Grim_Smiles

I thought these articles called "Sochi Sitrep" might help with some mission plannings, there are things listed in here about operations and such that might make for a more believable scenario. For those not wanting to read the articles, I have posted snips of information for mission scenarios. No intentions here of involving any politics this is for INFORMATION ONLY, and I'm hoping people will leave it out and not comment politically on these articles. Sobek if you feel this post needs to be deleted, I understand. Sochi Sitrep Part 1 http://www.breachbangclear.com/site/10-blog/592-sochi-sitrep-by-guest-author-groz.html Sochi Sitrep Part 2 http://www.breachbangclear.com/site/10-blog/601-sochi-sitrep-part-2.html Sochi Sitrep Part 3 http://www.breachbangclear.com/site/10-blog/608-sochi-sitrep-part-3.html Some excerpts from the articles that might be helpful: Equipment and make up of ICE Part 1: Part 2: Part 3: So missions can be created it seems where there are troops with an ability to do damage to aircraft, so that at least ups the difficulty level in that you won't just be dealing with infantry armed only with rifles. You aren't going to be dealing with SAMs or tanks, but it is better than just simply strafing rifle infantry that can't do much to you. Also there is IED use, though I'm not sure how this can be done in mission editor. Can there be triggers for an explosive in ME? Comments on Russian forces Part 1: Part 2: As far as UAVs go, I don't think we have Russian ones in game yet do we? If not, anyone know of mods to make an American drone look like a Russian one? Part 3: Outside country security Part 2: This could work for including aircraft like the Hueys, they can be part of a private security firm extraction. I'm not sure just how much of the territory mentioned here is actually mapped in DCS, someone more familiar with this would be able to tell. ICE operation locations Part 1: Part 2: Part 3: Locations of Russian operations Part 2: Part 3: It seems we are not limited in simple extraction missions rescuing athletes and civilians. We can produce missions supporting SF operations as well. This definitely helps when it comes to the Ka-50, since my understanding is that it is primarily used to support SF. Other Russian air assets like the Mi-8 and Su-25(T) are also big ones to use in these missions. Combined Arms can also be involved, especially using IFVs. I can't see where Russian fighters would be used, granted any real life operations likely have fighter cover anyway, but what would they possibly engage? The Huey can also make an appearance as part of the private security that was hired, such as the one by the US Ski team. I can't see any scenario where an A-10 or F-15 would be used. Granted you could slap the Russian skin on the A-10C and use it anyway, but the F-15? Even slapping a Russian skin on it, it'll have little use just like the Russian fighters. Anyway, hope this gives some good mission ideas. I'm thinking of working on one myself if I find the time.

I've never been a Jug fan really, but shots like this one are really selling her more and more for me. Will still be flying German planes a majority of the time, but when flying on Allied side I can see myself mainly sticking to the P-47.

I can imagine a bit of just how much work coding something as complex as a flight sim takes having taken some programming courses before. But those were just a few Java and C# classes doing very, very simple programs. Even that drove me up the wall, so the idea of coding something as complex as MiG-21 makes me want to go sit in the corner for a bit. I think coding is something you really have to enjoy a lot in order to be able to do something like this. My hats off to the coders. Fueled by caffeine during long hours staring at code, getting little of the glory but all of the flak when things break.

It wasn't truth, it was your personal opinion. Not to mention everything you said was nothing new, and has already been said by someone else. The reaction you received was due to the fact that this horse has been dead and beaten, and you came in with a bat after everyone else got tired of it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you didn't realize there have already been at least two threads where people argued this ad nauseam until everyone got sick of it - the most recent of the two got a bit ugly. If you didn't know about this, then now you can see why you got the reaction that you did. The simple fact is they are making a "G", have been making a "G" since before they announced it, and it isn't going to morph into a modern Cobra. No complaints about it will change that. It is what it is as they say, either people buy it or they don't. At best it might be made into a "Q" model, but I'm not putting money on that one.

Well as long as they don't bring out the gimp I'm sure he'll be fine.

True, but likely due to Uncle Sam deciding to release the information and the disclaimer is just not removed. They can do whatever they want with the material. But if someone like me releases it without their blessing, bad things happen. I'm not entirely clear on all particulars of ITAR and Export Control Act laws and its legalese, I just know that our engineering section is off limits to the handful of employees that are foreign nationals, and that all our material has to be locked up at the end of the day. If someone who isn't a US citizen even glances at a drawing I've accidentally left out, I've violated the law.

That is exactly it. The military wouldn't train anyone on DCS, because it isn't a product capable of training military pilots to perform missions in real life. As an example of why, the ECM in DCS doesn't work like real ECM because that information is not available to ED. And the info doesn't have to be classified to apply to ITAR. Every unclassified Navy and USCG drawing I've handled was stamped with an Arms Export Control Act disclaimer warning against what will happen if you violate these laws.

Sorry you have to keep popping in here occasionally to slap us. Will be waiting here with fingers crossed for the statement.

+1 :thumbup:

Every man cave needs to have an A-10 mural this awesome in it! Very talented!

Thanks Wags, definitely makes me feel a bit better, even with the mention of changes and nothing being in stone yet. We don't know yet that these changes mean someone on the team is leaving the project, and hopefully none of them are. His 3rd Party tag being removed could have been part of procedure when they removed the MiG-21 forum, might not mean anything (or could mean everything, we just don't know). And even if he did leave, much work has been accomplished by him and I think a release of the MiG-21 in DCS would still be a great legacy, even if he isn't with the project. He's gone through a lot in the years of developing this module and I certainly wish him well regardless of what he decides. We will just have to wait and see now what happens. Watching this from where the link starts the vid, I was at first wondering if maybe it was a student pilot since they mentioned flight instruction and it is a two seater trainer - but there is only one person in the fighter. Maybe a lady friend was watching so he wanted to be more "dramatic" with the landing?:D "You think you bad? Think you gonna get some air plane ****y?" --- Mo Gunz from "The Boondocks"

True, just doing my part to keep anyone from getting their hopes up too much and then going all Christian Bale if we get bad news (and I hope we do not). I'm concerned as well, but frankly I'd rather sit here with no news and wear a hole in the floor if it means they work it out and release the MiG. Look at it this way, silence means there is still a chance, since the MiG isn't over until Beczl or Cobra come on here and tell us it's over.

