Jump to content

Tank50us

Members
  • Posts

    1176
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Tank50us

  1. Actually, you have several Viper and Hornet users that could make use of such a system as per their defense strategy. Sweden, Finland, Norway all share the same basic plan for a Soviet/Russian invasion in that the fighter squadrons scatter. In those scenarios you'd need either an aircraft with a hook in order to land on those short A runways, or an aircraft that can throw the thrust into reverse (like the Viggin). So part of the turn-around for the aircraft in those scenarios is to have the ground crew reset the hook while the pilot goes and takes five minutes to get a snack.
  2. Yeah, they have more important things on their plate at the moment. But it's possible for a 3rd party to develop it, and would probably be a good way for a 3rd party group to get their foot in the door with ED.
  3. The new damage models are being tested out on the Warbirds. Warbirds like the P51 are a bit more simplistic since they don't have to worry about all the fancy electronics and such like a Viper or Hornet would. You'll see the results of this in the upcoming F-4E, as it'll be the first jet with this new damage model added. The reason it's taking so long isn't that it's a low-priority subject, it's that trying to realistically simulate what happens to an aircraft when it gets hit takes a lot of coding (and DCS is filled with Spaghetti code, part of what Vulkan is meant to fix), a lot of studying (there's probably TB worth of data on this stuff, from journals to wind tunnel tests to break-bird tests), and finally a lot of simple trial and error (you don't want a .303 rifle round having the same effect as an 8.8cm, right?). So, yeah. It just takes a bit of time to work on. And keep in mind, modern aircraft are made from a wide variety of materials. Steel, Aluminum, Titanium, Carbon Fiber, Rubber, etc. Part of the reason to trial it on Warbirds is that while many of the aforementioned materials were used, they were used in ways that makes damage a bit more predictable. Translating that to a modern jet takes time. As I said, you'll likely see the first iterations of this in the F-4. They've mentioned already that lights (as an example) don't just have a simple "on or off", they will flicker, flutter, and dim realistically in the Phantom. This tech and coding will eventually find its way into the existing modules, with older aircraft (like the F-86) being more prone to failures (like you gun sight taking a nap) than newer planes. With the sheer number of modules this will effect, it's gonna take some time, and I'm fairly certain ED and the third party's are going to prioritize their most popular modules over their less popular ones when it comes time for a proper rollout.
  4. I think what he's aiming for is something like this part of ACAH (not trying to talk about the game, just using this sequence as an example of such an animation in play):
  5. I mean, most of the animations could be ported to infantry units just fine, especially the climbing-ladders animation and salutes. If ED adopts a "common rig" for all human animations, then it would make it possible for such animations to be used by armored troops like those at a FARP reloading helicopters.
  6. Great for Navy jets, not so much for the Viper, MudHen, or (upcoming) Phantom... since they don't have them in game.
  7. I mean, in a scramble situation, it's even less. I don't know about other countries, but the USAF that dude is off the ladder, and has yeeted it in ten seconds. Meanwhile the pilot is clipping the straps in place. A minute would be them being casual about it, so the real time it takes is probably less than 30sec. Heck, it could just be the few seconds of the pilot getting in and putting the straps on (which itself is like... a few seconds?), and while you're doing your BIT test in the Viper the ladder is moved away followed by the CC going "You're clear for startup". The straps bit could also be hidden from view if the pilots body is hidden, but you'd still see the ground crew pull the ladder, and probably the pins/covers before clearing the aircraft.
  8. The walk-around would be an external view of the aircraft, similar to the view VR users have of the Su33. The pilot/GIB would be just walking among the ground crew.
  9. It takes what? Maybe a minute from the moment the pilot is in the pit until the Crew Chief is clear of the aircraft? It'll probably take that long for everything to properly load around you anyway. But, as you know from other posts for eye candy, I am always in favor of it being optional. Very much this. And in the animation you may not necessarily see them attaching the weapons to the aircraft (that is a process that takes about 10-20min IRL), but you'll see the weapons on their karts or ejector racks when attached to the aircraft. This wouldn't go full immersion, but it would give the player something more visual when selecting their weapons load. If done right, the player could even interact with some of the weapons, namely setting fuses, laser codes (especially since that last bit is done on the ground anyway), and GPS coordinates (maybe with a clickable map to represent the programming even?)
  10. One thing that would be kinda interesting, at least to me, is when the Airfields are reworked and the ground crew added, if we could see the pilot doing a walk-around of the aircraft while we're selecting the weapons or in the 'briefing' screen. An interesting thing to add to that is that once we're "ready to fly", we get an animation of our pilot climbing into the pit, the ground crew pulling the ladder, and the crew chief giving you a thumbs-up to indicate the crew is clear and you're ok to start the plane (maybe even giving you the gesture to start the engine(s)?), and then moving away. What do you guys think? Personally, I think the latter half would be good for immersion, especially those in VR (if they can 'strap in'), and externally, players can toggle it on or off if they can't handle the extra animations going on around them.
