Jump to content

SlipHavoc

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    158

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by SlipHavoc

  1. SlipHavoc
    ...And I guess now we can see why it takes a long time to develop a feature like this, even though some people maybe think it should be easy. "Just make it so you can select whatever plane you want to start in!" ha ha. Then you have to have waypoints and aircraft settings specific to each different type of airplane, weapon loadouts, datalink groups, the possibility that the airfield could change sides, the ability to block players from spawning, interacting with areas of the ground that are blocked by other planes (that aren't necessarily part of the dynamic spawn system), dealing with multicrew, and then coordinating all of this across multiplayer servers with dozens of players. Props to ED for taking this on! So many things in software look relatively simple from the front end, but the devil is in the details...
  2. SlipHavoc
    Does the dynamic spawn system work in single player? I tried making a mission in the editor, set up one airfield as Red and another as Blue, set both to use dynamic spawns as shown in the OP, but I only see the dynamic spawn interface when starting the mission as a multiplayer server, not in single player mode. If it doesn't currently work in single player, it seems like that would be a great feature to add, as there are several large missions (such a Foothold or Pretense) that can be played in single player mode and would benefit from having the dynamic slots.
  3. SlipHavoc
    My personal guess is that the "classified means" was the commercial off-the-shelf fuzzbusters mentioned in the next quote. The word "classified" often implies high-tech sophistication, but in this case it could easily just be that if it became known that we were using a COTS device to pick up enemy radars, the enemy could simply buy one of their own and test their own radars against it, and maybe find some easy way to make their radars not trigger the device, and/or determine the range and sensitivity of the device and therefore make accurate guesses as to whether our planes had picked up their signal at a given distance, etc.
  4. SlipHavoc
    I couldn't remember where I heard that so I did some searching. I couldn't really find a single source outright stating that the F-14's RWR wasn't suitable for overland operations, but I found several references to the RWR being unreliable, ineffective, and hard to reprogram. Here are some sources and relevant quotes: More discussion in this old DCS forums thread as well: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/117631-f-14-rwr-question/ And on the other hand, I also found many references to the F-14 doing TARPS recon missions over land during Desert Storm, as well as apparently doing fighter escort missions inland. I'm not sure if those might have been mainly the planes with systems that had been reprogrammed successfully, or if there were other considerations.
  5. SlipHavoc
    Something that was mentioned in the recent dev blog for "the flight sim named after a WW2 Soviet attack aircraft that is now working on a Korean War sim", is that since the war, South Korea has significantly altered its coastline through land fills, and so a modern map cannot be used even as an accurate outline or for some terrain elevation data. That's something I had never even thought about; it's not just the types of buildings that have changed but the actual outline and topography of the country, especially around the cities.
  6. SlipHavoc
    Nope, I meant the Adriatic specifically, as that's the only way a carrier is going to get close enough to affect events in *central* Europe. The Med will also be important, but that's a different theater. As far as Red Storm Rising goes, I think he probably got more right than he got wrong. People sometimes dismiss RSR out of hand, and often at the same time hold up Red Army as the most realistic, but that is a sophomoric stance for several reasons. Someone mentioned the Dance of The Vampires chapter (although maybe deleted or edited the post, as it doesn't seem to be visible now), and here's an interesting article on the details of the wargaming sessions that were used to write that chapter. The images are unfortunately missing now, but the article is still worth a read.
  7. SlipHavoc
    I note that it says "NATO Naval Forces", which are not just the carriers. Also, the only one of those that directly affects "central" Europe is the Baltic Approaches, which at least according to Wikipedia, would have been mostly the German and Danish navies and air forces, plus some UK ground forces.
  8. SlipHavoc
    I don't have any documentation on this, but I can't imagine carriers or carrier aircraft being used anywhere around the central Germany/Europe theater in a WW3 scenario. I think in order to get close enough to do strikes, the carriers would have to be in the North Sea or the Adriatic, both of which are pretty small for carrier ops when your opponent has Mach 4 antiship missiles. Also IIRC the F-14's RWR wasn't suitable for overland operations until the very late 1980s or early 1990s so that removes the main air-to-air platform. The carriers are going to have plenty to keep them busy up north, assuming Norway gets invaded, plus protecting Iceland and the GIUK gap, and keeping the Backfires away from the convoys.
  9. SlipHavoc
    The problem is that whenever any information is released, it's picked over by bored nerds and armchair programmers and used as ammunition for further criticisms. Pick any reason they could give for the patch to have been delayed, and you could come up with some reason why that shouldn't have been a problem, or why they shouldn't have had that error in the first place, or why they should have done something different instead, etc. Short of actually sitting down with one of the programmers and having them walk you through the code line by line (which you're not going to understand anyway), at some point you are simply going to have to accept them at their word that there has been a delay, and the exact reason doesn't matter, because you knowing the reason isn't going to get the patch released any faster.
