Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/16/24 in all areas

  1. It's a digital plane to fly around in for fun. It's not going to ruin your lives if it releases three months from now instead of TODAY, just because you want to use it. The people like myself who paid for it already got a discount, THAT is the reason to order early.They never gave any contractual promises that you could use the product at a given date. They said "we are hoping it will be released winter '24". I think a lot of people here need to really re-evaluate how they are reacting to what is a complete non-issue, and let the developers just get on with fixing the product so you can enjoy it better when it releases. Which it will, when it's ready. I say all this as a massive fan of the aircraft, but there is honestly far more important things to worry about in the world than when a digital plane gets to be flown.
    7 points
  2. Not sure if you are in the discord but this was our april update April Update Hey everyone! It has been a bit since the last update, but rounding out the first quarter of 2024 we have done quite a bit! We've also added a new member to our modeling and texturing team, @FuriousVoid, and hopefully you have gotten to talk to him a little already. Most of the work done in the last few months is under-the-hood (I know, I know, that is what everyone always says), and most of what Scooby has shown has been our cosmetic changes, but I am more than happy to share what we've developed lately. Texture and Model Work: As we introduce a new modeler to the group, we are working on standardizing all our materials and techniques to get a consistent feel to the aircraft. We have pretty good references to match what things looked like in the 40's, and not just what they look like now. On top of our work in consistency, we are slowly making a pass at all our placeholder models and textures, to put in our final/close to final high quality textures and models. We are striving for a quality of at least the attached Engineer's panel (photo courtesy of Scooby posted on the forum). Debugging: A lot has gone into making our project easier to test and debug. Creation of loggers, automation of internal debug/dev and release/test builds, etc. What this means for our eventual user is that there will be as little overhead as possible when flying. What this means for us is that we can continue to develop more advanced systems, and get accurate measures of our data to compare to the next point... FM Work: Loki has put a ton of work into the FM, like always. We are continually aiming to hit wartime numbers more closely. Importantly in dives, climbs, landings, etc. Drag has been a key issue we have been working on, as getting a realistic drag is crucial to our dives and landings. Our numbers and charts match the reference ones pretty nicely. There's also been work on our representation of the Merlin engine, its supercharger, and props. Autopilot: The meat and potatoes of the Lancaster's Autopilot Mk IV has been implemented. Awaiting are more realistic gyroscope physics, but the basis is there and the autopilot is fully functional. This will prove an important part of the Lancaster's strategic bombing missions. Other systems are of course being constantly fine tuned. Realistic pneumatics to power the brakes and autopilot were implemented, and hydraulics get a new pass every time I look at them and cringe. Fore feedback implementation is also in the near future, and I plan to support FFB in both the yoke, as well as in haptics for 3rd party/diy peripherals, like 3D printed machine gun controls. Development is going pretty great. I am hoping to put together a VR video of bombing procedures sometime in the near future. This will be similar to the bombing video that Loki put out pretty early in our group's history, but will showcase the newest state of our Lancaster. We continue to appreciate the members of the community and their interactions here and on the forum. Please continue to ask questions, post your airshow pictures and cool finds, and chat about our beloved bomber.
    7 points
  3. Yup, NATO woodland is on the to-do list
    6 points
  4. 6 points
  5. Можно подумать сейчас в ФАКе только то, что нужно исключительно всем. Судя по тому, что этот вопрос периодически бурно обсуждается с завидным постоянством, то это нужно многим.
    5 points
  6. Thanks, Beldin for uploading and sharing the screenshots with the Forum. Yes, I received them. I just haven't had time to sit down and concentrate on them. I planned to lighten the flight deck textures a little so you can see oil and grease spots. I will dirty her up a little. I need to correct the US Flag and add weapon sounds & files as well. In time. The V-22s look fine to me. In the present day, I mostly see F-35s on deck. Looks good. Great job with the landing spots. Thanks again.
