statrekmike
-
Posts
720 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by statrekmike
-
-
Yeah. Even a little update of some kind would be good. Just some indication that things are happening.
-
2
-
-
If it were on a pretty significant sale, I would say that it could potentially be a safe purchase but even when we don't specifically talk about the RAZBAM/ED situation, the module isn't finished. I know that some are happy enough with what is there but that doesn't negate the fact that it is missing a good chunk of its intended feature-set and that is not something that should be overlooked.
As it stands. I would honestly hold off. There are plenty of other modules that are in a much better overall state of completion.
-
3
-
-
7 hours ago, LuseKofte said:
That said, I do not buy that NATO /western modules is buildt because it brings in more money, it is a BS policy. This is for most a game, If you build just one sides of a conflict modules, what are they suppose to fight in a combat flight simulator? If it do not pay as much, build it anyway and use the profit from western modules. IT is a CFS for god sake.
DCS being a combat flight simulator does not automatically mean that it needs to offer some kind of balanced set of opposing player controlled aircraft. When you ask "what are they supposed to fight?" the answer that the vast majority of the playerbase would give (if they bothered to argue on forums and most of them don't) is "whatever AI controlled aircraft makes sense in a given mission". Given the maps we have and the aircraft we have available, that is usually going to mean flying in modern multi-role USAF and USN aircraft versus older aircraft operated by forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and the like. Good mission design and an eye towards realistic force compositions can make that pretty interesting but mission designers would need to want to go to that level of detail.
19 minutes ago, SovietAce said:Guys, there is waaaay more info laying on Su-35 than on F-35. It would make a loooot more sense to make than fricking F-35. But hey, then would bluefor cry about getting smacked by R-37Ms in BVR. And we cant make customers angry, cant we
. This is hypocrisy..
Only if you ignore the openly stated difficulties that ED has when it comes to simulating Russian aircraft after Russia started clamping down on that kind of thing. You might not like it but that doesn't make it a less valid reason.
-
2
-
-
16 hours ago, Convoy said:
Do an official poll and ask your community what they rather want. Current modules finished, Core work, asset packs, updated modules, or the F-35. Then put the people at work in that area.
This is an absolutely silly idea. Such a poll would only be seen by the more active, more vocal parts of DCS's enthusiast community. Likewise. It would only attract those who have strong opinions and see such a poll as a way to express said strong opinions directly. Either way, it wouldn't provide ED with any useful data about how much the playerbase as a whole would want such a thing. To be blunt. We are really just the audience here and we don't even know a fraction of what ED does about how well certain modules will do versus others. It is embarrassing when we pretend otherwise just to suit our own narratives.
-
2
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:
I’m not quite sure what this means. I see many large complex scenarios being run online.
This isn't really in dispute at all. I agree fully that these kinds of scenarios are commonplace online (especially in larger, more popular public servers for example) but the popularity and prevalence of these scenarios isn't really what I am talking about at all. I am talking about how well DCS as a platform handles those missions as it is right now and having spent a lot of time with the mission editor over the years, I have found that the larger and more complex you make a scenario, the more DCS (as a platform) struggles to meet the needs and expectations you might have.
Perhaps a more straightforward way to put this is to say that as things are right now, DCS's various underlying design choices favor "more realistic" scenarios. Eagle Dynamics has certainly tried to offer some capacity for larger scenarios that are often seen on the more popular public servers but they (and third parties) put a lot of emphasis on realistic aircraft procedures and as that side of things gets more and more detailed (as it has), the harder it will be to fit those elements in a more "casual" multiplayer scenario experience without creating some kind of friction. The various aircraft modules and even the maps are just more suited for smaller scenarios focused around a single player controlled aircraft (or complimentary aircraft). Again. To be very clear, this isn't a value judgement. I don't have any problem with how others play DCS because I don't play on public servers as a rule anyway. What people do doesn't have any impact on me (at least not yet). All I am saying here is that there will always be friction between DCS's focus on realism/authenticity as a platform and the desires of those who want larger, more open multiplayer scenarios.
Heck. I am pretty sure that this friction will only get more of a spotlight when the dynamic campaign setup comes along since a realistic dynamic campaign generated sortie will be very different from a viable dynamic campaign scenario for a public server. The players who want something that feels very "true to life" in terms of scenario design and structure have very different needs when compared to those who want a good large scale public server dynamic campaign.
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:
Hmmm from what I see the most popular PVP server in this game is basically Air-Quake (Growling Sidewinder) Second in popularity are dynamic war types like Contention and Heatblur. Below that level are a bunch of thinly attended ones that likely aren’t worth playing on due to just the low numbers.
