Kaktus29

this is sooo beautiful.. i'm gonna cry a little bit.. it makes me want to drive it around the city to impress the girls.. and if they don't like it, hell who cares, i'm driving the Pantsir man.. sweeet))

haha..lol.. yeah i can imagine this conundrum.. the shot down pilot waits for rescue .. the huey comes to rescue him, but before the pilot gets into huey he is asked by the huey pilot :"sir, have you purchased the huey module?".. and if the answer is no the Huey takes off without him ))

@Scogol ..my scenario envisages Germans as the good guys) .. a War erupting in EU as economic situation deteriorates .. China economy booms, US collapses, EU starts falling apart, US tries to control this mess of an EU, Germany wishes US troops to be gone-after all its been 70 years and still US troops occupy German land.. UK, France and US team up to make sure Germany doesn't break free from the western orbit.. and this is where the interesting game happens, Germany starts siding with Russia, getting into an strategic alliance, Russia obliges since if this war is won it would mean deeper economic partnership between Germany and Russia..something Russia especially desired but never got.. In this scenario China gets in a brawl with Japan so most of US forces are "tied" in the pacific and this would be simulated in such a way that in European theater US would be present mostly as intelligence gathering force, providing logistics, air-refuelling, awacs, ew, and ammo support.. Conflict starts as US troops "accidentally" run over a civilian in Germany, protest erupt, US forces decline to have this soldier put on trial in Germany, things escalate, economic sanctions, blockades, US navy puts itself in the path of the "Blue stream" threatening to cut of Russian oil and gas supply to Germany.. A fight erupts in the sea sinking the US ships and we get to the war scenario.. The potential is great, Poland teams up with US, Scandinavian nations abstain, Baltics as well, and then we have a mesh of planes having it a go across UK,France,Germany,Poland,Russia.. Of course the map would be gigantic compared to Georgia..but in a dream dreamworld of mine this is what would happen in perfect theatre.. Just think of flying over Paris, of Frankfurt, or Warszaw, or Moscow, or Kiev..

i think Vietnam changed location after 15-20 minutes with rigorous training.. SA-6 can re-locate after 15 minutes as well, ..its all about training.. a good documentary about Vietnam use of SAMs and tactics .. together with US tactics ..pro's and con's.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPKmNrht654 Anyway, it would still be nice to have the option to pack your bags in dCS with sam's.. problem is there is no vegetation to hide .. hopefully with EDGE engine there will be more cover for SAM's to hide in.. coupled with "decoys" to draw in the "suckers" and expose them to AAA.. I think Vietnam era theater and campaign is perfect for this, ..especially since we are getting Mig-21, have the Huey, all we need is the F-4 and we have a skeleton crew of 1960-1970 era machines.. a good SA-3 simulation is needed to complete the round..

yes,made it work.. geesh, it took time, problem was how to create a group.. you have to just "print out" 4 units of the same stuff, then you have your group..then within this 4 units you change them accordingly to get your right combination of units to have an effective SAM.. now, next step is .. getting the ability to pack your bags and go to another location after your kill))

this is just wtf)) so far i can't make any of the SAMs that need "assembling" fire.. i can't make them respond to a threat no matter what.. is it the grouping, the naming of the group, the number, the distance from them, the number of launchers vs. search radar or track radar.. i really don't have the patience to test millions of combinations.. i thought this was easier.. it looks like mission impossible with a slight difference-tom cruise actually makes it in the end, i can't)) can somebody give me a working "template" how to make any of the assembling SAMs fire(S-300, Patriot, Hawk, SA-3, SA-6) .. ?

i can't seem to make the SA-3 work.. as it is it is comprised with search radar truck, and then probably tracking radar(this bitch doesn't want to deploy no matter what)) and then you have your launchers.. i have put all "names" in the name box under "SAM 3" for instance.. so they should be in one group.. is that important not.. who knows.. man, how can i make it work)lol.. will try to check your test mission..

