Bananabrai

Hi, Nellis is such a big airfield, but only accomodates 6 Large A/C. I am trying to build a mission with at least 6 Tankers, (KC-130s and 135s). But my AWACS already needs to take off from the RWY or McCarren. The spots and the space would be there, where is the problem?

Ich denke da werden die sich bei ED noch ordentlich den Kopf zerbrechen. Einerseits kann ich das Argument bezüglich Huey verstehen, der Rest deiner Punkte ist subjektives empfinden. Passen würde es super. Andererseits wünschen sich ja viele einen US-Kapf-Helo, da es keine Pendant zum Ka-50 gibt und jetzt auch noch eine/ein(?) Hind folgt. Also zwei Red-For Helos vs. genau 0 ("zero") Blue-For. Und da den AH-1F als Pendant zur Ka-50 zu nennen wird viele (ich halte mich da raus) stören, wie sehen das die Anderen hier? Die Ka-50 ist doch recht modern/komplex in ihrer Avionik. Die AH-1F dürfte dagegen sehr rudimentär (im Vergleich) sein. Selbst wenn man sagen würde, ein Apachen-Häuptling wäre das Gegenstück zum Hockum, eine AH-1F wäre auch nicht so richtig ein Gegenstück zum Hind. (wobei der ja eh recht einzigartig ist) Ich vermute daher kommt der Wunsch nach einer 'W' Versteh mich nicht falsch, mich persönlich kümmert diese "Gegenstück-Thematik" nicht so, ist ja bei den fixed-wing auch nicht der Fall. Aber ich könnte mir vorstellen das es vielen wichtig ist. Und es fehlt ja leider auch ein schönes gemeinsames Setting für AH-1F und UH-1H. Es kommt ja hoffentlich irgendwann die F-4E, dann schauts schon besser aus. Aber ansonsten ist's eher mau, auch mit Terrains, oder? Ich hab mittlerweile zu viele fixed wings die mich interssieren, der Huey steht nur noch im Hangar. Auf das Missionsbauen und -fligen mit Hinds freu ich mich aber trotzdem ziemlich. Zumal er ja mittlerweile auch bei westlichen Operationen ist, und damit nicht das Gefühl wie ein Ka-50 bei RED FLAG vermittelt...

For MP it is dependant on the Skin. If you take a skin that is default made for the 3-blade, others can see the 3-blader. We're doing tarining in our squadron on the 3-blade for a year and a half now. No issue

Geile Karte, fehlt nur noch Zypern... Ein "Klappdrache", wie meine Eurofighter Kollegen so gerne sagen, würde sich da sehr gut machen :pilotfly:

Hardware kaufen ist immer eine Art von Pokern. Ich hab mir einen Rechner NUR für DCS gekauft, und es ist trotzdem ein AMD. Das ist halt auch einfach irgendwie Subjektiv. Vielleicht wäre ich mit Intel schneller gewesen. Vielleicht spiele ich aber auch demnächst doch noch andere Spiele damit. Vielleicht vielleicht vielleicht... Ich glaub Alita hat sich schon für Intel entschieden. Demnach ist die Debate eh sinnfrei. Daher auch von mir nochmal der Rat wie am Anfang auch: - Irgendwas mit viel performance pro Kern, statt viele Kerne. - Irgendwas, was man hoch takten kann, aber noch gekühlt bekommt! Letzterer Punkt ist nicht zu vernachlässigen. Das war auch mein Grund gegen 3900X oder 3950X, mit der neuen Kühlung takte ich meinen 3800X auf ca. 4,4 GHz... Intel GHz ist übrigens nicht gleichzusetzten mit AMD GHz... Weiß nicht wie die Umrechnung ist, aber es gibt eine.

This list is awesome :thumbup: I totaly agree to your opinion, partly for other reasons, but with the same result. One small thing though. The situation we have in DCS could replicate a conflict of modern US with a country that still uses that old tech. What we can not do is replicate the potential conflicts that we have the maps for... So no offense, I'm with you here. Would rather like to see 70s-90s tech

Does it refer which variant is capable of carrying them? The 'plus' or the 'N/A' I can't find any pictures of it carrying any of those three. Would ne nice to have them on the jet. But I am not that super-restrictive-guy anyway.

