whitehot

it's nothing more than the clipboard

I think that generally speaking he's complaining that the red side appears to get less attention than the blue one. I fly both sides and buy modules from both sides, if they are post WW2. So if we stay in the field of DCS High level modules, we didnt hear nothing from the east since the KA-50. Westside instead, we got the Hawg, the Mustang and the Huey; keeping in mind that the latter two have a "niche" position in the current simulator, especially in MP. We are also positive that we'll be getting an AF-18 (which I'll buy the second it gets released). Ofc, the MiG-21 will roll out someday and all. But reading the list of the models being designed by external devs is a little disconcerting, eastwise. I mean, I see there are blue AC which are imho pretty much "OT" in this sim (Buckeyes? and the Raptor?? cmon now..), while the most common eastern equipment is neglected (Hind, Fencer, Fulcrum).

i totally agree too

exactly

Exactly. At least imho

no please, this kind of comment may be misleading. The label "DCS" goes to modules that have both an AFM, and their systems modeled down to what the current sim engine allows. So the A-10A and the SU-25s, although now having an AFM, are still very far from being full "DCS standard" aircraft.

Software and cars are way too different products to be generalized this way. My point is much more similar to what we constantly witness, for example, in music industry. Say, a band starts out playing a distinctive, revolutionary style. It records it first album and builds a small, but solid fan base. After recording a second album, some of its members and their managers get the idea that "if we change our distinctive style and sound to be more commercial, we will sell records to many more people". They do it, and after some years they sound exactly just like thousands of other bands, who keep playing just for the bucks. DCS is the natural continuation of the concepts first pioneered by "Flanker", which evolved into imho the greatest sim ever, lock-on. A software house, just like any other enterprise, has limited resources. They have to make choices as to what direction to take, decide how those resources would be better employed. What I'm seeing now, and I may be wrong, is that the development of modern, detailed combat sims (like BS and WH) is gradually being allocated less of those resources. I see that those resources go into projects which are alien to the original concepts on which the sim was based, like WW2 fighters; so I can't help but imagine that this is done to attract customers who had no interest in "modern battlefield simulations". Of course, this is how it works today, the markets, economy etc. Of course, as a customer, I have the option not to buy what I'm not interested to, and this is just what I'm doing in this case, since as i said, I bought every DCS module bar the Mustang, and I won't buy the FW or other mods in which I have no interest. I never said there is "evil" in this. What I'm saying, as a potential customer of future mods, and as a member of a free society, is that I disagree with the choices that have being made in regards to what to develop in DCS. Basically, my thought is "we got the two best combat sims ever made, in an arc of time of a couple of years. I was fretting to know what we 'd get next, and they released the Mustang. Now they 'll develop the FW and say that probably I'll have grey hair when they release the F-18". So my next assumption is, "if they weren't that much into WW2 stuff, we'll probably get hornets, falcons, flankers and fulcrums before we have grandsons". Ofc many ppl will disagree with me and they have their points. What can I say, I'm a fan of modern combat sims and got DCS for this reason, and if I want to do WW2 I'd be playing "Sturmovik" or the like. As to about the F-15 and Su-27, there is probably not much clearness in general. It's not that clear that customers who bought FC3 will get the AFMs for free; in that case, great. To get back to Audis, when you buy an A4, and they release an update for its ECU, the company contacts you and tells you to get your update at the nearest service point, without charge. That said, ED pls keep doing quality over quantity. Give me a DCS F-18 soon and I'd gladly pay as much as two SFM modules combined

