Jump to content

shagrat

ED Translators
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    13333

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

 Content Type 

Everything posted by shagrat

  1. shagrat
    If you reference MSFS, there is no damage modeling at all. Whenever something breaks the simulation stops, you get a black screen with a message "what" you broke/how, e.g. "overspeed airframe" etc. and then you exit or restart. It hasn't changed since the first MS Flightsimulator.
  2. shagrat
    They have. Actually any contact with an object while airborne results in a black screen with a message that you made a mistake and damaged the plane. Then you can restart.
  3. shagrat
    Ok, that's different than "I hit a tree top with my wingtip". If the issue is collision boxes extending beyond the actual tree model, that's actually something that should be fixed. When I last in the Huey close to some larger trees on the Syria map I had the impression the collision model isn't extending to the top, but stops a bit below, which is a good compromise, in my view. Still the issue with the exploding plane is most likely related to the more generic damage model of the FC3 planes if I am not mistaken. The helicopters do not explode when touching a tree, ripp of stuff, they break the blades, etc. but don't explode unless you smash into the trees at hi speed.
  4. shagrat
    I actually fly most of the modules some more frequent, others once in a while. The FC3 line of planes (Su-27, MiG-29, F-15C, A-10A, Su-25) are remnants of the original LockOn and Flaming Cliffs upgrades. They have been updated and improved quite a bit by Eagle Dynamics over the past two decades, but still they are "entry level" with not only "clickable cockpit" missing, but a few other simplifications. They got a new FM lately that is vastly better, than the old SimplfiedFM, but is about flight performance, internal systems or structural damage modeling, etc. There is a reason, ED makes a distinction between FC3/Entry Level and DCS full fidelity modules. I may be repeating myself, but the solution to the problem is not "make trees more forgiving", but "do not fly into trees, as it is a bad idea in the first place", because even if one out of ten times you could survive, it is not something that a pilot would do more than once.
  5. shagrat
    Pointing out the reality, no more, no less. Just have a look at the damage model in MSFS. They do this for a reason, as there is a lot(!) to balance performance wise. The first iteration of introducing collision detection to trees in DCS brought any PC to a grinding halt (one digit FPS slideshow). There is a lot more to it than just changing a few variables. The thing is "Ye shall not fly through trees, neither tall tree tops, nor small bushes" anything ingested into a turbine IRL is a deadly risk to lose the engine(s). Real life fighter pilots tend to avoid trees at all costs...
  6. shagrat
    Yep, simplified damage model. That's why FC3 planes aren't advertised with detailed system modeling. At certain speeds the damage threshold is basically 100% and boom. Same if you land on grass with too much speed or sink rate. As for much as real l life goes, if you strike a tree in a fighter jet because you fly at tree top level, that's usually the last time you were allowed in a fighter jet... Just saying.
  7. shagrat
    What plane did you fly?
  8. shagrat
    What does that have to do with the fact, that you flew a plane ( what plane? What map? A track maybe? ), likely an FC3 simple damage modeling, with simplified system simulation into a tree in DCS? Again, just switch to any combat simulation with a better tree damage model. Only problem is, there is none, that I know of. Good point, just put a request in the wishlist thread. Will get looked at and prioritized if feasible.
  9. shagrat
    As I said above: FC3 simplified damage model. Learn to not fly into trees or for that matter avoid striking any object in a fighter jet or switch to a flight simulation with a more detailed tree simulation... This is something for the wishlist, not "a bug". It is called a limitation of the current simulation engine.
  10. shagrat
    My guess would be it's the FC3 damage modeling. Helis for example shred the blade tips on contact. FC3 still uses a more simplified damage model and from what I remember, at above certain speed, contact with a map object results in a big badaboom. Need to try if it is the same for full fidelity modules. Also DCS trees are basically a geometric collision shape that doesn't flex, as a real tree. Considering the number of trees on most maps I guess it's a limitation we may have to accept for some time to come. Anyway, avoiding trees is a good habit for a pilot... maybe some pine cones ingested into the turbine caused the explosion.
  11. shagrat
    Ich hoffe noch, dass Anubis und Co. einen Deal mit einem der 3rd Parties aushandeln oder selber die C-130 Hercules als DCS Modul machen. Das Mod ist einfach nur genial und wäre mit dem neuen, funktionierenden Multicrew Code in DCS eine unglaubliche Bereicherung. Helis würde mich ne V-22 "Osprey", die AH-1Z "Viper" oder die UH-1N "Venom" reizen... Oder ne CH-46E/F "Sea Knight" oder CH-47F "Chinook", oder ne CH-53E "Super Stalion". Jets weiß ich jetzt schon kaum, was ich zuerst fliegen soll, aber ein Tornado IDS oder ne Phantom (F-4G oder F-4N) würde ich nehmen. Seien wir doch ehrlich, am Ende ist irgendwie alles geil, nur manches ist noch geiler.
  12. shagrat
    /Ironie/ Weil das so "langweilige" Dinger sind war "Jane's A.T.F." damals auch so ein Riesenflop den keiner gekauft hat. Waren ja nur so schräge Experimente simuliert. /Ironie/
  13. shagrat
