Leaderboard

Gosh!...are you serious?! (or do you rally care that someone still takes you serious?...) (the first time I gave negative rep to someone...)

When/if DCS:FastJet comes around what is the outlook for Active missiles and is there hope for a better active in FC3? In FC1.12 all dead actives (maddogs) had a nasty habit of locking onto anything within the full scope of their excessively modeled gimbals. This proved to be a arcade style maddog multiplayer nightmare. Thankfully in FC2.0 this issue was partially addressed with realistic gimbals and what was deemed possible to do with FC resources at the time. Unfortunately these missiles when being unsupported still have a habit of acquiring targets at their max gimbals when in fact their seekers should be scanning on their nose. The process of an active is to be fired with full support of the radar, the information from the radar is then updated to the missile so as when it reaches the inertial stage the missile knows where its target will be so in that respect the shooter can drop support of the missile and defend while the missile continues onto the active stage where if the target keeps on its similair course the missile will intercept and easily find its target in its scan basket. But if the target changes direction and altitude drastically during the inertial stage then without support from the shooter the active will find itself with an empty basket and will supposedly stay in seek mode. A sweep of 11 degrees a second is not going to find much in its full gimbals of near +-60 degrees quickly, but FC2's actives regularly find its targets at max gimbals immediately. How is this going to be addressed in DCS.. is it.. and is it possible to make FC's actives more modern combat and less space combat. What about ECM and ECCM? Is the research going to be good enough or are we just not going to get this level of simulation anytime soon?

Bet the title got the attention of the mods. :) Anyway, ED need to refocus the development work from the P-51D ASAP. The easiest would probably be to upgrade a decade or two to the F-51D, but changing to a completely different aircraft could certainly be considered due to this catastrophic, earth-shattering major problem which I have discovered. Why? Very simple. Compare: DCS:F-51D Looks nice, dunnit? Now, this OTOH: DCS:P-51D Bloody ridiculous! As with all opinions expressed in this forum, the world will undoubtedly end unless ED does exactly what I want. ;) (Certainly a bigger issue than those of certain cheese-cravers.) Have a good weekend, fellow DCS nuts! Cheers, Fred

Hi everyone, ive got another one for you guys, this time its the long awaited IL-2 Cliffs of Dover ;D I made it for a movie competition that is going on for this sim and i would really appreciate your comments and likes on youtube :) Enjoy! http://youtu.be/E0U2pcqVccw?hd=1

@ Taker - le licenze di concessione del programma dicono ben altro e da tempo ;) per cui puoi stare tranquillo per il tuo lavoro, se hai sentore che qualcuno usi il tuo lavoro per scopi commerciali devi avvisare subito la ED o meglio la TFC date un occhio alle quick start guide

I touched on them expanding into other markets in the post prior to the one you quoted. Don't get me wrong, I truly wish it to be a successful venture for them. And there seems to be somewhat decent appeal for ww2 sims/aircraft given the success of other titles. Still I think it's important to take the opinions, whatever they may be, of ED's existing, and in my opinion, rather loyal, customer base seriously. So be they voices of support or discontent, all opinions are/should be equally important.

Нет, на основании ролика, где самолеты игрушечно двигаются.

This issue is well known and can't be solved in the current DCS engine. ATI Crossfire mode needs some "empty" cycles of CPU, and 3D performance increased due to some decreasing of CPU performance. Looks like we can get more correct work of Crossfire in Nevada, but it's not tested yet.

I forgot to add to my previous post, when you lock onto someone with an IR missile who is pumping out flares, the seeker should be decoyed by the flares. Should also be apparent in the HUD with the seeker circle. Currently putting out flares pre launch has little to no effect. It would probably help you guys if you enlisted the assistance of some of the retired Fighter Pilots who fly lock on rather than survey the community for their opinions on systems "bugs". If you don't know who they are, PM me. Or ask GG Tharos.

Ну что доставать с полки старый добрый ло1?

give it time you will learn to love the mustang :music_whistling: and if you shoot down a flanker your automatically upgraded to defense minister :thumbup:

TARS is free. But, I accept donations. So far a singificant percentage of people who use it have not donated. Which is expected; I am not using these donations to feed myself (although they did in fact get put toward additional hardware to perform unit testing with, which was nice). If TARS ever does get turned into payware it will be under the following circumstances: 1) I am forced to out of necessity and 2) People who donated would have the amount that they donated used as credit.