    4 points
  7. I don't know - i really like this concept of a stripped down version and am pre-ordering. With fixed-foviated rendering it's more than enough. I have no issues running pico 4 with everything maxed out and maintaining 72fps in all but a formation takeoff where maybe I get 55-60. My 8kx works great too. I just don't like the fresnel lenses any more. Once I had used the pancake lenses in the pico, it's hard to go back. Even the huge fov of the 8kx is not enough to overcome this. I may be wrong, but I think the performance and visuals of the pimax light will be better as its got a direct connection and inwonr be relying on streaming quality, which to be honest is still pretty good in VD with the pico. I'm pretty confident this will work well with my 7900xtx and gonna pull the trigger.
    4 points
  8. Tippis has outlined the reason, the Mission Editor cockpit parameters are provided for single player tutorials and dont work in multiplayer as client. You will see this with the green gates too. Although they work, you dont see where they are as a client. There's quite a lot of this going on in the application - things that only work in SP as player, versus things that work in both. Its definitely caused by how the product organically grew. Over the years there were some opportunities for standardisation disregarded...shelling zone, scenery removal, carrier lights, warehouse api etc. The following limitations are not documented on a per function level (by the publishers) Which functions work only as a lua function API ( from https://wiki.hoggitworld.com/view/Category:Class_Functions there's overlap but even the new Warehouse API not added to Mission Editor) Which functions work only as a Mission Editor condition or action (LOAD MISSION (really? yes really we've been using flags in scripting and triggers in ME), Training Gates (why cant we have these for scripting?, SET_CARRIER_LIGHTING MODE, arghhhh) Which functions work only in Single Player (shelling in zone, cockpit parameters, green gates, set failure, etc) Which functions have an API, matching trigger or action and work in single player and multiplayer (e.g. Push task, set task, mark to group, message to group, sound to etc) (side note: we have had things break in single player and not Multiplayer but thats not the normal way) (second side note - the entire lua game event system has the same limitaitons and some events do not trigger and never did in multiplayer. Others have different behaviours.) There's very little appetite shown in the last 15 years for making a standardization sweep that unifies these. We can assume that its not happening along with a lot of other things we would like to have. If you read this far you are the tiny tiny minority of players at the top of a pyramid of contributors that expand the attractiveness of the game whom have elected to spend their time in the least developed and greatest lost opportunity of the simulation itself. API's dont sell modules. I've had since version 1.2 to figure things out. I have no idea how anyone begins to learn and understand these limitations because I dont think they would make sense to an average person. I feel for you guys.
    4 points
  9. Da Ex-Sviluppatore e fondatore di SH anche se per altra piattaforma (ora in quiescenza forzata ), conosco Duke e i ragazzi di IFE (almeno i primi) da tempo. Non voglio difendere nessuno, o tesserne le lodi, ma dico soltanto che molte volte dimentichiamo che i ragazzi che lavorano per IFE hanno un lavoro principale, e quello di sviluppare moduli per DCS o FS2020 è un secondo lavoro (con tutto quello che ne comporta, anche fiscalmente). Detto questo, viene da sè che i tempi di sviluppo, sebbene più lunghi di altri, non possono essere paragonabili minimamente ad una "terza parte" i cui membri fanno solo gli sviluppatori di moduli (era lo stesso con la SH in cui ero...alcuni avevano un lavoro principale a cui affiancavano quello di sviluppare moduli, con quello che ne consegue). Quindi dico di portare pazienza che le cose arriveranno al momento giusto....almeno i ragazzi di IFE non ci dicono continuamente "Only two weeks" un saluto...e tenete botta! Emanuele (SimSKunkWorks Founder e developer)
    4 points
  10. Just updated the Seaking Mod to the new version with the additional liveries - just wonderful. It's one of those assets I really look forward to just seeing on the deck or in the air when I place them in my missions. Thanks again to everyone involved!