Not that i like to think bad or something. Yet this last announcement about the Su-27 and F-15 has kinda shocked me. In fact, they are saying that: - we bought the two AC in FC3, mid fidelity systems, mid fidelity flight model - we will soon buy the two ACs again, mid fidelity systems, high fidelity flight model - in a remote future, we are going to buy them a third time, High fidelity systems and flight model. This is what we should take as good news. The bad news, is that the F/A-18C, which has already been announced time ago, will basically take ages to be developed. Frankly speaking, I bought every single module bar the Mustang. I won't buy any WW2 module until there will be a full WW2 sim, with appropriate vehicles and maps, which is something I highly doubt will ever happen. I get the feeling that there have been some decisions of commercial nature that changed pretty much the "heading" DCS has taken. I may have a bias towards modern equipment, but I'm puzzled to say the least, to see that many resources are invested into developing WW2 fighters, which so far remains pretty much out-of-time/space artifacts to me, while current equipment, which is what DCS was all about seems to be neglected. Yes, we have got the Huey, impressive flight model and all; yet it's basically a 50yrs old helicopter, whose missions stay in a very limited "niche" of its own. And though I'm having a blast in learning how to fly it, I suspect it won't get that big mileage, especially since we don't have CSAR or "air cavalry" at the moment. Also going through the manual, and seeing how many times the writing "not implemented in this sim" is disconcerting; it was supposed to be on the same level of the BS I think. I'm sure much people will disagree with me, but I can't avoid thinking that we are getting modules from different eras to attract customers, which after buying their fav modules will then be left in their little "ghettos" at the margins of the MP maps, dogfighting with P-51s and FWs or trying to learn hovering in the UH1. If it's fair to them I have no problem with it; but if I have to choose, I'd prefer to have to wait say,8 months for a DCS FA-18C and not getting nothing new except the patches in the meanwhile, than having to wait one year and more because they released modules with little use if not getting money from people who were hardly interested in DCS. Yes, there is the whole "external developers" thing. It's maybe too early to comment on that, the Huey is the only module coming from the outside so far; it is well integrated with the sim, technically. Practically though, as said before it stands on his own, as it hasn't much to do on the modern DCS mp battlefield. Now seeing that somebody is developing the F-22 almost makes me smile. How can't one think it's going to be a monstrously OP thing, whose systems are abstracted from guessing, and that is going to bring "air dominance" by constantly obliterating any hopeless romantic, daring pilot who happens to be on the other side. I mean, why bothering to learn radars, sensors, combat maneuvers, when you can get the raptor and just point and click your opponent out of the game. Don't get me wrong, I'm not into ranting, it's just that i pass many hours on this sim and love it like no other before. DCS is what i always dreamed about when playing Falcon 2 and 3 (not the 4) or "Tornado". I just fear it's going to take the "money only" route, and that the concepts which this sim is based upon, and made me and many other ppl get so enthusiastic about it, will be sacrificed and overtaken by other logics, which have little to do with flight simming.

In fact, the effect on the Huey's (and any other AC) should be devastating. As soon as a heat round hits the a hard surface, the "jet" (a mixture of incandescent gases, traveling at supersonic speeds) is projected out of the round tip, into the target. The jet passes then through armor, melting it. When it reaches the interior (the huey's cockpit, in this case) it expands, and rises the temperature up to about 3000 deg. celsius. This should brew up all the internal ammunition stores, fuel and the like. I don't even wanna think about what happens to the crew, but it should be pretty obvious. So basically, from what i got reading around, an helicopter hit by heat should explode not unlike as if it was hit by HE. I must say that I too noticed that the UH1 seems a little too "rugged". I tried a mission in which i flew in the mid of some armored vehicles with 12.7 and 14.5 mm HMGs, took several tens of rounds from them and got only marginal damage. Also, all the glass surfaces were crippled and broken by the bullets, but the crew was left totally unscathed. I would say that this heli has got no armor at all, so even 7.62 and 5.45/5.56 bullets should puncture it quite easily. So imho, the DM needs some tweaking, but I'm sure the devs are aware of this situation

conservative? seems pretty much the other way around to me

you should click on the button with the two flags in the editor and distribute the ground roles for the two coalitions. For example, you can put a platoon of four Challenger tanks on the map. Then click the "flags" button and set the "ground commander" option for the blue (or red, if UK is on the red side) coalition to 1. Then click "try mission". When the sim finishes loading up, you will be asked which role you want to take in-game. You choose the commander you set in the editor and get to f10 view. Once there, click on the vehicle you want to control, then click on the button with the tank icon (upper left). If your vehicle gets destroed, or if you want to change, you can get to f10 view again and repeat the above. There are limitations however, as of now, you can't control infantry units (individual soldiers), and some air defence vehicles

+1

but what about the black shark?

I'd like too to see this kind of features modeled in our favorite sim. Sadly, I think that this kind of tactics are very specific to certain platforms, and that it's very unlikely that they will be somehow implemented in DCS world. This, unless a "DCS: MiG-31 Foxhound" module gets released someday. That said, in the current version the AI employs a very generic set of tactics, which are abstracted mostly from "blue side" real-world doctrine. I mean, that in fact it seems to me that the "red side" flies and fights the same way as their opponents do, but with different equipment, designed for different specifications. Of course it would be very nice to see the various sides and nations trying to follow a plan and fight based on their different concepts of achieving their objectives. But honestly, I really doubt something of this complexity could possibly fit to the simulator engine. I hope anyway, that the devs will give us players and mission makers the means to recreate something like this in multiplayer battles.

