jubuttib
最新回复 发布由 jubuttib
-
-
Hello, trying to contact the ASC devs via this forum just in case, the support email is taking a while to respond:
I bought the module via ASC's website some time ago, but didn't instantly redeem it (not like the module was available). Now I'm finding I can't seem to redeem it on ED's license management page.
Any ideas what could be going on?
-
Potentially you have a task selected, that's incompatible with the plane?
-
42 minutes ago, vladimusmaximus said:
Dumb question but where does one download this mod and any Vietnam maps/missions?
I don't think you can download the mod yet?
-
1
-
-
Would likely be a lot cheaper these days, with UE5, to make the map, but I have heard of even just individual point to point tracks in the tens of km range being six figures. Of course depends on how much in the way of custom assets is required, what sort of fidelity overall, how many people you're paying for and how much, etc. etc.
50x50 km map would be a LOT. Think of it this way: ArmA 3's Altis is afaik 270 km^2, which is about 16.5x16.5 km or so. GTA V map is 80 km^2. Largest Assassin's Creed map is from Odyssey, at 256 km^2, including a lot of sea. NFS Unbound is ~50 km^2. Forza Horizon 5 is 108 km^2.
50x50 km is 2 500 km^2.
Only games like Test Drive Unlimited, The Crew and FUEL have come close to that kind of thing, and all with big caveats.
I feel like the only reasonable way to do it on an achievable budget would be relying almost purely on procedural generation.-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Lace said:
The warhead is technically capable of penetrating 11" of steel armour
Gotta ask, which warhead are we talking about? The RPG-7 has been capable of launching a bunch of different warheads, and they've varied in effectiveness over time. There's at least the PG-7V, VM, VS, VS1, VL and VR that came out between the 60s to late 80s period, with penetrations ranging from 10 inches to over 20 inches of RHA.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, CommandT said:
Interesting. Just thinking out loud here so feel free to shoot me down but couldn't you technically load a slightly different version of the world depending on whether you are flying or driving? I mean both players could be in the same game world but the driver will have all the additional ground textures, perhaps some additional roadside objects, signs etc, with simplified textures for the weather/ sky, whilst the person flying will have a simplified version of the same terrain whilst retaining the basic shape of the road the car is driving on without additional ground features and obviously have the complicated weather/ clouds ect? The draw distance could also be loaded totally differently for ground vehicles since there is no need for buildings to be rendered 10km away. The only things that would remain identical between both are the physics and the general shape of the terrain (obviously only around the areas where drivers could drive - otherwise simplified ground mesh could be used in all other locations where only flying can take place). Would this technically not be possible?
The only real issue with this idea is that if the driver has more additional ground objects, how does the pilot interact with said objects - can he fly through them ect. But maybe there could be a solution here too? For example still having all the additional big items sticking out of the ground like light poles and signs with reduced LODs and textures whilst ignoring anything extra like branches on the side of the road ect?
I mean sure, in the end it's possible to even combine completely different game engines to work in the same "battlefield" by using a separate layer of software to act as communications between them. This is how militaries might run MCS, VBS and Steel Beasts Pro simultaneously in the same mission, each "game" takes care of its own thing, and communicates the necessary bits to the others so that they can render what they need from them.
But then you're also basically making two separate games, which isn't cheap either.
It's not impossible by any means, there are many ways you could go about it, but all of them need pretty big investments to get the kind of quality expected in each genre, and open-world or large point to point tracks can (depending on what exactly the surroundings are) be the most expensive kind of tracks to develop for a racing game (since it's not a loop, it tends to cover a larger area, need more terrain and asset work, etc. etc.).
-
1
-
-
For me the bigger problem is that we're missing anti-tank troops with actually effective weapons. Though an RPG-7, especially with the better warheads like the tandem ones, should still be pretty deadly when used right.
-
3
-
-
18 hours ago, Tanuki44 said:
The destructive power of DCS seems to be the issue.
Ex: I tested 3x AIM9 on CH47 or OH58, and they are hit but didn't crash...
Is this only an issue with AI targets? ...
I don't have the knowledge to say what is normal or not.
Helicopters can be notoriously hard to kill in DCS. A while back (last year?) I tested the Black Shark 3 against an AI Ka-27, and it took 3 IGLAs + a bunch of Vikhrs to actually down it...
-
1
-
-
On 10/15/2025 at 3:34 PM, CommandT said:
That's super cool. What we need is is a driiving sim and a flight sim all in the same "game" (sort of like war thunder but a sim)... make a rally/ racing/ driving sim game and a flight sim using the same platform. That could open up the door for a huge veriety of flying missions - rally/ race car chasing, police chases ect. If I could get the right people and money together I'd be pretty keen on building a sim like that! Though I suspect the resources involved to make it happen would be fairly astronomical
Yup, I actually work in racing sims, and it would indeed be very expensive. The graphical detail demands on low level and high level don't overlap too much (one is focused on what's next to the road, so a lot of stuff can be handwaved away because it's obscured, the other needs stuff to exist but usually how it looks from 1 meter off the deck isn't AS important, etc.), so you'd just need to have everything at a pretty high level, and at a big scale at the same time. Would be quite demanding on hardware too.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, CommandT said:
Oh it appears I may have been almost a little bit too tame with my chasing! Need to get those close ups on the next one!
