bogusheadbox

I think DCS modells the different armour characteristics from different profiles. More (points) afforded to front armour and less (points) afforded to side and top armour. I am pretty sure i read a thread (on rockets) that armour is calculated on a points system therefore enabling splash damage to be taken into consideration. (don't qoute me on it)

@Moa You have totally lost me... :music_whistling: @ GGTharos, Though i am naturally dissapointed that no time can be spent towards a DC, i do understand from what has been written it is a massive undertaking. However, is there any possability that DCS will implement real time mission planning? E.g. you can have "commanders" tasking live and AI units whilst the game is ongoing ? That last option seems the closest way to have a dynamic game whilst not having a dynamic AI generator? Having no programming training (so i could be incorrect here) it seems the last option would be the easiest to implement as the tools are already there. Just need access to mission planner in real time.

not true. F4 a really really really old DC does not give you suicide runs all the time. And as said previously to which you do not seem to take notice of, you can change said plane, routing etc. Silly statement You know, i have played F4, EECH, Steel beasts, IL2 with DG and Scorched Earth, all the lock on franchise and DCS. Yes, a well programmed mission can often be a brilliant experience - not denying that. However that mission will not tie into the next. That mission will be narrow and sterile. That mission will be boring very quickly. That mission will not give you a sense of a theatre of war. And to mention that there are NOT a lot of talented mission builders out there that can give a constant stream of missions to keep you ineterested. What that mission can't do is give you the OMG factors of the uknown that a DC can give you. And some of those moments can outwiegh some of the best man made missions i have everencountered.

Again, how old is the F4 dynamic campaigne, and how old is THAT game. Just taking a shot in the dark here. Because if you are using such programme to train pilots - then i am sure their training would be more scenario based. A single pilot is not and would not be interested in devising theatre wide war strategies. Really, Ohhhh really..:megalol:...... Are they the same realistic missions where if i decide to fly off the designated track the world soon becomes sterile and void of threats..... Where there are no supporting flights in the zone....... where there is no damage and asset tracking?????? Reality denyers.... you sure you are not talking about yourself here.:huh: Now that i have calmed down from a fit of uncontrollable laughter let me just add to this. YES the F4 campain is not perfect. - - - But it does for something that old get most of it right. What it does add is a living world, that is not sterile. It provides something for a WIDE RANGE of people (which is what you want in game - simulation). It gives tacticions a chance to run a war, it gives those that just want to fly a range of diverse missions it gives those that want something in the middle of the previous two an added benefit. It allows more than one online squad to participate in a theatre of war possibly supporting each other without someone building the mission, and knowing the mission. It will encourage teamplay between people as each will have their own flight WORKING TOWARD A COMMON GOAL. It will give you a sense of satisfaction when you complete task and ground troops and further flights can progress. It will give you a sense of purpose if you fail a mission but seriously damage it, that if you get tasked (or another flight is tasked) back to complete said mission, you will see the devastation that was caused previously. It will give cause to support and try to attack supply routes. Enabling you the chance to win a war of attrition rather than a score of the same units killed. IT WILL ELIMINATE THE FRUSTRATING ONLINE SCENARIOS THAT YOU PLAY OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN KNOWING EXACTLY WHERE EVERY ENEMY IS AND KNOWING EXACTLY HOW TO INGRESS WITH ABSOLUTELY NO OPTION FOR A SURPRISE. And probably the most important point. It will create a stronger interest and prolong the life of DCS (just like it has with F4) and in doing so will create revenue for the DCS team to which we will receive additional flyables... That solely is worth a dynamic campain

Yes it can give you a crud mission, but the beauty of the DC of F4 is that you can choose the following... 1. Choose NOT to fly that flight and pick another 2. Handle the ATO yourself (micromanagement which RTS inclined people love) 3. If you do want to fly that flight, but don't like what the computer has given you - simply reroute your flight without doing the whole ATO. That is why the DC in F4 is so good, you have options to CHOOSE WHAT YOU WANT. (i did that in bold as choosing what you want gives you the most rewarding experience in game play) As for steel beasts, it is nothing short of fantastic. However, AI is AI and it can't think for itself. So no wonder it appears more stupid if you want it to "think" for itself. It just needs a lot of rules and conditions (just like triggers) that will govern how it does things. The more you put in the more realistic it will become. (though tanks that don't float which try to cross a river with a handy bridge nearby does ping me off some) Just to re-iterate, falcon 4 (original) has that wonderful dynamic campaigne and that was coded sooooooo long ago. Computers, AI and competant programming have come a long way since then and i would love to see what todays technology and programming ability can provide.

Trimming is your friend. If you think that is a feat, think of the early pioneers in piston planes with rudimentary navigation that crossed entire oceans with no gps, no radar, no comms. Ahhh the sextant, not taught anymore and yet, so bloody reliable. Now that is a feat.

A discussion stops being a discussion when one is unwilling to listen to what the other says. This thread was supposed to be about boredom and how he can aleviate that. Now its just an advertisement for the CE3 engine. This thread has gone far enough and its this thread and not the black shark that bores me. :poster_spam:

HOW - - WHAT - - WHY - - !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How did i totally miss a thread regarding dynamic campaign!!! (must be old age). Yeah i do...... :pilotfly: Ummm +1 for a dynamic campaign

VSI is vertical speed indicator - Acronym is VSI. Perhaps the term VVI is refering to the same instrument but terminology defferent for different countries ? Here (england - who knows what the french do these days ;-) )in Europe and Australia - we call it a VSI Anyhow its the one just left of the shkval with a 0 at "9 O'clock position on the face" and tells you how quick you are climbing or decending.

