Fromthedeep
最新回复 发布由 Fromthedeep
-
-
20 minutes ago, Zabuzard said:
Try clicking elsewhere on the page. For performance reasons the tool waits until you are done changing values before it asks DCS to do the heavy computations.
So you wont see the solutuon updating while you use the up/down arrows on the input fields
I tried it both using active pause and with active pause off. Any kind of lag or delay is not a problem, it changes nicely once it's above a given value that triggers the change. It gives the same mil value through 421 and 481 KTAS, 71 mils. At 420 it gives 89 mils and at 482 it gives 53 mils. It's not nearly as granular as it's supposed to be.
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, Naquaii said:
Doing it between player aircraft isn't hard. It would require work for the AI ofc for them to present correct responses and react correctly to the responses their radars get. But it's not rocket science and there's plenty of data available on how they work to model it.
The problem is that they would need detailed data on how the interrogator is programmed for every single module, which is not necessarily something that is easily available. Just because Razbam has data on how the F-15E's interrogator is set up doesn't necessarily mean that ED also has the same data for the Hornet, for example. It's all aircraft specific stuff, which depending on documentation may not be available.
-
Considering that a realistic IFF implementation would affect all aircraft and substantially increase the workload for all developers, as well as skirting around very sensitive issues, I highly doubt ED will ever touch it.
-
40 minutes ago, unknown said:
Do you have a link for that statement? As i understood it back in the day (no native english speaker here so i could possibly misunderstood it) they knew what the problem was, how they could fix it but had to delay the EA release because they had no time left for actually coding the new HBUI again and test it.
Their 'delays and silence' update stated that a release in March wasn't impossible at all, they just decided against it in to prevent any new issues that would crop up making the delay necessary and to give themselves more time for final polishing.
QuoteWe are aiming for an April release, and are working with our partners to get the Phantom to you all as soon as possible. While we have a lot of confidence in our product and we believe very strongly that we would be able to still ship inside of March, we would be risking that any minor miss-step or development element going awry will cause the timeline to slip.
If the HBUI hadn't already been fixed and solved by then, a March release would have been totally impossible and nonsensical to even think about. They also mentioned that some parts of the team were against the delay, again, the delay would have been absolutely mandatory and not even up for discussion if the HBUI issue hadn't been fixed, it is a game breaking issue after all.
Quoteand even though the team was somewhat split on actually being for or against extending our timeline, we think that even making this late decision, frustrating as it is, is for the best.
-
1
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Tiger-II said:
The problem with the current delay is *what* and *how* it caused the delay. I've already said my piece about their technical choices, but the fact is they developed this thing for years already, Jester 2.0 is supposed to be running on this new tech for years already, but only 3 months ago this technology suddenly, unexpectedly, catastrophically, and unfixably blew up on a tester computer after years of development and the teaser demo flight back in December, causing the 5+ month delay while they try and fix it?
I just simply do not believe it.
They never actually detailed the way and the why of the failure. All they said was some weird "it was a combo of graphics card and driver version". Well...that applies to all software. How to say something while saying nothing.
What hardware and software combo? GeForce 960 with 10-year-old drivers? Kick that junk to the kerb already!
What makes it also really weird is that according to them, the HBUI bug was already fixed by the time they delayed it. So it's either being held back for some reason, there was feature creep or something else is also broken.
I just don't understand why they would commit to another hard date.
-
1
-
-
38 minutes ago, Q3ark said:
If these delays annoy you so much don’t pre order software that doesn’t have a set release date. Nobody forced you into anything and nobody has stolen your money. If you’re so upset then ask for a refund and forget all about it.
There was. First it was winter 2023/24, then it was March 31 and now it's May 31. Whether or not it's actually going to get released by then is not known yet.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Kang said:
There is a certain low-key kind of hype going on as of late, and it's kind of nice.
I'm sure that once the release is actually close, we'll see a more dedicated hype train.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Jacknemo said:
Based on track record, May 31 is highly optimistic. They'll find another show stopper bug and back the release off another couple of months. This may be an endless loop.
