Jump to content

Eihort

Members
  • Posts

    460
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Eihort

  • Birthday 07/14/1980

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS, MSFS2020, Prepar3d
  • Location
    Las Vegas
  • Interests
    Flight Simming

Recent Profile Visitors

8782 profile views
  1. Any word on this one in particular? I was really looking forward to this part of it myself. Not that any of the items in the previous posts don't pique my interest!
  2. Disregard. I can't reproduce this now.
  3. Multiplayer, Syria, Cold-start. After startup and airborne, I could see the text subtitles for communicating AI units, but I could not hear any of the audio even with the radio knobs turned up. The AI responded to me (tanker) and I was able to refuel just fine, I just could not hear them or the AWACS, only see their text when they transmitted. When I switched aircraft (to F-14A), without disconnecting, I could hear them fine again.
  4. I believe this is "working as implemented" at this point. The problem is you can't have two things mapped to the same control in DCS. The VoIP category is used across all planes, so when you map it in one plane, it wipes out that mapping across all others. The only solution to this is what Heatblur and Dekka have implemented in their planes, which are dedicated mappings specific to their aircraft just for using VoIP functions. Heatblur especially has had one in there for SRS for a while now and implemented DCS VoIP as well. ED needs to have this done in all of theirs, and frankly, should have had it done when they released this feature for this very reason, even with a generic mapping for FC3 aircraft. I don't think you're ever going to get the native ability to have two functions fire with one button press inside DCS (both VoIP and Radio Menu open). You'll have to use some kind of 3rd party joystick software to program it into the buttons themselves. The closest I've gotten is using SRS and having SRS map itself to the same button as the DCS Comm functions of the aircraft I'm flying. However, since I like taking screenshots during flights, which uses the F-keys a whole lot, having that menu pop open and close all the time is a pain in the rear. Your only solution is to remap these every time you switch aircraft.
  5. Same thing I've tried damn near everything. I'm very computer literate and very amateur musician so I've messed around with audio on my system front to back and helped others setup streaming PCs and banana meter. Short version: I know what the **** I'm doing. 1. Windows Exclusivity for audio devices - no effect 2. Disabling all audio devices save the one - no effect 3. Multiple Reboots between changes - no effect 4. Changing default comms devices - no effect 5. Swapping devices after DCS loads - no effect 6. Changing the volume of the mic before/during/after then rebooting DCS and/or system - no effect No matter what I do, I cannot hear anyone in VoiP. I can connect, see the green light come on, hear the canned static, but I cannot hear anyone. I also get the volume lowering bug. Rather sporadically, they can hear me from time to time, but I can't hear them. SRS, Discord, any other game and it's VoiP works just fine.
  6. The problem is that's kind of a losing proposition for them. Let's play the hypotheticals and say that these AI changes are going to fix those problems and back up 30 months to when they're planning how they're going to attack this issue of the GFM and plan it all out. They know the system they have right now, although flawed, works and that they have campaigns and products sitting in their store people have paid money for and 3rd party devs had spent development time and money on to get to work with that flawed system. None of us are privy to how those agreements work if ED decides to change something in the base game that could potentially break something in those missions that then causes those 3rd parties to have to spend their own dev time and money fixing them. They don't have a choice because their own paying customers now own a broken product. Regardless of what's in our EULAs, it's a bad image. So they have two choices. 1. Do nothing with the current system and put all dev resources towards the new AI and GFM effort over the next ~18mo. to complete it and just replace the old flawed system. As part of the testing process they can run it against the missions in-house and see how it performs and at least provide 3rd parties with estimates of what needs changes in their missions to get them to execute as they intended. In an absolutely perfect world, to quote an (in)famous RPG dev, "It just works" and the mission designers don't have to do much of anything, or ED writes a fancy "update script" they can just point at all the missions that does the necessary changes automagically. (I think the reality will be something between. A script to update the missions with potentially new AI parameters that then devs will have to go in and set, but should be straightforward and not labor intensive.) 