Jump to content

lmp

Members
  • Posts

    1285
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by lmp

  1. Yup, that and other little differences. For example, you mentioned not having a dedicated countermeasure counter in the Hornet. That's true, but you have a counter on the SA page - which you will have on anyway in pretty much any combat situation. Those are little things you know when you fly the aircraft a lot but you forget if you only take it out occasionally. For me the worst aircraft in this regard is the A-10C. I just can't wrap my head around its HOTAS. I know many people love it. I'm sure they have good reasons. I'll take the Hornet or the Viper over it any day, thank you.
  2. Really those are small and very subjective differences. Do you prefer having three displays, or an easy way to switch pages? Do you like having an RWR in a place where you can actually see it, or do you rather have spikes on the HUD? Each aircraft does things a little differently, but ultimately, for a practiced pilot the end results in terms of efficiency will be very similar.
  3. Interestingly enough, my feelings are the opposite of those of many of the posters. To me it's the Viper that feels off. I don't like the flight model (not that I think it's bad, I just don't like it), the systems are confusing, I hate the TGP integration... And yeah, all the early access limitations are making me not want to fly it. The Hornet just makes sense to me. Sure, the HMI isn't very consistent, you can see features and weapons were added throughout its service life, but it just adds character. And that's probably the best reason for you to buy the F-16. If it feels right to you, its limitations and intricacies will add character. If it feels wrong to you, they will annoy you to the point you won't fly it. It goes for any module really.
  4. My single player focused two cents: For assets packs to work and not feel like money wasted for a lot of people, they need to come with content. For example, two aircraft which are sorely missing content are the F-86F and especially the MiG-15bis. An early Cold War asset pack, including ground units but also period aircraft to intercept or escort, would already be worthwhile to many owners of those modules. Add in a bunch of good missions for both aircraft (and the MiG-19, P-51...), maybe a mini campaign included in the price of the pack, and work with campaign authors to create proper, high quality payware content that utilizes your assets - and it becomes a must have. Suddenly my MiG-15bis with 3 very basic single player missions total and no included campaigns can have a number of good missions per map (think Hornet's Persian Gulf missions) and there's a cool new campaign by Baltic Dragon in the store? Sign me up! Don't just add assets hoping they will be used. Make it a product that is fun out of the box and then even more fun with the addition of payware campaigns.
  5. The F/A-18C can certainly be notched (I'm pretty sure the same is true for the F-16C, but I don't fly it much). F-14 can be notched and it will also not see targets with a low closing speed when looking down at them. If anything in game has/had a "God RADAR" it's the JF-17 you for some reason singled out as "accurate" which was notch-proof at some point and I believe it still is buggy in this area. There's room for improvement in all of the radar modeling in DCS but the reason it's hard to hide from modern fighters is their radars are objectively better.
  6. I see, thanks!
  7. Maybe it's just me, but I always felt the old Belsimtek team really put that extra bit of effort into their Soviet modules (the Mi-8 and MiG-15bis). They probably didn't sell as well as their American counterparts and certainly not as well as the teen fighters, but they just feel... most done? I hope the Hind will be just as good or even better.
  8. Historically? When and where? I'm intrigued!
  9. Even if it's not done for every refueling, I suppose a real life trainee isn't all alone up there when he's learning. Somebody is giving him cues over radio. Maybe somebody more knowledgeable can comment on this?
  10. Of course it won't solve everybody's AAR woes, but it's a quality of life thing. Like tutorials. We can also use YouTube for that but for many people it's easier to do a tutorial a few times rather than memorize and follow a 10 minute long start up video. Interestingly enough, the F-14 was a fun aircraft to learn to refuel because of Jester's comments. So maybe that's an even better solution - aural cues.
  11. It will become a crutch only if you let it. And it'll only be a distraction if you stare at it instead of cross referencing it while you build a sight picture using "real" visual cues. The way I learn a new aircraft is I learn a new sight picture. It will include a certain juxtaposition of the tanker, basket, canopy frame, HUD etc... All depending on the aircraft. But in order to start learning it, I need to see it first. Now I have to guess, try, miss the basket, back up and try again until I find the right spot or look at how other people do it on YouTube. An indicator would save me the guesswork and/or alt-tabbing. I would still memorize a number of visual cues based on the tanker, the basket and so on, but I could be correctly aligned from the start. I'd do 2 - 3 approaches with the indicator, turn it off, do a few approaches without, maybe turn it back on for a moment to correct any mistakes and that's it. Instead of guessing, I know.
  12. Something like the external cargo indicator or control helper, both of which I used in my training and later turned off when they served their purpose. I'm confident it would help me transition to new aircraft. Save an hour or two of trial and error and looking at YouTube videos to learn a new sight picture. I don't know why are you so confident I would become dependent or fixated on a training aid. I've successfully used those available in the game already and became neither. I've also successfully learned maneuvers, including AAR and carrier landings, without them - and I can see how this process could have been easier.
