DCS "Black Shark" combat flight sim - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynosure · 03-17-2009, 07:28 AM

If you're into combat flight sim's, and especially if (like me) you're into helicopters, you'll be interested in this...

Note, if you go to the YouTube website and view it there, you can click on the HQ button and see it in high quality. The URL is "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D68L0ff4II0".

A review of the sim, here...

IGN: DCS: Black Shark Review

And for a more in-depth review, here...

SimHQ.com - Air Combat Zone - Review (RC8): DCS: Black Shark - English Version - Part 1

Me, I'm getting excited about this. I haven't played a good combat flight sim involving helicopters since Enemy Engaged: Comanche Versus Hokum. Time for me to dust off the ol' flightstick & throttle combo... !

highdro69 · 03-17-2009, 08:25 AM

SWEET! ANOTHER MENU QUEST!
Yea, it looks pretty, but it will fail miserably like all the other combat sims that over emphasize customization and detailing and don't put enough resources into developing the actual gameplay.
If that's your thing, to spend hours configuring a scenario you will only play for 25 minutes, then by all means rejoice. I just personally do not find those kinds of games enjoyable.

Cynosure · 03-17-2009, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highdro69

SWEET! ANOTHER MENU QUEST!
Yea, it looks pretty, but it will fail miserably like all the other combat sims that over emphasize customization and detailing and don't put enough resources into developing the actual gameplay.
If that's your thing, to spend hours configuring a scenario you will only play for 25 minutes, then by all means rejoice. I just personally do not find those kinds of games enjoyable.

Well, it's not so much a game as it is, a simulation. And, yes, combat flight sim's do not have a broad appeal, since they require more time, patience, and learning than most computer gamers are wanting to give.

Heck, most computer gamers see a flightstick & throttle setup like this...

...and think, "Whoa! Looks cool, but that's way more buttons and controls than I'm wanting to learn how to use."

highdro69 · 03-17-2009, 12:44 PM

It seems to be a very niche market. In 2 years I never sold a single flight stick and throttle.
But former and current pilots loved the idea. So yea, super niche market.

Strelich · 03-22-2009, 11:36 PM

I suppose I'm one of those folks lost in 1999, which was pretty much the end of the 'golden age' of simulations for the most part. This was the first 'high fidelity' sim I've bought since Il-2, excluding Black Shark's predecessor, LOMAC/Flaming Cliffs. And yes, it is a very niche product. Almost a 'niche within a niche' as it's a Russian helicopter circa the 80's being simulated.

Overall, simulations became decreasingly profitable largely because of their niche status and complexity. That, and complexity coupled with the industry's trend to throw quality assurance out the window and 'release first, patch later' affected complex games and simulations more than any other genre. This simulation largely came about because the Kamov Flight Bureau partnered with them to create a training simulation for them. Not being tethered to a publisher wanting to push out product also helped immensely.

Regarding gameplay and long-term viability I tend to agree with the designer's beliefs that missions need a 'human touch' to mission design which a more simplistic dynamic campaign wouldn't be able to accomplish. Falcon 4 is a different story (which will likely remain the most realized dynamic campaign model in a flight sim ever), still being at the top of it's game thanks to it's dedicated community, though that's a story in and of itself. In comparison, the dynamic campaign system of Falcon was built first and took something like three years to develop while they ended up starting from scratch the graphics engine halfway through. That simply cannot happen today, well, excluding Duke Nukem Forever

The other side of that, however, is that the longevity of the game rests with the mission builders. While the campaign which comes with it is pretty large, with a fair amount of randomness and variation in it, the long term prospects lie on a mission building community, which is too early to say whether that will pan out. The mission scripting language is more robust than it's predecessor, though it pales in comparison to the abilities in Operation Flashpoint/Armed Assault.

Work is being done on expanding mission scripting functions and ground logic AI. A common complaint right now is that we have an excellent flight and weapons simulation but much less so a combat simulator, which also goes for it's predecessor, LOMAC/Flaming Cliffs. To date, no flight combat simulation has substantively touched on ground force AI which responds to the player using real-life tactics perhaps outside of Longbow 2. But, work continues.

An important thing to note is that they did the Ka-50 because they had detailed information on it from a direct pipeline to the designers. In January, the Russian military formally announced they wouldn't pick up the order past the six they have and focus on the Ka-52 and Mi-28.

The helicopter modeled, the Ka-50, is largely unchanged for the most part from the 1982 prototype. It's a daytime attack helicopter with no facilities outside of night vision goggles for night flight and the unusual lack of a RWR (radar warning receiver). It is a fascinating look into Eastern design and Russian tactics and doctrine.

