>> ^Skeeve:

A warning from personal experience: this is a "Digital Combat Simulator" and not a game.
I tend to be pretty detail oriented, I like flight sims and love the A-10 but after about 45 minutes of this program I was done.
I think this program could be used as a diagnostic tool to confirm if someone has asperger syndrome.


Eh, it's not that complicated. The quickstart guide and the tutorials tell you all you need to know to start flying missions. Maybe 5 hours total to get up to speed on flying this thing. Many hours more to master the aircraft, but to just get started? Only a few hours and the tutorials are pretty fun too.

A warning from personal experience: this is a "Digital Combat Simulator" and not a game.

I tend to be pretty detail oriented, I like flight sims and love the A-10 but after about 45 minutes of this program I was done.

I think this program could be used as a diagnostic tool to confirm if someone has asperger syndrome.

>> ^Edgeman2112:

I swear that cockpit is pivoting incorrectly..


Remember that this is simulating the pilot's head inside the cockpit. As such, the cockpit pivot is inertially correct for roll and yaw. Pitch seems a little odd, but remember that the pilot is sitting above the central axis of the craft, so he'll be moved not only by the pitch of the craft, but also by his inertia with relation to the craft. If you look at flight sims like IL-2, you can see the same cockpit pivots.

I agree with you in principle but s**t man, relax. It's only the internets. >> ^jackhalfaprayer:

argumentum ad hominem. it's not my job to do better; it's rockstar's job to do better. we weren't talking about me or anyone else until you changed the subject. i'd say that bethesda has been doing better open world games since the mid-to-late 90's, konami's silent hill series has been better at telling stories (read: making one feel like playing through a movie, which rockstar wishes they could accomplish), and just about any third-person game from tomb raider to max payne has a better 3-rd person targeting system than that broken-ass excuse rockstar has been trying to fix for 10 iterations or so. so pretty much everything that GTA has been mashing up into a huge meaningless sandbox of drivel has been done before in a less broken fashion, with more variety, less linearity, less repetitive gameplay, and without falling back on hopelessly cliche, hackneyed mafioso stereotypes and slipshod driving mechanics.
but if you wanted to give me money to write a game and pay some programmers and artists and designers, absolutely! i'd be happy to present to you a game that is better than anything rockstar has produced to date. until then, fanboy, defend this mediocre studio with some actual points instead an ad hominem logical fallacy... or just stfu about what i or anyone else should be doing better than rockstar. rockstar puts out unoriginal crap with semi-impressive tech and people like you eat it up, bloat their egos, and line the pockets of corporate lackeys that are afraid to do anything new with an old IP. there's better work out there. you must not hear about it because it's not mentioned in your gamepro subscription. so go preorder this re-hash bullshit, and rest ignorant of the knowledge that people like you are destroying this industry, and this community, by buying into the hype machine of some fake gangster-sim crap with nothing new to offer since version III. and don't tell me that I should put up with it because there's nothing better out there, wtf sort of defense is that?
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^jackhalfaprayer:
GTA III was the last time there was any innovation in this series. I'm tired of sandbox missions with a half-assed organized crime drama throughline. I'd rather watch Goodfellas or something where there's real writing and acting. Rockstar games are overhyped and underdeveloped.

You...or ANYONE do better. Seriously we've seen other sandbox games try and fail...this is like criticizing WoW for being what it is. Do something better or accept that this is as good as it gets right now and shut up.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

