Tank50us
-
Posts
1178 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Tank50us
-
-
42 minutes ago, Tippis said:
Hell, just giving some navigation arrows on the kneeboard map to “flip over to then next page” rather than being restricted to the auto-guesstimated views it generates from waypoints would be a huge step forward. Especially as the game is moving more and more towards dynamic and real-time playing where you might not even have any waypoints defined to begin with — all is done “live” in the cockpit rather than in the mission planner.
Yeah I can see this. Like, you place a 'marker' down on your map, and it presents a coordinate that you can program into the NavComputer for the more modern jets, or have an option where you can see a representation of your position on the map for something like a warbird (which may not be that accurate, but it'd be enough to find your way to an airfield).
One thing that would also be nice is if when you're in the rearming page you get a pop-up that allows you to pre-program the GPS guided bombs, since that was usually done by the ground crews anyway. This would be accomplished by having a tick mark (like we have for the fuse) on the bomb option, and then you get a map that pops up that you can manipulate, and chose the target point for the bomb. You could also get a mark on the map that shows where you programed your other bombs so you don't accidentally program 3 of 4 bombs to hit the same target.
-
1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:
I can’t quite see how you’d ever get the chance to use this in DCS. Unless you had random system failures enabled and just happened to have one that required this. The nature of combat damage in the sim is that you’re just completely destroyed nearly all the time. You wouldn’t get the chance to bring in a damaged jet. Unless it’s an A-10 which doesn’t have a hook. That’s the only DCS jet which I think combines survivability with a really accurate damage model. I really dig crash landings though so I’m all for it
the Hog is the only modern plane I’ve done that in here and it was awesome!
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.
-
On 3/23/2024 at 9:33 AM, rob10 said:
IIRC ED has indicated they currently have no plans to add land arresting gear (or it's very low priority). That may change down the road, but don't expect it currently.
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.
-
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.
-
7 hours ago, razo+r said:
What exactly do you want? There is already an ejection animation in the various aircraft, so you should speficy what you are on about.
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):
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, WinterH said:
I'd rather see no effort put into this, and said effort used in, for example, improving AI infantry and their animations, which would add incomparably more to DCS experience in my opinion. I can imagine a whole host of things I'd rather see before this.
And if this is ever added, I'd only not hate it if it's completely optional. So I can maybe enjoy it once or twice, and happily turn it off for rest of the time.
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.
-
10 hours ago, draconus said:
TALD
Great for Navy jets, not so much for the Viper, MudHen, or (upcoming) Phantom... since they don't have them in game.
-
8 hours ago, cfrag said:
A frigging minute???? I'm not the average DCS user - I spend a lot of time designing missions. If you force me to watch a one-minute animation each time that I want to test some mission aspect, you'll soon find me up a tower, brandishing a large-caliber rifle, giggling hysterically... If it's optional, fine with me.
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.
-
2 minutes ago, fagulha said:
I do always my walkaround in VR (and even go by car/bus to the ramp), so, i don´t want/need any animation that would take my walkaround from me. And usually animations like that don´t work well for VR due to the fact it induces nausea.
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.
-
5 minutes ago, cfrag said:
And I would starting pulling out my (already thinning) hair if thanks to some animations, I'd have to wait for it to finish before I could proceed to the cockpit. I'd want to skip this probably even for the first iteration, as it does nothing for me except getting in my way.
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.
10 minutes ago, cfrag said:Other than that - yeah, we really, really need more and better animated ground crew, and desperately need some civilian 'units' as well.
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?)
-
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, upyr1 said:
No, that's not correct. What makes a Wild Weasel a Wild Weasel isn't the weapons but the avionics. They are specialized aircraft that have avionics that enable them to get the range on an enemy radar.
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.
-
13 hours ago, F-2 said:
I guess nothing about F-16XL is any worse than J-8PP. Just remember that the flight control was in a rough state at the time of completion. I think the prototype had F-16A avionics but I heard block 25 as well. I don’t think ED wants to do this project but no reason an interested group couldn’t.