    4 points
  11. Currently, tankers decrease their bank angle when an aircraft is refuelling. This often leads to a close to 40 nautical mile turn radius which is absolutely enourmous. This effectively means that a tanker with 20nm legs, with the possibility of initiating refueling on either of the two legs, will occupy an airspace of about 70x60 nautical miles. It would be nice if the mission creator could choose either the desired bank angle and/or turn radius in the mission editor. For communities who try to adhere to real life airspaces it is simply an impossibility to do so when the turns are so incredibly wide.
    3 points
  12. By definition, "Phantom pain" refers to painful sensation perceived in a part that is not present.
    3 points
  13. "It's a digital plane to fly around in for fun. It's not going to ruin your lives if it releases three months from now instead of TODAY, just because you want to use it. The people like myself who paid for it already got a discount, THAT is the reason to order early.They never gave any contractual promises that you could use the product at a given date. They said "we are hoping it will be released winter '24". I think a lot of people here need to really re-evaluate how they are reacting to what is a complete non-issue, and let the developers just get on with fixing the product so you can enjoy it better when it releases. Which it will, when it's ready. I say all this as a massive fan of the aircraft, but there is honestly far more important things to worry about in the world than when a digital plane gets to be flown." LOL!! Exactly!!! I still enjoy coming to this thread and seeing how everyone fidgets over it, contemplates it, argues over it's release, complains about it, panics over it, and vents frustration over it like a bunch of teenagers. Sorry guys, but hey....If the shoe fits....... It really floors me when people get so worked up over something that's not (for all intents and purposes) real. It's a genuine testament to the state of our species. Absolutely no ill feelings intended fellas.
    3 points
  14. You can read about people’s observations on the new FM in the many existing threads about it. There’s no need to make a new one.
    3 points
  15. Windows Defender works perfectly fine. It's non-intrusive, low on system resources, updates regularly. I haven't used a 3rd party AV suite in the past 8 years. My workplace where I'm a sys admin, we finished our migration to Defender from TrendMicro last spring and it's been so much better. There's a reason businesses and enterprises use Defender over anything else.
    3 points
  16. This, right here, is the problem. Short-sightedness greed over long-term gains. (note: before the heavy handed people who want to ban me think I'm calling you @Pikey greedy, I'm not - I'm talking about that myopic corporate attitude). The fact there is no standardisation, little to no concern about the M.E. and the scripting engine etc, means that missions, campaigns and yes, even the 'hey buddy look at this! It's so cool! look what DCS can do??!' gets lost; purely for the shiny jangly keys of the latest module to distract the masses, even though most of them will never fully learn, master or even appreciate it before the next shiny jangly keys get dangled in their faces. The current business model has too much of a death grip on pushing out modules and not enough on fixing what is there and making the framework better for the betterment of every mission creator and scripter AND PLAYER. Because the things we scripters and mission creators could do would make missions in other games/sims look bareboned - if only we had the support of ED management. As it is we struggle and try and come up with workarounds or have to throw our lofty goals and ideas away. But look, there's another module announced. And before the fanbois start, I understand that the sim has to make money to stay in production, but the focus is wrong. Yet another early access module but the stuff we've been waiting 10 years to get fixed will never be fixed (MP world events) or we aren't told anything.
    3 points
  17. After a drawn out conversation with logitech support, the issue was with the logitech windows software. the default for the toe pedals was set by default to unprogrammed. I changed it to directional axis, then Bob's your uncle, the toe brakes appear when i open the DCS axis bindings. Thanks for all your helpful replies All.
