Booger
-
Posts
395 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Booger
-
-
I'm going to ask ED to remove Radio Assists also, as they announce incoming missiles. We can't have that.
Nate
Is it really a big deal if that's the standard of your MP group? What does it matter to you what they do, especially if you don't participate MP with them? Oh right, it doesn't.
The same thing could be said about a group that allowed such a mod :thumbup:
It's of no consequence what people do with their game, but if a group wants specific standards you don't agree with, then common sense would tell me that it's not a group you would find ideal for your online time.
But really, what do I know.
-
So far there are:
- References to Star Trek
- References to Doctor Evil
I do believe this is well on it's way to becoming the best topic ever.
As far as the mod goes--hey, whatever floats your boat. Labels have been used as an example of a more "serious" type of cheating...which I'll agree with (even though cheating in this regard is subjective). I'll also offer that simply having an english cockpit is also another form.
The files are there to be modified to fit your version of "fun".
To those who install this mod (and those like it that move away from the original design)...don't whine like a school girl when MP servers dump you because you've exceeded their established limit(s) of tolerance.
I think it would be obvious, but you never know.
- References to Star Trek
-
That's kind of splitting hairs, and very far off my point.
If there's no capability in the currently modeled airframe to rack missles, then there shouldn't be that option in the default menu. Smoke as an example is very much supported (I believe illum too, but not positive), there's just no option in the menu to adjust your loadout. You have to do it through the mission editor.
All I'm simply stating is ED should add those to the menu.
For those who want R-73s, etc, fine...but they shouldn't be part of the default package (menu) if there's no support for them.
-
Yeah, this works with a LOT of things. I once had my wingie carrying R-73's and firing them at jets. So, you can do all kinds of fantasy loadouts.
"Permission to engage bogies!"
"Go for it!"
"Fox-1! Fox-1!" Bye bye F-18.
Even more reason why it should be default. In order to allow these modifications, you have to open up to the potential of asshattery happening. On the flip side, if you don't allow it you kill fidelity.
It makes zero sense not to include loadouts that the Shark COULD and WOULD use in the default menu.
-
Indeed, VERY nice work. It's a dang shame this isn't included in default. Hint hint...
Thank you for sharing!
-
A delay of the news of the news?
That sucks.
What about the news of the news announcing the new news?
-
Noting his comments, he includes the symptoms of the DNS not completing it's initialization before auto-hover is engaged...
...the damping turns itself off......the 3 buttons start flashing and the heli goes out of control. Usually got autohover engaged also..
If you enter a Vortex Ring State, it doesn't disable your AP.
From the topic I linked in my post above...
...it takes the DNS 150 seconds from start-up to come 'online' for lack of a better word.......wait the period out and you should have ground-speed indication at lift-off and accordingly will be able to engage auto-hover immediately, altitude restrictions allowing. -
There are a few instances where it does happen, any time the Doppler system gets confused (under 4m hover or it hasn't fully initialised) this will happen.
QFT^
With elevation not a concern, the big "teller" if your DNS hasn't initialized is the lack of ground speed indicated on your HUD.
If...
- you're well above 4m
- the ground speed is displayed on your HUD
- result is still flashing AP button lights/loss of control
...it's safe to assume that something has gone nutty. That .trk, for sure, is one to attach for the gurus to look at.
- you're well above 4m
-
Not to be or sound rude (that's certainly not my intent of this post), but...
For that amount of bones, I would hope for a video that shows a lot more than just the pit view in the dark, regardless of which mode is being played.Available for Order - $75 000 NZDNonetheless it looks fantastic. I would certainly want it for Black Shark.
-
Some years back some Marine MPs were climbing in F/A-18 pits. They took tons of pictures, etc. Apparently this had been going on for some time.
Someone turned in the pictures & every MP caught in the photos got court-martialed.
So while it's cool that you got to sit in the pit, I think your friend is an idiot.
-
1
-
-
I wonder if this can be applied to an english pit (e.g. russian text on the panels, but the ABRIS in english).
-
Thanks Toby.
-
Haha, I also got that idea with the turquoise colored cockpit but never had the time to do this.
Good job! :thumbup:
Why not make the tan variant? That looks pretty awesome too.
Did you check rusian pit in game settings?Aha, that was it. Thank you sir!
-
Weird. I installed it with ModMan & fired up the shooting range mission...nothing.
-
Hell yes!!!
+1 & thank you for making it!
