Tank50us
-
Posts
1342 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Tank50us
-
except all the carrier planes are basically HiFid now these two I'll certainly give ya, especially if you're a Red Jet... thought most of the Red jets can't refuel AAR.... this one's being corrected with the recent announcement, but considering all those jets are AI anyway, the AI likes to not do what you want... But my main thing is when we're fighting these things. Not trying to stay in formation with a Mig23 or Su17.
-
realistically speaking (and sorry ED for going down this rabbit hole), in about 99/100 engagements, even if you do see them, they're basically like one of those black silhouette ID cards. It's a fleeting glimpse of something quite some distance away. Case in point: You'll notice that that's an F-16... but can you tell what model? it's load? what livery it's got on it? Seriously, unless you're using a pod, you're not gonna see much detail. And if you're in something like a Phantom, you won't be using one. More modern jets with tools like the Sniper Pod? Sure. But in the case of most of the aircraft in DCS? Nah.
-
Since the 27 is built off of the 23.... why not a Flogger pack as a module?
-
Bingo. It's just like a divorce case. If the father/husband says something like "Timmy got a black eye when we were playing catch", as innocent as it might sight, you can be the Wife/Mother's lawyer would latch onto that and use it as an example of abuse, and that the Dad shouldn't be allowed near the kids. Same thing happens here. While you can bet that Rons lawyers are probably bald and 30yrs older by now (because he WON'T shut up), they'd still latch onto anything ED says if they think they can use it against them
-
Or failing that, flintlocks at 20 paces....
-
No, that wasn't what I was talking about. I'm saying they could call up Boeing and get the licenses transferred over once this mess is over pretty easily
-
Yeah, answering that question is hard for us because we're NOT Nick, and we don't get a say in how he runs ED, or how Ron runs Razbam. Legally speaking however, there are plenty of options. One of which is like I've stated: Get the licenses and assets from Razbam, and kick RB to the curb. And yes, they could do this legally as they most likely at this point have Boeing and their legal team on speed dial (IE, getting the rights to the Harrier and Mudhen would be a sinch). They could probably hold onto the Mig19 and negotiate something with the OEM once a certain..... disagreement is resolved.... and they could probably call up Aerges and ask if they'd take the license for the M2000. From what I understand, RB is the only company right now that wasn't originally required to hand over the assets and source code in the event of a dispute like this. The others are, so if any of them stepped out of line they'd be in deep. Now, as for HOW they could do this, well, I'm not a lawyer. But just like any legal dispute with stuff like this, offers can be made and items placed in legal documents for damages. Happens all the time in divorces XD
-
And this is why I'm in favor of the idea of them handing the modules over to ED instead of continuing development. Sure, it would be ideal if things went back to what they were. But I believe that needs to be the precedent. You are developing a module for DCS, and are being contracted by ED and the OEM to do so. If you attempt to take ED IP, and do something not authorized by ED, everything you made will be taken, and you'll get nothing in return. The reason I believe this is because this is the second time ED's had to deal with this kind of situation. And seeing as they have enough issues trying to sort out the spaghetti code that is the DCS engine by now, another fiasco of this scale could do irrecoverable damage, so, unfortunately, some hammers need to be dropped. But, we'll ultimately see what a judge and/or jury say on the matter.
-
I have been, but if you want my opinions, DM me on Discord (Tank50usb). Anyway... The problem with COC is that it's typically difficult to prove outside of a courtroom (IE, someone being told to STFU by a judge, and refusing to do so). But a way I could see it being done is that they're required to start handing over modules by X date, and then hand over the Mig19 a few weeks prior to that date, and technically he'd be within the courts orders. But then drag out the transfer by years for the rest. The best way to prevent that would be to be proactive, and go "You've got a month to hand it all over starting *gavel hits* now. Go."
-
I'd argue that Ron has a bigger ego than Musk does. Musk is at least willing to work for free after all Sure, he's got enough money to buy a full military and take over a sizable nation, but he still has his humblers... and a bit of an excuse to act the way he does in public as he's on the spectrum. From what I've seen of this fiasco however, Ron's got nothing even approaching an excuse for what's going on within his own company. And like you said, the majority of us saw it, or saw the issues with their side of the story pretty quickly, but I'd argue that enough did side with them that Ron's shielded from the necessary pressure to make a deal out of court. I do wonder what would happen if a judge were to rule against RB, and ordered them to pay damages as well as hand over the assets. My gut tells me that Ron would drag it out as long as possible, basically operating on malicious compliance. He may turn the assets over, but he'll find a way to do it so that it drags on for months, essentially making it cost more for ED. But that's my theory.
