Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Past hour
  2. heh funny indeed! ....congratulations, I guess? I've seen it break (twice!) during livestreams on twitch. A friend here broke the "far antler" just by accidentaly touching it with the arm while reaching for the curtain (would be hilarious if not for his misfortune), not even duct-tape could save it. How that flimsy fragile thing goes through QC to be on sale is beyond belief, IMO. And it was through that same friend that I got to know about the DelanClip (to replace that broken TrackClip Pro). The built quality and robustness is not even comparable (far better made, like a tank in comparison), makes a joke of it. Nearly same thing goes for the old Trackhat Clip that I got about a decade ago. Not proud of it but, mine has been dropped on floor and even stepped over countless times by accident, and still going flawlessly. It's a shame the UTC is no longer being produced, that too was a phenomenal alternative.
  3. Sorry to bother you again, but flying to the Admiral Kuznetsov, I find myself short a parking place. How do I free up a space to park my Su-33. Many thanks.
  4. Possibly AI logic/difficulty changed, making them defeat missiles more easily. I remember them barrel rolling much more, you can check Tacview to see what they did. Against players I don't hope for a hit outside of ~5nm
  5. @cfrag Thanks a lot for helping and typing out instructions. It sounds like a really great tool! I can't get to my simrig before monday, så can't check the missions out before then, but I will look at it ASAP. Seems like DML is going to be gold to me - especially until I get my head around LUA and scripting for DCS. Looking forward to diving into it next week. Thanks again.
  6. This is a hot topic I wish many would not get so upset about, especially with the C-130, Chinook, and some of the new Helos coming out. DCS has first and foremost been a military simulation platform putting realism and authenticity at its core, so be it first person shooter, armored module, or maritime assets, I would expect nothing short of the same. There is absolutely a solid way to sell the first-person modules in my own opinion. One of the biggest complaints I hear is the ground scenery not being high fidelity and not being able to enter buildings, small arms ballistics do not exist on top of the obvious soldier mechanics right now, and the FPS turning into a call of duty style game. Let's break it down for each one of these. Let's start with the call of duty style gameplay. I find this to be a mute subject simply for the fact that ED and third-party game developers would not be creating a module that allows for the non-realistic environment the COD franchise has succeeded on. For the exact same reason we have people fly DCS and not War Thunder. A solid way to sell a first-person experience in DCS would be to create generation/branch/time specific units for as a module pack to include axis/ally in the pack to balance the gameplay and create realistic scenarios. A good example from my own experience in the service would be early era 2000's with Seal units and Taliban/Al-Qaeda terrorist. During this period, Seals were using very specific weapons during the early war to include MK-18 Mod 0 with Trijicon's mounted with Doctor sites while Al-Qaeda terrorist were the predominate threat before ISIS. During the early days of the war in Afghanistan the Uniform used in the Middle east for Seals was old school vs what they wear today. Creating module packs with very specific attention to detail on uniforms, weapons, attachments (down to different suppressors for god sake), gear, and the same for axis units could be huge sellers. Unit packs could be created for time specific regions such as the maps we have now and in the future. I would expect nothing short of the level of detail we see in the aircraft to be put into the character models, weapons, and gear. Body movement would have to be spot on and VR would need to be a must since there are those of us who only play DCS with VR. This could open up an entirely different market to 3rd party devs and ED. I could write an entire article just on this topic alone and how to set up a module pack. Within the pack you should have designated roles as in real life such as comms, sniper, medic, breacher, ect..... The second topic of concern is the environment or lack thereof for assets and buildings. I feel there is a solution for this similar to what is out there for the WW2 assets pack. The difference would be building packs with high detailed interior/exteriors that can be inserted into any map where content creators or campaign developers could create historic missions. Maybe include some base detailed buildings with the Unit module packs such as the early era Seal/Al-Qaeda pack coming with some detailed FOB building and mud huts. Other larger buildings such as the Osama Bin-Laden compound and larger structures are included in building asset packs, again time period specific. This would open the door for historical combat operations with high fidelity such as the Bin Laden raid, patrols in Afghanistan, Special operations missions ect..... DCS would become a virtual playground for content creators who want authenticity and realism over the closest thing we have now which is ARMA. The ability to recreate what so many have experienced and to do it with the fidelity ED can do would bring a lot of attention to ED and I personally feel, is a great way to remember our fallen brothers and sisters by never forgetting what they did. The last concern I will not spend time on because I think it is a moot point. The current way infantry works on the ground and the ballistics is a given, it's not up to par. This would obviously be worked over to the same degree they do the aircraft modules and we would receive nothing but the best work ED could push out. I feel Wags statement is correct, that this is not an if but a when will it happen. I could not be more pleased when I heard him mention this. There are so many fine details that need to go into place to make this work, I would not expect anything soon, but the prospect of being able to carry out full combat operations online with my boys overhead while I conduct a raid with the guys would be an insane experience, especially in VR. I hope the enthusiasm continues to grow for this future feature to DCS World and look forward to the first iteration of the first-person experience, which I believe will be walking from the ready room on the super carrier to our aircraft up on deck. Once they pull this off, I think it will it the first-person experience in motion.