At the same time, if you look around the App Store, you'll find people's home-grown apps that do minor things but still have strangely outrageous prices on them. I think the fact is that the huge majority of people have never gone to business school and don't understand the proper value of something, thusly I'm more inclined to think that when you can set your own prices in the wonky world of digital economics, you're more than likely going to overvalue your own work, think you're worth more than you really are, and end up charging $30 for an iPad version of Helios. It would be nice if economics weren't a joke on the internet though. In the real world, if I make some knick-knacks and charge a fortune for them, 90% of people might not buy it because it's expensive, but 10% of people might because they have too much money, they're daft, whatever. In order to stop from going out of business (since I wouldn't be able to survive only selling 10% of my stock), I'd be forced to drop prices - that's how competition works. With digital content, there's no overhead (certainly not now that you can host payware on ED's site :D), there's no business to manage, no investors to pay, no inventory to move, no manufacturing costs... and you can't charge for a mission that doesn't already exist, so you've already spent time (the only expense that there is in making missions). So while myself, or 90% of the rest of people might see a $30 pricetag on a campaign and scoff, we might still want to play the campaign but not be willing to pay that ridiculous fee for it... there's no reason to ever drop the price and it probably never will go down, which means we can never play the campaign unless we fork out for it or, well let's be honest this is the internet - commit mild copyright infringement. Maybe, maybe not - the EULA actually forbids using missions and campaigns for commercial gain, so I imagine it's not been more popular mostly because it's technically not been allowed, or people just expect user-generated content to simply be free. This small change shows that ED isn't just turning a blind eye to monetization of UGC, but they're now encouraging it. I think that will be the big change... PS: Complaints about the economics / payware are more a general observation about DLC in general too. Interestingly, I don't think anyone else has ever noticed that while the price of an actual game will go down over time, the price of DLC never does. The reason the price of games drops, even on Steam, is because they want prices to remain stable across all distribution platforms, and they lower the price of new games in brick-and-mortar stores to move excess inventory or to remain competitive with the secondhand market. But DLC doesn't have a secondhand market, nor does it have inventory to move, so you'll notice that you can find games years and years old that have lost 80% of their value, but still charge the same price for DLC as the day it came out.

Frostiken I would cancel out Peter's negative rep with some positive from me, but I have to spread it around before giving it to you again. :D I wouldn't worry too much about being charged an arm and a leg for too many things though. ED is only offering the opportunity, they aren't setting prices, or welcoming/encouraging people to stamp price tags on their stuff, right? If something isn't worth paying for, like a campaign for example, simply do not buy it. :) I agree, the community is small, and we all benefit from people helping out. If you think about it though, people could have been charging for their content all along. This is only a change to the DCS website AFAIK.

"You must spread some reputation around again beofre giving it to Frostiken"

Are you serious? Is this serious time now? I'm stating my opinion. This place isn't a fascism where only socially acceptable opinions can be voiced. A forum reputation system is there so you can base it on things like, say, personal conduct or maybe being a helpful person (perhaps for free). Not so you can say 'You like potatos? WELL I DON'T, NEGATIVE REP'. So, because you felt the need to not only negative rep me for no reason, but you didn't even have the decency to explain how I offended you so much (your negative rep comment is: "First negative rep I've ever given!"), have a big bag of it in return. Should I go voice politically correct opinions elsewhere to farm some more? I sought to discuss to implications of what ED encouraging people to turn their currently-free offerings into payware would be, and I've voiced my admittedly pessimistic view on it. I think it's one thing to charge for DLC made by a professional team, but another thing entirely to now provide the stamp of approval on monetizing every bit of user-generated content that's been on this forum so far. I don't think it's a great idea. So there.

