetit.

Graphics aren’t AH’s only challenge, but anyone who won’t admit that it is an important factor in new player acquisition is either delusional, or disingenuous.

AH’s graphics aren’t terrible.  But they don’t compete with IL2 GB and certainly not DCS.  They compare well to the fully patched IL2 1946, that sells for $4.99 on Steam.

That is an honest assessment.  I'm not trying to be a d*ck.

Toxic, psychotic, self-aggrandizing drama queens simply aren't worth me spending my time on.

Offline CptTrips

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7873
Re: Simulated Aerial Combat Roundtable
« Reply #1520 on: May 11, 2024, 11:28:33 PM »


All that being said, AH does have a solid simulation engine underneath, and a superior server tech to anything out there, IMHO.

Maybe HT should license his server tech and use that income to put his team back together and become a module developer for DCS?

Start filling in some WWII planes. 

(I'm at least half joking.)
Toxic, psychotic, self-aggrandizing drama queens simply aren't worth me spending my time on.

Offline RichardDarkwood

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1849
Re: Simulated Aerial Combat Roundtable
« Reply #1521 on: May 12, 2024, 05:54:40 AM »


Maybe HT should license his server tech and use that income to put his team back together and become a module developer for DCS?


That already happened and the owner is enjoying the fruits of that
A yappy back seater like Jester wasn’t popular or fun to fly with, more of an unnecessary distraction than anything else---Puma44

https://www.twitch.tv/hounds_darkwood
CO--The Bad Guys

Offline DmonSlyr

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6336
Re: Simulated Aerial Combat Roundtable
« Reply #1522 on: May 12, 2024, 11:01:53 PM »
I feel like the 50 cals are god awful in DCS in the war birds. It doesn't seem like 6 guns are being fired and lead shooting is extremely difficult. I never trust that my bullets will hit. I seem to have easy shots that miss even when I set the aim and have good lead. Sometimes it feels like my plane is on a swivel bobbing. Wings and tails and don't fly off like they do in AH. Tough to tell if they are down. When I finally get some hits it seems like no damage is done. On top of the tiny planes in the distance that I cannot tell which direction and If they are friendly or enemy until right on top of them.
The Damned(est. 1988)
-=Army of Muppets=-
2014 & 2018 KoTH ToC Champion

Offline Eagler

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17675
Re: Simulated Aerial Combat Roundtable
« Reply #1523 on: May 13, 2024, 07:30:02 AM »
I never found a way to show your plane damage in il2 or dcs...

Eagler
"Masters of the Air" Scenario - JG27


Intel Core i7-13700KF | GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS Elite AX | 64GB G.Skill DDR5 | EVGA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti FTW3 | Vive Pro | Warthog stick | TM1600 throttle | VKB Mk.V Rudder Pedals

Offline DmonSlyr

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6336
Re: Simulated Aerial Combat Roundtable
« Reply #1524 on: May 13, 2024, 08:14:16 AM »
I never found a way to show your plane damage in il2 or dcs...

Eagler

I think the effects are cool when you get shot in DCS, but damn the 50s are worse than AH. It's incredibly tough to hit because it's not just about leading a certain distance but you have to set the gunsite to the distance their plane is and then shoot. But it seems like only 4 guns are shooting and you see little sprinkles all over their plane. I feel like the only way I know they are down is if they catch on fire. Its interesting that no wings or anything comes off.
The Damned(est. 1988)
-=Army of Muppets=-
2014 & 2018 KoTH ToC Champion

Offline edge12674

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 423
Re: Simulated Aerial Combat Roundtable
« Reply #1525 on: May 13, 2024, 08:38:26 AM »
I never found a way to show your plane damage in il2 or dcs...

In DCS you can switch to an external view (F2), if allowed, and visually inspect the aircraft.  Otherwise, you are left with visual inspection from the cockpit, instrument indications, and visual inspection by wingman.

I think the effects are cool when you get shot in DCS, but damn the 50s are worse than AH. It's incredibly tough to hit because it's not just about leading a certain distance but you have to set the gunsite to the distance their plane is and then shoot. But it seems like only 4 guns are shooting and you see little sprinkles all over their plane. I feel like the only way I know they are down is if they catch on fire. Its interesting that no wings or anything comes off.

I prefer just a fixed gunsight and don't worry about setting wingspan.  The .50's are pretty deadly, but you do have to get closer than you do in AH.  You are right that large identifiable pieces of the target do not break off as often as in AH.  Smoke/vapor trails and the way the target is flying are your best indicators (outside of trailing fire) on when you have the kill.

TShark
"If you are alone and meet a lone Zero, run like hell...You're outnumbered" - Joe Foss USMC 26 kills

Offline CptTrips

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7873
Re: Simulated Aerial Combat Roundtable
« Reply #1526 on: May 13, 2024, 08:42:09 AM »
I never found a way to show your plane damage in il2 or dcs...

I don't know about IL2, but DCS has a different philosophy on that.

Your damage will show in the effects on you handling and deduced from changes in your gauge readings, or in modern craft with various damage warning\caution lights.

Same with ammo count.  If the aircraft had an ammo counter, it's there in the cockpit.  If it didn't, then you don't get one.

The most painful to me is no autopilot. ;)  If the plane didn't have autopilot, you don't get it.  Some do.  So get your beer and hit the head before you launch. ;)



Toxic, psychotic, self-aggrandizing drama queens simply aren't worth me spending my time on.

Offline CptTrips

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7873
Re: Simulated Aerial Combat Roundtable
« Reply #1527 on: May 13, 2024, 08:49:47 AM »
I think the effects are cool when you get shot in DCS, but damn the 50s are worse than AH. It's incredibly tough to hit because it's not just about leading a certain distance but you have to set the gunsite to the distance their plane is and then shoot. But it seems like only 4 guns are shooting and you see little sprinkles all over their plane. I feel like the only way I know they are down is if they catch on fire. Its interesting that no wings or anything comes off.

You should ask on Hoggit.  I don't know what best approach is yet. 

I was thinking it was best to just set range to convergence and Kentucky windage off that relative to being closer or farther.  That would let you you at least when you are at the optimal firing range which is going to be convergence.  I guess it would be optimal to position yourself to fire at convergence.  But I'm no Experten.

Do you have Tacview?


I do believe the warbird damage model is currently inferior to AH.  That is supposed to be one of the up coming improvements that the upcoming PTO aircraft are supposed to introduce.


Toxic, psychotic, self-aggrandizing drama queens simply aren't worth me spending my time on.

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12179
Re: Simulated Aerial Combat Roundtable
« Reply #1528 on: May 13, 2024, 08:56:29 AM »
Many of those old gun cam videos from WWII show the planes pretty close. I've read that DCS models and tracks each bullet in multiplayer rather than only locally with hit and damage reports sent between planes. Perhaps not a network efficient method. 
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12179
Re: Simulated Aerial Combat Roundtable
« Reply #1529 on: May 13, 2024, 09:50:33 AM »
Even with a fast machine you can bring DCS to its knees. Set up a couple of large opposing naval fleets in gun range and watch it crawl.

The carnage is glorious though.  :D
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.