You watched Top Gear? Remember that episode where Clarkson took a white Mitsubishi Evo against the British army? Ben Collins, who did the actual driving for the video, talks about shooting that in his book. The heli pilot they had was Q, aka Quentin Smith, and Collins just remembers being absolute gobsmacked by Q flying in a Robinson, down a forest road, between the trees, backwards, at over 100 km/h, filming the Evo.
EDIT: Some more inspiration.
-
4
-
-
Hah, awesome job man, really fun video. Those rally helicopter pilots are nutjobs.
-
4
-
-
5 hours ago, Jenrick said:
Per the manual:
So, for the moment, press trim release to activate the microswitches. Hopefully at some point they'll add a button/keybind like in the Mi-24 to operate the microswitches separately from the trim release.
Hmmm, interesting, kinda wondering how that plays together with unsprung pedals, where pedal trim must be off.
-
Heya Kinkku (was surprised to hear you weren't speaking rally English when I heard you in an interview...), just thought I'd ask about a thing mentioned in the UH-60L manual.
In the manual it is said "This aircraft was fitted with FLIR and terrain radar which are not possible to implement in a DCS mod." This got me curious, because at one point the guy making the A-29 Super Tucano mod did manage to finagle a working FLIR into a DCS community mod. Has the way this was achieved been patched out since then?
-
45 minutes ago, flanker0ne said:
ATM I have the AVA BASE with the Curved Extension.
I wonder if with the installation of the after market Damper/Friction, alongside a very low spring setting to compensate for stick weight. The option "Stick without spring" can be a real solutionWould be interesting to hear from your experiences if you go that way. Last I heard the aftermarket damper wasn't very strong, or adjustable, so I kind of doubt it's strong enough to get a deadstick setup. But I do not know.
-
On 8/25/2025 at 12:37 AM, Raffi75 said:
First of all, I don't know why you're looking into my private life, secondly, this isn't the place for such a discussion, thirdly... finish it yourself.
I wasn't looking into your private life, I was just surprised to see someone put work above life in their list of priorities. And I did say in the first message that "I guess this is kinda neither here nor there in this thread tho..."
So yeah we can end it there.
-
On 8/19/2025 at 8:08 PM, Raffi75 said:
Either you don't read carefully or I have no idea what you're talking about.
Wasn't quite as thorough as I should have been properly: What I was saying is that you put work above life in your list (and below family), so I was wondering if in a hypothetical case where your work was ruining your life, would you prioritize work over life? Since work > life in your list.
I wasn't implying that work is actively ruining your life or anything, just that if it were, would it still be priotitized.
-
On 8/16/2025 at 9:53 PM, Raffi75 said:
family first, work, life, then everything else.
Wait, so if work is ruining your life, you'll prioritize work?
I guess this is kinda neither here nor there in this thread tho...
-
1
-
-
On 6/9/2025 at 7:38 PM, GrayFox23 said:
(especially since DCS was never built to simulate those kinds of flight physics)
FWIW, when using and external flight model, what DCS is built to simulate kinda stops mattering (based on what ASC head said, and other discussions about EFMs).
-
On 6/8/2025 at 4:50 PM, Kurdes said:
LS-6-100 is a laser-jdam which i used for the mam-c. The sdb39 is purely gps guided, so the LS-6-500.
OK, second question: Why the biggest 500 kg one instead of the 250 kg one?
Regardless, fun stuff, thanks!
EDIT: And there is the GBU-39B/B, which has the option for terminal laser guidance...
-
On 6/1/2025 at 4:03 AM, Kurdes said:
- SDB-39 - GPS guided bomb (replaces LS-6-500)
That's an odd change, why not the LS-6-100, which is more of an SDB equivalent?
-
On 4/3/2025 at 6:52 PM, NineLine said:
If they want to access the SDK they need to apply for a 3rd Party status, we cannot give away the SDK, sorry.
I mean, technically you can, it's your SDK, you could make it opensource if you wanted to (unless part of it is using licensed closed source stuff I guess, or something similar).
But of course you don't want to, which is entirely understandable.
-
3
-
-
On 3/21/2025 at 4:37 AM, Raffi75 said:
That would also be great. Mi-6 would be enough. Although I've heard somewhere that Mi-8 is fully up to the task and more Russian transport helicopters are not needed.
The Mi-8 is great, but it's smål. Tiny. Need big ups! Mi-26 is mandatory.
Ka-27/29 is indeed just a perversion of mine, I like coax-contrarotating helis.
On 3/21/2025 at 5:42 AM, OneEyeRoss said:it IS Easter Bunny time!)
In a month! I get Christmas, but do people take such a big false start for Easter?
-
On 3/8/2025 at 2:33 AM, Raffi75 said:
Personally, I would like it to be a non-US helicopter. It would be nice to see one of the European helicopters.
Some of the European ones would be fun, though I have this perverse desire to get the Ka-27 (or 29)... Or of course the Mi-26, because we need big lift.
-
On 1/17/2025 at 6:18 PM, The_Fragger said:
Yeah. But be sure that we are heading for a release in 2025
In theory I love this, but I'm not sure I've seen a single time a dev (1st or 3rd party) that has said "year 20XX" and it's actually been that year for release... I really hope you didn't just jinx it.
Regardless, I am really looking forward to the Bo-105!
-
1
-
Can't redeem the module?
在 DCS: C-130J
发布于 · 本帖最后于，由jubuttib编辑
What do you mean by "option"? The link on asc's site just takes me to a page where I can put in a serial number, but when I try it with the one they sent me via email it says "serial number not found".
Edit: Managed to find the correct place manually, thanks for the hint!