Galwran

I'm pretty sure that the missile would not fly nap of earth and take steep dives in to canyons without hitting the walls.

The sea eagle missiles follow the ground contours too closely. I'm pretty sure that they shouldn't dive in to every nook and cranny when fired over terrain. The flight path should be much smoother. Of course it is nice that they do not collide with mountains,but they look really stupid diving in to canyons and then pulling up again.

This new L Gazelle is really nice! And now that we can spawn/land outside airfields, the possibilities are huge! If only rockets would be effective in DCS...

And this wouldn't even require complex system and damage modelling. Compared to the current 0/1 damage state, it would be much better if the units stopped moving when at 50% damage, stopped firing when at 80% damage and are destroyed at 100% damage. This way you would sometimes get mobility kills, even with rockets. You couldn't distinguish the non-firing immobile units from live ones, so you might have to attack them again just to be sure.

By the way, we also need Sagger ATMG teams. Preferably as a mobile infantry unit that will set up in a minute. These would we a really needed and a fun enemy.

I like the Caucasus map and and want see it developed. But I want is to be the same for everyone without nuisance fees that will be barriers of entry for some. I have spent thousands of euros in simming and hundreds in DCS. I can afford the 15. What I can't afford is having a smaller playerbase or paying the modules for my friends if they can't afford it or refuse to pay and stop playing. Also, many of us have bought the "same" experience many times. Lock-on, FC, FC2, FC3... this is irritating for many. Simple question on business logic: which brings more new customers and revenue: 1)showing the best stuff for the new customers and getting them hooked (and getting the buy the airplane modules) 2)Having an ugly (compared to the mod) product that you have to pay extra to get make it better. Then pay for this, then for that, like the carriers. The sad truth is that the DCS community is very small. Just look at the World of Tanks, etc, community. Sure, they play an arcade game. But their community is huge. I'm not arguing that Starway didn't do a great job. I'm just displeased the way ED is managing the product. They could have easily paid Starway a lump sum of $10 000 or something like that. Also, look at the comparison pictures. The new ones are great, of course. But imagine having targets in those pictures and then notice that it will be difficult to coordinate attacks with those that do not have the same details.

Looks nice, but the free map should stay free and instead of dividing the playerbase it would have reeled in new simmers. ED should pay Starway for the job he did, not charge it as extra nuisance that keeps the new players away. Also: what we needed was collidable trees and better 3D terrain mesh. I really hope this will not break multiplayer when some guy sees the target next to a road that the others do not have.

Thanks, this is good idea. To make things clear, I'm not a completely incompetent fighter. But there are situation in WVR when you just do not know where the enemy is, for example after evasive manoveurs. With some airframes, you could use a FLOOD mode of sorts to help spotting enemies.

I have the paid version :) Thanks for help guys, but I was also looking for help on the specific radar modes or close combat modes to use. For example, with close combat modes and constant locking attempts you *might* get a proper lock and then locate him visually.

So, I'm merged with a single MiG-23, but have no visual. What to do next?

My suggestion could be even more simplified; just add randomization of the damage. So a bomb would not always make 300 damage, but something between 200 and 350.

This looks very nice, thanks!:thumbup: However, at least area damage should have propability of efficiency. So that a truck COULD be destroyed 50 meters away from an explosion, but that would not happen always. Kinda like this what I wrote on an another thread. I say that there are about six states that should exist for a vehicle: 1)Unit is alive 2)Unit is alive, but unable to move 3)Unit is alive, but unable to fire 4)Unit is still alive, but damaged and will be destroyed after a random time (minutes, not seconds) 5)Unit is not alive, but not visually damaged. 6)Unit is destroyed Currently the sim models only two states; alive or destroyed. But all of these could be scripted. The main point is that there should variety on the effects of weapons. As you can see, states 2 to 6 can be caused by a single hit from a sufficiently efficient weapon. But in states 2 to 5 you might have to attack a second time, because the unit is not destroyed and you are uncertain. Modeling fragments and blast damage can be simplified with probabilities very easily. Here is the real world example: http://fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs...t/dam_crit.htm To put in DCS terms: Lets say a MK84 hits near a BMP. MK84 makes at maximum 2000 points of damage, the BMP has 1000 hitpoints. So we might end up something like this: 5m: 90% chance of being destroyed, 95% chance of being unable to fire, 95% chance of being unable to move 10m:70% chance of being destroyed, 80% chance of being unable to fire, 80% chance of being unable to move 15m:50% chance of being destroyed, 60% chance of being unable to fire, 60% chance of being unable to move 20m:30% chance of being destroyed, 50% chance of being unable to fire, 50% chance of being unable to move 25m:15% chance of being destroyed, 40% chance of being unable to fire, 40% chance of being unable to move. All of these could also be scripted with the probabilities and calculating the distance from the explosion. (unit in the zone of explosion)

Are there any other kinds of landings? Aren't they called crashings? :lol:

Why is there so much anticipating in February? Have they announced a timetable?