-
Honestly, some presets for that part of the ME would be nice. For example, if we're playing a mission that's supposed to be set in the early days of the Hornets life. While obviously the Lot20 we have wouldn't work for an early 80s mission as the systems are way to advanced... So, when setting up the hornet in the ME, we should be able to go through the weapons page like normal and set up some presets for different eras like we can set up presets for weapon loads. The one drawback to this however, is that certain aircraft, like the F-16, don't have all the weapons that they should have. In order to have this work for the Viper, we'd need those weapons.
-
three (or more) combat factions, with adjustable relations
Tank50us replied to HalfAnUnkindness's topic in DCS Core Wish List
Many have. Largely because real conflicts aren't exactly as cut and dry when it comes to how coalitions operate. Case in point, WW2. While Japan, Italy, and Germany were all part of the axis powers, they didn't always share what they were doing with one another, especially Germany and Italy. While situations where the two came to blows are rare, it was still a possibility. The way I see it, the 'relationship' between group A and B should be one of five states: Allied: Will not shoot at you period. Friendly: Will work with, but limited (think USA during the first two years of WW2) Neutral: Won't do anything, but will still defend itself if necessary. Strained: Relations aren't good, may shoot at you. Hostile: Will shoot on sight. The only other state would be 'not involved', meaning that their units won't even be available to place on the map (Ex: Japanese units in France 1944). But an example of how this would look: You have a mission set on the upcoming Germany map. You have the NATO members all set to "allied" as well as the Warsaw Pact nations, and their coalition color set to Blue and Red respectively. But you also have some smaller insurgent groups. who are openly hostile to one another, but set to 'friendly' towards the Warsaw Pact. And then for S&G, you have Switzerland in the lower west corner of the map set to Neutral for everyone. China and Japan would likely be set to "Not Involved", and their kit wouldn't be available to the reds or blues. -
Great theory, but people like him likely won't bow down even to a judge. We've seen it before. Celebrities, Politicians, "Influencers", you name'em... even when someone who represents the law tells them "No, you are in the wrong, and it's time for you to pay up", they still act like the victim. Ron's likely not much different. Even if a judge told him he's in the wrong, owes ED money, the source code for the modules, etc. He'd likely go around and claim that the judge was in cahoots with ED or something, and demand a new trial or something, and drag this out until the universe dies of heat death. But we'll see. IMHO, the best outcome would be for everything to go back to the way it was. But failing that, I think the next best option is for ED to get full control over the modules so that they're not only maintained, but improved over time. Maybe even getting some variations on some of them (like the Mirage 2000D two-seater, or the AV-8B+ with the radar)... hey... I can dream can't I?
-
I'd be all for this being a thing. Honestly, it'd be nice if a player could jump into that seat and both work the boom/drogue, and communicate with us. Trying to figure out where you have to be in order for the dang tanker to give "Clear contact" is certainly a hair puller for newer players until they finally get it right. But yeah, I do agree with the OP, a 'helper' pop-up would be nice for this, just like the IFLOLS. It'd also be nice to have something for the probe and drogue guys as well. I will argue however that by default, they should be turned off. But those that need them can turn them on. I did however find it funny how someone arguing against it thought it would break 'game balance' in MP... which made no sense to me, especially since there's no way to tell if a player is using those aids #1, and #2 it has no effect on combat. If it did, Jesters call-outs about enemy aircraft in a dogfight would be considered game breaking.
-
I mean, if enough pressure was put on either side, it could force a phone call to their respective lawyers telling them to basically cave to the demands of the other. BUT... there's not enough on either side that can this can happen. Honestly, if anything is going to force anyone to cave, it's going to be the lack of income for RB. None of the other third parties are on their side, and I think their relationship with Microsoft was also strained by this fiasco (someone in this thread mentioned it, but I forget who). So odds are better than zero that the longer this goes on, the more likely RB will be willing to hammer out a deal if it means staying afloat. ED on the other hand has its own maps and planes, plus all the other third parties still pumping out new planes and maps. On top of that Nick has the money coming in from The Fighter Collection and other ventures he can use to keep Eagle Dynamics high and dry.
-
Honestly, I'd say leave the archive once it's over and lock it. That way you have something to point to the next time something like this situation pops up. Obviously, I hope it NEVER happens again with any third party dev, but I think anyone would be incredibly naive to believe it never will. If it happens again, you can just point to that archive and show people how it was handled in the past, how people took it, and then hopefully people will understand and not create a million threads asking what will happen next.