    3 points
  18. Have you tried placing three Samuel Chase's in a line about 4000' apart, in-trail, going about 12 knots, on the Marianas map, and then have about 6 flights of 4 Fw190's with "Zero" skins attack from high-level with 250kg bombs? They make diving attacks. Maybe a Fletcher-class mod destroyer (or 2) a mile to port, on a parallel course. And then man the 5" gun on the center ship and try to shoot some of them down? It creates quite a show. Unfortunately, when you man a gun on the Chase (the only ship on which you can man a gun), AI does not operate any of the other guns on that ship. That's why you need the other ships nearby. And in the middle of that, add a few Ju-88's with "Betty Bomber" skins to make low-level torpedo attacks. You'll have a Pacific theater airshow. There's a mod ship of the USS Pensacola heavy cruiser. If you add that, it helps a bit with anti-aircraft fire...or an Iowa battleship. But not all guns fire on those. We need Fletcher-class and Sumner-class destroyers and Cleveland-class and Oakland-class light cruisers in DCS. Where we can man one of the Mk37 directors to aim the ship's battery of 5-inch guns or Mk51 directors to aim one or more 40mm twin or quad mounts...and yet have the AI continue to operate the guns we don't control.
    3 points
  19. 3 points
  20. Step 0 should be uninstalling McAfee. There is no reason to use anything other than MS Defender.
    3 points
  21. No.1 rule of DCS: Everything takes longer than expected. It's just something one needs to get used to.
    3 points
  22. There are 2 air bases in Mary, Turkmenistan. This post will focus on Mary-1.* Mary-1 was the base of the Soviet 341st Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment, 979th Fighter Aviation Regiment, 402nd Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment and 168th Guards Bomber Aviation Regiment. * Mary-1 was also the base for the Soviet Top Gun equivalent. There will be a separate post for it. 341st Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment Aircraft type Tu-22PD Blinder. Tu-22PD were deployed to Mary, Mary Oblast for ECM operations over Afghanistan 979th Fighter Aviation Regiment Aircraft type MiG-23ML Flogger-G and MiG-23UB Flogger-C 402nd Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment Aircraft type Tu-22M3 Backfire. 168th Guards Bomber Aviation Regiment Aircraft type Su-17M3 Fitter-H and Su-24M Fencer-D Attached photos for reference. 00. ED map 01-02. Actual location, current state 03-12. Early 80s photo of base, aircraft and operations This airbase is missing from current plans and would be important to be included in order to re-create the conflict.
    3 points
  23. Possibly add smoke on start and heat blur when engines are running..prop wash effects the smoke and exhaust heat
    2 points
  24. Various different public radar handbooks clearly say that HPRF has worse (not zero) detection against cold targets due to competing with side & main lobe clutter. In addition, and most importantly, Range Gated HPRF (RGHPRF) does not have this problem. RGHPRF has all-aspect capability (comparable to MPRF) but not used at low altitude (<5K) due to high false alarms and shorter detection range than HPRF. The F-18 uses both HPRF and RGHPRF.
    2 points
  25. Fixed internally, will be available in the next OB update.
    2 points
  26. В хотелках записано. Как руки дойдут.
    2 points
  27. Wingman https://theaviationgeekclub.com/a-10-pilot-explains-why-warthog-drivers-often-boresight-the-agm-65-maverick-on-wingman-rather-than-on-a-ground-target/amp/
    2 points
  28. As cool as this would be, I would suggest you don't dwell on it too much. I think we'd be lucky to have 10% of this list in DCS within the next decade. Its been 4 years since the release of supercarrier, a single ship that is the key supplement to the flagship module of the game (F18), and its still totally incomplete.
    2 points
  29. The Standby is a three position switch: a right click switch it forward, to its ON position, while a left click will switch it back, towards you, to its TEST position. This TEST position is momentary and so the switch returns to its neutral (central) position as soon as you release the mouse button. Seems you are left clicking rather than right clicking. I agree that the flight instructor should mention this
    2 points
  30. It's alarming to me that they pushed the headset without eye tracking precisely because of the additional GPU workload without DFR. Why would you market an affordable headset that still needs a £1k+ graphics card? I would have never got the Crystal if it didn't have eyetracking.
    2 points
  31. 100% Agreement. Most AVs (commercial and free) add nothing of substance over Defender and some (Norton and McAfee e.g.) introduce only problems and eat system resources on top. Not suggesting that Defender is 100% secure (no AV is!), but it is certainly not worse than most of the popular AVs and probably causes the least amount of problems. 90% of protection is to stay away from the fishy parts of the Interwebs anyway.