Okay, I think it was a "lost in translation" sort of thing, saying his work on terrain was finished was taken out of context as something potentially going wrong, when really he was just saying he's done with his part on terrain. With some of the recent events perhaps we are a little "hair-trigger" at this point. Thanks for giving us a heads-up Yo-Yo.

We will have gunners, just not sure yet what gunner stations BST will put into the Mi-8. I believe the only ones confirmed are a rear and nose gunner. Being that the Mi-8 is bigger than the Huey I hope we get more gunner positions than two. What I would really like to see is the ability to remove the clam shell on the back and have gunners like you see in this video at 0:42 seconds in. I think that would be a blast to have that many player gunners, but it might not be an option (and might be too much work for BST). http://youtu.be/ZAPf3KbNIuU?t=42s

As much as I hate to say it, let's not get ahead of ourselves here and think victory yet. The removal of Beczl's press release on their site could just be damage control (if you remember they removed his post with the announcement before the eventual hiding of their board), doesn't mean that their issue is resolved. I'm hoping it is a good sign and that Cobra and Beczl will be giving us the all clear soon, but we have no clue yet if that is what will happen.

Nicely done!!:thumbup:

One I caught on video but never got around to uploading yet. Not a death but a crash. I was in the mission editor and was setting up a one-on-one dog fight between me in a mustang and an AI 190. I wanted to set up both fighters to be at close range head-on so that when I entered the sim we would immediately enter the merge. Problem was that when zooming in while placing the pony and 190, I zoomed in way too much. What I thought was an enemy 50 to 100 feet in front of me was something along the lines of 5 to 10 feet. When the sim loaded, that little screen you get in the paused sim before hitting fly was enough to block the 190 from my view. I hit the button to start thinking nothing was amiss, then POW RIGHT IN THE KISSER. Scared the :censored: out of me as all I hear is BANG through my headset the second I started. The AI 190 reacted (I did not as it was over before I knew something was wrong) and started to veer to one side apparently but we still hit. It wrecked my engine and my landing gear was jammed. The 190 lost a wing and was on fire. I glided my plane back to a not so smooth landing at the nearby runway. I am now more careful when zooming in and placing units in the mission editor.

Man I am looking forward to the 3D cockpit. I just can't fly the 2D anymore, I've been spoiled now. Once the 33 cockpit is in I'll fly her more than the 27. At least until the AFM is released for the 27, in which case it is back to mostly flying the 27 again until an AFM is done for the 33. And since an Su-27S is planned to be the first hi-fi flanker, I'll then be switching back yet again once that is out. A vicious cycle :cry:

"It's dangerous to go alone! Take this."

LOL sometimes the real world does act like that. But like gamers in general though, not just simmers. I know female FPS players personally who use masculine sounding gamertags and voice changers to avoid the idiots on those finding out they are female. A shame really. The MMORPG world can be funny about that as well, though sometimes in different ways. The MMO gamer guild I'm with has had a number of female players over the years. They usually just stuck with our guild's teamspeak, never bothered going into other ones much. The amusing thing is, often times those outside the guild who never heard our female members on teamspeak often assumed they were just men playing female avatars. In fact it was often a running joke that MMORPG stood for Many Men Online Role Playing Girls. One female guild member told us that a guild she was with on another MMO game refused to believe she was female until she proved it on voice chat lol. Of course once the jig is up sometimes stupid things happened, though at least never with our guild (we didn't care) so the women stuck around. I guess I've never seen the point in making a big deal since I'm there to game and not date, I prefer logging off to go find women :lol:

I would definitely be interested in a Warthog joystick and throttle cover. If a TrackIR cover is possible that would interest me as well.

That was one of my main concerns with DCS WWII, but my concern was the German side. I'm sure the Dora being modeled right now can hold its own against the current Stang in DCS, but I was worried that my favorite aircraft the 109 would have difficulty winning. While my favorite 109 is the same as yours (G10), I'm thinking it was a better decision by RRG to make the K4. Based on what I've seen so far, it looks like all the aircraft planned are on a similar level to the P-51 we have now - with exception of the 262 of course, which I'm hoping will have engine disadvantages properly modeled to avoid having skies filled with nothing but them. Hopefully we do get different versions of these aircraft for different eras, but I'll be happy just as long as DCS WWII happens by the expected date.

I don't doubt that you are. Good luck and hope you guys can fix the issue(s). Hopefully the group takes it as a sign of the interest and excitement that their product has generated. But yes, when dealing with an internal issue getting screamed at from outsiders doesn't help. I'm sure Beczl's Inbox is getting flooded (if he hasn't turned it off from PMs). The passion within the flight sim community can be both vice and virtue. I think they did a post on their forum fairly recently saying that they hadn't abandoned DCS projects - they are focusing on their main money-makers (FSX and P3D) and one of their DCS people has taken leave for education. Granted talk is talk and we have no idea whether they will ever bring anything to the table eventually, but I don't think they have said they are quitting anything yet.

Agreed, there is a way to go about it and that wasn't it. I could understand if we were six months in and no word from RRG, but it's been around three weeks since the last one? And we're talking three weeks with holidays in both the US and Russia.