VincentLaw
-
Posts
1621 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by VincentLaw
-
-
BRU-33/A does not deploy Guided Munitions. (GBU's included).
Dual Conventional Bombs and Rocket Pods are used on the BRU-33/A
Maybe the BRU-33A VER does not, but if the BRU-55 was not in service in 2005, then these must be BRU-33A/A CVERs carrying pairs of GBUs
http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=29487
http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=29488
http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=37183
I know these are Marine F/A-18Ds, but I'm just pointing out that maybe the BRU-55 is not required for GBUs after all. Vitormouraa's NAVAIR screenshot also demonstrates instructions for loading a GBU-12 on a BRU-33.
-
1
-
-
As Mentioned,
USMC F/A-18s, Have Underdone Upgrades, Along w/ RCAF who finally got the BRU-55 in 2015.
Does this count?
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20060718006084/en/EDO-Delivers-Production-Smart-Rack-Navy
Looks to me like the Navy F/A-18 could and did carry the BRU-55 before 2015
"The BRU-55 will initially be utilized on the F/A-18 A+, C & D models. The Super Hornet (F/A-18 E/F) will be BRU-55 capable upon completion of an ongoing integration-and-test effort."
So basically the F/A-18C had already completed integration testing for the BRU-55 and was ready for use in 2006.
-
In neither the Navy or Marine Corps set-ups is the Hornet carrying GBU-12s in a dual-setup.
Check the photo here for two Marine F/A-18C Hornets getting ready for takeoff with dual GBU-12s on a BRU-55. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3266262&postcount=68
I think sims should adhere to the real world as much possible. If it didn't happen in real life, it probably shouldn't be in the sim.I think the purpose of the simulator should be to simulate the capabilities of the aircraft as realistically as possible. If the real F/A-18C Lot 20 can carry the BRU-55, but the US Navy decided not to take advantage of that capability, then it should be up to the mission designers to exclude the BRU-55 from missions.
-
1
-
-
Here is a photo with double rack GBUs that isn't from a static display, but I'm personally more excited for those double rack Zunis (LAU-10).
-
Christ I just spent the last three hours of my life working out what the aircraft is. What is wrong with me.
I learned a lot about rivets.
Before you guys get too excited about Zeros, I'd check out page 8 of the MiG-23 thread to keep this investigation on the right track: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=192485&page=8
specifically, make sure you check out this link: https://michaelcarterii.artstation.com/projects/6DwNW
Note that the angled bracket on the right side of the tail gear assembly looks like a connector for a diagonal strut to the horizontal stabilizer (although in that case it probably should have a hole instead of a slot cut out of it).
If those teasers are the same as this one, then we are looking for a tail dragger with Goodyear Flight Special 606C61-6 tires, diagonal struts/cables below the tail, able to be equipped with an Aviation Products 6131 tailwheel (usually an aftermarket part), a cowl, and visible fasteners on the exterior.
The Aviat Husky I posted on the other page of this thread wasn't just a joke. It meets all of those criteria.
(That said, Rudel's avatar is from The Wind Rises, so a Zero from M3/Leatherneck could be somewhere in our future!)
-
You know what other kind of airplane has a cowl and fasteners...
-
Those are the product numbers for the Goodyear Flight Special tyres
https://www.goodyearaviation.com/tires/tire-line-details.html?search=all&sortorder=35
Check the 606C61-6
Now we just need to ID that tail gear..
The only taildraggers on Goodyear's list for 606C61-6 are as follows:
American Champion Citabria
American Champion Decathlon
American Champion Super Decathlon
Aviat Husky
Bellanca Cruisair
Cessna 180 Skywagon
Cessna 185 Skywagon
Globe Swift
DHC-3 Otter
Looks like the tail gear is based on the Aviation Products 6131 tailwheel. This is not a stock part. Here is a photo of it on an Aviat Christen Eagle. Look familiar?
-
This model looks nice enough to be a playable character.
-
To say now NTTR is finished, is very disappointing for an aviation and air combat simulation, just by reading that in the thread above and I was even hoping for Tonopah[...]