@coolhund
Ah, so you're a PC elitest. They're the worst at being opinionated douche bags, stuck in the past moaning about every game that comes out these days. I prefer my gaming on PC, especially shooters and despise poor ports, but I'm not a total dick about it. Next you'll be saying something like "STFU fag noob!".
I also think you do not understand my comments and instead of actually thinking about what i mean by evolution, like the definition being survival of the fittest, fittest being the games that actually sell, you just attack and start spewing your demented hate. Game design has evolved, many aspects for the better, many IMO for the worse, but denying that it is evolution is retarded.
The current industry works like this. Game development can cost 10s to sometimes 100s of millions of dollars, not including marketing, which again costs millions of dollars and is vital. These days it doesn't matter how good a game is, if it doesn't have branding or good marketing behind it, it wont sell. In some cases not even then because launch window is important too. Very rarely a game comes out of no where and surprises people and becomes a hit, but as I said, rarely. Investors/Publishers are rarely willing to release something totally different or release in a genre they know doesn't sell, and frankly who would be? Would you seriously be willing to risk losing that much money on such a risky investment? It's a business!
You'll be surprised to know I actually agree with you partly, the cause for this is the size of the industry now and the size of it's userbase. However what do you expect to happen to it? Do you expect the industry to stagnate, stay as it was 15 years ago and not grow yet still stay alive just to create your space flight sims? And yes, indie development is where all the ingenuity comes from, low risk and also low reward.
We only recall those nostalgic games we hold dear. Sometimes they live up to modern scrutiny, often they don't (a friend of mine who'd never played System Shock 2 or Deus Ex gave both ago. Loved SS2, couldn't get into Deus Ex). You never recall all the games that were shit. I can barely recall them, but i do remember there being a lot more shit games than good games.
These old classic games will always hold a place in my heart and many of them, especially the phenomenal Quake, I could always fire up (assuming I can get them running) and have a fun time, but that is nostalgia. Indie devs will be the ones to turn to, to experience old school game design. If that's enough for you, wtf are you so angry about? If you seriously expect AAA publishers to release games like that, you're in for a seriously long wait.
Now, I've had enough squabbling with a 30 year old child. Go back to your mother's basement, continue to replay your old games and by all means, don't stop complaining on the internet about how modern gaming has ruined your "life". I'll be here in the present, looking to the future and thinking fondly of the past


Why should I call you something like that? Dont put your standards on others. Well, you still havent grasped what I am trying to say. No wonder.
Yes, I know very well how the market looks right now. I know how it developed and I know whats to blame. That doesnt mean I deal with it. Dealing with it would mean I would have given in, and I never give in when things I like get destroyed. That may be futile in this case, with so many idiots like yourself who have given in and went back to mindless consume, but I dont care.

Games have not evolved. Since 2007 the graphics have not become much better, all in all they have actually gotten worse. The controls and gameplay have become much worse since 2006 or so and the genre variety and diversity has declined a lot.

You really think I grasp too much for classics? I dont care for classics, except for their memories and maybe one or two I still play from time to time. Why would I think a game (yes, a PC game) released in 2009 is the best game Ive ever played then? You know nothing about me and your assumptions are dead wrong. Each and every one. Funnily, my assumption of you being an ignorant prick just got confirmed again.

Yes I know how much marketing costs... or rather how much they make it cost. EA for example spends 2 times as much on marketing than on the game itself (prolly 3 or 4 times in case of BF3). Thats how games get so expensive. Get a clue.

Yeah, I have also wasted enough time on your ignorance and I wont be wasting more time trying to explain anything to you, not even a novel-sized text would help anyway.

@coolhund

Ah, so you're a PC elitest. They're the worst at being opinionated douche bags, stuck in the past moaning about every game that comes out these days. I prefer my gaming on PC, especially shooters and despise poor ports, but I'm not a total dick about it. Next you'll be saying something like "STFU fag noob!".
I also think you do not understand my comments and instead of actually thinking about what i mean by evolution, like the definition being survival of the fittest, fittest being the games that actually sell, you just attack and start spewing your demented hate. Game design has evolved, many aspects for the better, many IMO for the worse, but denying that it is evolution is retarded.

The current industry works like this. Game development can cost 10s to sometimes 100s of millions of dollars, not including marketing, which again costs millions of dollars and is vital. These days it doesn't matter how good a game is, if it doesn't have branding or good marketing behind it, it wont sell. In some cases not even then because launch window is important too. Very rarely a game comes out of no where and surprises people and becomes a hit, but as I said, rarely. Investors/Publishers are rarely willing to release something totally different or release in a genre they know doesn't sell, and frankly who would be? Would you seriously be willing to risk losing that much money on such a risky investment? It's a business!

You'll be surprised to know I actually agree with you partly, the cause for this is the size of the industry now and the size of it's userbase. However what do you expect to happen to it? Do you expect the industry to stagnate, stay as it was 15 years ago and not grow yet still stay alive just to create your space flight sims? And yes, indie development is where all the ingenuity comes from, low risk and also low reward.

We only recall those nostalgic games we hold dear. Sometimes they live up to modern scrutiny, often they don't (a friend of mine who'd never played System Shock 2 or Deus Ex gave both ago. Loved SS2, couldn't get into Deus Ex). You never recall all the games that were shit. I can barely recall them, but i do remember there being a lot more shit games than good games.