  7. so this is a lousy picture through the lens, but I clearly dont have the issue that you are having. Mine looks really good at night. maybe take a look at your profile.jspon? mine is attached. this line helped me: "local_dimming_black_level" : 0.005 profile.json
  8. Yesterday
  9. Funny...I've had the same one for going on 20 years now it seems ...and it's still just fine. And, to be accurate, I bought it used. I guess it comes down to handling.
  10. @Cobra847 Is there any chance, after all this time, that J-35 Draken could be re-considered in the aspect of a full module? I have to admit, depending on preference, the AJS-37 is among the sweetest pair of deltas there is. There is no doubt that it would be a success. I say, go ZON 3 on it!
  11. F-15E совсем не похож на Мираж. Тем более пару лет назад последний довели до ума.
  12. Sorry to hear that, wish you a trouble-free recovery. I'm truly looking forward to flying this bomber on DCS, already got the Flight Manual of the real thing, so I can make a training mission for it whenever it is released.
  13. Would be fine with me.. Together with a INS system implemented like for the 16 now you could use the F-18 for older szenarios pretty well.
  14. Hey all, this has been fixed internally, we lowered the gyroscopic moment effect from the engine. Thanks!
  15. I am aware they would be completely cosmetic. Snow for all intents and purposes is not even simulated in DCS to any real effect.
  16. Thanks all. It seems from my tests DCS will run fine without 'Administrator' except for one issue I have - and that is the VR window upside down in my headset, but OK on the desktop. I think this may be an issue with XR Neck Safer - and I recall now that I may have enabled 'run as administrator' way back when installing that to get it to work correctly. If I could find a solution to why it works correctly when running DCS 'as administrator', but flips inverted when I don't run it as administrator, I could stop running DCS as administrator completely.
  17. Сейчас хорошие скидки у virpil
  18. It looks promising ! Thank you for your passion and your good work !
  19. This has helped me. Its difficult to find the folders, but you can find a command you can type in the address line in the top of file Explorer that will lead you directly to the saved games folder.
  20. KoN

    VR upscaling

    Oh ok so this works with AMD cards , I'll have to give this ago , TAA looks good in cockpit, but outside view there is lots of ghosting .
  21. We won't know the capacities of the F-14 weapons system until it's made public, and that will take many decades. In contrast to the amraam the upgraded 54 was only used by the US, and the only other potential user is Iran - who had success with 54 As. Some capabilites, not modelled in DCS, has been eluded to publicly, but I won't mention them here. Suffice to say, both the makers of the Phoenix and Tomcat seem to think that they should model the worst version they can find. In this way they are quite off the mark in many aspects, but they're still quite good in others. Anyone over 40 will have retired before we get the correct picture, but for what it is it's still the best modelled plane in DCS. If you can accept that, then play it. If you can't, then you'll have to modify (like the cockpit) or just refrain from playing dcs or this one plane. The Viper is quite good as well.
  22. As F-2 said, there is evidence that there is PL-12 equipped J-11As, along with (as Ive recently seen) retrofitted Chinese MAWS systems. I will say that I havent seen the Chinese carry R-27ET along with the PL-12, which (in GS) is an absolutely deadly combo if you know what youre doing. I feel like there should be a proper investigation into that matter. The Info and the actual Op Manuals are publicly avaiable, however the only ones that I could find were in Russian and Spanish. There was an english one, but its only a google translated version of the Russian manual. As for the performance, youre simply wrong. The SD-10/PL-12 is a larger missile than the AIM-120C, meaning it will profit a lot from high altitude-hight energy launches. Therefore, since the J-11A has more engine power and a larger wing surface, it can reach an higher altitude, while remaining in stable flight. yes you can get an JF-17 to 35k+ ft, but the single RD-93 engine that the JF-17 has, is not powerful enough to keep you that high with good speed. Meanwhile you can stay at up to 45k with the J-11A and the same loadout (4x SD-10/PL-12 + 2x PL-8/R-73) as that would be a rather light load for the J-11A. A big reason for that is the raw power that the AL-31F has, compared to the RD-93, along with the fact that the J-11A has two of them. The following numbers factor in Pylon weight, thrust in AB (as you would use to get a good missile off) and a similar loadout. For the colors: Loadout, Weight, Thrust The JF-17 with 4xSD-10 + 2xPL-5 + 2x1.100L Fuel + Full internal fuel, will come in around 12388kg (27310lbs) with 84.4kN (19000lbf). The J-11A with 4xPL-12 + 2xPL-8 + full internal fuel will come in around 21526kg (47456lbs) with 247.2kN (55200lbf). Now of course, we have consider that the Flanker has a much higher weight, meaning we have to do some math. Im not a physicist, nor a mathematician, so correct me if im wrong. After taking the Thrust of the JF-17 and dividing it by its weight, (84400N/12388kg) I came out to 6.8N After taking the Thrust of the J-11A and dividing it by its weight, (247200N/21526kg) i came out to 11.8N That means the engines on J-11A put out 74% more thrust to move its weight, Compared to the JF-17. This also explains how the J-11A can get up to around M2.2, while the Jeff barely scratches 1.6. Along with the larger Wing Surface, it just gives the SD-10/PL-12 a much better launch than the JF-17 could provide. Generally that makes me wonder why Pakistan and China decided to equip it with the RD-93, instead of the AL-31F, which alone has about 50% more power than the RD-93. But that is another topic.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...