Project Reality Forums

The only thing I don't like about war games (PR, ArmA2, etc.) is the lack of depth relative to a simulator.
And the only thing I don't like about simulators (DCS: A10, Black Shark)... is the lack of gameplay.
Do you think one day, we'll see the depth of titles such as DCS:A10 in games like PR?

If you don't know what DCS:A10 is, take a look at one of my play thru's.

You do know, simulators have a realistic amount of gameplay in them.

If you're playing a flightsim expect to fly awhile.

And Oh goodness excuse me while I rant, but once you've played a game such as DCS:A10 you can't go back
In terms of accessibility DCS:A10 is as close as you can get (at the moment) to realism without dumbing it down
In most sims you have to memorize thirty billion key combos for controls you would normally push with your hand
In DCS you do almost everything with your mouse, shrinking that gap between the sim and reality
I also have DCS set up so the only thing I have to memorize is modifiers for my HOTAS controls
Meaning I can control all 7 HOTAS on my one HAT on my joystick
Shift + HAT equals HOTAS Trim, Ctrl + HAT equals China, Etc. Etc.
I bet there are ways to make it even more accessible than this
One day I hope that we can see this kindof incredible depth in games such as PR
Cause to be honest... its fun and all flying a jet... but shooting at AI controlled tanks only satisfies for so long
I want that gameplay of teamwork, and intricate tactical planning that only comes with the PVP community

I agree on that. Memorising keyboard controls is a *****, I'd rather click it ingame.

Archosaurus wrote:You do know, simulators have a realistic amount of gameplay in them.

If you're playing a flightsim expect to fly awhile.

they have about as much gameplay as playing dungeons and dragons by yourself
yeah its a lot of content... but as far as I'm concerned... meaningless content...
Adding in the human factor is what I yearn for... and not just flying together
Working on a 64 player joint team, fighting on those big PVP maps PR is famous for

gimme...

Bluedrake42 wrote:they have about as much gameplay as playing dungeons and dragons by yourself
yeah its a lot of content... but as far as I'm concerned... meaningless content...
Adding in the human factor is what I yearn for... and not just flying together
Working on a 64 player joint team, fighting on those big PVP maps PR is famous for

gimme...

problem - Pilots dont get to communicate with boys on the ground. All communications are relayed to them through their chain of command who receive transmissions from other callsigns. All the pilot receives are his orders of where to go and what to do. he gets there, sees the laze, drops the bombs and leaves.

so if you want a realistic depth in PR for pilots, then you will be doing the same as in DCS, the only difference is your targets are live and not AI. the reason PR (and the battlefield franchise) works is because it is not that kind of realism.

Bringerof_D wrote:
so if you want a realistic depth in PR for pilots, then you will be doing the same as in DCS, the only difference is your targets are live and not AI.

yeah but when you shoot other players and not AI, its so much more fulfilling.
I think one day we will get something thats awesome as DCS + War Sim, but i think it will be possible in 5 years maybe more to be actually great and fun and for servers and home PCs to be able to handle lots of players along with complicated damage models, huge maps, and lots of buildings.


isnt this more appropriate for the offtopic?

I like and would support what you're talking about, however I don't think it would be commercially viable for about a billion different reasons I don't want to mention here.

Bringerof_D wrote:problem - Pilots dont get to communicate with boys on the ground. All communications are relayed to them through their chain of command who receive transmissions from other callsigns. All the pilot receives are his orders of where to go and what to do. he gets there, sees the laze, drops the bombs and leaves.

and you know this how? i am a forward observer for the U.S. Army and i've talked to plenty of pilots (apache, kiowa, harriers, f16, A10) when training, on patrol, and in enemy contact. laser target designators arent as common in real life as pr portrays them. they sometimes require a person with a skill set of being able to talk a aircraft on to the target using a map.

and on topic, i think someday it may happen, but i wouldnt see it being to popular because if you make something to hard (and arma is borderline) it becomes more of a chore and less of a fun entertaining activity for the masses. not saying i wouldnt enjoy it but i doubt it would ever become hugely popular unless they somehow had unlimited amount of players.