These old classic games will always hold a place in my heart and many of them, especially the phenomenal Quake, I could always fire up (assuming I can get them running) and have a fun time, but that is nostalgia. Indie devs will be the ones to turn to, to experience old school game design. If that's enough for you, wtf are you so angry about? If you seriously expect AAA publishers to release games like that, you're in for a seriously long wait.

Now, I've had enough squabbling with a 30 year old child. Go back to your mother's basement, continue to replay your old games and by all means, don't stop complaining on the internet about how modern gaming has ruined your "life". I'll be here in the present, looking to the future and thinking fondly of the past

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

>> ^coolhund:
>> ^EvilDeathBee:
>> ^Harzzach:
Shooter have NOT evolved. They have devolved into a profit maximized mass product for idiots.
And ...

"Doom/quake/descent/etc appealed to a few thousand PC owners when they were released, the modern-military-competitive-online-multiplayer-first-person-shooters are purchased by millions of console owners on day one."

Lets eat shit. Billions of flies cant be wrong!

Yep, typical gamer comment "I don't like these games, therefore people who do are idiots."
The change of shooters over the years is the very definition of evolution. The games industry is still young and will continue to evolve.
You continue to blindly cling to the past and forget it wasn't all great, there were tons of shit games then as there are now. Only differences, now the industry is so much larger than it was back then, now with so many more games to choose from. Game development is also nothing like it was back then, with player expectations ridiculously high, it costs a lot more, is a lot more difficult, requires many more people and is a lot more risky.
"Maximize profits"? Try "Just trying to not go under".

Youre talking absolute bullshit. Yes, the industry is much larger now. But you simply dont get that thats the problem. In the past tehre were LOTS and LOTS new stuff. Hell, we even had, GASP!, SPACE SIMS!!!!
Sorry, but I seriously cant take you serious. You sound like a troll.

Listen, kid (I use the word kid because even though you're probably around 30, but you speak like an ignorant, simple minded, angry child) you wanna try to hide the fact you know nothing about the way the video games industry and the gaming market actually works. It's too obvious.


Alright then, kiddo. How does it work? But first let me tell you that I am talking to you like this BECAUSE you are talking like a kid with no clue at all and just wanting to spew out something. You want to talk seriously, prove first that youre not as extremely ignorant as your posts make you look like.

Indies show its still possible to make good games. Too bad those indies get bought by these big publishers if they do something good. Look at the devs that made Call of Juarez for example, what they turned into. The first part was a real good PC game, the second one was even on the PC version infested with autoaiming and the third part is just lol.

Go ahead and tell me how the gaming market works. Or any market for that matter. Are you one of those hardliner capitalists who dont even understand the system, but want it to stay the way it is, kiddo?
Go troll somewhere else, like on your console forums. Geez...

>> ^coolhund:

>> ^EvilDeathBee:
>> ^Harzzach:
Shooter have NOT evolved. They have devolved into a profit maximized mass product for idiots.
And ...

"Doom/quake/descent/etc appealed to a few thousand PC owners when they were released, the modern-military-competitive-online-multiplayer-first-person-shooters are purchased by millions of console owners on day one."

Lets eat shit. Billions of flies cant be wrong!

Yep, typical gamer comment "I don't like these games, therefore people who do are idiots."
The change of shooters over the years is the very definition of evolution. The games industry is still young and will continue to evolve.
You continue to blindly cling to the past and forget it wasn't all great, there were tons of shit games then as there are now. Only differences, now the industry is so much larger than it was back then, now with so many more games to choose from. Game development is also nothing like it was back then, with player expectations ridiculously high, it costs a lot more, is a lot more difficult, requires many more people and is a lot more risky.
"Maximize profits"? Try "Just trying to not go under".

Youre talking absolute bullshit. Yes, the industry is much larger now. But you simply dont get that thats the problem. In the past tehre were LOTS and LOTS new stuff. Hell, we even had, GASP!, SPACE SIMS!!!!
Sorry, but I seriously cant take you serious. You sound like a troll.