  10. SlipHavoc
    Years ago I used to play another game (not a flight sim, but a pretty detailed wargame) where the culture on their forums was to respond to every question about when something was going to be released with, "When it's ready!" That was the response from both the company itself, and the people on the forums. I deeply wish that were the culture here as well. It took a little getting used to, but I think it removes a lot of the pressure on the devs when they have a public timeline, and it removes an easy way for the chronically unhappy people to hang a mistake over their heads until the end of time. It doesn't mean the company can't have their own internal expected release dates, and perhaps blow past them as well, but airing that date publicly really seems to have no upside.
  11. SlipHavoc
    Oversharing on plans has certainly backfired in the past; why would it be time to try again? Do we think that the software has gotten less complex and therefore any announced plan will be easier to fulfill? The community has already mismanaged its own expectations many times in the past, even the recent past, and I think it's very likely to mismanage them again in the future. Just a couple weeks ago, an announced release date was pushed back, and some people seemed to completely lose their minds. The last thing a software development team needs is a bunch of armchair programmers crawling over their Jira board, second-guessing every decision and line of code.
  12. SlipHavoc
    This is marketing-speak, basically advertising. The term of art for phrasing like "the best imaginable" or "world famous" or "perfectly suited for your needs" is "puffery". With a bit of thought, a reasonable person will know that it's not "the best *imaginable*", nor will it ever be, since imagination outpaces reality.
  13. SlipHavoc
    Speaking for myself, I always find it quite frustrating when a long and seemingly comprehensive post like that does not contain so much as one single link to a source or other document. I've seen too many incorrect posts here to take people at their word. The post referenced above on the AIM-120 is a distinct contrast, with many links and even screenshots directly embedded in the post. With that kind of data, at least we can all be talking about the same things, but if it's just someone saying they talked to some "community members" (not even specifically SMEs, although the same issue would apply), we have no way to verify anything.
  14. SlipHavoc
    I've always been very puzzled as to why anyone would marry a person like that, or stay married once they realized that was going on.
  15. SlipHavoc
    This feels like an is/ought thing. Maybe people *shouldn't* judge a company by their fans, but I think they *do*. And until they *don't*, which may mean never, it might be good if the fans of both companies got a lot more bland.
  16. SlipHavoc
    Thanks, I will not post any more about this subject. I just hope that this standard will also be applied to the incredibly repetitive posts speculating about the situation that appeared in the other thread. I'll leave it at that.
  17. SlipHavoc
    This is my feedback. And indeed we can already see that nothing constructive has come from the comments on topics other than whether this thread should be locked, as I predicted earlier, and as was the case in the 90+ pages in the previous thread, which is why my feedback is that this thread should be locked.
  18. SlipHavoc
    Nope, this thread should be locked.
  19. SlipHavoc
    Of course I realize all that. That doesn't change my opinion that this thread should be locked.
  20. SlipHavoc
    Yes, you may assume that.
  21. SlipHavoc
    Unfortunately, that's not going to work. The thread should be locked so no one can comment.
  22. SlipHavoc
    Everyone should be allowed to read it, no one should be allowed to comment, including me and you.
  23. SlipHavoc
    Zero useful information has or will come from comments by anyone other than ED or Razbam employees. All threads like this do is allow a place for people to work themselves into a strange kind of mental illness about a situation they have virtually no knowledge about or control over. Therefore I also agree that this thread should be locked.
  24. SlipHavoc
    Shrikes fired from station 1 fly straight in line with the airplane, but Shrikes fired from stations 2, 8, and 9 launch at a significant downward angle. This is not just a factor of which one is launched first; it seems to always be station 1 that flies straight. Replay attached. F-4E Shrike flight path test.trk
  25. SlipHavoc
    This has always been my stance, and it's why I have purchased many ED modules. I also trace my gaming and flight sim history back several decades (my first flight sim was Yeager's Advanced Flight Trainer, and my first combat sim was Microprose's F-19), and in comparison to all the earlier games, DCS (and other current flight sims such as Il-2 and MSFS2020) is vastly superior in almost every way. DCS is not as good, and never will be as good, as the fantasy flight sim that exists only in my own boundless imagination, but I've found it's better for my own life satisfaction if I look down and am grateful to be up, than to look up and be resentful that I'm down. You mention Marques's review of the Rabbit, and I agree, that was a great summary of the problem. But funny enough, the video that I personally thought of was the intro to JJ McCullough's recent video, in which he said: And even though the video is about consumerism and capitalism rather than gaming, my first thought when I heard that was of hoggit and other subreddits which are awash in exactly the kind of endless toxic griping he's referring to. Fortunately, I am starting to see at least a little pushback, but there's a long way to go and gratitude seems to be in short supply.
×
×
  • Create New...