I hope it can be done (a positive ED statement to that would keep me calm for the next 5+ years) I hope it will be done I fear its going to be very long time before they start joining maps. I hope it won't be as long as I fear it will be...

Not all of them are. Early ones were painted But then they realized, they don't know how to get the paint off without ruining the carbon fibre fuselage panels...

Weiß aus dem Kopf jetzt nicht ob es da ne Datei gibt, wo die Reload-time drin steht. Wo du aber gerade script erwähnst, du kannst ja die Einheiten nach dem Feuern de-spawnen und neue, volle Smerch spawnen lassen. Musst du dich mal durchs MOOSE Discord clicken und fragen. Vielleicht geht das damit. Oder mit CTLD. Kenne mich da nicht aus.

:megalol: Thought about the Simpsons episode where Norwegian people do all the work in Springfield and how they laugh... Love the country, too long since I've been there...

Spotting of other A/C in DCS works not like in real life. How could it, it is not the real life anyway. There is a nice youtube video about spotting and how it depends on your game/screen resolution (mainly) and other settings. If the values could be changed, they may be correct for you, but not for others with different settings. Apart from that, I assume there is nothing to "change". The 3D modell gets redered at a certain distance. I think in DCS its all of the map or something like that, thats why missions with a lot of objects are so frame dropping. So a unit is displayed as soons as its size can be displayed on your resolution. The visual zoom is also a big factor, I don't know any real pilot who as zoom eyes...

Wäre cool wenn die Karte bald kommt, hab aber auch keine Hoffnung auf dieses Jahr. Ich denke man könnte sie schon mal ohne die richtigen Assets testen und spielen. Wir bekommen ja jetzt auch nur nach und nach Module die in den jetzigen Karten genutzt wurden/zu sehen sind/waren. Natürlich wäre es geiler mit Harriers, A-4s, Mirages und einer Vulcan aus der Zeit. Wobei mich für die Karte auch ein ADV reizen würde, um einen späteren erneuten Angriff durchzuspielen...

[ Du könntest mit deinen Vergleichen mal etwas realistischer bleiben, das ist absolute Übertreibung. Es gibt hier vielleicht Leute die solche Schicksale miterleben mussten. Die meisten von uns wissen doch garnicht wie realistisch die Module sind. Trotzdem machts halt manchen Spaß und ich kenn nicht so viele die mit DCS aufgehört haben nur weil bspw. die Module von Razbam teilweise sehr lückenhaft sind. Denke auch das ein Indianer mit den DCS Mitteln recht gut umsetzbar wäre. Ob das Zeug zu Classified ist können auch wieder die meisten nicht einschätzen.

Yep. Would like to see more stuff as well. They did such an iconic bird, but then we need to wait for Block XY to use something which could be done. In how many years?

1. Why would that be more of a nightmare than now? Other nations integrate their weopons in a similar manner to make use of those weapons easy. The pilot needs to concentrate on the mission, SA, formation,... flying and weapon use should mostly be "easy". 2. Well it is already like that so nothing would change. As I said, an additional filter could be used. Call it "reality-check", if you want. It would be very usefull even now, without such requests, I totaly agree. And that's how it simply is, the admin, or lets say mission builder, choses. Nothing would change. 3. I don't see that as a negative point. Now we have US F-15's etc. flying over the Caucasus and so on. As I am a Campaign and Mission builder myself, I like to exploit several potential scenarios. For example, I am currently building a scenario wiithout US envolvment in the Black Sea region. Guess how good I can simulate norwegian F-16's... I think it would give us only more DLC campaigns, as more DCS pilots around the world would be inspired to build missions. As this is hypothetical thinking of both of us, we dont know who would be right. I however like to think positive, I see this as a chance. 4. It maybe would change the mindset. But that does not necessarily relate to more arcady gameplay than now. Why should it? Nobody said anything about arcady AIM-7's. The employment could be realisitc arcoding to other weapons employment. And With such a less realistic airplane some poeple could build more realisitc scenarios (as I mentioned above). And at least this would be a "democrating" way of knowing if virtuals pilots would like this. People still love the realisitc flight phyiscs and the realistic employment. I think the complete playerbase would need to swap out to make such mindset change happening.