    2 points
  32. Lets hope the Radar ends up being a real simulation like what Razbam and HB have done, and not some cheezy FC3++ ED model.
    2 points
  33. Ma io alla fine, sostanzialmente, concordo con te quasi su tutto: anche il mio concetto di simulazione è molto simile al tuo: considera che a suo tempo presi l'l-39 perchè volevo un mezzo con cui fare acrobazia aerea e lo volevo su DCS perchè ben consapevole della qualità dei modelli di volo; in tal caso l'armamento era l'ultima cosa che mi interessasse, anzi a dire il vero credo di aver volato solo con la versione c, la versione za non l'ho neppure mai usata. Esistono prodotti di terze parti di livello paragonabile a DCS anche su altri simulatori, ma non sono simulatori combat ed i mezzi in sè sono molto più semplici. A parte il citato comanche, anche l'sf-260 di jrollon/simcoders per x-plane è un "modulo" eccezionale. Certo simulare un general aviation non è come simulare un apache o un a-10, e anche aggiungendo il wear and tear, tutti i circuit brakers o la persistenza dei comandi nell'ultima posizione tra un volo e l'altro (cosa che finalmente dà un senso alle checklist pre-flight), volare su un general aviation non sarà mai come volare su un a-10 (e forse su DCS certe cose mancano proprio perchè qui il focus è l'utilizzo operativo in missione, mentre in un general aviation se non aggiungi un po' di extra non resta poi molto altro da simulare). Comunque, di certo non mi riferivo a war thunder, che non conosco ma a quanto so non è neppure un simulatore, ma una via di mezzo tra simulazione e arcade. Riguardo alla ww2 ci si riferiva alla serie il-2, nella quale è vero i cockpit non sono cliccabili (ma come giustamente dice Falco su un aereo ww2 la cliccabilità aggiunge solo in fase di startup, non più di tanto invece in fase operativa) ma se volato disattivando tutti gli aiuti a schermo offre a mio avviso un ottimo livello di simulazione. Secondo me in tutta la discussione si è perso un po' il senso della critica, che per quanto mi riguarda ribadisco: DCS è un ottimo simulatore e i tempi di sviluppo per prodotti così complessi non sono alla fine nemmeno uno scandalo; ciò che a me lascia un po' perplesso sono semmai alcune scelte che esulano dall'aspetto tecnico e sono invece più scelte filosofiche, commerciali, di linea editoriale. Giusto due esempi: 1) capisco che lo yak-52 sia un prodotto di nicchia, ma basta aggiungere un damage model, qualche clickbind e una bella limata ai bugs e il prodotto lo finisci; ciò non è stato fatto, però nel frattempo sono usciti f-16, apache, mi-24, mosquito, ecc, tutta roba che all'uscita dello yak-52 non esisteva. Non puoi sostenere che non hai le risorse per finire lo yak, è falso! La realtà è che, forse, non ti è più commercialmente vantaggioso terminarlo e quindi scegli volutamente di prenderti gli insulti di quei - pochi e quindi ininfluenti - clienti che se lo sono comperato. Ora, per un mezzo come lo yak-52 posso anche arrivare a comprenderla questa scelta, ma se poi domani capita al mezzo che interessa a me? Con che fiducia acquisto ancora in early access? Poi, come giustamente dici, esistono i periodi di prova gratuita e questo fa onore a ED, almeno uno che deve ancora acquistare può testare con mano. 2) parliamo della correzione dei bugs, la più grossa piaga che affligge DCS! Se per fare l'f/a-18 ci vogliono 6 anni, io lo capisco e non ho problemi ad aspettare. Me lo offri in early access, io so che in quei 6 anni di EA il prodotto sarà incompleto, pieno di bugs sempre nuovi ad ogni update, ma non è un problema: lo so: se mi sta bene acquisto, altrimenti aspetto (per come sono fatto io, troverei troppo frustrante avere a che fare ogni volta con modifiche e cambiamenti, e pertanto scelgo di aspettare). Dopo 6 anni però, quando il modulo è terminato, io mi aspetto un prodotto