  11. Tactics also play a part. After all, destroying the SAM/AAA site is one thing... but finding it is another. And the best way to find them, is to get them to shoot at something. Today that part of the mission can be accomplished with drones (because who cares if a Drone doesn't come home, they don't have mothers), but within the realms of DCS, someone's drawin' the short straw and making the Radar light up.
  12. Not just the J-8. The Su25T and KA-50-III are hodge-podge aircraft kinda based on multiple aircraft within the family. The real Su25T for example was an experimental model, and looked more like the Su25A we have in game. The model we have in DCS is more or less based on the Su39 (AKA Su25TM). This all being said, I'd like to see aircraft get multiple variations for each module, even those that never entered service, or even got off the drawing board. The XL could have the cockpit avionics of the more modern F-16s, but a wide HUD like the F-15E (which it was originally conceived to compete against). I'm personally all for the idea of alternate history, and letting the mission makers choose what goes into a mission. More options the better IMHO.
  13. I didn't say the only way to play would be jumping between the pilot and Bombardier. The other positions would be multi-crew open, but just like with the Tomcat or the upcoming F-4, plans have to be made for the fact that not everyone will want to be in those seats. I mean heck, it'd be nice to get 210 people together to do a fully simulated B-17 Mission... plus the escorts and interceptors... but I think DCS server software caps out at 64 people XD
  14. With the release of "Masters of the Air", I got to thinking of what it would be like to be at the controls of the Mighty Flying Fortress. Obviously, in DCS, this would be an immense undertaking. But if it were up to me to make it, I'd go with the following: Version I'd start with an Early B-17G, since those are the ones (along with the late Gs) still around. Eventually other models would be introduced, even going to the earliest model of the aircraft. Control The player would be in control of the Left Seat (Pilot in command), and would be able to switch to the Bombardier seat. The reason for this is because when on the final attack heading, control of the aircraft is handed over to the Bombardier. Gunners As you know, the B-17 has about 8 gunners, and while it would be nice to have each station controlled by a player, the reality is that just won't happen with the DCS player base. On top of that, a typical mission for the B-17s involved a minimum of 21 Forts, with a full crew that'd be over the 210 players just in Forts. To fix this, the gunners would be handled by an AI "Gun Director" that the PIC will have a commo control over. You can tell them to when to fire, and whether or not to focus their fire, and maybe even prioritize certain targets over others. Another thing that would be present, would be an optional "Gunner Status" indicator that uses a series of heartbeat monitors to show their stress level, or if they're even alive. The more stress the gunners are under, the worse their accuracy, and the more ammo they waste. The future If done, the same tech that goes into the B-17 that can be pushed into other WW2 era bombers. Namely the B-24 and B-29. What do you guys think?
  15. Another thing that would be nice is if we could set up the presets in a separate window by radio type, and have it apply to all aircraft/units that use that radio.
  16. Given that the Penguin is also a Helicopter launched weapon, maybe it could be be used from Helicopters that could reasonable launch it (not just those currently certified to launch it). Sure, it's unrealistic, but is it really a stretch to consider the possibility of an AH64 user retrofitting their Apaches to use an AShM they may have in abundance? Alternatively, we can also have its surface launched model as a Short-range Blue-Force counter to the Silkworm (A land-launched Harpoon would be the Long-ranged counter)
  17. So, as many of you know when it comes to the Cold War and even the current day, there were a lot of things that were tested, but either never got accepted for service or never left the drawing board. These wouldn't be for players to use, but it would be kinda interesting to see them as AI units. Such examples are: Arsenal Ship: a potential US Navy counter to something like the Kirov-class Large Missile Cruiser ADATS: In limited use by Canada, but was proposed for use in the US MBT-70: A joint venture between the US and Germany. A few examples were built, but the project was canned and both countries looked into something better (M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 respectively) YB49: A flying wing bomber that saw an initial production run, but was canned and scrapped after a very high profile crash. Object 279: An early cold war era Soviet tank designed to take a nuke in the face and keep going. Well, more or less designed to operate in a post-nuclear wasteland, but still.... XB-70 Valkyrie: A Supersonic jet bomber that although designed to deliver nuclear weapons could still deliver conventional bombs. Two were built, but the program was canned due to the advancement of Soviet SAMs USS United States: A conceptual Aircraft Carrier that was laid down but canceled to give funding for the B-36 "Peacemaker". And many more. Again, these wouldn't be player controlled (well, outside of the current Combined Arms), but they would add a bit to the Cold War setting, and play well into some alternate history scenarios.