-
My brother in law in MD fell off a roof. He dropped about 20 feet or so & landed on his side...knocking him clean out. He busted 2 ribs, cracked another, concussion, all that neat stuff. That's what happens when safety harnesses are "gay" & go unused.
Down the road, a co-worker of another brother-in-law had a car up on a lift. Apparently the car shifted right off & crushed the guy's leg.
I'm glad I wasn't there, there was no internet service for a while.
-
1. When ATC says you are cleared to Taxi to runway XX, a FSX style dotted line would help guide them to the right position. I have seen so many near misses and collisions because people are taking off from the wrong end of the runway.
Diagrams of the different airfields are easily obtainable. Like any real-world pilot, have it handy if you're in an unfamiliar airport. Simply orientate the diagram with your current bearing & badda bing.
Second, reinforce ground school. A period of instruction can be easily done to familiarize a pilot with all the neat things found in an airport.
2. When landing, some kind of inflight 'hologram' project at the correct side of the runway, indicating the correct end to land on. EF2000 had this ability and it was great. This can be switched off in options obviously. Or alternatively, ATC reminding the player that they are approaching from the wrong direction. At the moment they dont seem to care.I think everyone would like ATC to be more intelligent.
3. More choice over labels. Perhaps the following combinations: Friendly Aircraft Only, Friendly Ground Units Only, Enemy Aircraft Only, Enemy Ground Units Only, Wingmen Only, All.I hate labels, but that's just my own opinion.
4. When using the Auto Start up procedure, automatically move the view to the area that is being 'switched on' and highlight the switches so the user can learn.I'm not sure how fast the auto-start is in the A-10, but if it's anything like Black Shark, your screen will be flipping so fast, retention will be completely out the window.
5. A Tutor mode/First Person View. A player can allow another player to view his/her cockpit if they are having problems so to help guide them through procedures.The start-up training isn't enough?
Alternatively, having a 2-ship group on the ramp. One calls out the steps over the mic, the other(s) follow along. Their response to you at each step is their flight position (not "check" or "on/off"), in order:
You: Master Arm Switch ON
Second aircraft: Two
Third aircraft: Three
This way, if there's a stall or if someone is stuck, you know exactly who to talk to. It also keeps chatter to a minimum.
Although, I do agree with you on your intent. In a perfect world...Black Shark & A-10 being the exceptions, a trainer variant included in the sim would have people going nucking futs. It would certainly enhance the playability as well as create a parallel with Virtual Squads. Honestly, Nevada would have a soul.
It could also be the test-bed for multi-crew pits, of course leading up to other aircraft requiring them.
One can wish, I suppose.
-
-
The AH-1Z will have the ability to carry two wingtip sidewinders I think.
Here's a picture from Bell's website.
Correct.
Part of the upgrade package was extended stub wings & AIM-9 on the wingtips.
-
If interested, please contact us at: www.fsx-multiplayer-meetandgreet.com.
His URL has changed. Like an idiot, I didn't write it down.
I'm sure he'll make a follow-up post with the new address soon.
-
-
Used to be great in Falcon 3 where you would do a 'milk run' to protect your resupply aircraft. Sometimes nothing would happen and you've have a nice flight. Sometimes if you didn't pay attention (too busy chasing bandits) your supply aircraft would get smoked - then on later missions you'd wonder why you started running out of stuff. Was a really nice aspect of the game (even the less action-oriented missions made a difference).
Nice, I like that. It's the choices we make.
That actually gives me an idea for a mission :joystick:
-
One plane tasked with doing something ordinary won't have a butterfly effect on the war.
One plane tasked with doing something extraordinary could have an effect.
Well said :thumbup:
-
But the point of a dynamic campaign is to entertain the player and if that means consolidating the 'interesting' missions, then so be it. Only a complete tool would want a super-realistic flying sim that involves orbiting for nine hours waiting for a JTAC to call. And maybe they don't call, and then they fly home.
Fun is subjective and yet again, you go to the extreme for a third time.
I will concede though that it's safe to assume that the majority would agree with an orbiting mission that resulted in no tasks assigned would be pretty boring. I certainly wouldn't insult someone if they enjoyed or didn't really mind doing it though.
Let's use the "wingman experience gain" suggestion again. If all you did was orbit, that's a cake (and hopefully well earned) mission where you're ensured no losses. If there's nothing to attack, it's safe to assume that your assets & equipment are, in fact, available (and even improved!) for the next mission.
[] <-- This is a box. Think out of it, you should.