completo e che funzioni come previsto. Lo acquisto e inizio a studiarlo; ovviamente in un simulatore in continuo aggiornamento non posso pretendere che non compaiano mai nuovi bugs, sarebbe impossibile. Se però mentre volo mi accorgo di un bug e te lo segnalo, mi aspetto che entro uno, massimo due upgrade (se il bug è molto complesso da risolvere), questo venga risolto. Invece si ha l'impressione che questi raccolgano una lista di bugs in un foglio e poi lo lascino lì, in attesa di prenderlo in mano, semmai, un giorno, quando si rimetterà mano a quel modulo. E poi a volte manco quello, perchè con l'a-10c II si è puntato a fare il missilino nuovo e il visorino bello ma poi, nonostante l'occasione di lavorare sull'a-10, alcuni bugs non sono stati proprio toccati. Sia chiaro, io l'a-10c II l'ho acquistato immediatamente, per 10 euro sarebbe stato assurdo non farlo, ma vedere ancora in essere, dopo l'upgrade alla nuova versione, bugs che sono stati segnalati per la prima volta sulla 2.0 mi ha fatto cadere le braccia: hai creato l'HMCS, i laser maverick, tutta la nuova logica dell'hotas, insomma ne hai scritte di linee di codice, eppure certi vecchi bugs sono stati completamente ignorati. Forse il foglio non lo hai proprio preso in mano, ammesso che tu lo abbia mai scritto. Questa non è "mancanza di risorse", questa è una precisa scelta: faccio il missilino nuovo così la gente compera, dei bugs incancreniti lì da anni non me ne importa nulla. Io sarei disposto, quei 10 euro, a metterli in una patch che mi corregga tutti i bug dell'a-10 senza aggiungere nessuna nuova funzionalità (ma anche 10 euro per ognuno degli altri moduli: l'a-10 è solo un esempio, il problema è generalizzato), anche solo per "azzerare" l'accumulo (sebbene la speranza sarebbe che poi, dopo quei 10 euro iniziali, ai bugs si cominci a star dietro e non li si lasci accumulare patch dopo patch limitandosi a rispondere alle segnalazioni con "already reported" ma senza poi fare sostanzialmente nulla in merito. Per il resto, io condivido al 100% tutto quello che tu dici di positivo su DCS e sottoscrivo in pieno tutte le lodi contenute nel tuo post; ciò non toglie però che sui punti 1) e 2) io continui a non transigere e a pretendere di più!
    2 points
  34. Everyone has different preferences of course, but for me, as a G2 owner, the Crystal Light seems to answer everything I wished for in the Pimax feedback thread. Just a pure PCVR headset - A simpler, lighter, less expensive version of the Crystal, without a battery, no DFR and 60Hz. With the added bonus of bigger sweet spot, better lenses, better clarity, wider FOV, FFR 2.0, ability to run at G2 resolution upscaled and no Windows MR. On paper at least it seems like the perfect sub $1,000 dollar replacement that G2 owners have been waiting for. I hope it lives up to expectations.
    2 points
  35. Why would they not move? The control system is hydromechanical. If you have hydraulic power left, the stick/rudder will move the respective control surfaces. Oversweep also does not mean that the elevators should not move, it merely restricts travel.
    2 points
  36. dont know if @currenthill could add more Iranian drone types
    2 points
  37. Isn't a lot of the horribleness and with the X actions (and potential scripting tied to that) due to how it reads “my plane”, but in MP, the script is run on the server and that server doesn't have a plane to read any of the interactions from? And even if it did, you're not necessarily interested in its aircraft, but everyone else's. So to make those work, it would have to be a much more complex “request data from client” call and response setup, or possibly even having some way of running client scripts separate from what's going on on the server, and having the two scripts communicate. It can get very ugly very quickly.