tnx will try.. "expand" them into a group? aha.. i guess this is something i didn't do.. hope i can manage and do just that.. maybe this is what i was doing wrong.. tnx ..

i think bigger maps are essential since whole Air power is very much dependent on air bases and distance to target.. its very strategic. .like if the distance to target is more than 1000km A-10 is pretty much cut off from action..which means air-refuelling is needed to accomplish the mission.. right now air-refuel is not needed.. now, flying for 5 hours is boring i agree, especially since when you enter into combat you can die in 5 seconds and go FFUUUU*K .. but why need to fly those 5 hours, why not go to F10 and speed up the time until you feel like it and jump back into the plane? .. so most of the time you could "guide" your forces in quite a tactical strategic way, and only jump into the seat of the A-10 of F-15 when human touch is needed to accomplish the task.. I think the greatest allure lies in using tactically the planes, organization of their sorties .. logistic overview etc.. other players in MP can "wait" until "interesting" stuff happens and "commander" gives you a green light to take over a plane so you still fight and fly in those 10-30 minutes of "fun and action" and avoid the 5-10 hours of flight.. but something tells me DCS World is far from stable enough to support such long hours mission where action would be happening for 10-18 hours non-stop..

..to make it work? how many launchers, how far away can they be from command post, tracking radar etc.. i really can't seem to make them fire and work.. don't know the combination of it.. or for other system as well, like SA-3 etc..

@ericoh .. i agree the map quality could be better, but you seem to not mention that BF or Arma and others have a really small map compared to large theater of operation that DCS must simulate .. flying in 5*5km box is not really conducive to enjoying DCS A-10 or F-15/Su-27 .. The problem is how much would FPS drop when one would make Arma 3 quality world the size of DCS -Georgia map.. as far as i understand BF, Arma and other they simulate something like 5x5 km patches.. try doing this in 200x400 km patch and tell me how "smooth" flying over that would be? .. if it can be done super, i'm all for it, but even if its possible(which i doubt) it would take ages to simulate so many villages, cities, roads, landscape .. just try to draw on hand a small village and it will take you 3 days to complete it..and this only 2kmX1km small patch..

of course, i think as many probably that immersion is needed.. immersion is also scenery.. but its much harder to do hi-fi scenery just like that.. if you have a 4x5 miles battlefield and put all your sources on this little patch of land you can make extreme details, villages, city skyscrapers, buildings where soldiers can enter, occupy, shoot from, .. and then its bliss for chopper pilots... i mean i don't think we would leave the computer until we would starve and somebody would find us drooling over the keyboard going "i need more, i need to check the south part of the city again.. must try, must prevail..")) but its hard to do such scenery in DCS..it is too big for such a detail to be implemented.. unless they manage to do a bubble graphic engine..where other parts of the map gets "blurred" by the GPU, CPU and your computer only concentrates on the 4x5 mile patch of land..so you can have your hi-fi scenery.. but even if this works it still means lots of work for DCS to create this.. would you guys be happy if we had only small patches of hi-fi scenery like the cities and villages but not the other un-populated areas?.. so when battles would occur in the cities, there would be more action, more CAS(that would be much more difficult to implement with A-10/Su-25 but more with AH?.. and seeing squads, platoons go take cover, fire for cover, flanking the enemy, calling back-up, going into a building.. or would this require the newest super-computer to implement? ..

i think much can be done to make the CPU load easier.. programming stuff to make it run smooth is an art.. a terrible programmers can complicate to such a degree the whole thing grinds to a halt.. so its hard and easy at the same time.. is it really necessary to have each bomblet simulated? and have its own SFM? ..or god knows what else?.. a simple cover area calculation for the weapon and altitude you release it should be enough. .then have the percentage of targets that can be destroyed and you get a simplified math equation with no drop in Frame rates. and also not much different outcome on the ground with today's more complicated calculations..