Most certainly we wont. But some people try to convince ED to bring additional features and they would like to express this wish and share it with others. It is a valid point that they need to specifiy a certain version to be able to develop a module in a specific time, how it works, how stuff is integrated, etc. Yet there are many versions of the planes we all like to fly and I still can't see a reason to not give people some fictional gimmicks to simulate other nations birds. Many weapons in the US arsenal are intercompatible and handling inside the software is similar, for a reason. They even have real "Franken-planes" themselves sometimes. With the current mindset these would never come true, as development takes a long time. But if something is possible, just not on the perfect approach, why not do it? And there would be ways for "realistic pilots" to avoid such featrures, so this is not a valid point. There could be checkbox in the ME, or an additional server filter (ex.: another check besides integrity check) I can't see anyone "losing" anything, but a few people getting more fun. Just as a side note, we had a Slot-Maschine in the Hornet, I guess that took longer to "develop" than copy the AIM-7 code from the Hornet over to the Viper.

Ja, das mit den SAMs ist nicht leicht wenn man sich intitial damit beschäftigt.

Maybe a stupid question, but did you make sure: The group name of your EW site/sites start with "EW"? The group name of your SAM sites start with "SAM"? Did you load the scripts in the follwoing order? 1. load MIST 2. load skynet-iads-compiled.lua 3. load skynet-iads-setup-YOUR-SCRIPT.lua I always do it that way: 1st triggger: once | time more (5) | do script 1(ex. MIST) + text to confirm trigger worked 2nd triggger: once | time more (10) | do script 2(ex. CTLD)+ text to confirm trigger worked 3rd triggger: once | time more (15) | do script 3(ex. MOOSE)+ text to confirm trigger worked ... [example above not correct/represantative for CTLD, MIST or MOOSE]

It's so frustrating. Is the BAP 100 (and BAT 120) going to happen or not? Is Razbam even reading this? Bugs are annoying, but they show us that they tried to do somthing, at least once. But missing features drive me crazy. Don't even need to mention the Harrier. Oh wait, I did... Gladly there are also potent developers in DCS.

Ja die LaGS (Steht für: LASER guided Sidewinder). Ob das die beste Idee ist die alten AIM-9L los zu werden? :megalol: Was ich von unseren Piloten gehört habe lass ich mal offen...

I feel the same. Most of the real pilots I know would even enjoy that stuff to play around with. But it seems the hardcore guys would never let themselfes convince and just don't use the stuff some wish for. They feel more hardcore than the real pilots sometimes. It's not that you can not stay hardcore but acknowledging a request like that. The F-16 has grown to one of the most versatile jets out there, yet ED limits its capabilites to ensure it is realisitc. On the other hand we can fly the F-16 and any other bird in a WW2 Normandy environment with Eurasian skins and unlimited ammo+fuel ? Or an example for the hardcore guys: If we had the real Viggens NAV system, we wouldnt be able to fly on NTTR, PG, and on most parts of the other maps. At least they should aim to deliver features of other nations Block 50 Birds. Turkish Block 50 CCIP carries SLAM-ER, Singapore Bl.50 carries Harpoon, these are already developed for the Hornet. I mean, come on, we get the tripple carrier for the maverick... About the topic, I don't see why AIM-7 and LANTIRN should be no option. Maybe I wouldnt use them, I have the power to prohibit that as a mission builder. I do build hardcore missions myself... But why should others not be able to use that armament, which could indeed realisticaly be added to the real birds, if there would have been the need for that stuff. The USAF and ANG simply did not do it, because they had the whole other rest of the USAF inventory and the NAVY to support US politics... We don't have all that stuff in DCS. People like to fly as Norwegian F-16s, or Belgian, or Finish Hornets, or Canadian... and so on...

Definitly Balkans!

What would that be? I know there is no HUD in the back (I assume it is available via repeat on a MFD/MFCD) But apart from that, what is only available in the back seat and what is only in the front pit?

Ich hätte es nicht erwähnt wenn "irgendwo" auf einer Klopapierrolle gewesen wäre... :music_whistling: https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/gqzlge/air_combat_sim_podcast_episode_9_razbam_interview/ -> Die Info ist ~ 7 Tagen alt.