SlipHavoc
-
Posts
104 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by SlipHavoc
-
-
49 minutes ago, Weasel said:
Does the F/A-18 also benefit in any way of the improvements of INS/GPS from the Viper?
It will in the future, according to this post from NineLine.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Beirut said:
Comments are turned off.
Good. We know what that comments section would look like anyway at this point; there's nothing to be gained from letting it happen.
-
4
-
1
-
-
53 minutes ago, Elphaba said:
I think your ability to be impressed is a little overboard.
No, in fact it's the other way around: You cannot seem to recognize or appreciate significant features even when they are explicitly pointed out to you.
-
3
-
-
39 minutes ago, OldFlyer said:
It’s not up to me to do research for others.
I think it actually is.
-
1
-
-
Also, the mission editor got a huge improvement with the addition of the drawing tools, which helped make servers like Enigma's Cold War possible.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Hotdognz said:
Wouldn't the business decision to make the module in the first place ,mean your committed to completing it and that in itself is a commitment to your customers who purchase it, this goes for any module
Sent from my CPH2333 using Tapatalk
Not necessarily. If completing it is going to be very unprofitable, it may be better to cut your losses and work on other projects. On the other hand, as your technology gets better, and your developers get more skilled, and your profitable modules keep doing well, you may be able to come back to it at some point and finish it up, and in the meantime, it's still as playable as it always has been. I do think some kind of public list of implemented and non-implemented features and known bugs would probably help set people's expectations, not sure if that's something that exists for the Yak though. In general, you should do your research and use the amazingly handy trial system for new modules before buying them, and set your own expectations accordingly.
-
1
-
-
There's also the business question of how many dev hours to devote to a module that probably has only a very tiny fraction of the number of sales compared to the main modules. Companies don't stay in business for over 30 years in an extremely niche market by making poor decisions along those lines.
-
31 minutes ago, OldFlyer said:
Various RAZBAM devs have stated in the last few days that no, there will be no F15E update in the next patch.
IMO if you're going to post something like this, you should link to sources.
Edit: Such as this discord post.
-
3
-
-
I see a couple people in this thread recommended disabling/removing Tacview. On my system, Tacview was causing a big stutter about every second on my system, most noticeably in scenarios with lots of units. Disabling it in the Options menu completely fixed that stutter.
-
3 hours ago, DisplayName said:
it would be absolutely absurd, lazy, and insulting
Biting the hand that feeds you.
-
Mountains and desert are not mutually exclusive. You can find pictures of green plants in Afghanistan, especially after seasonal rain, but they're not really representative of the country on average.
-
12 minutes ago, Yurgon said:
Sounds like any campaign and any mission set in Afghanistan might have to be custom-built for either of the 3 regions, or exclude players who have not purchased all regions, or work around issues that arise from players seeing low detail content.
It does not sound like that to me. And if this is a major concern for you, and you anticipate flying a lot of missions outside the high-detail area of one of the smaller portions, then buy the whole map.
-
1
-
-
Amazing how people can be so confused by something so simple... If you want the whole map, buy the whole map. If you only care about one part of Afghanistan, just buy that part. If you just buy one part, you can still fly missions elsewhere, but the map will be in lower detail. If you don't want them to be in lower detail, buy the whole map. It used to be that you could only buy the whole map, and now you can still buy the whole map, but now since Afghanistan is huge and some people only care about some smaller part of it, they have the option to buy that smaller part, and yet are not completely locked out of playing on other parts. This isn't exactly rocket science here.
-
42
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, statrekmike said:
I was clarifying my original position because there seemed to be some confusion as to why someone might want access to parts of the map that cover specific bases and such.
For the record, I was never confused about why people would want access to the other part of Afghanistan, and particularly Bagram. My confusion was only about why people think the EA portion of the map is "small", when in fact it's essentially the same size as the high-detail area of the other maps.
-
2
-
-
11 minutes ago, statrekmike said:
The Persian Gulf map is set up in such a way that one can (with some minor bending of reality) create Coalition/NATO focused missions based off either an appropriately placed carrier or an airbase that such forces could actually work out of. The early access portion of the Afghanistan map allows for neither and is more suited for helicopter operations as a result. There is a specific subset of DCS players that won't care either way but considering the realism that Eagle Dynamics is going for with the modules, it makes sense to also want maps that allow those modules to operate in at least mostly realistic contexts.