Popularity doesn't really factor into what I am saying. Just because something is popular doesn't mean that there are not some issues with implementing it with the platform by nature of that platform's basic foundational design.
It is interesting. The popular public servers generally seem to attract the portion of the playerbase that is also quite active on the various forums. They spend a lot of time complaining about the limitations of the platform as it relates to the aforementioned public servers/scenarios they frequent. There is a reason for this. Without making any real judgements about how one chooses to play the game or one's priorities and personal biases, it is hard to not see how focused DCS World is on the "small scale single mission simulator" aspect and how uncomfortably it handles larger public PvP/PvE servers just by nature of its subject matter and basic design.
The repair time thing is one tiny example of this (to a degree). For smaller co-op missions, the repair timer isn't likely to be encountered to any great degree since you are more likely to find "one and done" missions with a fixed beginning, middle, and end. When you land after doing whatever it is that you were doing, you are likely done with the mission entirely. In contrast, that repair timer becomes an issue when you are on a larger public server where things have to run for a long period of time and players are (if they don't get shot down and understand how to land with some degree of reliability) likely to make several trips and need rearming and repair. This process can't really be realistically timed for blatantly obvious reasons (nobody wants to wait at least thirty minutes for rearming/refueling and perhaps hours or days for repair in a flight simulation) so scenarios that require that will really highlight some of the realism weaknesses of the platform (and of consumer level combat flight simming in the most general sense). The more you configure a scenario for large scale public server consumption, the more resistance you are going to get from DCS as a platform in terms of design and functionality.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:
It’s certainly possible to create an air-start instant action mission in DCS. I can’t say I’ve ever seen a server run scenarios like this though. I don’t get the impression that this style of gameplay appeals to very many players here.
1 minute ago, cfrag said:To me, a game is what you, the player, make of it. DCS's online segment is (IIRC) around 10-12% of the entire user base, and there are many disparate gaming styles in that community. To me, there is exactly one way to play DCS correctly: when you have fun. Some people like one play style, others prefer another. And IMHO all are valid - as long as you don't have fun at the expense of others, e.g. as a Griefer (who should eternally rot in a deep, dank dungeon). When I create a mission, I strive to make it fun so that as many people as possible enjoy it. I don't control what other people like, and when people tell me that they like to try a certain aspect in a new mission, I'll try to accommodate. Over time, successful patterns emerge - for example the "Foothold/Pretense" style of content seems a good, successful formula. So if people enjoy what you call "air quake", let them have fun. If you don't like that style, simply look for a different server that serves up a mission that better suits your playstyle. Neither is better, you merely prefer one.
My point isn't to make a personal value judgement on any one style of play. It is to point out that DCS as a platform is really geared towards more structured, smaller scale experiences. This is likely why the server list at any given time is pretty heavily dominated by locked/private servers for small groups. Obviously one can choose to play however they want but the further you get from that smaller, "single mission simulator" format, the more issues you will have and the more workarounds will be required.
-
1 hour ago, cfrag said:
DCS is UT with an optional 5-10 minute break after downing the potion, there is nothing realistic in DCS in this regard either. If your plane gets dinged up, it's in for a couple of months in the shop. Even if not, after you land, you are in for a multi-hour debrief, some more debrief with the intelligence dudes, some sleep, and at least a day of prep for the next sortie. There is no way that you'd take off 10 minutes after landing a smoking husk of a plane, that's pure arcade gaming, so we may as well concede that.
You are jumping to an absurd extreme that is outside the obvious scope of the sim to support your argument. Don't get me wrong. I do think the mission maker or the server host should have control over the repair time but at the same time, I think it is pretty obvious that DCS is really all about the "in-cockpit" experience and doesn't need to account for real-world aircraft turn-around and repair times. Granted. It would be interesting to let players get a bit closer to the real-life turnaround time of some aircraft (like the A-10 for example) as a way to make players more carefully think about their loadouts and how they use them but that would depend greatly on the intent of the scenario and the server involved.
To be honest. I am kinda surprised that certain parts of the DCS community haven't yet grasped that DCS as a platform isn't exactly suited for fast paced public server "air quake" action gameplay. It "kinda" works but it is like trying to hammer a square peg into a circular hole.
-
1
-
-
On 6/3/2024 at 10:59 AM, Tenkom said:
I can see why some may want it but I don't see why the module needs it. You can do everything from the front seat, apart from turning on the RWR and TGP.
It no more needs it than a hornet or viper IMHO.
