Ala13_ManOWar
-
Posts
3501 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Ala13_ManOWar
-
-
Do you play online just alone? I mean, the kind of content you seem to ask for, is not up to ED alone. Maybe for lonely players, offline players, and so, a campaign would fit your needs, of course, some kind of persistent and dynamic campaign would be even better but a closed one still would fit your requirement and sure we will see them in no time after map release (well, not dynamic campaign, but some day…).Yes, Klem I can do that and probably will once I get the skills to make missions.I'm thinking more of online. What sort of missions will we have, or will it just be the typical furballs? I hope that enough guys will like good missions and not the same old type of online fighting.
Anyway, the other traditional source for that kind of content is community itself and has been usually created within the virtual squadrons for their own use. You ask for closed, coordinated, target and briefing missions, even maybe whole campaigns, as opposed to dogfight furball missions which can also be fine for a stroll but not as a whole and only experience. You're right but that's what squadrons did since they started to be, not ED, so should you like to see better and deeper multiplayer missions instead of only flying alone in a dogfight server, start searching for people who meet what you look for.
S!
-
Album is private, not working pic.It's ugly. Here's the edge of the detailed map.
Anyway, pitty it's uggly though I would like to see myself to decide how ugly it is, or not.
S!
-
That would be nice. I guess it could be done by using gradients in atmospheric temperature and pressure along the map.And zones for fog would be ingenious. Maybe even zones for cloud layers?S!
-
I think I read somewhere :huh: , although it's true never after that.No specific date was ever given. When its ready to be released ED will let us know.S!
-
It was said, a lot of time ago in a Newletter IIRC, release date is May the 17th. I haven't seen anything changing that since then.Not sure where to ask, so I'll ask here and hope for an official answer:Will we get a heads up on the exact release date at some time closer to the actual release date? Right now its "Late May" but maybe a few days before release will we get an actual date?
S!
-
Keep those screenshots coming!!!! Lucky you :lol: .
S!
-
That says 395€ 7700K, and 369€ 1700 if I'm not mistaken. Not as much as I expected, but still cheaper though prices change really quickly and from place to place. Here they are priced really close, 345 the 7700K and 356 the 1700. Well, I guess it's more a question of what the prices are at the moment you buy.
S!
-
Yeah, really good detail how he walks over the 88 ground clamps :clap_2::clap_2:.Love the soldier animation when turning the flak gun.S!
-
What warbirds do you fly, if I may ask? That's very interesting.its a good point, I am a warbird pilot in real life an I just get tired of 109's doing things I know they cannot and breaking the laws of physics in the process and kicking by butt every time haha!Love flying the P-51 just wish the AI flew more realistically... Will the new damage model help that?
I know it can be annoying, but think 109K is a really stunning beast, the last model built in considerable quantities, and probably the best performer of all at least considering pure power and performances (you may dislike some quirks of the aeroplane itself though, but whenever it's all muscle you know that happens…). AI or not, a good human pilot can tear you apart repeatedly with a good discipline and all the advantage those performances give him. AI is just a bit different, but when you realise they are dumb and they make always the same mistakes you'll win easily (ace setting aside :lol:).
S!
-
I don't know either, and I like that change. But anyway it's not only how many FPS more or less there are, also how much more does 7700k cost compared to Ryzen. Now it's even better, but even before it was good enough for the price IMO.I dont get it. Previous reviews all showed the 1700/1800x all getting beaten out by the 7700k. This shows otherwise. Why?Im dying for someone to do a direct DCS comparison.
AMD CPU is to be considered, definitely, for my next rig :D . I also wait for a DCS test.
S!
-
It was you probably the only one who didn't know who Kermit Weeks is, "Fantasy of flight" museum owner, and know his famous Kermie cam. Yes, great video we know since years ago :smilewink: , sorry for that :lol: :thumbup:.26 views and no comments again. Have you all seen this one too?Don't get me started posting jokes again.
S!
-
I guess 88 will be :D .Would like to see, if the Flak 37 is useful against a Sherman :music_whistling:S!
-
AFAIK, no other way than those standard AI levels, though you can use some tricks in the editor, like fueling 109 to 100% while keeping your own plane a bit unloaded, like 40% fuel maybe but bearing in mind that means for the Spitfire a really short flight time until she gets fixed in fuel consumption. P-51 would be fine even with a 25% of fuel. It's not magic nor a huge difference but that can help to some extent.
S!
-
Yeah, totally. They should have modelled Himalaya even though Normandy battle happened in Normandy. That would be far more immersive and interesting. Screw you flat France.Am I the only one who don't appreciate this map at all? I: it is completely FLAT, it has no VARIATIONS at all, you can see only trees (with horrible aspect , looks like fake platic trees and are not realistic at all), and repetion of green/yellow fields, appart from that t he map has exactly the same aspect at every angle, no mountains, no hills, just a few rivers....it's pretty annoying map, once you see it once you get enough of it...and I even bought it.Even tough Caucasus is an old map, it is in my opion far superior in terms of immersion.