Bluedrake42 wrote:The only thing I don't like about war games (PR, ArmA2, etc.) is the lack of depth relative to a simulator.
And the only thing I don't like about simulators (DCS: A10, Black Shark)... is the lack of gameplay.
Do you think one day, we'll see the depth of titles such as DCS:A10 in games like PR?

If you don't know what DCS:A10 is, take a look at one of my play thru's.

Sims such as ARMA 2 give you the possibility to make a lot of games. But yeah, it would be nice if some companies after spending all that dough on the mechanics they would have some left over for games design, at least to get you started.

karambaitos wrote:yeah but when you shoot other players and not AI, its so much more fulfilling.
I think one day we will get something thats awesome as DCS + War Sim, but i think it will be possible in 5 years maybe more to be actually great and fun and for servers and home PCs to be able to handle lots of players along with complicated damage models, huge maps, and lots of buildings.


isnt this more appropriate for the offtopic?

beat me to it =)
and yeah it would be, but I figured I was talking more about a simulator + PR BF2 gameplay
if I posted in off topic everyone would start talking about different simulators and stuff
I wanted to focus on the idea of bringing simulation into PR:BF2 like gameplay

isn't that next step what arma2 pr is bringing to the table right now? are you a a2: pr player?

Bringerof_D wrote:problem - Pilots dont get to communicate with boys on the ground. All communications are relayed to them through their chain of command who receive transmissions from other callsigns. All the pilot receives are his orders of where to go and what to do. he gets there, sees the laze, drops the bombs and leaves.

so if you want a realistic depth in PR for pilots, then you will be doing the same as in DCS, the only difference is your targets are live and not AI. the reason PR (and the battlefield franchise) works is because it is not that kind of realism.

Uhh, no. Ground forces communicate directly with close air support all the time. JTACs are around for a reason. Squads are equipped with Radios for a reason. You think that some Platoon commander or Squad leader would be sitting on the ground, fighting the enemy when gunships are circling, unable to communicate with them with his own radio?

The easiest video that comes to mind when you have an aircraft directly communicating with ground forces is the one released by wikileaks. Crazy-Horse 1-8 communicates directly with ground forces after his engagement and you can even hear the responses and chatter of ground forces from the Apache's own radio.

There are also numerous studies, reports and other documentation of American forces communicating and coordinating close air support directly from their own radios. Do you honestly think that danger-close air support would be communicated through a third party in the middle of a fight when it's perfectly acceptable, as well as possible, to call the aircraft on your own?

Bluedrake42 wrote: In most sims you have to memorize thirty billion key combos for controls you would normally push with your hand

Expect this with all realism type games, especially with vehicles involved.


I would rather have "thirty billion" different key combos for "thirty billion" functions. As that would be realistic, and neat.

Dev1200 wrote:Expect this with all realism type games, especially with vehicles involved.


I would rather have "thirty billion" different key combos for "thirty billion" functions. As that would be realistic, and neat.

well that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. but I think you're blatantly wrong
key combinations are unrealistic, clunky, and increase the already steep learning curve
Interactive cockpits make 95% of key combinations obsolete, are much more accessible, and often faster

illidur wrote:isn't that next step what arma2 pr is bringing to the table right now? are you a a2: pr player?

Not entirely... although PR is improving ArmA2 considerably, it isn't going to delve into the kindof depth we're talking about here (watch the video I posted please =P)

I would prefer an in between. For example it would be kinda cool if the start up sequences and such in jets would be realistic, but Id rather have press one key to get the jet going and have the AI press all the switches in the right order.

I'm dreaming about these kind of simmulators a long long time.
There are some roles i alway's wanted to play in a massive PvP War simm. I can't even image how much fun i would have playing a AWACS operator in a E-3 Sentry or a boom operator in a KC-130 Stratotanker. Refueling NATO aircraft flown by real players in a full out war with the Russians or Chinese....
I like being a jet fighter pilot. But these kind of roles have never been simmulated as far as i know.