  18. If we could stabilize the net code so that your jet doesn't lower altitude suddenly after you drop your weapons due to lag that would be perfect
  19. Exactly. Most people can turn their computer on without diffiulty, surf the web, write an email, etc. Fairly basic stuff. Installing a game is just a bit more complex than that, but Steam makes it pretty flippin' simple. However, if Steam required you to dive into the files to install something (say a free DLC), it would very quickly lose its simplicity, and people who aren't tech literate enough to know how to navigate those files would give up very quickly. The same applies to DCS. The fact that unless you're dealing with a paid mission pack (the campaigns), you will have to manually install every file you need can be a massive turn-off to those who either can't understand it, or, just don't really have the time or patience to deal with it. I mean, how many people in DCS right now just use auto-start/stop to get their plane going/shut-down purely because they just want to fly? They could learn the start-up procedure start to finish, and in some planes it is faster... but only after you've done it several dozen times. Not everyone has the patience to learn those procedures, especially when Win+Home is massively convenient That last bit isn't meant to change the subject, it's meant to illustrate the differences in mindset.
  20. I mean, I don't have a pilots license, just the virtual one for DCS Aircraft That said, the main accessibility issue that I've seen is giving people instructions on just how to find where they're supposed to place the files they need to. And considering the first question I have to ask is: "Are you on Open Beta", the responses I've gotten from that question are actually quite interesting. I'm aware that ED is planning to merge Stable and Open Beta in the future, and I have no doubt that this will help, but the main issue is that not everyone has their "Saved Games" folder in the same spot, and that can make it even harder to help them navigate. Some just flat out give up before they even get to the next step. And then there's the issue of compressed vs decompressed files. Some mods and liveries will work while still compressed... some won't. I think an in-launcher mod system, or a new compression method, will help with this. Something that only DCS can read, but to the end-user is just a single file. Such a system could also prevent tampering as without either a special tool (provided by ED) or a way to crack the file, there'd be no way for someone with ill intents to gain access to the file and install malware or something.
  21. This. We have what? Two separate programs that are designed to do this, but they require a whole bunch of work from each user to function correctly. And if you mess up one step, you basically have to start from scratch to try again... and I don't mean start from scratch in the program... In some cases it can completely wreck your DCS install, requiring a full re-download and install of the game in order to take another crack at it. If this were handled in a launcher designed to manage all of the files for the user, then installing mods, even ones as intricate as the Super Bug and Sufa, would be a total breeze. Point the launcher to a mod, the launcher downloads, installs, and 'checks' the mod for functionality (basically does a short test of the mod to make sure it will run). A short pie-in-the-sky possibility is that the launcher could even come with the ability to network mods that allow for multi-crew, and do so completely behind the scenes without the player having to mess with anything. This would massively open up the modding community to more Multi-seat aircraft... the possibilities are endless. Yeah, that's the problem with the User Files right now. If you wanted to search, for example, a C-130 livery for the base game C-130 and not the mod... good luck... 95% of what you'll find are mod liveries, and very, very few AI Herc liveries. The same holds true for missions, and utilities. Mods are an even bigger nightmare. If this launcher had a more detailed search function, it could greatly improve the search function. More importantly, if a user had the ability to create a list that can be exported, it would make joining a squadron very simple as all the squadron would have to do, is send the new member a text file or html file, the point the launcher to that, and it automatically searches, downloads, and installs, every mod, mission and livery on the list.
  22. That's an easy enough thing to fix too. A simple color coded status next to the mods name that checks if it's compatible with the current version of DCS. Green means it is, Yellow means it's out of date, but still functional, and Red means it doesn't function at all. Might take... what? A few seconds for the launcher to check the mods compatibility? And as a bonus, if there's any updates (because this would be communicating with the Userfiles part of their site), the launcher can also use that time to check for updates. If there are any, it'll automatically download and install the update. All in the rough time frame it takes you to grab a soda from the fridge or something. Yes, it's a lot of work on EDs end... but it's an awesome quality of life update we badly need, and it would simplify so much for new players.
  23. yes... such a headache that they have an entire folder created for people to put mods in and the game finds them no problem. The point I, and others, are making here is that the actual mod management of the game could be handled from this launcher. All one would need to do is download a small file, point the launcher at that file, and then it will go and grab all the mods in that file for you, place them in their correct folders, and set them up. After that, if someone wishes to disable a mod, they can merely uncheck it prior to starting up, and the mod doesn't fire up at start. That one ground combat sim does it pretty well, and even ED is starting to realize how important the modding community is to the longevity of DCS simply because they have added some excellent content that is almost standard now amongst the community (A-4, Civil Aircraft Mod, Military Aircraft Mod, SRS, The Blackhawk, Massun92´s Asset Pack, etc). But right now, for a lot of people, the existing mod managers are kinda complex to use, and if you don't get it exactly right, it falls over. If ED can develop a manager that works in the launcher, and removes the complexity, more people will be accepting of mods since installing them will be as easy as pointing the launcher at a single text file.
  24. Well, if it combines certain functionalities that are currently only community projects (like the various mod managers), and make it easier to get certain things working right, then I'm all for it.
  25. I wonder.... if this new launcher you speak of is anything like a particular ground combat sim, it may make the life of mod devs a little easier... I mean... if you think about it, downloading a list that has the launcher go out and grab mods and liveries for you would make life a little easier for many.
×
×
  • Create New...