Tonopah is actually included in the DCS NTTR map. Check out this video for some of the content that was added after the initial release of NTTR:
While I agree that Miramar would be cool, that's unlikely to be a free extension of the NTTR map since it would need to include representations of the very large cities of Los Angeles and San Diego.
-
No, he added a new screenshot, its matter of angles the original screenshot was taken at. Its why its best to just wait until you can get in there and look at it...
To the contrary, it may save many hours of future work fixing object placement errors if the problem is identified early. I did some more in-depth research below to identify roughly the correct height of this specific church. Hopefully this information will be helpful to ED.
The church ED modeled for Normandy is a real church in the commune of Longues-sur-Mer named "Église Saint-Laurent de Longues-sur-Mer". It is located at 49°20'06.9"N 0°41'59.9"W
I used the 3D measure tool in Google Earth Pro to measure the approximate height of the stone part of the steeple (since this part is easier to measure) As seen below:
From here I used a reference photo to approximate the height to the peak of the roof. (yes, this second part will have a little perspective error, so it may be ~0.1 m taller in reality)
So the church is roughly 18.1 meters tall, and it is easily the tallest building in its neighborhood. For comparison, one of the 2 story buildings near the church only measures 8.2 meters tall from the ground to the peak of the roof, so it should not appear small in comparison to the neighboring houses. as it does in this picture: https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=159793&d=1490634574
I can't say for sure if the scale is correct or not in DCS, but this height estimate should give the 3D modeler a chance to review the dimensions.
-
1
-
-
At the risk of being off topic (though it does pertain to the questions in the Normandy livestream): I see a solution to this problem. Currently the reason why server hosts need to own two copies of each product is that the only way to host is through the client, and the user account can only be logged into one client at a time. If the new system allows a single user to be logged into a single client on one computer and a dedicated server host on a separate machine simultaneously, then this would alleviate the problem of hosts needing to own multiple copies of the same license while still requiring hosts to own licenses.It seems that ED are not going to budge on this, so yes, you'll need a second copy if you are to run a server. It will presumably also mean purchasing asset packs if they are to be used in online missions.No getting around it, so we have just got to bite the bullet on this one.
-
I'm not going to lay $60 on a piece of software that at this point in time shows evidence of being unplayable for me. I don't understand why everyone is so upset over asking for a user option.
In the past, some DCS developers have reduced their communications to the public as a response to abusive customer feedback, and as a result some forum members here are extra sensitive of any suggestions or criticisms given to developers because they are worried the developers might take offense and stop sharing WIP content.
We are all here for the same reason. We all care about DCS, and want it to be the best sim it can be. Some of us show this appreciation by giving feedback to the developers so they may better improve their products, and some people show their appreciation by attacking all feedback to maintain a positive reinforcement environment for the developers.
-
but how constructive is it really, you think they don't know already?
this isn't the arma 3 modding forum.
If they didn't have the correct numbers, then it was helpful. If they did, then they can think of the verification as a confidence booster. No creator is immune to mistakes. In fact, most software companies have a larger staff dedicated to quality assurance than software development.
I have made my critique for now, and I will reserve further criticism until close to release when everything has had a chance to get fleshed out and polished. If the error still exists at that point, I will point it out again, but it would inevitably cost more to fix if they were not aware of the issue until that point.
Also, good observation. This is Heatblur's subsection of the DCS forums.
-
Now, for really precisely constructive feedback: I have carefully reviewed each video and determined the pitch ladder refresh rate on the real HUD tape is approximately 20 Hz, while the pitch ladder refresh rate on Heatblur's HUD is around 7 Hz.
Hopefully this is much more helpful to Heatblur than simply saying "It looks faster in the real one."
-
Anyone who has taken software engineering classes should have seen a graph like this at some point. (I should not have to post this graph every time I give feedback)
As long as the feedback is respectful and constructive, customer feedback at this stage in development can help save money later in the development cycle by catching issues early. Calling anyone who sees issues with a pre-alpha video an "alarmist" is not doing any favors for Heatblur. Now, if you are calling out people for insulting Heatblur, or if you notice their feedback is not very constructive like a vague "this looks terrible", that is different.
