VincentLaw
-
Posts
1621 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by VincentLaw
-
-
When switching between gunner positions in uncoupled mode, the head gets an offset from coupled mode.
How to reproduce:
- Start DCS Huey in VR with uncoupled mode (default)
- Get into position 2, and turn the gun far right
- Get into position 3. The view is stuck offset to the left of the gun
- Get into position 2, and turn the gun far left
- Get into position 3. The view is stuck offset to the right of the gun
This affects changing between any gunner positions (2,3, and 4) in any order, with both X and Y axis. The current workaround is to point the gun straight forward before switching positions.
-
As far as the "fracturing" goes, it is also important for people who buy assets that they are smoothly blended into any DCS configuration. For example, I bought DCS supercarrier, but all the DCS Hornet training missions use the basic carrier. In cases like this where missions or servers do not include the improved assets, then I am missing out on the experience I paid for. Now it takes the mission developers more effort to make all players happy.
From my point of view, the best options would either be to include free low detail models that are replaced by high detail models for those who own the assets, or to have a list of DCS core substitutes which automatically replace payware assets any time the user does not own them (like replacing a T-62 with a T-55). Either way, mission designers would not need to be shy about which units they include in their missions, since they would know that the missions will work for anyone regardless of asset pack configuration.
I am interested in the products you are discussing, but if I buy them, then I would like both mission designers and multiplayer servers to feel safe including them, so that I can enjoy the assets I pay for.
-
1
-
-
I agree with this topic, but the head following the gun is a larger problem than the gun following the head. I have made a VR mod which may be a suitable workaround for those who play in singleplayer or on private servers (I have not tested it against integrity check, but I'm guessing it will not pass). see here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3313969/ The gun still aims where you look, but your head is no longer attached to the gun.
Hopefully in the future, ED will update Huey to improve VR support for the gunner positions. Independent aiming with the mouse or especially with motion controllers would be nice.
-
I will drop DCS faster than a hot potato if I have to pay a subscription fee to fly my Hornet.
-
Having the option to use nukes will benefit the people who want them without really hurting the people who don't want them. Most servers and missions will probably not have them, but more options for mission design can only make DCS more interesting. I'd enjoy a bomber intercept mission with more serious consequences if I fail. Even if most people are not interested in using nukes, that doesn't mean they don't have a place in DCS.
-
Just an idea, maybe rotate two missions one with WWII assets and one without.
This is worse than either solution. It would result in people who own the assets pack having an inferior experience half the time, and the people who don't own it being unable to join the server half the time. It is better for everyone to have a consistent experience one way or the other.
I also don't think a decision like this should be made by a simple majority. Even a small fraction being unable to join the server can have a larger adverse effect on the community. In addition, the opinions expressed by forum members may not represent the overall multiplayer community.
-
In a modern full scale direct war between superpowers, there is a good chance that the participating airplanes would only consist of airplanes built before the bombs start dropping. If you think you might need something, it's better to have it before you need it.but only minor batches are build to test and to be kept operational conditions if the situation requires. And then the mass production can be launched in short order.
Of course we can say stealth is not a binary true/false thing. Most newer airplanes have modifications that help reduce their detection range. An F-35 is more stealthy than an F/A-18E, which is more stealthy than an F/A-18C. It's not all or nothing. It's better not to think in absolutes, but I think we all agree that being detected at shorter range is usually better.This is neither about Stealth vs No-Stealth, as every aircraft is "stealthy", question is just at what range and what can be done at what ranges, but every aircraft gets detected at longer ranges.only one country in this world is attacking to another countries and has invaded them and used their military for even over 17 years in conflicts.I think you will find there isn't one country on every conflict in these lists. Just like stealth is not absolute, neither is good/evil. There is not one antagonist of the world. Things usually come in shades of gray rather than black and white, and reality is always more complicated than fiction:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_conflicts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_2011%E2%80%93present
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_2003%E2%80%932010
-
Both of these things actually happen if you switch the forum language to Russian, but I don't think there is a way to change them separately from the language.
-
Leaning forward from the reclined position during high-g maneuvers will reduce the g tolerance of the pilot, since more of the body will be along the radial axis of the turn.
-
FC3 is already very fighter heavy. Perhaps FC4 is a good opportunity to introduce more aircraft of other roles to DCS.
-
C-47 would be a good module for transport, airborne, and civilian ops. Currently only helicopters cover the playable transport role in DCS.
I'd also like anything naval, and these served in both the European and Pacific theaters:
- F6F Hellcat
- F4F Wildcat
- SBD Dauntless
(The F4U Corsair is already covered by M3 but you can count that too)
- F6F Hellcat
-
Been like that since the F-14 dogfight video they posted. :P
Seems like a major improvement over that video though.