i guess it works this way better yeah.. Ka-50 being guided by Ka-52.. but i have read of them leading more obsolete Mi-24 .. but as they upgraded the mi-24s this didn't make any sense any more.. about having pilot becoming more proficient in co-axial design i think this is true..its hard to contemplate how this would be more difficult than normal design of helicopter.. about maintenance i'm not sure, you could be right.. i just think loosing the rotor and all the moving parts that make it turn is harder to maintain plus you loose power because of this while in co-axial design you retain all the lifting power thus getting more power and stability not to mention wind stability which is important for all-weather design.. Ka-50 did great in mountainous Chechnya region where strong winds toss other helicopters with rotary design like rag-dolls and make it hard to fly yet alone hover.. the only drawback i think is 1 pilot design.. but with more tech and automation i think it is still valid experiment.. and showcasing where AH are going..

Its true, one pilot Ka-50 is too much.. even with automation that it has.. but it doesn't mean it can't do the job.. but should be used differently than normal combat front-line attack helicopters like Apache or Havoc .. I guess a platform to guide and help lead Mi-24V's or Mi-35s it could still do its mission.. Of course the Russian military decided for the 2 seater so now they have their Ka-52 coupled with Mil Mi-28 Havoc.. Learning and becoming proficient must be easier in the Ka model .. which in the end reduces cost of training pilots.. also logistically speaking it is less complex so its easier to maintain as well.. having two rotors of same size, same design instead of one big and one small -meaning more different moving parts .. for me, Ka-50 forever)) a one man assasin.. plus love the gun thump-ing as you are firing.. great gun.. for Ka-50 lovers.. enjoy this video.. love the music and of course the Ka-50 in it..

i love the fact that some of the testing i did recently in DCS world has proved that not all SAMs are stupid.. i put some tunguska's in between the block in city..so they were hidden.. and after A-10 shoot maverics and failed and tried bombs and failed i saw the Tunguska respond by repositioning itself to a safer location or at least away from previous location.. still it doesn't do the best optimal move but at least it moves when under fire)) .. about SAM's in general..yeah much more needed to simulate them..

@howie87 ...rightfully said.. man, the amount of $$$ we spend on computer,graphic cards, Track IR's, joystics, throttle sticks, software stuff, and then 1-2 year passes by and we spend again since new comp means new drivers, new gear, better track ir etc.. if one looks at everything ED has done since 1995.. how much would that be? anyone care to crank the numbers?.. i'm just gonna ballpark it and say.. am..let me see, a module was/is about 40 bucks.. we had 1,2,3.. 10 modules so.. about 400 bucks.. 400 bucks for what is it almost 20 years of hard work .. doing work that is appreciated by a very small community(compared to CoD and BF actually pretty much non-existent) and we can see the picture on the other side.. and its not a real shiny one.. i think purchasing 20-40 dollar module for DCS world Su/F shouldn't be too much.. altough i do understand frustration.. being a simmer is not easy.. we want much of everything but sadly get very little and very slowly.. because its just what it is.. ED is the only one in the biz right now still bothering with us drama queens.. My strategy is very simple.. we just have to somehow bring in the stupid huge ass base of players from CoD to ED DCS ))) the problem with this implementation of strategy is how to give the CoD and other arcade community players the brains, patience to appreciate all that they do in arcade to do it in DCS world.. man, can't even imagine what things ED would do with a 5 million customer base!?!?!?

@etherealN ..i know what S stands for.. also this means you have bunch of planes wasting fuel and HARMs so you can get this S.. while in terms of real opponents that can strike back means you have 100 planes in the air (70 of them with SAM's in their mind) while 30 is fighter escorts.. so the enemy can then deliver 100 fighters thus eradicating the whole group.. its a liability to have SEAD flying all the freaking time.. S stands for suppression the other way around also.. you get all kind of gear, planes doing stuff so they can get that "S" while it would be much wiser to have those planes equipped in air-to-air configuration since if you loose a couple of rounds there SAM's really aren't going to be a problem anymore)lol.. but as i said..this is for a real war between two equal opponents.. if you are raiding someone who is 10 times smaller, poorer and less equipped than its hard to parade HARM as a weapon that delivers victory over SAMs..