This all could have been avoided if they haven't committed to any release period in public. Maybe it won't be ready for another 3-4 months, which would be perfectly okay but there's no use in stating a release window in the first place. Just say that it will come out when it's done and that's about it.
-
2
-
-
On 4/13/2024 at 5:25 PM, Q3ark said:
From their press release about the delay Heatblur are aiming for May, if they don’t hit anymore problems I don’t see why we should be pessimistic about them getting it out by then.
The current release date is 'no later than May 31' and it would make sense for them to take advantage of all the extra time, so it's probably going to be closer to June. And of course we don't know if they hit any more problems, if they do that could cause another several months of delays.
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, dcsil2pilot said:
A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad
Why woupd a rushed game be forever bad? They can just update it, the F-16 was rushed but it's not a bad module today.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, Hiob said:
the end, the key aspect of pre-ordering is: It's voluntary. If you don't like the inherent risk - don't do it.
The guy I was answering was specifically arguing how people should support and encourage developers and they should pre order.
My point is that they aren't owed any pre orders, they aren't owed support and encouragement and no one is morally obligated the fund anyone's financially risky projects. For every successful Kickstarter and community funded projects there are hundreds that failed. No one is obligated to make sure that the developers get to achieve their goals, the responsibility is theirs and not the customers'.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, markturner1960 said:
paying a pre order is a show of support for the developers, and if we did not support and encourage them, we would not have the excellent modules we all love to fly so much.
The developers should be 'supported and encouraged' by friends and family, not customers who are buying a product. If what your implying is correct and modules are impossible to make without being funded in advance by customers then it stops being a viable business venture and it deserves to fail. They aren't doing us any favors. No company is owed any gratitude, they get their money, make their profit and the customer hopefully gets the product that they want. If that's not possible then don't make modules. So what if I don't get to play pretend fighter pilot in a video game? Who cares?
-
8 hours ago, Ikaros said:
Anybody think the F-4 might come out tomorrow?
Iron Mike and Bignewy both confirmed that it's not coming out in February.
-
2
-
-
15 hours ago, JayTSX said:
too advanced to give it to 3rd parties..
Too advanced in what manner?
-
2 hours ago, freehand said:
I don't think they are much interested in taking a game seriously and certainly do not care what peoples opinions are on forums.
What's also likely is that they don't really want to use their actual skills, game plans and tactics to max perform the aircraft for obvious reasons.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, SOLIDKREATE said:
Alot, I know, because I have it.
That's great, but just because you can have it as a US citizen doesn't automatically mean that ED can also use it.
-
1
-
-
I really hope we're getting a proper air to air focused USAF/Guard variant with (for its time) eye watering performance. An upgraded, overweight ground attack variant of an iconic fighter would be missing the mark for me.
-
4
-
-
What should be a good rule of thumb for a generic AG loadout?
-
6 hours ago, Bosun said:
So, ah, I guess I'll send you my Venmo, there bud?Nothing indicates that the release is within a year. A few pictures tell us virtually nothing about the state of the entire module. For all we know, HB may intend to release it late 2024.
-
2 hours ago, MAXsenna said:
No one claimed otherwise did they?
Then it's a completely pointless thing to say since my initial statement was that ED won't make Century Series jets. The fact that 3rd party devs will does not refute my statement in any way.
-
On 7/21/2023 at 8:59 PM, Rick Mave said:
What are you actually talking about. That's definitely not the case ^^
Who knows? Two companies have basically given up on actually developing the EFA for DCS (Truegrit does not do any coding for the upcoming module), I'm still skeptical that it will be released at all.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, SharpeXB said:
Well we are getting an F-100
Not from ED.
-
ED already said in the past that they are not interested in the Century Series.
-
5 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:
I see, CAS is a three-axis control augmentation system, not really an autotrim.Correct, the autotrim is the function of the PTC which is part of the hydromechanical control system.
-
1
-
DCS CH47 Discussion thread
在 DCS: CH-47F
发布于
How does the 'force trim' or the cyclic magnetic brake system work on the real aircraft?