-
Here is a similar picture that doesn't violate rule 1.15:
(source: http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3033&context=utk_gradthes )
-
I was scanning the skies for EtherealN[...]
Now that's a name I haven't heard in a long time.
-
A long time ago I did a polar circumnavigation of the world on the old Caucasus map to prove it was flat. The Poles in DCS were actually single points on the map you could fly circles around, so if you try circumnavigating along a line of constant latitude, you would most likely end up traveling in a large circle around the pole and if you left the West side of the detailed portion of the map, you would come back on the East side even if the world is flat. Even in real life, staying on a line of constant latitude (other than the equator) requires you to perform a slow continuous turn. For this reason, all such tests should be performed along longitude lines.
During my polar circumnavigation, I started flying my A-10C from Georgia towards the South pole. Some of the navigation equipment stopped functioning properly after passing the south pole, but enough remained operational for me to complete the full circumnavigation and return to the same grid coordinate of the map that I had started my journey at. The map there was completely blank, proving that the DCS world was flat. (I think this was in 1.2.X.)
Now that there are a few new maps available, (especially since the mentioned possibility of EDGE supporting spherical maps) it may be interesting to try tests like this again for each new map.
As to your question about the radar horizon. I remember seeing in the patch notes at one point that DCS does in fact simulate the radar horizon, whether or not the world is flat. See here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=147601
-
Could someone very briefly explain how Zunis would compare to 2.75 inch rockets, like the Hydra?
Wikipedia doesn't really help with this. How does f.e. a Zuni HE warhead compare (roughly) to a 2.75" HE and an Mk 82 bomb in terms of weight and effect?
Also how does the Zuni compare in effective range to the 2.75" and in in what role/to what effect are they usually deployed?
Thx :)
Bring the Hydra if you want to shoot at trucks. Bring the Zuni if you want to shoot at tanks.
If you have flown the P-51 or F-86, the Zuni is something like an upgraded HVAR. The Zuni is already available for the Harrier and will be available for the Hornet too. I think it's called "LAU-10" on the loadout screen.
-
I'm not sure there's any field in which it's customary to indicate the TO direction, it must simply be a bug in formula used to display the wind angle. It's problably a 2-minute fix, the problem is just that they are not aware of the problem (or I missed any reported thread about that, it's quite old).
In aeronautical engineering it is common to draw vectors in the TO direction when discussing flows, including wind. No doubt this implementation is the result of DCS being designed by engineers rather than meteorologists.
-
The argument that DCS will attract more people because of more civil aircraft's is ridiculous!
1: World War 2 actually attracted more people to DCS
2: Your list is pretty much irrelevant as far as sport aerobatics competitions and demonstrations are concerned.
3: There is fun to be had in GA planes doing sight seeing and flying between the numerous small airfields populating the maps.
4: Technically slew mode could be implemented in the EFM by third party devs.
-
1
-
-
Correction for one little mistake in your post:
It's actually the front seat of the Christen Eagle II that has very limited controls. For solo flight, only the rear seat of the CE2 is occupied.
That said, I think it would be cool to have a free "front seat multiplayer only" module for friends of CE2 owners. It would be a good way to demo DCS to my friends, especially those who have absolutely zero flight experience.
-
NOBODY was expecting it, indeed a surprise, worst kind of
Actually, to anyone paying attention, you guys should have been expecting something like this since September:
https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3235191&postcount=79
I even posted a reminder in October:
https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3257174&postcount=30
My top guess back then was the Aviat Husky, but it turns out to be an Aviat Christen Eagle II.
-
I will stand with you then. I support SVTONY and the Aviat/Christen Eagle, and I was not paid for this message.
-
Module authors can set the "point value" for destroying targets. It would be funny if the Christen Eagle had a negative point value so your score is decreased for shooting it down. RoE prohibits engagement without visual target identification now! Turns out this plane is the hard counter to Fox 3.
-
Heck yeah, the michael carter tailwheel image fits too:
https://michaelcarterii.artstation.com/projects/6DwNW
it look like its gonna be an eagle!
It's funny that I posted a photo of the Christen Eagle back in September. The only reason I missed it back then is because it wasn't on Goodyear's website for the serial number on the tire.
-
I voted 7 days because I don't think this system would provide effective copy protection beyond that, however, I do not like my DRM to require online checks. I'd rather have the peace of mind of having DCS locked to 1 or 2 computers instead of having to worry if the internet works each morning. I don't play DCS every day so there is a good chance it will need to phone home most days I play DCS. If on any given day my internet is down or if ED is down, that could mean no DCS for me.
Copilot head no longer glued to flexible gun sight in VR
in Controller Questions and Bugs
Posted
Your head should not be glued to the sight in VR. IRL you have to move your head.