@peally.. i wouldn't say HARM is ineffective..but just food for thought.. NATO launched about 900 HARMs on Yugoslavia even though Serbia had maybe 40-60 targets that emit any kind of radiation.. so you can see how effective they are..and even then most didn't destroy SAM's but decoys.. In real world its hard to measure the effectiveness of SEAD if you dont' know beforehand the system you are fighting.. the frequencies, the doctrines..positions, signals.. if all that is unknown and you go in armed with anti-radiation missiles you aren't going to do much.. first passively the enemy will watch this huge wave of planes heading towards you..they will wait until they are all "enveloped" with SAMs .. and then they will say "fire" and you will have the most spectacular end of 800 planes from the sky.. SAMs work only when in synergy with other sam's and planes.. Long-high altitude SAMs are designed to force you to fly low, .. low-short Sam's are to force you to fly high.. which means you need a whole package with you in order to hunt sam's.. and even that works only if you have intelligence that at least points you in the right direction as to where the sam's are.. so, you get yourself strike packages armed with HARMs, and other ARMs.. then you have Jammer planes trying to blind the sam's ..then you have fighter cover to protect against enemy air-intercept.. so all in all you have this big huge blurb of 100 planes or more in order to take out SAM's you dont' know where they are.. all this time on the ground you can't deploy CAS to protect your troops so you have your units already dying and being blown by enemy tanks or infantry.. so air power works if you are fighting a small nation that doesn't have the numbers or the tech.. if same quality and weapons nations strike each other there is no way the aggressor can survive the initial impact..

actually if SAMs would be much more simulated and would cooperate between themselves most simmers would be in a world of hurt.. SAM's as they are(in the game) don't move, don't use the shoot-and-scoop tactics.. don't use passive systems to engage.. not to mention the enemy air force also doesn't really work together with their SAMs.. If all this works as one, i don't think CAS pilots would be doing anything but dying.. Using CAS means you pretty much already have demolished the enemy air defence and have some semblance of air superiority .. otherwise CAS looks like suicide missions... and still people find something hard to defeat a single Tunguska with an inept AI operator.. How about "fake" sams.. you know, decoys? wouldn't it be nice to have for every SAM you deploy you get 4 copies of blow-out dolls SAM.. to spread around thus making sure its harder to detect a SAM.. when they are in passive mode that is.. also not much vegetation on the ground to make SAM hide when in passive mode.. all this coupled with improved AI that moves the SAM batteries would make miracles in realistic training against them not mentioning defeating them while at the same time dealing with enemy air force.. plus the ground forces clashing and screaming why is that CAS not saving their asses yet? ..

i would say choppers if armoured like hind, havoc and ka-50 can take hits and survive.. not always but getting hit in tail and if you have ka-50 i wouldn't say 100% destruction of engine,and blades is in the runs.. there were cases where hind was hit with a stinger in one of the engines and the chopper survived, pilots survived ..in fact it was like this that they came up with Igla, .. one of the warheads didn't explode, got stuck on it, they brought it back to base.. can't imagine the pilots talking to ATC.. "hei boys, we got something for you, from courtesy of CIA we bring you Stinger missile) wasn't this the same way Atoll was modelled?.. after it was jammed in Mig-19 or Mig-21 in Vietnam? ..

