Minhal
-
Posts
193 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Minhal
-
-
14 hours ago, twistking said:
i'm not on open beta, so haven't tested for myself, but i am also sceptical about that change.
i do have another idea to make damage states a bit more interesting and the battlefield a bit more visually diverse without redoing the damage model:
If a unit gets hit with overkill, meaning it gets significantly more damage than it has hitpoint left, it will always explode and burn as we are used to.
If a unit gets killed without overkill, there is a chance (dice roll) that it won't explode and burn, but just smoke. still counting as a kill, but without the explosion, fire and turning into a wreck.
If a unit gets a siginificant hit (above certain damage output level) and thereby has it's own hitpoint reduced to below a certain threshold (30% oder 50% ?) there is an additional diceroll for a functional kill, meanign the unit gets killed, but no explosion occurs and no smoke occurs.Maybe this would be good soulution to spice up the very barebone hitpoint system?!
Really like that idea. Maybe post it again in a separate wishlist thread? Since it probably drowns here. Relatively easy to implement and gives some nice variety in effect without damage model overhaul.
-
Not everybody knows how to set the parking brake. Some think it is not important. So it is not necessary.
-
1 hour ago, Glowingheat said:
Yesterday my Viggen was hit while on the ground. So I repaired, which completed, but when I tried to re-arm with a Modern Anti Ship, they kept appearing then falling off the plane. I'm relatively new to multiplayer DCS, so I couldn't say that it might perhaps have been a problem with the airfield I landed at, but I would've thought that if the airfield didn't have any weapons available, they wouldn't even appear let along appear then fall off the plane.
Really sounds like the emergency weapon jettision was pressed. Do you have that put on any switch or button on your stick or throttle? Maybe double check in the controls (as DCS likes to auto-bind silly stuff
)
-
1 hour ago, MadKreator said:
Idk, I’m kind of on the opposite side of this. I think it’s kind of a neat feature. Sure its not realistic in every scenario. If you blast rounds from your a-10 through the back of a truck full of infantry or AAA in the bed, and somehow don’t hit the fuel tank, but take out the rear end, the truck is immobilized, combat ineffective, but how are you supposed to know that from the cockpit on your next pass?At least the light smoke gives you an indication that you actually hit your target
if there was nothing at all then how many passes are you going to take over the same thing until you hope you destroyed it? Sure it may not be like actual real life, but DCS is still a “game/SIM/ for entertainment”. There has to be some give and take imo. It beats the hell out of having a health bar over ever enemy ( that is 100% NOT okay 
). Maybe the practicality isn’t really there, it may not really be that useful, but what’s wrong with them trying something new. Its no more ridiculous that having a slider to adjust the density of chimney smoke coming from buildings. I can’t say its a feature I’ve ever thought up personally, or something I’ve ever had an issue with( state of damage). I’ve spent much more time trying to differentiate destroyed targets and full hot targets through a TGP( that imo needs some severe attention). Not trying to argue against anyone’s point if view just sharing my own initial thoughts on it.
Hey i am generally with you as long as it is optional and the mission designer (server owner) can decide if it is wanted or not. This really is my main point. Do i think the dev time could have been spent better? Yes. Was it a lot of dev time. Probably not. So i do not really care. It is just that every now and then "helpers" or "crutches" are implemented and everyone gets them forced on themselves. This is what really annoys me. I would not even mind that pesky air refuel cheat people ask for all the time - as long as i as a server owner/mission designer can uncheck a box in mission editor and disable this for my server/mission.
This is all i am asking for in this thread: to make it an option for mission designers to allow or disallow. Like labels, unlimited fuel or all the other helpers.
With combat ineffective: You and @draconus already said it: you do not know. You sometimes do not know in real life either and this is absolutely okay. In real life you have to judge yourself if it is worth to do another run or save that ordnance/avoid that risk. If it goes off the road and does not move anymore for 10 minutes, it is probably dead. Maybe not. You never 100% know. And this can imho make some good quality content too. Instead of outright beat everything until it burns like in a silly action movie, just kick it a bit, loiter, assess the situation, maybe talk to your (human) wingmen how to proceed. One could build an entire mission around that mechanic with calling in a helicopter to drop ground troops to investigate. I am super okay with trying new stuff, things need to evolve. But please in the right direction. Like you say, this hitpoint mechanic is from the 1990s and imho there is nothing good in adding to this mechanic.
For the chimney slider
This was always for performance afaik.
@Northstar98 think so too, yes. Maybe the dev time could have been used to improve the BDA widget instead. Maybe add how many rounds hit, how many did not and what distance in meters you missed. Maybe even a % hit ratio per burst or attack run. This imho would have been a positive improvement of the game for people who want to know if they hit or missed.