Don't let that take away from what is inarguably the highest fidelity flight model available for a combat helicopter on the PC, though I'm sure much can be said about flight models in X-Plane or even back to Longbow 2.

The game is scalable, as any flight sim should, so it's open from casual players on up. I would strongly recommend a HOTAS setup for mapping vital functions. I've mapped out every button and POV nearly three times over. It's true what Apache pilots would say, "six months flying the helicopter, six months fighting the helicopter, and another six months to put it all together". At maximum realism, it will take hundreds of actual flight hours to put it all together. I've spent over 200, and I still make simple mistakes. It can be an incredible challenge should you max out realism, but it has it's own rewards. I also happen to become increasingly uncoordinated in my age, so it's an extra hurdle to 'organically' get it together. I can't help but think of that music bumper sticker that said, "I used to be hardcore."

I suppose I ranted a good bit there and maybe didn't really answer any questions, but simulations are still my bread and butter, and I was surprised anyone here brought it up.

One more thing is that the next module in the series will involve the A-10C. This simulation tends to be 'extremely niche' being a single-seat Russian combat helicopter in extremely limited production with circa-80's technology, which obviously doesn't capture the interest of your Western world 'glass cockpit' modern day fighters. It's hoped that the A-10C will capture the broader sim market, and maybe extend further to the casual gamer.

The link is in Russian, but shows the first available shots of the avionics systems and cockpit in-game. Again, they have direct access from the manufacturer on this, so there's almost no guesswork, you're getting as close as one can get to a study simulation of the real deal.

DCS - Digital Combat Simulator

Cynosure · 03-23-2009, 06:59 AM

I think combat flight sim's are just as popular nowadays as they were 20 years ago. The problem is, the production costs for a computer/console game nowadays are astronomically higher than they were 20 years ago, and thus demands that a likewise greater number of units of that game be sold to make up for the higher production costs.

Since combat flight sim's are indeed a niche market, I think one should cost more to purchase than just an another computer/console game that is meant to have mass appeal. If, say, a newly produced 1st-person shooter (like Halo 3 or Gears of War 2) sells for around $40-50, nowadays, then a newly produced combat flight sim should sell for around $60-75. Any combat flight sim nut (like myself) who is willing to spend $150 for a flightstick & throttle combo like the one I presented in my previous post, i.e. someone who is willing to spend two to three times for his game controller than what a typical console game player is willing to spend for his, is also willing to spend more for a newly produced combat flight sim, especially if it's one like DCS "Black Shark".

Strelich · 03-23-2009, 01:03 PM

The idea has been brought about before, and I would tend to agree. Years ago, a F-16 flight simulation was released called Back to Baghdad which I think originally had a list price around $100, when many flight sims went for no more than $40. In general, if someone pays $120 for a 6DOF TrackIR system and certainly back when Thrustmaster made F-16 throttle quads and joystick combos approaching $400 for the set, people would pay to support their genre. Fortunately Eagle Dynamics (Black Shark) after Ubisoft dropped them went with a web distribution model and will publish boxed copies next month, but at they're nominally in control rather than the publisher. "When it's done" is the release date I want to see for sims.

Even the Steel Beasts Pro editions cost over $100, which is certainly fair given they get more money through their military simulation contracts. That company is essentially a homegrown operation and needs more to offset costs compared to Bohemia Interactive (Operation Flashpoint/ArmA/Arma 2) and Eagle Dynamics (Ka-50, LOMAC) who also are contracted by the military.

I still think the big problem is that publishers have wildly unrealistic expectations of how much a game should sell. (EA would be an extreme case, being disappointed that such and such didn't sell five million units). While understandable they want to reap on their investment, pulling back on the development cycle and pushing it out by the holiday season has made a poor showing to the potential of flight sims. Too many stories to count on how feature creep and pushing out unfinished games has knocked the genre.

Ubisoft was one of the last publishers to still have a focus on sims, and I'm forever grateful to their publishing Silent Hunter 3,4, and the rumored 5 from their Romanian studio, Il-2 and it's successors, Lock On, and so on. It's not likely a choice they would make given market realities, but for a simulation like this, I would happily pay twice as much and possibly more.

In a credit to the most ardent supporters, they've bought every release of Black Shark so far, the Russian in October, the English version in December, and again when the boxed localized versions come out. This is even knowing that there is little difference between them, but to help the company.

They do have plans to continue making study sims 'every nine months', though a look at ED's development cycles, doubling that would be a safe bet. Sometime next year will be the A-10C, then the AH-64A, and possibly redoing the Su-25/Su-25T. I'll buy them all, twice if I have the money to spare.