I've had an idea in my head for years about a massively scaled war game. I think one way something like this could really work, is if the game was split into different sub-games. For example, pilots would run one game engine, and they can fly, and infantry would another engine. The pilots and infantry would interact and communicate between the two games in real time, but the guy flying wouldn't have to be rendering everything on the ground in the same detail as the infantry. And the infantry wouldn't be running the complicated physics and flight engines that the pilots would.

A system like this wouldn't work perfectly in every situation of course, a pilot who ejects would have to find his way home in a less detailed environment than infantry see it, or an infantry might not be able to crew an abandoned vehicle because they're not running the armor sub-game, etc. But a system like this would get around the problems of piling vehicle/flight systems on top of a complex infantry shooter.

It's like in PR how our artillery support comes from off-map. But, in this game people would be running an artillery game, firing on targets they'll never see or even render, getting feedback from infantry via voip. While a an enemy UAV, manned by someone running the flight game, flies overhead and relays the artillerys position to a person running the command game, who decides to call in naval support from people playing the navy game.

Maybe someday.

badmojo420 wrote:I've had an idea in my head for years about a massively scaled war game. I think one way something like this could really work, is if the game was split into different sub-games. For example, pilots would run one game engine, and they can fly, and infantry would another engine. The pilots and infantry would interact and communicate between the two games in real time, but the guy flying wouldn't have to be rendering everything on the ground in the same detail as the infantry. And the infantry wouldn't be running the complicated physics and flight engines that the pilots would.

A system like this wouldn't work perfectly in every situation of course, a pilot who ejects would have to find his way home in a less detailed environment than infantry see it, or an infantry might not be able to crew an abandoned vehicle because they're not running the armor sub-game, etc. But a system like this would get around the problems of piling vehicle/flight systems on top of a complex infantry shooter.

It's like in PR how our artillery support comes from off-map. But, in this game people would be running an artillery game, firing on targets they'll never see or even render, getting feedback from infantry via voip. While a an enemy UAV, manned by someone running the flight game, flies overhead and relays the artillerys position to a person running the command game, who decides to call in naval support from people playing the navy game.

Maybe someday.

Good idea, but it will never catch on... thats far too much work for FUN.... and is open to multiple engine exploits that will be MUCH harder to patch and fix than if it was just one engine.

Arma2 has the right idea, just horrible flying physics, and a somewhat unrealistically high hardware requirement to ever make it popular and abysmally shitty AI on single-player and lack-of-focus in multiplayer all leads to a failed idea... a good idea, but a failed idea.

Arma is the only one that tried to do it, and its my opinion that they failed. Its not a bad game, its very modable its just not very playable. and im not talking about xp and stats and strafe jumping... Im talking about shooting your targets lol.

BF2 is a spammy game, and doesnt cater to expantion. COD's levels are too small becasue they are static objects stuck together. theres nothing in the negative zone outside of what you see, the map while looking realistic is just one big Collision.

However, this game may have potential. it could turn out being as spammy as everything else. but who knows. its called Heroes and generals and its made by the guys who made hitman. and the hitman games were quite realistic, but also quite arcadey. the game works by having an mmo style battlefield where soldeirs spawn in and partisipate in WW2, and another leaf of the game is where high ranking players operate as the general and order troops to go places and do things. which other than BF2 on a small scale hasnt been done before. (afaik)
Heroes & Generals Windows, Web game - Mod DB

Other than that i dont know what to tell you...realism gamers while being a minority group are mostly comprised of older guys who like fight sims army and sniper games. but we simply arnt being catered to in the ways we desire.

But you should bare in mind, nobody else is either. even gears of war, halo, bad company, and a bunch of other console fps arnt getting it right for their fans, with the exception of resistance 3 i guess.