Nipil
-
Posts
122 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Nipil
-
-
It's so great to see all these great assets to gain official status! I have one question: will Currenthill's assests replace existing models, or will they become new, unrelated units? That is, will there be, say, two separate Tu-95s, or will the old one simply be upgraded? I ask because there are hundreds of missions, both from ED and the community, which use decades old assets, and we know that many of them are not going to be updated.
-
1
-
-
Currently we have 2 texture settings: for general textures and for ground textures. I believe that a third setting is needed — one for cockpit textures.
Medium quality textures look mostly OK for external models, but not so good when cockpits are considered. Moreover, Medium quality textures have worse readability for instruments and their labels, which hinders QOL significantly (at least, this has been my experience with Hornet, F-16 and FC2024 aircraft). I might be wrong, but it seems safe to suggest that leaving High textures for cockpit and Medium for the out-of-cockpit textures would bring substantially better performance than all-Medium textures while retaining cockpits nice and perfectly readable.
In my opinion, ability to set separate settings for cockpit and out-of-cockpit textures could provide player with much needed ability to strike a balance between performance and looks and playability. This will be especially beneficial for mid-range GPUs. Especially since we all know how NVIDIA doesn't like to put more than minimum minimori of VRAM on all but the most expensive cards.
-
3
-
-
This is a great mod, thank you for your efforts! Looks gorgeous, runs smoothly, and gives good ol' Caucasus a much prettier look. This mod deserves a lot more notoriety in DCS community.
-
2
-
2
-
-
Пока что непонятно, кто прав и кто виноват в конфликте Razbam и ED, так что я бы не стал кого-то сейчас обвинять в чём-либо. Развивать дискуссию здесь не стану во избежание банхамера. Смотрите реддит, кому интересно, но никакой конкретики с твёрдыми пруфами в любом случае нет.
Скорее всего, исходники для F-15E у ED должны быть, так как сторонние разработчики обязаны их предоставлять ED со времён фиаско с VEAO и их Hawk'ом. Так что паниковать не стоит.
-
On 10/21/2023 at 12:39 AM, Harlikwin said:
Realistically the Cold war ended in 89, or even earlier with the polish worker strikes, the most plausible 80's scenario is in 83 i.e. Able archer. Anything really past that is pretty much fantasy. There was 0 political will to invade Europe after the early 80's. Besides there was no non nuke scenario anyway, literally every war plan known starts with multiple rounds of tac nukes all over Europe. So basically you have "early" 80's as your credible WW3 scenario.
Where the early vipers are interesting is the other theatres where they fought and were used.
Also, early deliveries etc don't really make it relevant, like great you have 3 birds and 2 guys that are training to fly them. Most of those later blocs were not relevant for this very simple reason.
Early C blocks were already numerous enough by 1989. But, as I've said already, I would prefer the A model too.
Regarding plausible WW3 scenarios, I believe that your criteria are too stringent, TBH. If we want to plausibly exclude total nuclear exterminatus, than early 60's are probably the latest point we can take. Or... Maybe not, because by the 80's the "limited nuclear war" concept was already being seriously considered. Compare WW2, where every major power had chemical weapons, but no one actually used them against those who had it too (thus limiting it's usage to Japan vs China and Germany vs resistance). So I have to respectfully disagree with the nuclear argument.
When it comes to political circumstances, as was already pointed out by @F-2, WW3 never happened (yet), so any WW3 scenario would be alt history with quite big deviations from OTL. And there are some alt history scenarios which involve some more prolonged "march to war", not only those which are based on IRL close calls.
Anyways, I'm just a fan of late Cold War technology. For me, late 80's is the sweetest spot between crappy unreliable analogue electronics of the early-mid CW, and the modern flying computers. That's why I love thid era the most. Also, most current "modern" DCS AI assets are from this era, and late 80's are the closest CW era to the era for which our maps are made. But it's a matter of taste, of course.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Evoman said:
The main issue with the F-16C is that it can't be used in Cold War era scenarios.