------------------ ATTENTION! YOU ONLY HAVE A DCS FORUMS BRONZE ACCOUNT! THIS FORUM POST IS NOT VISIBLE WITHOUT A SILVER OR GOLD ACCOUNT! CLICK HERE TO UPGRADE YOUR FORUM ACCOUNT FOR ONLY $14.99 A MONTH! ------------------ But no really, it's because nothing good will ever come of encouraging people to do this. Nothing good ever has. It won't raise the quality of work, it won't guarantee that the missions are worth buying (the flight qualifications missions are buggy and unclear, at best)...

Hmmm... not sure how I feel about this... we've seen from the HOTAS Warthog that sim aficionados are willing to fork out ridiculous amounts of money for their hobby, and from the iPad app that people are willing to charge moronically disproportionate prices for something that didn't take nearly as much effort to create as the price would imply... *BASIC* flight qualification for the A-10 is already $5. Been offered for months for free, What would a real campaign cost? $15? Are people going to start demanding cash for the 'privilege' of letting you get help? I guess it's good I have all these checklists now, because in a month they're going to cost $20 a .pdf? The real charm of this community is that it's small and we're all willing to help each other out. This is just... bad news for everyone, methinks. :/

I'd pay a fortune for a copy that is stable, makes maximum use of cores and doesn't crash in either worldgeneral.dll, effects.dll, transport.dll or async.dll, (which incidentally, were the same problems from beta 1), a riddence of the Master Server list system and reliable and stable mp packets. Infact, i'd bet most of us would pay a fortune for it. keep waiting though. Good luck third party's, just don't get invoved in the back office!

Хотелка: Возможность админам динамически, в режиме онлайн, менять описание сервера (если сделаете такую фишку, как описание сервера отдельно от описания миссии). На некоторых серверах обозначен широкий круг задач. И если заходишь спустя, к примеру, час игры, сразу и не поймешь, где уже отработали, а куда как раз и стоит лететь. В ТСе тоже не все с самого начала играют и иногда никто не может сказать, где уже все повыносили, где еще только стоит выносить. В данном же случае, админ мог бы динамически менять описание сервера, указывая, какие группы целей уже уничтожены, дабы игрокам лишний раз не приходилось заморачиваться. Если же будет сделано сетевое лобби игры, тогда, помимо чата, добавить туда "доску объявлений". В которую также, в режиме онлайн, можно добавлять различные объявления, видимые другим игрокам, даже если они зашли позже того, как оно было опубликовано. Попутно появилась еще хотела: Было бы неплохо сделать табличку "Задачи". Т.е. некое логическое продолжение брифинга. Вспоминаем старые добрые шутеры. Там давались задания, и рядом было либо "ВЫПОЛНЕНО \ НЕВЫПОЛНЕНО" или же "Х (крестик) \ V (галочка)". Т.е. можно было бы триггерами привязывать события к этой таблице задач. Пример: Игрок заходит на сервер, открывает задачи, и видит, что задачи "Уничтожить группу техники [ВЫПОЛНЕНО] / Захватить ВПП [НЕ ВЫПОЛНЕНО] / Эскортировать бомбардировщики [ПРОВАЛЕНО]" и т.д. И сразу понятно, где и что выполнено (некая более эффективная замена вышеназванной хотелке). В триггерах вывод о результате выполнения задачи выглядел бы как "Один раз - Группа уничтожена (название группы) - Задача "ХХ" Выполнена", к примеру. И в конце, если все задачи выполнены, миссия закончена. Если уменьшить формулировку данной хотелки до одного предложения, то получается: Сделать панель задач, указывающей, какие задачи на сервере уже выполнены, а какие нет для всех игроков, независимо от того, когда они вошли на сервер.

you can do so much with curves in the configuration! This is my favourite zoom setting for my X-52's slider, which is more than a little jittery with the default curve: This gives you 5 distinct steps of zooming. You can adjust the maximum levels of zoom in and zoom out with the Saturation Y setting. I can't take any credit for the idea, someone posted it regarding Flaming Cliffs a very long time ago and I can't remember who.

Added to my sig - I am forever searching for that thread. Nate

The A-6 would have had my vote, had it not been omitted. F-4? Lesse... no gun, you'd be depending upon an AI RIO to employ the systems effectively (which would be a never-ending source of annoyance - keep in mind the RIO will be as dumb as our current AI wingmen), can't really manoeuver? F-86 it has to be. Along with the P-51D, a nice Korea scenario going!