-
I'm aware, but I'm not talking about test driving the existing modules. I'm talking about some more options for people to dip their toes into before deciding what path they want to go down. Especially Steam users who don't get access the trials. I was talking about the TF-51, and while I do have the regular Mustang, I think it'd be better if there was something with some combat utility in place of (or in conjunction with) the TF51. That's also why I'm suggesting the Jag. It's hard hitting and fast while the Frogfoot has a bit more staying power at the cost of speed. On the plus side, both aircraft can land just about anywhere, certainly good for the beginners who bring their birds in a little..... hot...... Yes, I know the Hog can handle some rough fields, but operating from road bases in DCS with it is certainly not happening easily. My previous group tried and the hogs kept getting stuck.
-
Yeah, the problem there is that the free one has no weapons. If it had a second seat, then it would have a bit more utility, but as it is now, it's really only good for air show things like aerobatics or racing. Though I do agree with ya on the Frogfoot. But I think it should have a western counterpart as well since the avionics and weapons load don't really translate well if you're trying to fly something NATO. The Jaguar is a good option for this, since it kinda got around.
-
Something like this would be especially good for those getting into DCS and not sure if they want to even touch helicopters or not. Personally, I think DCS needs one module of each 'era', 'base', and type for free to give people a feel for where they want to go and spend their money. If it were up to me, those would be: WW2/Korea: Mustang Cold War: T/A-37 Tweet/Dragonfly Late Cold War/Modern: Su25T and Jaguar (around this time the Western and Soviet avionics are quite distinct) Carrier Based: A-4 Skyhawk Helicopter OH/AH-6 Cayuse/Little Bird But those are my choices. It might, but the one thing it would do is give ED a framework to work off of. But if they can't, one thing they could most certainly get from RB is the rights to the plane from Boeing, and take about 6 to 12 months to work in their own code to the F-15E (with the existing F-15C being a base) and get that to the current state where they can replace it. Maybe even contact HB to get Jester working his magic in the back seat, which in turn could be used for an F/A18D module in the future if ED decides to make it (come on @BIGNEWY@NineLine! Make that happen! It'd be nice to have someone along for the ride in the Hornet!) But yeah, for the MudHen, I see that option being less than ideal, but it would mean we'd have an aircraft we know works and will be up for sale again in a short period of time.
-
Well, when it comes to assets they have done this sorta thing before. Namely some of the ground units for the French and some of the newer insurgent stuff, and the recent statics that were added were made by modders originally. If they work, and have all the work done, why not toss a few bucks at'em and save a bunch of work re-inventing the wheel? It'd be the same thing with the RB modules.... only with considerably more zeroes involved in that price tag.
-
As I've said in the past, if RB decides to fully sever ties, I do hope ED can get the source codes and assets for the modules in question, and give us some new features or new variations. Who knows, I wouldn't be at all surprised if ED made some variations if they got the code and assets, sold us those with the OG aircraft being 'free additions'... or something....
-
As I've said in the past, if RB decides to fully sever ties, I do hope ED can get the source codes and assets for the modules in question, and give us some new features or new variations. Who knows, I wouldn't be at all surprised if ED made some variations if they got the code and assets, sold us those with the OG aircraft being 'free additions'... or something....
-
I'd guess it's a mix of both. It's the ultimate call of the dev when they kick the product out the door like a mama bird telling her babies to "FLY B***H!" But at the same time, ED is probably not going to be too amused if someone released an unrefined cylinder with a couple boxes someone called an Su7. For example, if I were to lead a team in making a modernized Su17, it would go into EA with a working flight model, damage model, some decent liveries, its fox2s and its unguided weapons. The rest of its EA period would make adjustments to the models, and working in the other guided weapons. And it certainly wouldn't take a freaking DECADE to develop.... *looks over at Razbam and their on-again off again development of the Mudhen....*
-
if the tracks of a BT were blown off, they could run on the road wheels just fine. They could even, with some work, drive on nothing but the road wheels. TheChieftain did a couple vids on the BT7
-
You mean fire when it can't turn the turret? If that's the case, I would like to introduce you to someone: Otherwise, the only way a tank wouldn't be able to fire it's main gun if the 'turret is destroyed' would be if the turret either didn't exist any more, or the crew required a mop bucket to remove. In either case, the tank is considered 'destroyed'. Also, since you brought up a tank being able to move with damaged tracks.... This guy was able to do exactly that. So there were a few designs actually capable of stuff like that. There aren't any around today that I'm aware of, but the idea was still there.