What is that supposed to mean? That a Chinese air campaign would last for the entire war? I seriously doubt that. ANY sort of conflict *will* open with an air war first and foremost, do you agree on this point?No, I won't (ever) agree with your black & white absolutes. I'll agree that it *might*.
The entire reason the F-22 and the B-2 exists is to specifically get in there first and knock out any aircraft in the air and as many aircraft on the ground, and then pop major targets like radar sites and C3 facilities - basically, they exist for executing the first blow.I'll get to this in a minute...
Do you have a better reason for the massive investment in stealth technology?Because chicks dig big spenders?
It's only an option. Guess what? It's not the only first-strike option in the US' arsenal.
Aircraft are limited assets, and airfields are even more limited, and the best part is we know where they all are. Unlike in WW2 you can't really just plop one anywhere you have a flat strip of land.Well, you're getting warmer at least.
No country on earth could ever replace modern aircraft fast enough to make up for how quickly they will be lost, so yes, an air war will be 'who runs out of planes first'. And it won't be the US.That's certainly the intent of implementing stealth in fighters (as well as the new targeting systems).
We have an entire desert full of airframes, many of which are intended to be put back together if they're needed. If we are talking actual combat on Chinese or Russian soil, the air war would be quick, brutal, and bloody. If we're talking limited engagement in a third-party country, you would certainly have only losses on each side as much as commanders permitted them, but that's really stirring the pot as far as possibilities go.And naval vessels.
And prepositioned assets in various countries throughout the world.
And prepositioned assets on ships (MPS).
But of course, all of this is moot since options are incredibly limited in this sim as it stands now. It is, and will remain to be (in the foreseeable future) an aircraft-based simulator.
DCS: P-51D Mustang Coming in 2012
in DCS: P-51D Mustang
Posted
It's half full because of how it's currently being presented, which is caused by a number of reasons. I think the main culprit is the lack of information provided by ED. While yes, having a P-51 seems great in a way, the environment simply conflicts with just about everything pertaining to it (which was brilliantly illustrated by the table on the previous page).
Some have promoted IL2, etc as worthy--making DCS: Pony pretty pointless. While I will never agree that ANY DCS model will be "pointless", it certainly doesn't make their concerns any less valid. These other WWII era software releases are themed, just like DCS initially was.
BS was brilliant. The right aircraft in the right place in the world at the right time. As previously mentioned, environmental realism was lost when A-10 was released. Offering a WWII era aircraft to the mix, to some, adds (literally) insult to injury.
Someone already stated that the realism you should expect in DCS is flight.
In short, your options are...
Pick your poison. Both are subjective.
Should you expect more? I guess that's the million-dollar question. Would it be a good move to release a (partial) European map along with the Pony? I would like to think it would. It certainly would not be a perfect fit since we don't live in the WWII era (nor should it; you can only expect so much from a single series), but as it's been mentioned before, it just feels wrong to fly the border of the Soviet Union in a Mustang. How folks spend their pretendy fun time is up to the individual, but even if you have an opposing view, I would suspect people can at least understand that point.
With the pre-purchase incentive for the A-10 (free NV map) I'm kind of floored that there isn't a map to compliment this aircraft. At present, my guess is that no one has a lack of faith in the quality of the aircraft...this has been more than proven. There's obviously a (screaming) concern over the future progress/potential of the landscape based on the shift (rather, expansion) of the company's focus.
If this is the route being taken, there IS a long-term plan to start filling the earth quite a bit more, right?
Yeah, I caught that too. A weak and incredibly lame argument to boot. To be honest, at this point it's to be expected from the backside-patting clique who respond to concerns (albeit overly dramatic at times, but that doesn't diminish the validity of it by any means) with less-than-clever sarcasm & passive-aggressive comments.
I haven't decided if I'm going to get the Pony, but I certainly won't be basing my purchase on "supporting future releases". I do that by paying for the aircraft/upgrades to the airframes -I- want to fly (based on the aircraft they determine to produce...see how that works?). Suggesting the above statement (I think it was a moderator who first made that comment actually, then changed gears later) is like suggesting a lingering (and much desired) model over everyone's head, followed with "if you want A, it is highly encouraged that you buy B" in tow.
Hardware grows on trees? ;)
On the surface, it does seem "shady" to pay for the same aircraft multiple times. I admit I was a little burnt over the idea initially (before I read the list), but then I remember my purchase history with Flight Simulator..
Of course, if it's an actual improvement to the aircraft itself, I don't see where the complaint is. It's not like paying for upgrades is a new concept.