My feedback was specifically in response to this post:
The refresh rate will be higher for certain elements on the HUD. In this video, examples include the guncross and tracking diamond, which exist on a seperate rasterizer.These will refresh more quickly than e.g. nav elements.
Once we have implemented our shaders for the HUD (think Viggen HUD) -- it will look far more natural with a lower refresh rate. Right now it's quite jarring, especially in 60fps contrast to everything else.
He specifically mentions the tracking diamond and guncross will have higher refresh rates, and gives nav elements as an example of something that will have a slow refresh rate upon completion.
This is why I posted my video of an F-14 HUD, because I consider the pitch ladder a nav element, and the real pitch ladder from the video has a substantially faster refresh rate than the one in Heatblur's video.
-
Personally, I get migraines sent straight from hell if I am experiencing anything below 20 FPS for a long duration. I physically cannot watch normal television for long periods at all due to this. The YouTube video demonstrating the HUD was physically painful for me.
If this isn't an option. The F-14 will be an instant no-buy for me.
Refer to the video of a real F-14 HUD I linked in my previous post. The motion of the pitch ladder is substantially smoother on the real thing during rapid maneuvers, so it may be less jarring to you since that is the dominant element in the HUD. Otherwise you may need to set it to a backup gunsight mode and fly by cockpit instruments.
-
I found some F-14 HUD footage on youtube that Heatblur may want to review. It is from an undated airshow over NAS Moffett Field, which was closed in 1994, so it is from 1994 or earlier.
I'd specifically like to highlight starting at 5:04 in the video where the F-14 rapidly pulls up and performs several rolls. the pitch ladder is noticeably juddery, but it appears to be much smoother than the HUD in Heatblur's video. I don't think this is simply a difference in shaders.
If you watch earlier parts of the video, you can see the pitch ladder jumping a bit during gentle maneuvers, but these jumps appear to be caused primarily by a step function rather than refresh rate, otherwise the HUD would be less smooth during rapid maneuvering.
(Disclaimer, I'm not an F-14 expert, but it looked like a discrepancy to me)
(Also I realize this is pre-alpha, but it costs less time/money to solve potential problems the sooner they are caught, so consider it a service, not a complaint :) )
(edit 3: didn't notice the similar comments in the other thread until now)
-
Those are pretty distinct conclusions. Do you have any evidence to back them up?
There has been one single asset pack announced, and already you've painted Dante's Inferno. Why not have some trust, not just in ED, but in the community.
I can't present good evidence without violating forum rules, particularly 1.15, but I was careful in my statement to avoid using absolutes. Of course there will be multiplayer servers and campaigns using the various maps and asset packs, but as the number of maps and asset packs increases, and especially where multiple are combined, the more potential for incompatibility arises, and the less likely a given player is able to join a given server or play a given campaign. This naturally results in players "floating to the top" where the Caucasus map and vanilla units reside.
Also, please take note of Razbam's interest in DLC ships, such as an amphibious assault ship to go with their Harrier. You may also consider ED's future Kuznetsov and Vinson carrier DLCs as asset packs (these were announced in a newsletter) though they may avoid breaking compatibility by the presence of the low detail versions of these vehicles in DCS.
As I have stated before, I am not specifically opposed to selling asset packs, but I do see importance in maintaining compatibility as much as possible between players who do not own the same packages. Preserving compatibility is beneficial to both the multiplayer community and campaign creators.
-
All those who couldn't contain their knee-jerk reaction and resist going on rants about ED giving the players a choice, blamed ED of shortsightedness, accused ED for fragmenting the community, you should be ashamed of yourselves.
I appreciate your love of DCS and concern for the happiness and well being of ED, however, I will not be ashamed of myself when most multiplayer servers in the long term future will be running Caucasus and default units. Multiplayer servers and singleplayer campaigns selecting to include diverse sets of compatibility breaking DLCs will simply be less accessible to large portions of the community, especially new players.