  13. There is absolutely room for a helper interface for AAR. How do I align the probe with the basket in the Harrier? Well, I can just keep trying until I find the right sight picture myself, I can switch between the game and a youtube video of someone who did the hard work already or, if I had some popup that showed me if I'm aligned, I could use it to speed up the process a few times. Why shouldn't I have the popup then? There's a ton of "unrealistic" training aids already in game and I see no reason not to use them just because it's not possible in real life. The end result should be "realistic" (as much as the game and the players' skills allow), the training to get there doesn't have to be. You can map the pause function to the HOTAS so you can stop the game, and check your alignment in the external view. You can airstart behind the tanker instead of on the ground when you practice (I'm sure just about everybody trained this way, even though it's impossible in real life). It all saves plenty of time while still letting you learn the right skills. You'll still need to put in the work, but why not make the process easier if it leads to the same goal? Let's absolutely discuss how we could flatten the learning curve a little. OTOH, I'm not such a big fan of getting the results without putting an effort (i.e. autowin buttons) but I understand that people have time constraints, disabilities and ultimately this is an entertainment product. So as long as this isn't some huge effort for the devs and can be turned off by game hosts, let the people have what they want I suppose.
  14. It is not as extensive and universal, that much is true, but it is automatic and inherent. You think and plan differently if you know you have a difficult maneuver to perform on which the success of the entire mission depends. And doubly so if there are two, four or eight of you and everybody has to get it right. You consider things that you wouldn't if it were a matter of turning on an autopilot for 10 minutes and getting a new cup of coffee. It's obviously better than unlimited fuel but turning AAR into basically a non-event that always succeeds doesn't do it justice. You go from "oh, I don't have to worry about fuel, there's always enough" to "oh I don't have to worry about refueling, it's impossible to fail". In this respect I think having the player manually stay close to the tanker (within a configurable distance), perhaps also match its speed, while refueling happens automatically, is a more realistic solution than either of the above. It can be adjusted to each player so that it's within their capabilities but still requires a high degree of focus and can be unsuccessful. It would better simulate "how it feels" to AAR and what impact it has on the mission much better than a fully automatic mode. It could obviously still be abused but it would at least put the players in the right frame of mind. And it trains one of the key skills (formation flying) needed to successfully refuel on your own one day.
  15. They are not the same, unlimited fuel can be exploited a lot more, but automatic refueling can affect the entire mission. If, say, your SEAD element can't refuel in time for the push because one of them keeps fumbling... you're without SEAD, for some time at least, or you delay the push, have everybody reconsider refueling again and so on. If you're refueling manually, you won't go to the tanker with 10 minutes of fuel left, you'll go earlier, do one or two fewer passes at the target. Even if you get it right 99% of the time, the mere thought that you have only one chance at it will make you tense up and it'll probably be the 1% when you screw up. AAR is often a really big part of the mission and it can have a cascading effect on a lot of things - especially when there are many people who have to not fail simultaneously. The impact of automatic refueling would be significant enough that I trust it would be banned on most public server, and private sessions - if they aim to be realistic - would enforce their own house rules (such as go to tanker with at least enough fuel for several approaches, look at the tanker while you refuel, don't look at the SA page or do any housekeeping in the meantime...) to eliminate at least some of the advantages players choosing to use the handicap would have. And if you need house rules for automatic refueling... it at least partially defeats this particular argument in favor of it. There are others. Better ones. But this one is flawed - whether you use unlimited fuel, automatic refueling or some sort of script that does it for you, you will need rules to keep it realistic and fair. Different handicaps are unfair to different degrees, but that automatic refueling won't affect the mission at all is simply not true.
  16. No, but that's not what you said "One of those two will massively change every single part of the mission and how you approach it; one of them will not, and indeed cannot possibly do so." Both can affect the entirety of the mission. Unlimited fuel is more likely to and it will affect it in a bigger way, but that doesn't mean there's a level playing field between people who would use automatic refueling and those who wouldn't. Let me rephrase that in case I wasn't clear. The "manual player" will have degraded SA for the 5 - 10 minutes while the "automatic player" will not. The "manual player" will have to judge whether his skills are up to the task of refueling a battle damaged plane, while the "automatic player" won't. Those may be "only" 5 - 10 minutes, but that can be enough to make or break a mission. I'm sure I don't have to explain how dangerous can having no SA for 5 - 10 minutes be. Ok! That is what I'm trying to prove here, that this handicap, like any other handicap such as unlimited fuel, will need house rules/gentlemen agreements in order not to be abused. Some may be easier to abuse than others, but this one is certainly not free of possible exploits.