2. Split part of the team and add the incremental changes to get the flawed system slightly better and potentially then get knock on and trickle down problems that they then have to go back and fix over and over, breaking the game and missions repeatedly as it's tweaked. You won't see the first of these changes probably for another 6-9mo. and then the "usual" 1-2mo. between to fix the small problems and then even longer to fix the larger ones, and then for what? To fix a system that's going to get thrown out the window down the road anyway? It's wasted time and resources and a headache for anyone that's built a mission and particularly antagonizing towards customers (theirs and those of 3rd parties) that paid for content that breaks repeatedly. You may have noticed that I said 18 mo. in that hypothetical meeting 30 mo. ago.... That might have been the original projection until the plague hit and screwed everything up. -------------------------------- On the topic of the AI changes themselves, I'm also looking forward to the day that we're not fighting F-5s with whackadoodle physics defying flight models. I will concede I don't know the definition, and thusly the limits, of trajectory based modeling of the SFM, but what we have now at times for the AI is hardly anything that could be called accurate. I certainly hope we're also not here a year from now getting another message about how it's delayed into 2023. I'm sorry but the track record just isn't that good and I don't forget or forgive that lightly. The high detail Kuz model was shown in videos for years, and not actually in game, and then put behind a pay wall. The SA-5 was teased for a year a half in screen shots before finally making it's way in game, and we don't even have the right EW radar for it yet (granted the actual implementation of the missile is AMAZING). And the Apache videos looked promising and things seemed to be "on schedule" to us on the outside and then we got the bad news. Of course that's understand able, as we don't want a repeat of the Viper release, however the fact the Viper release happened.... So on a scale from Kuz to Apache, I'm wondering where this is gong to land...
  7. So when exactly can we expect the Hornet to get the capability to carry 87s and 103s?
  8. It's in the Apache trailer if you look closely. Smart money says this drops with the Apache. (THIS IS PERSONAL SPECULATION)
  9. It's all dependent on the command center and what types of radars they were meant to interface with and receive data (tracks) from and then distribute that information out from. If you play the SAM SIMULATOR game it's a bit more intuitive how it's supposed to work. A lot of these SAM systems have a switch to just forcefully "accept" the targeting info from the IADS network link that the HQ is sending them. Remember these all have telecommunication/network/data standards spanning decades and formats/speeds (wireless microwave, cable, telephone), so it's hardly "plug-n-play".
  10. The 4/26/19 newsletter about developing an IADS didn't age well either. They must have had little/nothing at all done in house on it by August 2020, and didn't plan on doing so for at least the next two years or more to consider handing it off to another company, so all that waiting was in vain. The good news is that I've seen the above behavior exhibited by the SA-5 so far and it's one nasty [REDACTED]. I'm loving trying to fight it. Just still disappointed we don't have an appropriately ranged search radar to pair it with.
  11. This thread may be of interest to you, and as someone who was born and raised in vegas and has done a lot of flying in the area at various times of day IRL, yes, the DCS coloring is very much off. I also posted in this other thread. Some of Bob1943's pics have held up well and some haven't. The one with 229 dead center is a little faded, but the one them going into the break with 211 center has held up pretty well. Overall I find most of the textures in the Nevada map, indeed, are way too bright and not actually brown enough.
  12. If you're talking about that B&W center MFD screenshot, that image reminds me very much of what the A-10C has had with it's LITENING pod since it's release a decade ago.
  13. I was literally about to post this question myself. Are we going to see the new FLIR modeling drop with the Apache for EA or it still going to use the legacy FLIR modeling? They've been telling us about the new FLIR graphics for a while now and we're still waiting. Going to be incredibly disappointed if the Apache is going to be stuck with the old model.
  14. Better than nothing I suppose, but since the high detail Kuz model, getting just a *little* tired of taking literal *years* between teases and release.
×
×
  • Create New...