Listen, kid (I use the word kid because even though you're probably around 30, but you speak like an ignorant, simple minded, angry child) you wanna try to hide the fact you know nothing about the way the video games industry and the gaming market actually works. It's too obvious.

argumentum ad hominem. it's not my job to do better; it's rockstar's job to do better. we weren't talking about me or anyone else until you changed the subject. i'd say that bethesda has been doing better open world games since the mid-to-late 90's, konami's silent hill series has been better at telling stories (read: making one feel like playing through a movie, which rockstar wishes they could accomplish), and just about any third-person game from tomb raider to max payne has a better 3-rd person targeting system than that broken-ass excuse rockstar has been trying to fix for 10 iterations or so. so pretty much everything that GTA has been mashing up into a huge meaningless sandbox of drivel has been done before in a less broken fashion, with more variety, less linearity, less repetitive gameplay, and without falling back on hopelessly cliche, hackneyed mafioso stereotypes and slipshod driving mechanics.

but if you wanted to give me money to write a game and pay some programmers and artists and designers, absolutely! i'd be happy to present to you a game that is better than anything rockstar has produced to date. until then, fanboy, defend this mediocre studio with some actual points instead an ad hominem logical fallacy... or just stfu about what i or anyone else should be doing better than rockstar. rockstar puts out unoriginal crap with semi-impressive tech and people like you eat it up, bloat their egos, and line the pockets of corporate lackeys that are afraid to do anything new with an old IP. there's better work out there. you must not hear about it because it's not mentioned in your gamepro subscription. so go preorder this re-hash bullshit, and rest ignorant of the knowledge that people like you are destroying this industry, and this community, by buying into the hype machine of some fake gangster-sim crap with nothing new to offer since version III. and don't tell me that I should put up with it because there's nothing better out there, wtf sort of defense is that?

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^jackhalfaprayer:
GTA III was the last time there was any innovation in this series. I'm tired of sandbox missions with a half-assed organized crime drama throughline. I'd rather watch Goodfellas or something where there's real writing and acting. Rockstar games are overhyped and underdeveloped.

You...or ANYONE do better. Seriously we've seen other sandbox games try and fail...this is like criticizing WoW for being what it is. Do something better or accept that this is as good as it gets right now and shut up.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

>> ^Harzzach:
Shooter have NOT evolved. They have devolved into a profit maximized mass product for idiots.
And ...

"Doom/quake/descent/etc appealed to a few thousand PC owners when they were released, the modern-military-competitive-online-multiplayer-first-person-shooters are purchased by millions of console owners on day one."

Lets eat shit. Billions of flies cant be wrong!

Yep, typical gamer comment "I don't like these games, therefore people who do are idiots."
The change of shooters over the years is the very definition of evolution. The games industry is still young and will continue to evolve.
You continue to blindly cling to the past and forget it wasn't all great, there were tons of shit games then as there are now. Only differences, now the industry is so much larger than it was back then, now with so many more games to choose from. Game development is also nothing like it was back then, with player expectations ridiculously high, it costs a lot more, is a lot more difficult, requires many more people and is a lot more risky.
"Maximize profits"? Try "Just trying to not go under".


Youre talking absolute bullshit. Yes, the industry is much larger now. But you simply dont get that thats the problem. In the past tehre were LOTS and LOTS new stuff. Hell, we even had, GASP!, SPACE SIMS!!!!
Sorry, but I seriously cant take you serious. You sound like a troll.

Thanks for the promote!

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
*promote

>> ^ForgedReality:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^ForgedReality:
I don't get it.

Default in most games is push up (on mouse or analog stick) to look up. There's an inverted option where you pull down to look up. Contrary to what the video says, this is actually the correct way and anyone who plays the other is wrong and probably immoral.


I see. Well with a mouse, up SHOULD be up, and down SHOULD be down. For anything with a stick, I always use back for up and forward for down. How anyone can do the opposite just astounds me. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever, especially considering ALL flight sticks in EVERY real-life aircraft EVER CONSTRUCTED uses the same control scheme.
Also, I can't recall the last game I played that came with a default setting of pushing up (forward) on a stick to equal up. It's always been forward for down for every game I can remember.
Flight sims always (faik) follow RL™ stick control (they're "sims"), but most FPS default to non-inverted, which, as ChaosEngine already addressed, is clearly wrong. Study after study has shown that those who play inverted have larger brains, more money, and pwn.

Everything is better when re-enacted by The Sims.

Sim City Societies sucks and the other two games aren't marketed towards children.

A conservative. On Faux News. Talking about Sim effing Societies... Complains about using fear to promote an agenda.

My face hit my palm so bad both got concussions.