That's not correct, even blk 40/42 were already being delivered in 1989, thus covering the very late CW era. Blk 25 was first delivered in 1984, blk 30/32 in 1987, thus fitting well into mid-late 80's. So, blk 30/32 would still be pretty viable for a hypothetical Third World War starting in 1989. I would still prefer blk 15, which has flown with a ton of countries, though.
-
1
-
-
23 hours ago, meller said:
Эх, а я хотел бы, чтоб МИГ-21 довели до состояния свежих модулей. Вроде МИГ-21 был самый первый модуль из кликабельных ЛА. Мне иногда кажется что даже 3D модель немного не правильная в передней части, перед фонарём. Интересно, у разработчиков есть планы на МИГ-21?
Magnitude 3 LLC хотят за него взяться после того, как выпустят F-4U Corsair. Но, боюсь, ждать нам еще не меньше пары лет.
-
The qustion is if RSR can provide the same quality as later FSR versions. AFAIK it can't, although I might be wrong.
-
1 hour ago, Shmal said:
Насущный вопрос к разработчикам, по поводу солнца в кабине, а точнее нечитаемости индикации на RWR и дисплеях.
В реальности пилот может закрыть тенью от руки нужный дисплей и считать показания.
Можно нам сделать управляемое пятно тени на основе уже существующего фонарика?
Т.е. нажал кнопку и навёл мышкой тень на нужный дисплей, чтобы считать показания.
Поддерживаю. Иногда читать дисплеи становится слишком трудно, а способов затенить экран нет. Отчасти убрать блики помогает наклон камеры в сторону, но тень от тела пилота была бы очень кстати.
-
2
-
-
I believe that the list of problems with the air sim part of DCS is so huge that making ships and ground vehicles modules prior to addressing those is going to be the worst decision they could make. DCS' development speed is already glacial, we wait for many years to get fixes, AI assets and essential features already teased for the air sim part alone. And yet some want ED to spend tremendous effort to build two new subsystems (ships and ground vehicles modules) that would each make a separate game in it's own right. Which would make almost 0 contribution to the pilots' experience in a sim game which is still very far from perfect.
All while already having good dedicated games for tank/ship driving. I mean, let's be realistic, there will never be a good "simulator of everyrhing". Let RTS be RTS, ground combat sims be ground combat sims, naval sims be naval sims. Also, let's be honest once again, we have seen where such efforts lead in the example of CA. An overwhelming majority of players don't need it, because they have better games to play RTS, they come to DCS to fly first and foremost. Let's not push ED away from improving the combat flight simulator and into wasting tremendous resources on things it's not meant to simulate.
Let them instead make a decent AI, proper ATC, clouds that aren't transparent to AI and sensors, finish some modules that have been in EA for 5 years already. Any of these is 100 times more important for the flight sim than having playable ships or tanks or RTS.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, Harlikwin said:
People think that, because thats exactly what ED did with the Ka-50 and the Su-25T. And what Deka will do with the J-8PP. So its certainly within the realm of possibility for DCS.
First of all, Ka-50 and Su-25T are not entirely the same as 9-31. Around a dozen of both was produced, both saw some limited combat service in Chechnya. It's already better than a couple of prototypes. You have somewhat more data from SMEs and media in that case.
Secondly, times were different when they first came out. The 2000's Russia was much more liberal. ED has mentioned that work on Ka-50 was assisted by Kamov. Today it's not possible in Russia. Dunno about Chinese situation.
On 9/28/2023 at 1:01 AM, Seaeagle said:It sounds more like you think that a 9.41 should be easier to do becausei it "went into production" and "has been flown by relatively many".......yeah good luck with that
.
I guess it should be somewhat easier. But still 99% impossible in foreseeble future.
On 9/28/2023 at 1:01 AM, Seaeagle said:But I never suggested that a 9.31 would be "easier to do" than the 9.41, or that documentation wuould be easier to come by just because its older.
I wasn't referring to you specifically, my apologies if that was offensive. But there have been a few occasions when people on that forum supposed a 9-31 could be done because of the reasons I listed. I thought the discussion was going in the same direction. And I just find it weird that people keep proposing planes like 9-15, 9-31, Su-37 etc. thinking that somehow they are going to be easier to do simply because they aren't in service.