    2 points
  38. It's just geography. The Google Machine says it's about 300 miles from Afghanistan to the nearest coast on the Arabian Sea. That's a lot of landscape to model to just to provide carrier operations. And yes, I know people in this thread have said they don't need any real land detail for those 300 miles, but that doesn't seem acceptable for a premium product.
    2 points
  39. Hi Eric, At times its difficult to find the latest version of mods, particularly for mods not shared on DCS User Files and/or a common location. Most of the time they are drop box links inside threads, that get superseded by a link on next thread page. I wish there would be a central repository for all mods that is more user friendly than DCS user files for searching. Hang the strand? Habe not heard that one before but if you mean was I flying? Yes i flew the landing amd take off you see in the video.
    2 points
  40. 2 points
  41. Not sure if you got the last bunch of files I did for the America class. But I will send them again I just wish I could get the V-22 to work 100% on the deck. It's pretty close but still not perfect from cold start. Thanks to bbtbmb I was able to use his "Well Deck" texture to create the correct well deck look for the upcoming LHA-8 and 9 Hulls of the America class. But as always Admiral you've been putting out some great stuff. Can't wait to load up the new Rebel cargo ship
    2 points
  42. Voglio dire che hai ZERO esperienza di sviluppo SW e non conosci minimante quello di DCS ma AFFERMI che DCS ha "una struttura oramai obsoleta che continua a essere rappezzata" basandoti su NULLA di contreto e tangibile, poi dici nessuno giudica niente... Le tempistiche di sviluppo sono "evidentemente" lunghe ma questo non è un indicatore di scarsa qualità del prodotto; anzi, continuo a dire, e anche questo è sotto gli occchi di tutti, che i moduli svilupati su DCS sono indubbiamente infinitamente più curati e complessi dellle controparti presenti sulla nota piattaforma di volo civile. Se non ci credete Aprite lo store integrato del noto prodotto di cui sopra, e cercate un Apache e fate un confronto... certo oggi è in sconto a meno di 10$ rispetto ai 29 richiesti prima ma manco gratis ci volerei... Vogliamo paragonarlo? Stessa cosa per qualsiasi velivolo con un avionica più complessa di un mezzo con strumentazione analogica, forse i Lineer ma se andiamo sui Jet militari la situazione è sconfortante e non poco. Personalmente per FSX ho comprato, pagandoli non poco, sia l'Apache A che D di un noto (all'ora) sviluppatore. inutile dire che il paragone non regge minimamente, ma non solo lo sviluppatore chiuse dopo un po' e io quei moduli me li sono dati in faccia, come per altro successo con MAD DOG, splendido prodotto che conservo tutt'ora come reliquia ma che ha smesso di funzionare al cambio di versionne di FS e non mi sembra che Microsoft si sia preoccupata minimamente di queste cose, come invece fa ED cercando di tenere in vita tutti i moduli presenti. @nessuno0505 Tu parli molto bene del Comanche, che io non conosco e su cui non entro nel merito, ma ti voglio fare una domanda; nel 2020 penso che hai speso (come minimo 79€) per un prodotto ne dovrai spendere nuovamente per la versione 2024 (ma non è questo il punto), La domanda è, hai la certezza che quel modulo continuerà a funzionare sulla nuova versione? o chessò tra 5 anni? io con DCS sono sicuro (sempre che non fallisca prima una ovviamente) di poter continuare a volare con Viggen che è uscito già SETTE ANNI FA... e scusate se è poco...
    2 points
  43. Sent to Hawkeye for his next update to the Avenger. WIP but should get some variety to boat decks. (I will figure out making rough mets in GIMP one of these days) seabat
    2 points
  44. Yeah, this just looks bad. I'm not going to argue whether all the EA features have been included/finished, but the optics are extremely poor. It looks like a company just trying quietly and discreetly to decide their product is complete, without publicity announcing it. The only reason this would be done, is because ED likely know there'd be substantial pushback form customers re the Hornet's present state. Again, not saying ED are right or wrong to exit early access, but they definitely keep shooting PR own goals...