-
I have two perspectives on this. First, I mostly play DCS in singleplayer, and apparently most DCS customers do too, so this is logically where ED's focus is. My singleplayer self is excited to be able to mix and match DCS in a way that feels like a combat FSX. I can select whichever pieces I like and mash them together. That is great. If I want to drive a Jeep down the Las Vegas strip with CA, I can do that. I don't mean that as just a rhetorical example either. I'm actually planning to do that. I have always been an advocate of compatibility between world war 2 and modern modules, and I am very happy to see confirmation that CA will be compatible with the world war 2 assets.
Second is my multiplayer perspective. Now, it's still not the idea of unit packs that bothers me here. I'm perfectly fine with the future Kuznetsov and Vinson DLC. My multiplayer self is concerned only by the statement that players will be unable to join servers if they do not own the necessary AI units. With only one unit pack it's not a huge problem, and I know the vast majority of world war 2 enthusiasts will purchase this relevant unit pack anyway, but the easiest way to see the potential of this problem is to imagine these very real possibilities: What happens if a multiplayer mission decides to throw a random Jeep in Las Vegas? What happens when someone thinks it would be cool to have Flak 88 shooting at an A-10 over Georgia? These ideas that would be cool for a single player mission will result in non-world war 2 players being locked out of the server.
This problem will only get worse as more unit packs are created, resulting in more potential barriers for server access, which could be harmful to new members of the community. Concerns about this kind of exclusion of new players from servers is valid, but from my experience with other games, the primary result will be lower populations on servers using unit packs, and higher populations on servers with only basic DCS world units.
I have two possible suggestions to ED for how they may most easily resolve this issue, and perhaps negate much of the criticism I've seen:
Idea #1: Take the DLC Carrier approach and use low detail models for people who do not own the asset pack. It would make sense to restrict CA from driving these low detail units.
Idea #2: Use placeholder 3D models when the player joins a server with AI units they don't own. Is that a Tiger II? It's a T-55 now. Panzer IV? T-55. Sherman? T-55. Flak 88? Make it a Zu-23.
Both of these solutions will allow for AI unit packs to be sold while also helping preserve the multiplayer community.
-
1
-
-
I was interested in this thread because the MiG-21 used to have a similar bug regarding cross wind flight where the MiG-21 was using ground speed in some of the aerodynamic calculations, resulting in continuous sideslip any time the airplane had a component of velocity that wasn't parallel to the wind velocity.
I can now confirm there is definitely a bug with the Viggen. I am aware of the DCS wind vector conventions, and I just tested taking off the Viggen clean with 20% fuel and a 97 knot headwind. The Viggen was barely able to to take off by the end of the runway, and needs about a 20 degree angle of attack to maintain level flight at 356 knots airspeed and full afterburner.
My appeal to Leatherneck is to ensure that ground speed is never used in aerodynamic calculations. Airspeed, or more specifically aircraft velocity relative to the wind velocity should be calculated as soon as the simulation inputs are received through the API. This wind relative velocity can be calculated by subtracting the velocity of the wind from the velocity of the aircraft relative to the ground. The result of this computation is what you use as the velocity of your aircraft in aerodynamic computations.
-
In the russian forum there was some talk about new information next week
https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2979838&postcount=3270
This is actually the next week from that post, but maybe he meant next next week.
-
"I deserve this because the random number generator picked my entry." This statement is true in at least one of the multiverse.
-
I've thought about the monetary aspect of this, having a developer continuing to pour resources, people into keep working on a module like the huey, but why not give the option for a second version of the Huey, an update for 20-40 bucks, or whatever, and include as many of the items in the wishlist, including multicrew. Man I will be dissapointed if multicrew will not be implemented.
I'd be willing to pay for a major upgrade such as a glass cockpit or a twin engine Huey, but coop multicrew was advertised in the original product description. If BST decided to charge for multicrew, I suspect it would do more harm to customer confidence than the short term gains are worth. It would definitely make me think twice before buying their modules in the future.
AV-8B COPY PROTECTION CHANGE
in Payment and Activation
Posted
Perhaps ED could do a "vacation mode" that disables the online checks but either locks the game to one computer or disables new activations for the duration of vacation mode.