I dont know if the devs are already aware of this. Anyway, after updating to 1.2.4, i noticed that the Su-25T autopilot has severe issues. In particular, the AI doesn't work anymore in modes "level flight" and "attitude hold" (these two i tried so far, i'll try other modes as soon as i have some spare time). The aircraft keeps rolling left and right, without being able to establish the correct flight parameters. Apparently, the same issue afflicts AI aircraft when they try to stay in formation, i saw my AI wingman (Su-25) displaying this behavior after ordering a change of formation. If i had more time i could had been more precise and try out various situations; nonetheless, the bug is easily reproduced by simply engaging the "level flight" (def. key alt+3) on the Su-25T.

lol. anyway the su-27 with new pit and sounds is great

oh man

from what i get, red jtaccing is severely impaired as of now. The current jtac model is an abstraction of the procedures currently employed by the US Army / US Air Force. The red side only gets a very generic model with the CA module and therefore, only in multiplayer. Hope this gets corrected in the future, although i think there is a lack of information in regards as to how forward air control is conducted in the Russian armed forces. I tried to search the internet but couldnt find much. There are pics of some specialized equipment, like laser /ir pointers, but nothing more. The dcs Ka-50 has a UHF radio, but as of now its unfunctional. Its not known to me if its meant to communicate with specialized FAC units on the ground, or how, and at which organizational level the same equipment is disseminated to ground units. The radio has 10 preset channels; it's not clear if its meant to receive data for the abris, in addition to audio. afaik, the data-link device on the shark is not connected to the uhf radio, but i may be wrong

dont forget the whole directx9/11 affair. Directx are the main responsible for the exploitation of the hardware you have. We are running a version which was designed in like 2003, with the hardware of that time in mind. devs need to move on from this dinosaur. Ofc, training personnel to program directx 11 costs money and time. A friend of mine bought the arma 3 alpha and i could see it running on a directx 11 system. I can guarantee that it has astonishing graphics and actually runs much better than arma 2

Is this related to tacview somehow?:)

In my experience all the cbus, the rbks, the kmgus and even air rockets cause the issue. Btw, im willing to renounce to the advanced explosions to get back the fps. I had read something abt the conf file, but cant find the thread. Can anybody explain how is it done? Thx

From what i read (cant really state the sources, the internet anyway), the vikhr has a single shot hit probability >.9 . that seems pretty much similar to other similar same-gen AT missiles. generally speaking, i get that laser beam-riders are the most precise guided munitions (i may be wrong). with radar guided hellfires for example, you have fire and forget capability, without even the need of a los to the target but im not sure they can achieve the same precision, specially in a ECM-dense scenario

sorry for the noobism, I got CA some days ago and im playing around with it. I went through the manual and the forum but couldnt find very much info. I'm trying to setup a simple jtac mission in the editor, something really like "hello world". I just place a target (lets say, a ewr unit), a friendly vehicle and a flight armed with laser bombs passing over the zone at high altitude. I give one jtac role to my side and then fly. upon starting, I get the map view, click on my vehicle and go into binoc view. what I cant really do is somehow contacting the flight ahead (or being contacted) and begin jtaccing for real. I mean, can you jtac for ai aircraft at all? Are there any differences if you do it from the red or the blue side? Is there some kind of tutorial or help video to grasp the basics? Or is CA a pretty mp oriented module and this kind of thing is out of its scope? Thanks in advance JJ

that is exactly the problem. they are gonna say u need cpu power, that the bottleneck is the cpu because the sim is complex and blah blah blah. well unless youre running it on a pentium at 166 mhz the cpu dont matter. not even the whole single/multicore affair would help, we have separate threads for the sound and the rest, and that is more than enough. the problem,and very few seem to grasp it,lies in the obsolescence of the directx 9 version which devs stubbornly refuse to let die out. they were more than enough back then in the first 2000s, now its a joke. yet ppl (me included) keeps spending big bucks on cpus and gpus,always thinking like "now with this cat i will handle dcs and stuff at max detail and all". besides, the whole console thing cant allow pc users to get too superior games. my guess is that we pc users will start to get dx11, multi core and gpus really exploited as soon as the next-gen consoles get released and begin to steam. just my two cents.

sry but, 2 f15e's? isnt that a little absurd? i mean, if they gonna tweak the aircraft to dcs quality and all, wouldnt that mean we 'd get two identical models from two different companies? i know that plane makes up for a rich plate but ?? also, looking at the list, i think its pretty clear which is the new us fixed wing ed is going to release?