-
1
-
-
On 9/27/2023 at 11:36 PM, Logan54 said:
Anyway we have some real work on Su-22M4 by SVK Sniper.
We don't know if it's going to be an official module yet. And without SDK, to which extent it would be possible to model? A-4E, for one, isn't able to use guided munitions except for Shrike due to the SDK's unavailability. I would be glad to see it come out. But for now it's still not comfirmed.
On 9/27/2023 at 11:36 PM, Logan54 said:How to fight with attack aircraft against dogfighters?
That's where MiG-23MLA comes into play, doesn't it? With R-24, R-60M and decent flying perfomance. Not as unique as 25, but it can get the fighter's job done. But no Red jet can do SEAD and PGM strikes, or even simply carry a decent bombload. That's why Su-22/MiG-27 is a priority for me.
All of this is not to say MiG-25 is unwelcome. It sure is very interesting and capable. But I find it a "good to have", not essential, unlike an 80's fighter-bomber.
-
12 minutes ago, Iron_Man said:
But all in all, I think MiG-25 as a high speed/altitude interceptor with R-40 missiles maybe a very special project, considering that now at least we have 19 and 21 capable of working at low altitudes.
So do I. If someone could find enough data, it sure is going to be a very interesting beast to fly. I just don't have much optimism in this regard.
5 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:Need a ED or 3rd party get propper info, SME, etc and build a propper DCS hardcore module
Not really sure Su-25 would require 3rd party though. Mi-24P was done by ED themselves, being of the same era and similar level of complexity and fullfilling quite similar roles. Both are still in Russian service, although CW vesions of both are mostly relegated to training and reserve roles. So it might be possible, unless there was a statement about Su-25 specifically saying otherwise. It's not really like MiG-29 or other fighters, which have very high flying perfomace, relatively complex radars, datalinks, FLIR etc. It's a tier lower on complexity ladder.
-
3 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:
Even if we did not compare it, the same problem remains with 9.31 (Naval version of Mig-29M 9.15):
- No open data or SMEs, no documentation.
- ED will require data to make the PFM flight model.
- The actual capabilities of its armament, including whether there are any not modelled in DCS World.
- The parameters of the N-010 Zhuk radar, systems and so on.
- Operability on aircraft carriers (there were load limitations).This. I can't understand why some people think that making an obscure prototype jet, which hasn't ever entered production, without any documentation publically available, which has it's own unique set of systems, which has only been flown by maybe a couple men, is somehow easier than doing an airplane which actually went into production, has been flown by relatively many, can be seen flying on more videos etc. Just why on earth? That something is 10 years older and is more primitive doesn't mean it is easier to model.
Inb4 "but it was present in F2.5". It didn't even have it's IRL cockpit, the way it's MFD functioned was pure fantasy, and it's FM and systems quality were, naturally, waaay below today's standards. And making 9-31 to today's standards is not any easier than making 9-41. Might be even harder, for reasons explained above.
-
3
-
-
43 minutes ago, Iron_Man said:
There are plenty of ground pounders in DCS now to the point that the concept is getting boring. We need something new and special. Considering the choice (historical relevance) and fidelity of the existing DCS modules, for the DCS core concept - MiG-25 represents a true technological breakthrough of its time and earned its place in the best of the world combat simulators. The redfor community doesn’t just need another whatever red plane, but needs what truly made the difference in aviation history. Neither MiG-23 nor 27 were as crucial as the MiG-25. It’s not all about the ground pounders, let’s be fair.
There are plenty of ground pounders, but not for REDFOR. Workhorses are no less needed then wunderwaffen. Don't take me wrong, I would be very glad to see MiG-25, probably buy it as soon as it appears, but it occupies two very specific niches (strategic interceptor or bomber which can drop a few unguides bombs on a city-side target). Besides, MiG-25 is going to be much harder to do, especially the interceptor versions.