It isn't so much about "need" exactly. That said. I do think that when you factor in all the other multi-crew modules that do have some kind of AI (either Jester, George, or Petrovich), the F-15E's lack of AI stands out. Even more so when you consider other elements that are not yet implemented or don't work properly.
-
2
-
-
This is a really good idea. Right now, the tanker lights don't even act as light sources and while they are apparently somewhat hard to see in real life, they still should be better than they are in the sim. A pop-up in the style of the Supercarrier lights would be pretty idea and would certainly compensate not just for the poor tanker lighting but also help offset issues that come from different default head (camera) positions in the cockpit.
I know doing such a thing wouldn't be trivial but it really should be at least an option at this point.
-
1
-
-
47 minutes ago, NineLine said:
Sadly it seems you are trying to find negativity in this announcement, I do not understand the point you are trying to make here.
First I have played hundreds upon hundreds of missions on the Caucasus map with Blue and Red aircraft and enjoyed my time there. I am not sure what your rules are towards "semi-convincing/plausible mission" but I have never flown one and said, boy this is unrealistic and I am not having fun aside from the fact I am sitting in my house on a computer. So if you are saying you cannot make mission on a map that are not fun based on them having to be plausible then I think you not letting your imagination flow.
The same goes with the Early Access portion of Afghanistan, you will be able to see up what I consider to be at the very least "semi-convincing/plausible mission" such as COIN but why limit yourself... draw a line in the sand, put red on one side and blue on the other and create a story and just have fun, like every other map in DCS. I think some are just overthinking this waaaaay too much, but also this is not a mandatory purchase if it isn't your thing then we understand like any of our modules while we appreciate every purchase we understand not every one is for everyone.
I was clarifying my original position because there seemed to be some confusion as to why someone might want access to parts of the map that cover specific bases and such. Obviously this isn't a long-term issue since it has since been clarified that the limited scope of the map is an early access thing and will not reflect the final product (the entirety of Afghanistan). Still. I wanted to answer that specific comment since it missed the point I was making originally.
Again. I want to make it very clear that the post that the other user was trying to mischaracterize was made before there was clarification of what would be early access and what would be in the final product. It would perhaps have been a good idea to include something to the effect of "After early access, the map will be expanded to encompass the whole of Afghanistan". I am not going out of my way to find negativity here. I just politely wanted to give my opinion and when another user decided to characterize that opinion as something else, I clarified.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, SlipHavoc said:
Sorry, the yellow box. And that covers basically everything of interest in the PG map: all the airfields, and all the detailed terrain. And people are talking about only being able to fly helicopters on the Afghanistan map...
I bet they don't only fly helicopters on PG.
The Persian Gulf map is set up in such a way that one can (with some minor bending of reality) create Coalition/NATO focused missions based off either an appropriately placed carrier or an airbase that such forces could actually work out of. The early access portion of the Afghanistan map allows for neither and is more suited for helicopter operations as a result. There is a specific subset of DCS players that won't care either way but considering the realism that Eagle Dynamics is going for with the modules, it makes sense to also want maps that allow those modules to operate in at least mostly realistic contexts.
Both Syria and the Persian Gulf maps are very well designed in this regard. They allow for quite a bit of versatility when it comes to realistic mission design. In contrast. The early access portion of the Afghanistan map will be similar to the Caucasus map in that it is basically impossible to make even a semi-convincing/plausible mission that isn't entirely devoted to either helicopters, Russian made aircraft, or perhaps L-39s.
-
2
-
-
At the risk of sounding overly critical. Is there any long term plan to expand out to Bagram? At the moment, the map doesn't really offer much in regards to GWOT era aviation and since ED has put so much effort into airplanes like the Hornet and F-16, it seems odd not to give at least one of them a viable staging area. This is especially the case when you consider the historic weight that Afghanistan has when it comes to modern combat aviation.
Without a viable spot for a carrier or Bagram airbase. There isn't really any room for even semi-authentic GWOT combat flights in anything but perhaps helicopters. It is going to be tough not to think about that when it comes time to pre-order.
-
1
-
-
On 7/29/2023 at 12:47 PM, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:
Yes and you can't fault ED for that: they model the DCS: F-16C flight model after the real thing, regardless of what PC hardware is like. It will just be and stay a pain in the behind for those who don't have a R3L (or similar).
Considering that ED has a history of providing options to compensate for the difference between real-life and common flight sim controls, providing a option to get rid of the deadzone is perfectly logical and I would even go as far as to say it is absolutely necessary. That way, the minority of players that have high-end force sensing setups can get what they want and the majority who don't can actually enjoy the module fully as well.