-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, cfrag said:
5 - hands down. It's the only one that has some compositional value (the tall spire in the foreground serves as a focus for a fibonaci golden ratio spiral, the foreground horizon hits exactly the golden ratio with a hint of the pyramids seemingly floating above it), it actually remains pleasant and mysterious to look at after a few seconds (the other appear predominantly boring to my eyes. Obviously, I'd move the foreground spire somewhat to the right, but that's just my take
null
Finally someone with an artsy eye
I too loved the composition. Eyecatcher in the left third giving a vertical guideline, the main object of interest in the center but not prominent. All the dust creates depth and an interesting view. I find it a great shot!
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, draconus said:
@Minhal You're basically asking for high fidelity damage model like it was done first for WW2 aircraft in DCS. Jets, helis, ships and ground vehicles will have it done too (as was planned) but it will not be near future. Atm the change is not really more or less realistic imho, unless we talk about infantry, lol
Not literally asking for it, was just looking to put the new "feature" into perspective
Find it weird to develop in a more realistic way (aware ED is working on a better damage model) and then implement such a backward feature that reinforces the simplified hitpoint model. Never seen a wishlist item for this and i do not get why something like this is, like other things in the past, forced on everybody. It is an additional unrealistic feature put on top of an unrealistic feature.
-
Just to elaborate a bit more, real vehicles also can also explode. But the current state of literally every vehicle exploding and burning when destroyed is unrealistic too already. Vehicle smoke on damage is five steps back into the direction of gaming, not simulation and realism.
In reality, some vehicles that count as kill indeed explode (cookoff), others just start smoking and burning (fuel, ammunition burning/incendiary ammo or tracers), others are mobility kills (motor, wheels, tracks, steering components), knocked out (damage to other combat-vital systems like weaponry or electricity) or simple crew kills, where all or parts of the crew are wounded or killed and the vehicle becomes combat-ineffective for the time being.
On a M113 or BTR-70 for example, a burst of .50cal or bigger should go well right through the vehicle - at least from the sides. Likely wrecking havoc inside from bullets and shrapnel. But unless motor or fuel/ammunition components are hit, there will be no smoke, no explosions. The vehicle (the passengers) will be out of action and the only indication probably will be the vehicle stopping or going off tracks.
Incendiary ammunition or tracers of course can start a fire inside a vehicle, but not in 100% of hits. Especially when the ammunition goes right through like with lightly armored APCs or even trucks with fabric cover.
Everything burning and/or exploding is a Hollywood movie thinking and the exact opposite to what DCS strives to be. If there were changes to damage being displayed, i would have loved to see ED to make vehicle kills more realistic as described above. Not make vehicle damage more action movie like as it was just done. Really disappointed.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, diego999 said:
Is the update really 50GB or there's something wrong on my end?
Mine was 8GB but it can vary depending on owned modules. Saw others today having 60GB. Not sure what causes it.
-
Of course they can. But not because their health bar went below X%, but most likely because their motor got hit - resulting in becoming immobile. Vehicles do not miracly start to smoke when shot at.
The current implementation is a cosmetic, displaying the terrible hitpoint mechanism. Not an actual state of the vehicles systems.
And if people want feedback if they damaged a vehicle, there is the optional BDA overlay window.
-
1
-
-
I am not really happy with the newly introduced "smoke when damaged" thing. No idea who asked for that or thought of it as a good idea. It is a gamey feature to display a units health bar directly on the battlefield and by that reinforcing this simplyfied mechanic. Being someone looking for realism, this really makes me cringe. A lot.
Could we please have this as an option mission designers can deactivate? I do not want any vehicles or statics smoke because they got hit by a bullet. It is horrible.
-
4
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, IronMike said:
Mission was stuck at the setting QFE step, so now the mission doesnt require it to fire the next trigger anymore and one can proceed.
Oh, remember this. You got to really nail that setting. Good to see it fixed, probably quite confusing for a new guy
-
19 minutes ago, cw4ogden said:
Thanks for the reply.
Why Yes! Yes, I do!
Sorry I just found it funny asking a DCS player if they use mods or tools.
Meaning, which third party, totally necessary to enjoy DCS piece of mod software could it be? It would take some narrowing down, there's SRS, TACVIEW the brilliant A-4 Skyahwk mod etc being my point.
Yes I have mods and tools of a varying nature, as do most here. It's why I hate making any DCS bug report because you have to caveat it with 10 different things.
Yes, this could be me for sure. Just curious if it was affecting anyone else.
When DCS updates, it also checks all files for changes and replaces them by an original file. That is why i asked. Sounds a bit like your settings files might be altered by some external source in a way DCS updater does not like. So on every update, it replaces the settings file with an unchanged copy (which presents itself as a "reset to default"). Maybe it is the A-4 mod as the A-4 probably also injects its own sub-tab in the special tab. Could be any 3rd party tool that for some reason writes into the DCS settings file and corrupts it by doing so.
Removing all mods and 3rd party tools and then adding them one by one while checking for the bug will be the only way to see what causes this. This is just how things work in bug testing. As no one else seems to have this problem (never heard so far at least), it seems like it is not a vanilla DCS issue.