The reality of what? Any NATO battles around the Strait of Hormuz are completely fictional (unless you're making an Operation Praying Mantis scenario or something I guess). So if you're happy to pretend that US forces operated out of certain bases in the region, I'm not sure why you couldn't be happy to pretend that US forces couldn't operate out of Kandahar, which is in the EA map area for Afghanistan. Granted that Bagram was the biggest base, but that should be coming later, and Kandahar is big enough to operate any kind of plane. Camp Bastion also has an 11k ft runway and operated at least USMC Harriers as well.
That said, operating fixed-wing planes over Afghanistan in a "mostly realistic context" is going to mainly be orbiting for hours waiting for coordinates to drop a JDAM, with periodic trips to the tanker to top up. In which case I welcome the helicopters. On the other hand, in either case, about 90% of the fancy avionics, weapons, and capabilities of all the planes during those operations were completely unused. You don't need terrain following radar, ECM pods, AMRAAMs, MMW Hellfires, JSOWs, SLAMs, or a bunch of other stuff to fight goat herders.
All of this is why I'm personally looking forward to Kola Peninsula more, or better yet, Central Germany, but that's another topic...
QuoteBoth Syria and the Persian Gulf maps are very well designed in this regard. They allow for quite a bit of versatility when it comes to realistic mission design. In contrast. The early access portion of the Afghanistan map will be similar to the Caucasus map in that it is basically impossible to make even a semi-convincing/plausible mission that isn't entirely devoted to either helicopters, Russian made aircraft, or perhaps L-39s.
Since the US did operate out of at least Kandahar and Camp Bastion, it seems like it should be extremely easy to make a plausible mission that isn't entirely devoted to helicopters. The Caucasus map is hard to make a plausible mission with US planes because it's right in Russia's back yard, and Georgia wasn't exactly a US ally at the time either.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:
I don't doubt it, but it is at least possible to set starting locations or have flights over areas of low detail. Especially when it comes to carrier operations.
Well, I have my doubts that it would sit well that a map called the Persian Gulf has less than half of the Persian Gulf actually present, I think we've seen evidence of that already.
Caucasus I can probably agree with, from a purely historical perspective, it's only really the 2008 Russo-Georgia War that's catered for (and even that's missing strategic targets, and AFAIK the map is based on 90s data).
Syria though? Not sure I can agree with that, it's low-detail areas are at least relatively usable compared to Caucasus. The western end of low detail is invaluable for carrier operations and IMO the eastern end is still fairly interesting, not to mention the sliver of Iraq, which includes a historically important group of airbases (even if the wider area isn't there and probably won't be until the world map is developed).
It is possible to start flights over low detail, I've just never seen it actually done in any of the MP servers I'm in, and I never do it myself in SP. And when it comes to carrier operations, Afghanistan is going to be a miserable map even if it included ocean, which it doesn't. The closest water to Afghanistan is about 250 nmi, and that's just to the shoreline. Carrier flights during the early GWOT were on the order of 700 nmi and up to 10 hours in the air, with who knows how many trips to the tanker. I'm personally here to blow stuff up and have fun, not numb my butt for a full shift while I fly over yet another brown desert (and I bet that goes for most of their customers), but either way, this map is not small.
As for Syria, you don't have to take my word for it, just open it up in the mission editor. The western-most point of Cyprus all the way to Deir ez-Zor in the far wastes of eastern Syria is 390 nmi. And Incirlik to King Abdullah II is 305 nmi. That's a hell of a lot of space to play around in, even when 1/3rd of it is ocean, which it won't be in Afghanistan.
-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:
You're comparing apples with oranges here - on the one hand you're comparing the total map area (at least at release) with just the area of the highly detailed area.
Everything of interest? Do you mean all of the usable areas? Because there's plenty of areas of interest on the PG map that isn't usable, despite them fitting within the total area of the map. Personally, it should've kept the Straits of Hormuz name it had initially, because for a Persain Gulf theatre, it's rather lacking.
That remark was referring to the historical context of the areas we're getting (GWOT) - not the size of the map (or rather, not directly).
So no, they wouldn't, because the historical context of Afghanistan doesn't apply to the PG map.
I love comparing apples and oranges. They're both fruit, they both grow on trees, they are both sold in grocery stores, you can squeeze them both for juice, etc....