    2 points
  45. На сервер добавлена новая миссия под названием "Фалезский котел. Часть 1" Миссия написана по мотивам событий, развернувшихся в августе 1944 года в Нормандии. У каждой стороны есть 8 задач, выполнение которых дает 8 очков Стороне. По окончании времени миссии после подсчета результатов будет подведен итог и выявлен победитель. В случае "закрытия" одной из сторон всех своих задач, миссия будет завершена. МИССИЯ ДЛИТСЯ 6 ЧАСОВ: С 06:25 ДО 11:25 ИГРОВОГО ВРЕМЕНИ. ЗАДАЧИ ДЛЯ СОЮЗНИКОВ: 1. Уничтожьте 16 ПТ-орудий немцев на оборонительных позициях южнее города Кан. 2. Уничтожьте колонну снабжения (10 ед.), курсирующую от Фалеза на Кан и обратно. 3. Уничтожьте 12 ПТ-орудий, 2 бункера и 4 САУ Stug IV немцев на оборонительных позициях на северо-западной окраине Ла Берсандьер. 4. Остановите танковую атаку немцев у Мортена, уничтожив 3 танка "Пантера" и 9 Pz.IV. 5. Уничтожьте артиллерию немцев (7 105-мм гаубиц) северо-западнее Мортена. 6. Атакуйте расположение летного и технического состава (3 сектора) и 2 склада с вооружениями на аэродроме Флёр. 7. Уничтожьте либо повредите жд-состав (9 топливных цистерн, 2 платформы и 4 грузовых вагона) на разгрузке на жд-станции города Лизьё. 8. Атакуйте склады с вооружением на базе речных катеров в Руане. ЗАДАЧИ ДЛЯ ОСИ: 1. Уничтожьте 9 ПТ-орудий американцев, расположенные вдоль дороги у наспункта в кв. XU58. 2. Атакуйте расположение летного и технического состава (3 сектора), 2 склада с вооружениями и 1 топливный резервуар на аэродроме Авранш Ле Валь-Сен-Пер. 3. Остановите атаку Союзников в кв. XV61, уничтожив 4 танка Sherman и 8 БА М8 Greyhound. 4. Разрушьте 3 моста, по которым идет снабжение, севернее городка Сурдваль. 5. Уничтожьте колонну снабжения (15 ед.), курсирующую от Сен-Ло на Сурдваль и обратно. 6. Уничтожьте склад снабжения Союзников в Сен-Ло (3 топливных резервуара и 5 складов с боеприпасами. 7. Уничтожьте артиллерию Союзников (7 105-мм гаубиц) южнее н.п. Мальто. 8. Уничтожьте 2 пункта перезарядки и дозаправки на аэродроме подскока Союзников - Карпике. Находятся на концах полосы.
    2 points
  46. Two squadrons of Su-17M2 Fitter-D bombers were placed near the Iranian borders. 806th Fighter Bomber Air Regiment at Kzyl-Arvat airport from 14th Air Army and 168th Guard Fighter Bomber Air Regiment at Mary-2 airport from 34th Tactical Air Army. Both squadrons had 1st Class pilots. These squadrons were suitable for nuclear offensive missions. These two squadrons were stationed there in order to keep the Iranian forces at bay. The Mary-2 airfield played a significant role in supporting the Soviet troops in Afghanistan and the Afghan army. The main volume of military cargo went there through the Tashkent-Vostochny airport (Tuzel) to the airfields of Mary, Kokaity, Karshi and Ferghana. When necessary, routine maintenance could also be carried out. Mi-8, Mi-24 helicopters, UTI-MiG-15, and Il-28 bombers were mainly sent from factories or other bases.
    2 points
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...