Its a known bug, Leave the door open stops this from happening.

Well i suppose this brings us back to one of the hottest debates we have had regarding DCS series. And that is a dynamic campaign. A truly dynamic campaign (available in co-op and singleplayer) would give traffic and life to the sim and the ongoing dynamic understanding that what you do will effect the cause of the ongoing war. If DCS had a dynamic campaign, i am sure the "I'm bored / what to do now" threads would / should not appear. Hell, the dynamic campaign kept falcon 4 going way past its used by date quite simply as nothing could (and still can't) offer anything close to it. . . . . @ conure, Its a good idea and in essence we all would like it, but realistically..... How many Arma 2 players would sit on a plane for a minimum of 25 minutes to get to where they can start to move towards the hot zone.

I dunno Groove. I love playing Arma and the interactive element of a good pilot getting the troops to a cleverly thought out insertion point. Its quite easy to hide and move a number of soldiers in an urban environment. Outside of the urban environment, the troops would need to co-ordinate with better defenses. Though if they do ever create the dream of cross platforming the game (ground and air simulation) then they will need a way to put in ordinance / asset tracking (something i think should be implemented in game now) to give a reason for advancing and a reason for retreating. I tell you what though, crack the cross platform issue and i sure as hell will purchase DCS:Chinook or DCS Blackhawk. Love a good insertion :smilewink: [Edit] That could be taken wrong

The only FPS with any kind of simulation detail is arma.

Forward movement.

Fingers crossed the KA-50 can make it into the DCS A-10 world :thumbup:

Lol could you imagine flying the BS in Arma 2. Where every man and his dog carries a stinger. No thanks. Totally unrealistic.

WHats wrong with the good old "mark 1 eyeball" When pitching up to a hover, just look sideways, its one of the best indicators. Then all you need is a quick glance at vsi to ensure you are not going to enter vortex ring state. N.b. you can also engage auto hover when moving forward. Even at 60klm/h Just ensure you reset (by pressing trim) the auto hover when almost stop to keep from drifting backwards

That is actually a load of rubbish. I will use FSX for example. Despite the following. 1. poor game optimization on release. 2. Buggy as all hell on initial release 3. All default aircraft were very poor. 4. Basically lied about some features 5. Minimum specs to run the game were absolutely ridiculous and if there were any trading standards in the games market, they would certainly have breached it. 6. the add on was actually a bug and performance fix with some features that should have been in the first release. 7. Micro$oft fired their development team (rightly so) 8. Rediculous multiplayer client (the gamespy interface rarely worked without porblems) 9. Its multiplay was one of the main marketing features of the game but multiplay does not have AI traffic and traffic controllers (really really stupid) 10. Has a strong competitor which actually does decent flight physics Despite these points to which i could easily expand on, FSX was a success and just take a look at the myriad of 3rd party companies making a business just out of add ons. Don't tell me flight sim industry is dead. If it was dead, the biggest money munching, sell your mother for a profit company would not be investing and advertising in another iteration (especially after firing their old crew)

Well the simple solution is to fit the airframe with JATO (jet assisted take off) Though landing with JATO may cause a need for a new airframe (1.20) :thumbup:

Been a while since i have made a mission so going from memory here. A flag is a condition which is activated when true and can be used to encompass a load of subconditions. For instance you could set a single trigger. E.g. Pilot x flies over area Y and Z will happen. A flag can encompass many trigers and other items. Pilot flies over area X which makes flag codition true - flag true sets off trigger 1,2,3, activates sound 4,5, activates co-alition message 6 etc. Its not for capturing bases, but you could set up a condition for capturing bases within a flag. I hope i have not given you a red herring, but that is what i remember a flag as. I think i need to get back into the mission editor as it has been too long ;-)

The HAMMERHEAD manouver will turn you 180 degrees in direction with 0 lateral space use. Here is a video of one (though the guy almost kills himself and has most certainly severly damaged his helicopter in the process) but it gives you the idea. The hammerhead is brilliant for tight narrow places but involves an increase in height which may sometimes not be what you want.

There have been quite a number of times the travelling box has helped me. For instance when the target drives behind an object obscuring my view. When they pop out behind it (unless they have changed direction or speed), the box will be very close to them and tracking in the same direction. Makes it very easy to reaquire them. But if they change direction (like turn on a different road) then yes the "logic" can make things difficult

I don't think i understand your question. Lock target will lock target. To move off target I either hold down lock target and slew shkval or press the shkval reset button. Uncage shkval will activate the optical sensor and do one of the following. 1. Centre the view of sensor from caged position 2. move sensor to item selected from datalink 3. move sensor to point desgniated from HMS.

After a recent conversation with Bucic, it seems that INU allignment is not modelled and alignment is instantaneous as soon as power is supplied to INU and nav.

Now i have not done this myself, as i spend most of my time online, so any confirmation would be great. But i think you can select an ingress point and send to wingman via datalink to have him move/recon a particular area.