03-17-2009, 07:28 AM	#1 (permalink)
Cynosure Psycho Location: the center of the multiverse	DCS "Black Shark" combat flight sim If you're into combat flight sim's, and especially if (like me) you're into helicopters, you'll be interested in this... Note, if you go to the YouTube website and view it there, you can click on the HQ button and see it in high quality. The URL is "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D68L0ff4II0". A review of the sim, here... IGN: DCS: Black Shark Review And for a more in-depth review, here... SimHQ.com - Air Combat Zone - Review (RC8): DCS: Black Shark - English Version - Part 1 Me, I'm getting excited about this. I haven't played a good combat flight sim involving helicopters since Enemy Engaged: Comanche Versus Hokum. Time for me to dust off the ol' flightstick & throttle combo... ! Last edited by Cynosure; 03-17-2009 at 07:33 AM..

03-17-2009, 08:25 AM	#2 (permalink)
highdro69 Crazy Location: Tampa Bay, Florida	SWEET! ANOTHER MENU QUEST! Yea, it looks pretty, but it will fail miserably like all the other combat sims that over emphasize customization and detailing and don't put enough resources into developing the actual gameplay. If that's your thing, to spend hours configuring a scenario you will only play for 25 minutes, then by all means rejoice. I just personally do not find those kinds of games enjoyable. __________________ "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."

03-17-2009, 12:44 PM	#4 (permalink)
highdro69 Crazy Location: Tampa Bay, Florida	It seems to be a very niche market. In 2 years I never sold a single flight stick and throttle. But former and current pilots loved the idea. So yea, super niche market. __________________ "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."

03-22-2009, 11:36 PM	#5 (permalink)
Strelich occasional iconoclast Location: Flushing, MI	I suppose I'm one of those folks lost in 1999, which was pretty much the end of the 'golden age' of simulations for the most part. This was the first 'high fidelity' sim I've bought since Il-2, excluding Black Shark's predecessor, LOMAC/Flaming Cliffs. And yes, it is a very niche product. Almost a 'niche within a niche' as it's a Russian helicopter circa the 80's being simulated. Overall, simulations became decreasingly profitable largely because of their niche status and complexity. That, and complexity coupled with the industry's trend to throw quality assurance out the window and 'release first, patch later' affected complex games and simulations more than any other genre. This simulation largely came about because the Kamov Flight Bureau partnered with them to create a training simulation for them. Not being tethered to a publisher wanting to push out product also helped immensely. Regarding gameplay and long-term viability I tend to agree with the designer's beliefs that missions need a 'human touch' to mission design which a more simplistic dynamic campaign wouldn't be able to accomplish. Falcon 4 is a different story (which will likely remain the most realized dynamic campaign model in a flight sim ever), still being at the top of it's game thanks to it's dedicated community, though that's a story in and of itself. In comparison, the dynamic campaign system of Falcon was built first and took something like three years to develop while they ended up starting from scratch the graphics engine halfway through. That simply cannot happen today, well, excluding Duke Nukem Forever The other side of that, however, is that the longevity of the game rests with the mission builders. While the campaign which comes with it is pretty large, with a fair amount of randomness and variation in it, the long term prospects lie on a mission building community, which is too early to say whether that will pan out. The mission scripting language is more robust than it's predecessor, though it pales in comparison to the abilities in Operation Flashpoint/Armed Assault. Work is being done on expanding mission scripting functions and ground logic AI. A common complaint right now is that we have an excellent flight and weapons simulation but much less so a combat simulator, which also goes for it's predecessor, LOMAC/Flaming Cliffs. To date, no flight combat simulation has substantively touched on ground force AI which responds to the player using real-life tactics perhaps outside of Longbow 2. But, work continues. An important thing to note is that they did the Ka-50 because they had detailed information on it from a direct pipeline to the designers. In January, the Russian military formally announced they wouldn't pick up the order past the six they have and focus on the Ka-52 and Mi-28. The helicopter modeled, the Ka-50, is largely unchanged for the most part from the 1982 prototype. It's a daytime attack helicopter with no facilities outside of night vision goggles for night flight and the unusual lack of a RWR (radar warning receiver). It is a fascinating look into Eastern design and Russian tactics and doctrine. Don't let that take away from what is inarguably the highest fidelity flight model available for a combat helicopter on the PC, though I'm sure much can be said about flight models in X-Plane or even back to Longbow 2. The game is scalable, as any flight sim should, so it's open from casual players on up. I would strongly recommend a HOTAS setup for mapping vital functions. I've mapped out every button and POV nearly three times over. It's true what Apache pilots would say, "six months flying the helicopter, six months fighting the helicopter, and another six months to put it all together". At maximum realism, it will take hundreds of actual flight hours to put it all together. I've spent over 200, and I still make simple mistakes. It can be an incredible challenge should you max out realism, but it has it's own rewards. I also happen to become increasingly uncoordinated in my age, so it's an extra hurdle to 'organically' get it together. I can't help but think of that music bumper sticker that said, "I used to be hardcore." I suppose I ranted a good bit there and maybe didn't really answer any questions, but simulations are still my bread and butter, and I was surprised anyone here brought it up. One more thing is that the next module in the series will involve the A-10C. This simulation tends to be 'extremely niche' being a single-seat Russian combat helicopter in extremely limited production with circa-80's technology, which obviously doesn't capture the interest of your Western world 'glass cockpit' modern day fighters. It's hoped that the A-10C will capture the broader sim market, and maybe extend further to the casual gamer. The link is in Russian, but shows the first available shots of the avionics systems and cockpit in-game. Again, they have direct access from the manufacturer on this, so there's almost no guesswork, you're getting as close as one can get to a study simulation of the real deal. DCS - Digital Combat Simulator __________________ ----- Monty this seems strange to me. The movies had that movie thing, but nonsense has a welcome ring and heroes don't come easy. Last edited by Strelich; 03-22-2009 at 11:50 PM..