many posters are missing a point.. ED actually tries to hide it as well.. what they are trying to do is using "stealthy" moves to de-finance themselves from LockON franchise and bleeding percentage of profits every time they sell FC3 to Ubisoft.. They want to have DCS and only DCS, so if they sell anything DCS it goes to their coffers only.. FC3 and FC2 and all the rest is just a drag they had to endure at the moment but not anymore.. so they want to upgrade a little bit (adding AFM is quite an upgrade btw) and deliver the modules to the DCS world.. Did they choose bad words when they announced DCS 15/27?yes, but i don't think it was intentionally, .. because it is DCS 15/27 since they will exist in that world but they will not be DCS moduled like A-10C or BS .. which is okei.. for the time being.. They need to get rid of Ubisoft overcast and re-market themselves with DCS worldwide and to new customer base.. after that i think DCS hi-fi modules will start coming out.. sadly for us waiting simmers it means waiting for 2 years or more before we get some serious hi-fi modules like 15/27.. man, i would enjoy just about anything DCS right now.. give me a Il-76, or A320, Tu-204.. )lol..

one thing i do not understand is.. where is Chinese market in all this.. There is no chinese language support, or chinese markings on some Su-27 and some involvement in the DCS world.. Is this really wise to disregard a 1.3 billion people market just like that... ? if there is one mistake ED is making is not including the chinese market in this.. not only that, they can easily partner with some of their software giants to get money, and good programmers who will do wonders and that would mean more $$ for advertisement and more modules, maps etc.. ED will have to grow or die.. in this business as in any other you either grow fast or you slowly die.. And ED is too good and professional to be out manoeuvred by the likes like Arma and BF and CoD products..

the pricing issue for me is okei, i think 50$ for such a precise module is far from too much, but it depends to whom you sell it.. i think there is a difference when selling this to a 30 yrs something Australian or US, German citizen who earns 2000-3000 USD per month or a Romanian,Bolgarian,Russian who earn much less.. What i'm trying to say is, maybe ED should do what car industry does as well and that is sell it "a little" bit cheaper for poorer countries so they can still get something from a customer instead of nothing.. Car's usually are priced also on the basis of purchase power.. if you can afford the price why not jack it up a bit, if not why not jack it down a notch.. I would hate to see hundreds of potential customers in Russia, Ukraine not buying this cuz they really can't afford it but might jump the ship if the price would be 35-40 USD.. Personally i can afford it, and even if it would be 80$ i would buy it even though it would be for me "expensive" ..i don't care.. i would reduce my "nights out" time and make the money available.. about pricing in general.. imagine a western company like Jane's doing simulation.. do you really think you would be buying the Huey for 50 bucks? I think the price would be 200 USD and they would have no shame in selling it like this.. The Russian and this Belarussian company should not try communism and provide "free" stuff to us.. we all know how that ends.. By all means, capitalism should dictate price..

okei, i agree, maybe add-on buying certain "fidelity system" of a certain plane could be weird.. how about enabling a purchase on "credit"..what i mean is, DCS sells you the product that cost lets say 80-90 €.. but you can pay for it in installments.. like 40€ up-front and 5€ per month for 10 months.. its way easier to afford such a purchase for the cash strapped.. and to avoid "criminal delinquents)" the module could "CLOSE" if you miss a payment.. so people wouldn't abuse this system to pay 40$ and then play 4 months and then not pay any more.. but all this business models are just icing on the cake.. what is really needed is market share.. if DCS is only for the simmers its tough no matter how you turn this.. one needs to expand the player base .. how to do that? Include more infantry-company based battles on the ground.. and go for stealing some CoD and BF market share?.. God knows DCS has them beat at high fidelity machines.. all that is needed is the ground battle's with infantry and support vehicles+logistics to make it really realistic.. maybe this can be done with partnership with other teams.. like 1C company -Russian company i think as well, .. because the lion's share of money in military games is the CoD and BF franchises .. as they say, if you play to win then go for it.. no need to hide and be happy you get crumbs .. attack the top dogs.. sadly this would mean a war with the giants who have a huuuge money reserve to use to batter you down in case such a challenge is given..