Yes, that works. So this could be marked as solved. /though you can bind it only on keyboard at the moment.

Same here. Doesn't the tanker know that Mirage is armed? :P

I agree. MiG-29G has a poor weapons load but could attract new players. Ed would no lose sales by making it free.

I would of course like to have detailed armor and systems damage modeling (like in WWII Online). However, a quick and dirty upgrade would be sufficient. I don't care if the tracks or the engine is broken; it is enough to model that the unit is immobile. If the prisms are broken the gun can't fire, but we don't need that kind of detail, at least yet. I say that there are about six states that should exist for a vehicle: 1)Unit is alive 2)Unit is alive, but unable to move 3)Unit is alive, but unable to fire 4)Unit is still alive, but damaged and will be destroyed after a random time (minutes, not seconds) 5)Unit is not alive, but not visually damaged. 6)Unit is destroyed Currently the sim models only two states; alive or destroyed. But all of these could be scripted. The main point is that there should variety on the effects of weapons. As you can see, states 2 to 6 can be caused by a single hit from a sufficiently efficient weapon. But in states 2 to 5 you might have to attack a second time, because the unit is not destroyed and you are uncertain. Modeling fragments and blast damage can be simplified with probabilities very easily. Here is the real world example: http://fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/es310/dam_crit/dam_crit.htm To put in DCS terms: Lets say a MK84 hits near a BMP. MK84 makes at maximum 2000 points of damage, the BMP has 1000 hitpoints. So we might end up something like this: 5m: 90% chance of being destroyed, 95% chance of being unable to fire, 95% chance of being unable to move 10m:70% chance of being destroyed, 80% chance of being unable to fire, 80% chance of being unable to move 15m:50% chance of being destroyed, 60% chance of being unable to fire, 60% chance of being unable to move 20m:30% chance of being destroyed, 50% chance of being unable to fire, 50% chance of being unable to move 25m:15% chance of being destroyed, 40% chance of being unable to fire, 40% chance of being unable to move. All of these could also be scripted with the probabilities and calculating the distance from the explosion. (unit in the zone of explosion)

I forgot ATGM teams that hide among the trees and you have to take them out with rockets and bombs. Tanks are easy to spot.

But we really need more soft skinned targets for our aerial rocket shooters. Shilkas and BMPs are a bit much. We need at least a tripod mounted .50cal and .30cal, a truck mounted .50 and .30 cal, a truck mounted TOW, a truck mounted SPG-9 and of course regular towed artillery pieces (even if those are immobile) so that there are other targets besides trucks. Ah oh, T-series tanks and BMP-series vehicles without missiles so that you don't have to mod them out in situation when they are overkill or not equipped in the first place.

We also need less effecient ground units, like trucks with .30 cal or .50 cal machineguns. Currently pretty much everything is armored and armed with at least a 20mm gun.

Please stop whining about some missing items. Nobody forced you to chip in at this stage. If you want a finished product, please wait while we test & devs fix. Thanks Zeus and the crew!

+1. Enemy AI spotting should be reduced by 50% if you are less than 10 meters from trees.

I also fear that we are splitting the community. Yes, I understand that new content is expensive to make, but the business should also not alienate newcomers. Plus, the map is useless if you do not also buy something else so you are not really giving anything away. You should at least be able to join a NTTR mission hosted by some other even if you didn't have it in single player. ED: could you for example implement two "free slots" per server so that the newcomers can get a taste of the Nevada and get interested.

Looks great! Personally, I believe that the ground element could be simulated with "piece movement on a game board", kind of like in the Hearts of Iron game series. So most of the time ground units would not engage each other in 3D. They would move on the game map according to their strength and the player could destroy units and thus reduce the enemy strength. If ~similar opposing ground units meet on the strategic map, the one with more strength would advance. Having an artillery unit nearby would increase the strength, etc.