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.
-
32 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:
Making a bomber in "pieces" or "in fascicles" seems absurd to me. If ED makes a module, it should be done in its entirety, or not attempted. It's just giving rise to "the flight engineer DLC will come later."
ED, when you start building bomber modules, you will do so with a medium bomber, type Mosquito B Mk.IV, a Douglas A-20 or a Ju-88, and continue to raise on complexity to other bombers. Or a 3rd party appears with a bomber (has a team with a lancaster bomber). The problem is two, the size of the maps to make real missions, and the systems to simulate the bombers, such as visual bombing and all the bomb management capabilities in WW2 aircrafts (there are no visual bombing sights in DCS World).
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
-
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?
-
3
-
-
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.
-
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)
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
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
-
6 minutes ago, cfrag said:
Hmmm. My definition of an computer illiterate is anyone who can't write 6502 assembler nor knows the systemic difference between Centronics and RS232. Complete computer illiterates to me are those who need a GUI to get stuff done. My experience is that even though most people that I know fit that illiteracy description, they still manage to use one. Just because people set their priorities different does not mean that they aren't suited for an unrelated task. It's not required to know how a file system works (do you know the difference between NTFS and NFS?) in order to use it in a word processor. And people should not need computer skills to play a game. That's pretty much my point: Requiring off-topic knowledge to use a product is often a sign that something in the design process can be improved. Deducing that people are bad at one task because they aren't good at another, unrelated task is a non sequitur to me.
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.
-
1
-
-
54 minutes ago, cfrag said:
It definitely is not - many of us have a pilot's license and can follow procedure; but that wasn't my point. My point is the that I think sometimes it shouldn't be necessary. It may be something to revisit and see if these processes/procedures can be simplified from the point of a customer's view. To help make DCS (one of my favorite products) more accessible. I read the news of a new launcher as an great sign that ED is moving in that direction. There is great potential that I'd love to see realized to make DCS even more popular.
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.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, cfrag said:
Indeed - and since the User Files are entirely under the control of ED, let us hope that the fabled new Launcher provides a lot more than just a link. One thing that I have learned from (not necessarily new) DCS users is that they feel that DCS appears byzantine to them: too many folders in too many locations with too little transparency. Having the launcher, for example, allow the user to temporarily (!!!) desanitize DCS, to install missions from the user files for their planes etc., or (yes, I know, thin ice) install/manage Liveries/Mods without the user having to know what goes where would go a long way to make DCS more accessible to many users, long-time and fresh.
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.
2 minutes ago, Evanjsmay said:Im really hoping for more of an interface with the described features. It would provide a quicker and better user experience. Like others have said, finding things in the user files can be quite convoluted and time consuming, and then its not even guaranteed to work. (Using guaranteed loosley - I know nothing is guaranteed).
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, SharpeXB said:
And the stuff just breaks your game and causes problems. Not worth it.
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.-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, SharpeXB said:
Unofficial mods no doubt cause such headaches for the Devs I can’t see why they’d put a manager for them into the launcher. Maybe a modder could make a launcher mod
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.
-
1
-
P-38J Lightning
in DCS Core Wish List
Posted
Agreed. Col. Robin Olds flew the P-38J in Europe... even got an accidental kill while he was in a glide and barely beat the P-38s Compressibility issue.
For those that aren't familiar with the term, it basically means that as you get closer and closer to the speed of sound, the air around your leading edges 'compresses', and creates a pocket of what is effective 'dead' air behind it. This in turn means that if your plane isn't built for it, the control surfaces will attempt to 'bite' air that isn't actually there, and you get no response. Olds only survived because he got into the denser air at low altitude where the control surfaces finally had something they could bite into and control the aircraft.
Right after he avoided the hard interaction with the ground, a BF109 bounced onto his tail, and only careful flying allowed him to turn the tables and score a kill. Though I think after this, his P-38 was written off as the G-load ripped bits off the plane, and bent the frame.