IMHO, we need a coherent environment to operate in first of all. Which means we need some mundane (actually very fun) job to be done. Especially for MP and the Dynamic Campaign to come. Right now USSR has both chopper workhorses, Mi-8 and Mi-24, but only MiG-21 among airplanes. MiG-23 is coming, which is going to satisfy late 70's to early 80's fighter requirement. But no even remotely decent attack aircraft. Without which both MP and DC are not going to feel complete.
Anyways, that's more of an argument about tastes, it's ok to disagree here. I just happen to like workhorses and I feel that without them the whole era feels incomplete. Although I still hold that Su-17/22 and MiG-27 are easier to do. Especially the former, as it was used by so many countries, and was relatively simple without anything too much secret or complicated.
-
4
-
-
A ground pounder from late Cold War would be nice, we don't have any full fi Soviet strike jets yet. MiG-27K or Su-17/22M4 would be the best, being capable of PGM and ARM usage. MiG-27K especially, but I doubt it's possible.
TBH I find both MiG-25 and especially Su-15 out of DCS' scope. Su-15 simply does not belong in tactical aviation environment. Yak-38 is hardly possible. And a full fidelity Su-25 isn't going to be much different from the one we have, and it wouldn't give the Red side new capabilities it desperately needs which Su-17 and MiG-27 have.
-
4
-
-
Officially allowing such deviations from reality in vanilla game seems contrary to the underlying idea of DCS. If you want to use something like R-77-1 or the likes, you can use mods. There are already some that offer both modern REDFOR airplanes and weapons. No need to mess with the vanilla game.
-
4
-
-
On 9/18/2023 at 12:56 AM, upyr1 said:
We are more likely to see the lancer than the Bison, however I feel the same way about either version that I do about the Phantom 2K variant (wether it is ICE, Terminator or any modern update).
I would rather have new player drivable/flyable or sailable vehicles, maps, or assets than a variant module, If we do get a variant module I would rather the historically significant variants so in the case of the Fishbed, a Vietnam war vintage variant would be preferred over the Sniper or Bison, but once the NVAF Fishbed is taken or some developer really wanted to do the Sniper I'd have no objection I'd probably buy it. However, I would like to see some sort of bundle pack and variant pricing is the modules are done by the same developer and if they aren't done by the same developer then I would like to see something in place to enable developers to license code to make the bundle pack possible.
There are some vehicles that have a long service life and I think multiple variants would do quite well though there is also the law of diminishing returns
In case of Bison it would be interesting though to have an Indian a counterpart to JF-17. Right now Jeff fights against F-16/18, which is so counter-immersive. Although I'd rather they do Su-17 or something like that.
Anyway, AFAIK, they have no plans for other MiG-21 variants.
-
1
-
-
On trimming and it's importance.
On various BFMs (maybe with illustrations shown instead of aircraft pic on loading screen).
On tactics of going very low and not emitting.
On Free Trial.
On manuals and their location.
On User Files section on the website.
Some basic airmanship facts for the uninitiated: barometer setting, IAS vs TAS, AoA's importance, stall recovery, transition altitude, ground effect etc.
Terrain masking, ground clutter, doppler notching.
On true and magnetic bearing.
On aerial refueling (fly the plane, not the basket, remember to turn off radar).
Propeller pitch.
Eye/head tracking (that it exists and greatly enhaces flying experience).
-
2
-
-
On 8/27/2023 at 8:57 PM, nelsonvit said:
Прошёл слух, что Министерство обороны России заинтересовалось продвижением, популяризацией своей техники в мире игр.
Могу я попросить источник? Звучит слишком хорошо, чтобы быть правдой.
On 8/27/2023 at 11:32 PM, Chizh said:МО РФ под санкциями
А если сотрудничать с МО РФ будет третья сторона? Или даже так не получится?
-
On 8/24/2023 at 10:03 AM, Harlikwin said:
Legally, they don't own soviet docs AFAIK... But I don't think ED particularly wants to mess with them.