S!
P.S.: [sarcastic mode: OFF], just in case :lol:.
-
Well, turns out it IS, since you can't choose what models data can be found, or not :smilewink: .I've explained this approximately a hundred times, now: you (pl) keep saying that balance isn't as important as simulation accuracy & realism, as though it were a "this or that" choice. But, as I've said over and over again, it isn't a "this or that" choice.No mate, of course no intention to be disagreeing just because it's you. To be honest didn't realise at first it was you, with whom it's true I had some discussion regarding the subject in the past (just once from my part, don't make a fuss out of it).
So, back on topic. My point is, it's not I wouldn't like to see many other models of 109 (now you say, isn't this whole thread a dejavu? :huh: :megalol:), of course G6, early and late models, G14, G10, and so. No mate, I would like to see them all in-game, and many more, even I dare to say we all including ED staff would like so. But the day it happens, it will be (like in any other module we have seen into DCS so far, as well as expected ones, you can check the list) a matter of what data I can find rather than what model would better fit for a balanced gameplay. No, you cannot choose what model you'll find data for, the kind of data a simulator like DCS needs of course, and closing one's eyes to that reality won't make it change.
S!
-
That last Wags video riding a Su-27 looks stunning. Really good looking new water, those wave white plumes so realistic. Terrain bumps and hills looks so natural :beer: .
At the video end, I wonder why Le Havre is lacking an aerodrome. Wasn't still there by 1944?
S!
-
-
Ok, you have a point :thumbup: .I think you misunderstood this. Just that the temps are going up and down doesn't mean I have problems with the temps.So, your whole concern is about they move up and down? You can believe me or not, but already told you aeroplane Temps behave like that even in GA, I can hardly believe warbids featuring engines in the thousands Hp are much different, and DCS represents that fairly well to my limited knowledge. You'd better be concerned when you are in a Cessna 172RG looking at CHT sink like mad even with cowl flaps closed while you descent for landing at a foggy airport with IFR FP but the actual ILS signal is broken :D. That sudden cool down can really crack your engine block, but I didn't complain to Cessna, or Lycoming, for such an unrealistic behaviour :smilewink: .
S!
-
In my squad we used to make tests like that in order to tackle with the planesets in the old SEOW campaigns. Fair enough it's a good starting point, though one never knows how "RL" will behave compared to tests.But I digress. The solution to the hypothetical question, "If another 109 were to be added to the sim, which would be the best match for a 67" WEP P-51D," is rather simple. If I were developing the sim, what I'd do is make (in a test environment) a quick, crude adjustment to the K-4, an extrapolated estimate of how the lower-end G-6 should perform, and then a second one for the higher-end G-6. Have the best pilots in the community have at it in standard-protocol duels, switching aircraft back and forth (X vs. X, Y vs. Y, Z vs. Z, X vs. Y, Y vs. X, X vs. Z, Z vs. X) until it becomes clear which of the two extrapolated G-6 variants is the best match for the 67" P-51 in multiplayer. This is how I used to balance my planesets in sim-games which had many variants to choose from. The method works well.Anyway, I think it was Pman who explained not far ago that the whole point in DCS is not, and never was, any kind of balance but simulation accuracy and realism, and the reason is obvious, accuracy and realism doesn't depend on what we want to model but on the data available about a certain model. To go further, current planeset, IMHO, has demonstrated that anything can happen in the sky. So, I believe it's not a question of "balance", but suitable and historically matching planeset now we talk about IA. Of course, with regard to any full module, it's gonna be harder than that due to data availability.
That said, it doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see more 109 flyable models in DCS, but that "balance" mind might not be helpful.
S!
-
It'll be an alpha access since you need 2.0.5 Alpha version in order to run the Normandy map right now.Btw. serial numbers for Kickstarter backers are available now.I´m wondering, if there is still an Alpha-access to the Normandy map in the planning, as there is a separate serial number for it?
S!
-
It is, but i never had issues with cooling
Well, it seems you do since you're here complaining about cooling :thumbup:.What I'd like to see is a proper engine cooling mechanism for WWII planes. Right now, It cools and heats up so fast, I don't think this is real...Neither a water cooled GPU nor a Car could do what the cooling in DCS does...
Hopefully this is on the to-do list already
S!
-
Bear in mind anyway you'll probably need stable version when 2.5 is out (whenever that happens). Current 2.0.5 is just Alpha, and who knows but I don't think that version would update to Beta, and stable as long as there are already both separated installs for those.Oh well, I think it pretty much made up my mind. I'll be preordering Normandy/Asset Pack bundle, no doubt about it now. Will be installing it 2.X and switching to Nevada/Normandy, and saying goodbye to 1.5.X forever, when it hits (pre)release.S!
-
But, isn't cooling issues a management problem? Just saying…And no, I don't have any problems with the management but thanks for the inputS!
-
I think Wags said something about that coming in the future.
S!
Normandy Early Access Discussion
in DCS: Normandy 1944
Posted
S!