There is really no logical reason not to provide such an option considering that it just isn't reasonable to expect everyone to buy a rather uncommon force sensing stick base just to get rid of that obtrusive deadzone. DCS already places a lot of demands on players when it comes to buying equipment, there is no need to add another layer to that.
-
4
-
-
On 9/14/2022 at 3:47 PM, exhausted said:
Probably because a settled methodology may have been found to be closer to the real setup than whatever you tried, even if it benefitted you to learn to keybind through this.
There is nothing really stopping anyone from simply looking up a diagram of a real-life aircraft's stick and throttle as a guide. One doesn't need to rely entirely on others for this process and thus waste a lot of their own time.
-
2
-
-
On 8/26/2022 at 1:08 AM, martinistripes said:
I know all this. But it's still unrealistic that both sides would have exactly the same equipment. Sure, include some F-14s on redfor and maybe a couple of Mi-8 on blufor (as a mock Mi-17). But both sides with F-18? Or both sides with Ka-50? Just doesn't work for me as a believable scenario.
And you can still balance even when both sides have different aircraft. If you feel blufor has better fighters, give redfor more SAMs. If blufor has an advantage in tanks, give redfor more CAS slots. It creates a more unique challenge on the server.
As a bonus, you can then remove labels and map icons and do some proper IFF.
Well this is just how I feel about most servers, and you can just tell me, "run your own server, if you don't like what's on offer". Which is fine. I was just interested in why server admins were doing it this way (both sides have everything).
It is important to understand that for DCS's (very) dedicated public multiplayer community, it isn't really possible to do realistic scenarios or even semi-realistic aircraft selections on a per-team basis simply because DCS was never built for a balanced multiplayer experience in the first place. It's very underlying DNA just isn't compatible with the kind of balance you need for that kind of thing. As such, those who run the servers and those who make the scenarios for those servers have to find ways to artificially compensate by implementing their own balancing measures. This is also why you are not likely to see terribly realistic "PvE" scenarios on public servers either. That scene demands a certain level of accessibility that doesn't really allow for a whole lot of strict realism.
In a lot of ways, DCS's public multiplayer scene is a ENTIRELY different world when compared to the private sever (for organized groups) co-op scene and the single player scene. A lot of the logic one would apply to co-op or single player missions to make them more realistic or authentic feeling would make public servers less viable.
The PvP servers that have the same planes on both sides are doing that because they want a artificially balanced experience for the sake of a fair fight. That is obviously not going to be important for every DCS player (it certainly isn't important for me) but it does mean you need to go into that scene with very heavily adjusted expectations in regards to realism.
-
1
-
-
Seeing the username of the redditor who kicked off that exchange really brought me back to the big reason I stopped bothering with Hoggit (and reddit in general to be honest). There are better ways to keep up with what is going on in DCS without having to deal with the usual social media nonsense.
-
2
-
-
Has there been any forward motion on this issue? At the moment, the module has kinda been grounded for me since this is something that actively interferes with normal mission requirements. Hopefully this is something we see a fix for in the next Open Beta patch since I am eager to really start flying it.
-
3
-
-
To piggyback a bit on the excellent post above. It is also important to have some perspective in that unlike a real combat pilot, we are not going to typically be focused on a single aircraft. DCS has a lot of different airplanes with some wildly different control schemes. If you are the type of player that uses a lot of modules, it starts to get VERY impractical to try and have a bunch of different binding methods across all the different aircraft. It makes learning and using the aircraft harder than it really should be. Again. Real combat pilots don't need to bounce between various, entirely different aircraft like we in the DCS community tend to do.
It makes good sense to have a general method of assigning controls across a range of aircraft. Obviously there are going to be special considerations here and there but a lot of stuff can just go in the same place every time.
-
1
-
-
This is really the kind of thing that will need a hotfix as soon as possible. It is a major problem.
-
2
-
-
Yeah. A minor issue overall but it does look quite distracting when on the ground, that is for sure.
-
2 hours ago, jojo said:
Please, can you give us some news about ALT1 and ALT2 failures ?
Because it's happening well outside of the manual's chart.
If it isn't a bug we need more details about how to avoid it ?
Yeah. This is a pretty massive bug that pretty much eliminates the jet's high(ish) altitude interception/CAP ability. The more details we get about this, the better.
-
1 hour ago, turkeydriver said:
Page 116 of the flight manual. The engine regulates alternator heat via BOV that vent the heat. The speed band increases with altitude but you should remain above Mach .6 to stay out of the zone where alternator failure will occurs due to negative pressure in the intakes…..I took a pic of the ref buts over 5 mb and can’t post it. The Failure model might be need a little tuning but it appears you can’t cruise at slower speeds without risking alternator failure.