It's not about "ownership", it's about the "military/state secret" status given to certain docs and information itself. Accessing these without clearance, as well as dissipating them, is a crime, regardless of which entity owns them. And yeah, the Russian Federation is the legal successor to the USSR, so ownership per se of any papers was also inherited from the Soviets.
-
44 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:
A third party would have to obtain the data for the aircraft they want to do legally and prove that It comes from publicly available resources. Which was always the case.
MiG-29 data is available because of the German versions.
it's not a question of where the developer is, it's where the data is sourced from.
The problem is, if data is considered still to be secret by Russia's authorities, than it doesn't matter if it's been made public elsewhere. And here in Russia, especially in light of war-time legislation that has been passed since last Febuary, no one would like to give our law enforcement officials a slightest excuse for starting a persecution.
-
3
-
-
11 hours ago, MAXsenna said:
Better avoid the Skyraider then.
Mods is not just airframes. I use mods to enhance the game, like assets and fixes that lack in the game. Not to pretend to fly a certain modern airframe.
This was just an example of mods which many, including myself, find to be of a quality which is not good enough. Of course I don't try to force my personal preferences on anyone.
Anyway, I don't think that the discussion regarding mods as such is going to lead us anywhere. And it distracts us from the original topic. Let's just agree to disagree on this.
Back to the topic, I would definetely support improved filters in the "user files" section of the website. It should not be a hard task, a few days of a junior web developer's work should ve enough.
When it comes to a mod manager, I don't think that reinventing the wheel is necessary, we already have a community-made app for this, and ED had better spent their effort elsewhere. Also, maybe it's possible to marry DCS to Nexus Mods and their mod manager, that might solve many problems related to uploading and updating mods, including large ones.
I've already touched upon filtering servers for mods conpatibility (depends on comolexity of implementation). And I still think that replacing models with "stand-ins" is not a good move, and it's not worth ED's effort, IMHO.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, SharpeXB said:
When I say junk I mean their potential to cause problems in the game. And the amount of time they suck up in managing. Good or bad they’re all the same in that regard. Or as better stated in the video they’re like a hot girl who’s going to give you a disease
Well, it's not too hard to unpack a zip into the "mods" folder in your DCS folder, or to delete a folder from there, even without a mod manager. Also, for instance, the A-4E-C hasn't been known to break anything up to this point (unlike official DCS updates lol). And it doesn't brake anything, it doesn't break often itself (compare, for example, AIM-54 breaking every few patches), it's realistic and does add a lot value to Cold War scenarios. It's really on par with official modules in almost every aspect, and does not demand much management on your side, just unzip it to a specified folder and have fun. I use A-4E-C as an example because it's probably the most popular and quality mod, widely considered the model DCS mod, and it might be the only one which has made it's way into mainstream servers (and it hasn't caused any trouble there!).
I am also suspucious towards mods by default, and I agree that most mods are of bad quality, are not supported well enough, and when they mess with vanilla game's files they tend to break stuff. All of this is especially true for an air combat sim, which has realism as a paramount value. But there is no need to throw out the baby with the bath water. Especially since vanilla DCS breaks itself constantly even without modders.
It's also worth noting that there are games like ArmA series where half of community uses mods and they don't have much trouble with it.
DLSS 3.10
in DCS Core Wish List
Posted · Edited by Nipil
For now, DCS still uses 3.7.0 DLSS DLL, which is significantly inferior to DLSS 3.10 and it's new presets. There are, of course, ways for players to manually install DLSS 3.10 DLLs and choose new presets. But still, it's not ideal to make players tinker with game files after each update and use 3rd party apps, to achieve what can be done out of the box by devs with minimal effort.
Most players wouldn't tinker with 3rd party apps or game files, for them shipping DLSS 3.10 out of the box with new presets enabled would significantly improve user experience. And it is going to require just a few man-hours of dev time (90% of it being testing), since DCS and DLSS 3.10 have already been proven to run together fine.
And it would be nice to regularly update DLSS DLLs and presets in the future. Because each release contains some significant improvements, and it would cost ED just a few man-hours to implement.
Thank you for your time.