The highly detailed area is the only area I ever fly in, and the only area I've ever seen missions online set in. If all the area outside the high-detail area on the PG map went away, I'm not sure I would even notice, although it's good for flavor. Same goes with Syria and Caucasus maps.
I agree that Strait of Hormuz would have been a better name for the PG map.
-
2
-
-
7 minutes ago, SteelPig said:
All I see is a yellow box, and this is roughly half of the size of PG.
Sorry, the yellow box. And that covers basically everything of interest in the PG map: all the airfields, and all the detailed terrain. And people are talking about only being able to fly helicopters on the Afghanistan map...
I bet they don't only fly helicopters on PG.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, SteelPig said:
I've noticed that Afghanistan Map will be rather small in EA release, roughly half of the PG Map. Is that cause uncertainties regarding new tech used?
Small? The yellow area shown in the Afghanistan Map screenshot is about 300 nmi by 400 nmi. That's almost exactly the same as the high-detail area in the Persian Gulf map, and the high-detail area of the Syria map is "only" about 420 nmi by 360 nmi, and a good portion of both of those is ocean. The high-detail area in the Caucasus map is smaller than that, and also about half ocean.
-
2
-
-
Also be sure to set the "Res. of Cockpit Displays" setting in the config menu to either 1024 or 1024 Every Frame. That can greatly affect the quality of what you see on MFDs and other screens in the game, as well as cockpit mirrors.
-
2 hours ago, krazyj said:
is there a way of changing trajectory when using FCR ? sometime targets above you wont be hit as the trajectory is to low.
As far as I know, you cannot manually set the trajectory for the radar Hellfires (AGM-114L). It should use a relatively high trajectory that arcs to the left or right if the target is far enough away, otherwise it should use a direct trajectory. I'm not sure what the range cutoff is for that. Either way though, there isn't an equivalent to something like the LOAL-HI trajectory with the laser Hellfires, where they climb way up immediately after launch to clear obstacles in front.
-
1
-
-
Are you shooting in LOAL or LOBL? The DIR/LO/HI trajectory setting only affects LOAL shots, not LOBL. If the missile can see the laser at the time of launch, it will be a LOBL shot. The missile constraints box will be large, instead of small like it is in LOAL mode.
-
2
-
-
28 minutes ago, Gunnar81 said:
I was just searching for this same info last night and what I came across was by default L Cntrl + V will change from dropping symmetrical pairs to dumping all bombs of the same type. The tricky part is there is no indication on the HUD or dash anywhere that you've made this setting change. As far as I know I don't believe the Flankers have the option to set the ripple timing at all.
I can't check at the moment, but I believe the HUD should show some dashed lines along the bottom representing the pylons, and should have a number above the dash for every pylon that will be released on the next pickle. In Salvo mode, it should show multiple numbers. IIRC the numbers only show up when the release conditions are met (e.g. CCIP pipper is hot, or trigger is held and waiting for CCRP). You can also toggle the Launch Permission Override to force those numbers to appear so you can check the salvo setting, and then turn Launch Permission Override back off.
AFAIK the Su-27/Su-33/J-11 doesn't have a way to set the ripple or interval.
-
An important factor in the startup that is not explicitly mentioned anywhere is that with a cold start, you need to wait 2.5 minutes from the time you turn on electrical power to the time you start moving in order for the navigation system to align. You can rearm and start engines during that time, but don't start taxiing until 2.5 minutes after turning on electrical power. I bound a HOTAS key to start the stopwatch in the cockpit, which I hit just after turning on the power.
This 2.5 minute alignment time is also needed in the Su-25A, but AFAIK is not needed in any of the other FC3 planes.
If you don't wait the full 2.5 minutes before starting to taxi, you'll notice that your compass (and HUD in the Su-25T) will start showing the wrong heading after doing some hard maneuvering.
-
1
-
CH-47F Pre-purchase
in Official Newsletters
Posted
This was always the case. Always, since the beginning, regardless of anything the companies involved say. This is why you should only buy modules if you are happy with their current state, and you should not buy them if you will only be happy if they eventually end up in some imagined future state, because it is always a possibility that that might not happen. I have personally been happy with every module I've purchased, because I buy them based on the features they have at the time they are released, and I manage my expectations so that I will not feel completely doomed and betrayed if they never get more patches. I expect to be quite happy with the CH-47 as well, and I'm looking forward to flying it.