03-23-2009, 06:59 AM	#6 (permalink)
Cynosure Psycho Location: the center of the multiverse	I think combat flight sim's are just as popular nowadays as they were 20 years ago. The problem is, the production costs for a computer/console game nowadays are astronomically higher than they were 20 years ago, and thus demands that a likewise greater number of units of that game be sold to make up for the higher production costs. Since combat flight sim's are indeed a niche market, I think one should cost more to purchase than just an another computer/console game that is meant to have mass appeal. If, say, a newly produced 1st-person shooter (like Halo 3 or Gears of War 2) sells for around $40-50, nowadays, then a newly produced combat flight sim should sell for around $60-75. Any combat flight sim nut (like myself) who is willing to spend $150 for a flightstick & throttle combo like the one I presented in my previous post, i.e. someone who is willing to spend two to three times for his game controller than what a typical console game player is willing to spend for his, is also willing to spend more for a newly produced combat flight sim, especially if it's one like DCS "Black Shark". Last edited by Cynosure; 03-23-2009 at 01:59 PM..

03-23-2009, 01:03 PM	#7 (permalink)
Strelich occasional iconoclast Location: Flushing, MI	The idea has been brought about before, and I would tend to agree. Years ago, a F-16 flight simulation was released called Back to Baghdad which I think originally had a list price around $100, when many flight sims went for no more than $40. In general, if someone pays $120 for a 6DOF TrackIR system and certainly back when Thrustmaster made F-16 throttle quads and joystick combos approaching $400 for the set, people would pay to support their genre. Fortunately Eagle Dynamics (Black Shark) after Ubisoft dropped them went with a web distribution model and will publish boxed copies next month, but at they're nominally in control rather than the publisher. "When it's done" is the release date I want to see for sims. Even the Steel Beasts Pro editions cost over $100, which is certainly fair given they get more money through their military simulation contracts. That company is essentially a homegrown operation and needs more to offset costs compared to Bohemia Interactive (Operation Flashpoint/ArmA/Arma 2) and Eagle Dynamics (Ka-50, LOMAC) who also are contracted by the military. I still think the big problem is that publishers have wildly unrealistic expectations of how much a game should sell. (EA would be an extreme case, being disappointed that such and such didn't sell five million units). While understandable they want to reap on their investment, pulling back on the development cycle and pushing it out by the holiday season has made a poor showing to the potential of flight sims. Too many stories to count on how feature creep and pushing out unfinished games has knocked the genre. Ubisoft was one of the last publishers to still have a focus on sims, and I'm forever grateful to their publishing Silent Hunter 3,4, and the rumored 5 from their Romanian studio, Il-2 and it's successors, Lock On, and so on. It's not likely a choice they would make given market realities, but for a simulation like this, I would happily pay twice as much and possibly more. In a credit to the most ardent supporters, they've bought every release of Black Shark so far, the Russian in October, the English version in December, and again when the boxed localized versions come out. This is even knowing that there is little difference between them, but to help the company. They do have plans to continue making study sims 'every nine months', though a look at ED's development cycles, doubling that would be a safe bet. Sometime next year will be the A-10C, then the AH-64A, and possibly redoing the Su-25/Su-25T. I'll buy them all, twice if I have the money to spare. __________________ ----- Monty this seems strange to me. The movies had that movie thing, but nonsense has a welcome ring and heroes don't come easy.