I just experienced a alternator 2 failure while cruising at about 35,000 feet and going mach 0.8.
-
1
-
-
On 7/25/2022 at 1:49 PM, RafaPolit said:
Thanks so much for this answer.
This last phrase is, precisely, why I think that having the JSOW-C, even if not 100% accurate, was not such a crazy idea. I understand that ED (or third party contributors) cannot model every variation of every plane with every variation of every weapon it can carry. Still, when I purchase the F-16, in my mind I am purchasing "the general use and scope that the F-16 has served in the US (and other!!!) armies". So, if some form of F-16 at some point gained that ability, it makes sense (for me) to offer a point-target standoff weapon.
In contrast, the general accepted approach of "we are modeling the F-16C from the USAF that operated between feb and june 2007", makes for a less versatile include in different types of missions. For example, let's say I wanted to model a fictional mission with a stolen older F-16C that was retrofitted an GBU-39 SDB! Sure, that probably never happened, but EDs "limiting" approach prevents those scenarios from being created.
I don't know if anyone wonders why, for example, there is but ONE official campaign for the F-16? Is there really no interest at all in the plane? Is it that missions are more limiting due to some reason or another? In my mind (and I am a developer of software in my non-gaming life!) providing versatility (as opposed to more limiting scenarios) greatly enhances the capabilities of our users to be more creative, to expand the boundaries of our modules / software and to use our software in ways we even didn't imagine in the first place.So, if I provide full flexibility, and a particular creator thinks that that GBU-39 SDB overpowers the F-16, he or she can take it away with the click of a button. The other way around is not possible. If some creator thinks that that is the "twist" required for his story, he cannot include it, no matter what with the current options available.
With all that said, I still think that we should be able to have those options, and allow the mission creators to limit them if they think that means that everyone would just pick the F-16 in their servers. This also fulfills the notion expressed above about diversity and not having a one plane that can do it all. So, I'd still think there are merits for this, outside of the 100% factual approach that ED takes for the modules.I take it I am on the "lesser popular" boat. Sure. But some people here are inclined to thinking that if you are not with the majority, then you are surely wrong, no matter what. That is why I really appreciate the research and thoughtfulness in your reply @Bunny Clark . Thanks a lot! That makes for a constructive conversation around an issue and I really appreciate that.
Best regards,
Rafa.
Look. I am going to be a bit blunt here and say that versatility isn't really the issue here. The F-16 module as it is right now (and especially as it will be when it is feature complete) is VERY versatile already. That said. No aircraft in DCS is going to be ideal for every possible role and sometimes the weapons cleared for use on a given aircraft are not going to match up with some arbitrary gameplay level requirement we might want to personally impose. Eagle Dynamics and the various third party developers are not really beholden to whatever fantastical scenario a given player can think up. DCS World has always been marketed and designed as a pretty realistic combat flight sim sandbox and that means that while there are a lot of aircraft modules that cover the entire gamut of possible mission types and roles, no one aircraft is intended to excel at everything arbitrarily. Choosing the right aircraft for a given mission or part of a mission is part of the job of a DCS mission designer and that will inevitably mean that sometimes we don't get to use our favorite module for EVERY possible job.
It is useful to look at it like this. Since Eagle Dynamics is developing DCS World as a pretty realistic combat flight sim sandbox, it makes sense that like in real life, you really have to think of each aircraft as part of a larger "airpower ecosystem". Even the most modern real-world multi-role aircraft is going to have individual strengths and weaknesses and as such, military planners and those that develop doctrine will plan missions with multiple aircraft types involved as a way to offset those weaknesses and fill any capability gaps. A DCS mission designer needs to think the same way. That is the whole point. If you want to deliver a single warhead from the longer end of stand-off ranges, you need to understand what aircraft module will do that for you and build your mission accordingly. If you are dead-set on having F-16's in said mission, there are plenty of ways to integrate them in supporting roles. It falls on you to creatively find ways to fit realistic platforms into whatever fantastical scenario you can dream up.
-
3
-
Map progress / news
in DCS: Iraq
Posted
Yes. They didn't get the discount percentage correct. That being said. It is pretty safe to say that a lot of folks bought the early access Iraq map based on what it will eventually end up becoming. As such. It is understandable that we would want even some pretty basic indications that things are moving along even if no fine details can be revealed. Iraq is very much a "big deal" map for DCS and development for it has been quite quiet.