Edit: just to add: i also had Windows Defender block certain settings files (non-DCS) with anti-ransomware protection in mind. Had to whitelist the application that tried to access the files. Hence i asked for anti-virus software. It might just misinterpret the update process as an unwanted file change and revert. Or block it and the updater interprets this as the file missing.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, cw4ogden said:
Does anyone else's DCS Options - Special get reset every patch? Is there a way to prevent this?
It seems lately I have to recheck every plane's Special tab because it's reset to default.
Most annoying is takeoff assistance defaulting back to 100, but it's annoying on a few levels.
Thanks all,Never happened to me. Do you use any mods or external tools? Maybe also check if your Windows Defender or 3rd party Anti Virus interferes.
-
The icon looks like the russian style unit icons. Did you check DCS settings -> game play tab (i think) -> icon style? Should read NATO.
edit: dang, sniped
-
HUD visibility definitely improved a lot. I also run reshade, which made everything look better but HUD visibility even worse. So far no more visibility issues even with reshade
-
2
-
-
So, how high is the probability we will know tomorrow what image has been chosen for the Sinai map in the shop?
-
2
-
-
15 minutes ago, OnReTech said:
thank you, lol I didn't even think about it
But having people post the number instead of simple voting is a great means to boost thread activity and create attention
(greetings, marketing department
)
-
1
-
-
I really find that a great idea. A camel caravan in the desert. Could even make a (helo) mission with this where you have to find it, bring supplies or rescue (slingload) a camel
Would love it. Also: Kangaroo! for Australia.
Thinking a bit more about this, i guess i'd also buy the DCS: Wild Animals Asset Pack!
-
1
-
-
5
(Now we know why todays patch was postponed: the shop image for Sinai was not finally chosen
Take my money already)
-
3
-
3
-
-
Been looking for such for years, there isn't. Best bet i guess is joining a serious squadron and fly custom missions with them on a locked server.
-
Would be cool if devs would clearly communicate/mark fictional features.
-
Really nice compilation, thanks a lot for sharing! ED did add more callsigns to DCS some time ago, maybe they pick up more from here. Would love it!
-
Switching seats back and forth does not issue the described problem for me. The co-pilots weapon control switch would have been my guess too (see image). Also, is the weapon selection switch on pilots position still on fixed MG 30?
The weapon control switch must be in the down position for the pilot to have weapon control:
Otherwise, a track file of the issue would be helpful i guess.
-
On 5/15/2023 at 11:34 PM, AeriaGloria said:
I would certianly love to play with those knobs! From a “this is how it’s meant to be used” standpoint you can safely ignore the knobs and altitude switch, they are used only in a testing procedure before take off
When starting up, there is an autopilot testing procedure. You move the cyclic left/right, and see if the pitch/roll channel follows your input. It instructs you to also move the roll knob and see if it reflects the channel, then press trim to center it. Oddly it doesn’t say to do this for pitch, but there is no reason you couldn’t.
Then after that You move the yaw channel knob to make sure the spindle window moves to make sure the yaw channel works. To test the altitude channel, you move the switch on it up and down. If the spindle deflection window moves up and down you can be sure it works.
After that, manual/documentation mentions only using on/off buttons, AP disengage, trim button, and pedal microswitches to control auto pilot.
As mentioned, I think the altitude switch can be useful for lowering/raising your height temporarily, but lately I have just set my altitude hold to need 9% collective movement to turn off. So I can just move the collective a bit to do the same thing more precisely, and I chose 9% becuase that’s the authority the AP system has in one direction.
There are times I want to make small changes to autopilot without re trimming, so maybe I will download that mod and bind some buttons to those knobs. Thanks for letting me know the mod allows that!!
Ah, see. Been misinterpreting those knobs and switches then. Thought they work more like those in the Hip, where you constantly operate them to make adjustments. Would yet be cool to have all the bindings, even if usage is more fluff than necessary (since in DCS there are no real consequenses to not do all the testing).
For the altitude change, i thought of it to make more fine adjustments with the switch (but as i understand it, this would be a DCSism and not along the real procedures). In the real thing afaik the collective clutch brake keeps you from moving the collective at all. When you depress it, you can move the collective and also the alt AP is shortly deactivated to adjust altitude? Cheers for letting me know about the test procedure. Just testing the 9% settings for the collective, might be a cool thing as i do not have a clutch set up i controls.
For the mod, if you did not find it already: you need the keybindings which go into user files. And then Quaggles injector, which goes into the install folder and overwrites a default file - so got to move it over after each update again. These mods are really useful, could not imagine to go without anymore. Adding a lot of buttons, switches and axis for pretty much all modules in DCS. All IC compatible.
-
1
-
Patch notes discussion May 2023
in DCS 2.9
Posted
Latest patch made me finally quit DCS. There are so many things which are broken for years, players do excellent workarounds by editing files or making mods and then ED comes around kicking in all that work. Shaders folder is just the most recent thing happening. Finally fed up of investing so much time just to not know if i can still join servers after the next patch.
Looking forward to various alternatives to DCS which are on the horizon.