    I beg to differ. Actually most serious flight simmers flying DCS want a campaign engine, a better AI to provide a living, breathing conflict in which to participate. Another big group plays single player and enjoys story driven campaigns and a lot of people with something commonly known as "life" often comprised of things like "work" and/or family prefer 1-2 hours mission that they can squeeze into their tight schedule. The idea of a "save game option" could definitely help here, but not that much for multiplayer. That's where a dynamic campaign engine would really shine.
  14. shagrat
    My wife would love to get a pony... Ok, seriously. Have you taken a look at MSFS lately? Are you remotely aware, of the infrastructure involved to provide a world map? It is a giant Azure Cloud stack in the background. That's possible, because MS owns(!) one of the worlds larger Cloud infrastructures, as a prerequisite. What I personally would hope for, is to enable a transition of some sorts, between the current maps with "blank areas" filling in low detail in between the maps. Even that would have interesting implications for the performance and minimum specifications, as you need to have all involved map areas in memory, as it would be possible to have actions commencing on more than one map at the same time... A simple "If Building A on Persian Gulf Map is destroyed then spawn Group B on Batumi (Caucasus Map)" would be interesting, to say the least... and that is a more simple issue.
  15. shagrat
    There is a "triggered action" tab for the group. Where the Loadout, Radios etc. is set. Looks like a bit like # . Make sure you select "Nothing" as the mission task. Certain actions/tasks are not available when a certain mission task is set. That is likely why it is not showing as triggered action for you.
  16. shagrat
    It should check for updates automatically on launch of DCS. Unless you have Steam, then it can be different, but I am no Steam user. You need a working internet connection.
  17. shagrat
    Afghanistan is actually very diverse from the Helmand river area, the Hindukusch Mountains, lush valleys of Paktika, Paktia, Khowst, Konar,Lowgar, Nurestan and Nangarhar provinces, to the northern provinces that vary from harsh steppe to mountainous terrain and agricultural areas. While a Vietnam map, may be "interesting" with the UH-1H in mind, and maybe the F-5E, there isn't much to do with 90% of the current modules,apart from heavy fictional scenarios... I prefer a more Simulation scenarios of actual conflicts. As DCS modules usually don't focus much on "what map is available", but more on "what details, blueprints and SME knowledge is available" and declassified, for me it is more sensible to focus on what aircraft we have, than what we would like to have. Thua my preference on any real life scenario, I can get. Basically I think, we got the "wrong" desert maps...
  18. shagrat
    Ah, ok. So the simple answer is, "You personally would prefer a Vietnam map, over more modern Afghanistan or Iraq/Kuwait theaters". That's ok. And likely reflected in the poll.
  19. shagrat
    Can you name any recent ( last 20 years) combat theater, that is non-sand (if you consider Syria as a desert map)? The only one I can think of is the Balkans and Crimea/Ukraine... at least if we want a halfway realistic use of what modules we have in DCS.
  20. shagrat
    Let me guess, you fly A/A in PvP, mostly?
  21. shagrat
    Well, actually we have two desert maps. Nevada and Iran. Syria is quite diverse and interesting. The thing is even an "Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia" Desert Map would be a great asset to SIMulate real world conflicts, instead of fiction. Currently Syria is the most interesting map to recreate real world scenarios. With the eastern Aircraft and Mi-24 and Mi-28 the late Syrian civil war/insurgency and of course Lebanon/Israel/Syria.
  22. shagrat
    That is actually a pretty cool idea... Though considering the effort is mostly in the detailed area like towns, airports and creating the basic texture blends and stuff, the "size" may not most time consuming factor, once the assets, vegetation and terrain textures are done. So the savings on a small map may not be that much compared to a larger map. The performance and optimization step though, could benefit from smaller maps.
  23. shagrat
    As Yurgon said you can do a complete cold start. The important part is to have host enter first, then the client. Now establish the sync before(!) touching any buttons other than the CDU display for syncing. When the sync is established correctly (both see the sync is ok), you can go through the checklist provided on the kneeboard and do the complete cold start, at least that worked for us.
  24. shagrat
    The AI, then the AI and the AI and after that the AI !!! If you think about it, basically 90% of the simulation going on around us in a mission is relying on the AI to simulate a living breathing world... Just imagine what mission designers could create for all of us, if SAMs were intelligent, Fleets would use only one radar and not compromise all asset positions. If vehicles could navigate around and through villages and tree lines, if infantry could move appropriate for the terrain keep cohesion on squad level when finding their way through a village and not run around like headless chicken. If AI would react to situations by retreating when in danger of getting overrun, regroup and re-attack based on a given objective... Or simply a tanker that doesn't try to kill you when on the basket and refueling.
  25. shagrat
    Keep in mind the NEZ is not the overall range. The interesting thing about the Meteor is that its RamJet engine can "burn" (generate thrust) far longer than a "classic" fuel motor, but(!) this is massively influenced by air density. And as Qui Gon already mentioned, the AMRAAM family of missiles has evolved quite a bit. The most current AIM-120D should be similar or may even exceed the Meteor performance. The AIM-120C alone has undergone multiple revisions and upgrades over the years.
×
×
  • Create New...