  17. Example then. The other day I was playing as the lead of a strike element in a bigger package. I had planned to refuel before the push from the marshalling waypoint. However, there was not a lot of time left (10 minutes maybe) and I fumbled the AAR - only picked up half of the fuel I wanted to before we had to push. That influenced the rest of the mission, I had to fly higher, use less afterburner, do fewer passes and refuel on the way home. This is something you don't need to consider at all if you have the option to automatically refuel. But it won't affect the AAR which may be crucial for the rest of the flight. Can I refuel with a degraded FLCS? Or do I have to reconsider how I continue with the mission? Doesn't matter, AI will solve this problem for me! Gee, that flanker is rather close, is it going after me? Do I risk being target fixated on the tanker for the next 5 - 10 minutes? Doesn't matter, I'll turn on the AI and watch my SA page like a hawk... All those little things will add up. People using the automatic mode will be able to take more risks, go for the tanker with less onboard fuel, just because they can't fumble, can't fail and don't incur many of the costs that "manual players" do. This will lead to this feature being disabled on public MP servers (or everybody using them, regardless of AAR skill level) and house rules will be used on private servers. Well, I believe something "this stupid" and you know what? I am in at least one way more "knowledgeable" about DCS than you (Christ, that sounds arrogant... but you asked for it). I know how to AAR, I do it in missions regularly and I know first hand to what degree it affects the entire flight. You don't.
  18. While I'm not claiming unlimited fuel is the solution, your argument about players gaming the system by taking 1% fuel is flawed. You can game automatic refueling just as well. When I refuel manually I need to accept the possibility of having issues connecting (everyone has bad days), I have to account for any battle damage I might have taken, I have to accept a degraded SA... While you can ignore all that, sit back, set up your bomb fuses, monitor the airspace for your buddies while the "helper" does its thing. IMHO if you accept handicaps for a portion of your players, you need house rules and gentlemen agreements that'll prevent them from getting and advantage. Any handicap can be gamed.
  19. It will, because your flight and engine model is coupled with the hydraulics, electrics, bleed air, FLCS... all of those can't just ignore what's happening to the aircraft and its engines for five minutes. I of course have no more insight into the implementation specifics of each of the modules from each of the companies than the next guy, but I'm pretty convinced that unless something similar was envisioned from the outset of development, it will be very difficult to add to existing code (some of which is over a decade old now!). If I'm wrong and this can be easily done and will work in a robust way, then sure, why not. Whatever helps. But I fear it's not the case. Then I'm in favor of making such features available in MP, at the discretion of the game host. Similar GUI features are used by many in actual missions (external cargo helper, control helper, Supercarrier ball helper) and scripts are widely used in missions as well. I would actually use a "tanker alignment helper" UI to help with learning AAR in new aircraft. I can do it fine on my own but I can see how it would make the process quicker and more efficient.
  20. AI aircraft use different flight models than player controlled aircraft. I don't know how easy it would be to switch from a PFM/EFM to SFM while at the same time having all the other systems (which are often closely coupled with the flight model) in the aircraft work normally and then switch back again. To my programmer mind that sounds like it could be very complex if not impossible. What do you think about my solution (additional UI elements that help to guide the pilot through the process and a "stay within X m for Y min" script)? Would it help you achieve your goals and if not, why? To me it at least seems a lot easier to implement and maintain...
  21. I'm not a fan of automatic refueling not for any elitist reason but because I can see how badly the "control helpers" work in other modules. The only time I hear about them is when they cause people problems, not solve them. Also, automatic refueling won't help you learn anything and thus is only useful for people who gave up on AAR entirely but still wants to fly missions that require it - which is a very specific use case and I imagine not a lot of people would use it. Then there's the question of developing it. You essentially want an autopilot mode that will perform a complex task and work across many modules from many developers (at the moment at least 4 different devs have AC with AAR capabilities). That's a huge task! On the other hand a UI element telling you how well lined up you are with the basket, perhaps the speed of the tanker, your speed, acceleration etc. will work across modules, will be a useful training aid and won't be difficult to develop. In addition to that a simple script/feature that'll allow people who've given up entirely to refuel by remaining within X meters away from the tanker for Y minutes and we're golden.
  22. Perhaps turning on unlimited fuel and/or possibly refueling using scripts would be an acceptable solution? Even if you're not a good scripter yourself, you could ask your campaign creators of choice to include it in their missions. My experience with assists in DCS, such as those available in warbirds and helicopters, is that they create a lot of issues for many people and I've yet to hear that they actually helped someone. I think additional UI elements, similar to the external cargo indicator for helicopters or the ball indicator in the Supercarrier, might be a better training aid. Aligning yourself with the basket or finding the right spot under the boom can be just as tricky as staying in formation and - in my experience - once that becomes second nature, you automatically become a lot less tense and a lot more successful at staying connected. Simply because reconnecting won't mean another 10 minutes of frustration.
  23. lmp

    F-16 or Syria Map

    Syria. It's a great map. The Viper needs a lot more work to even come close to being complete. I want to like it, but at least for now the Hornet is just so much more fun. If you want a new modern aircraft, consider the A-10C maybe?
  24. I am essentially responding to this: "120s are the biggest threat in the game for sure but IMO are really the ONLY thing the US jets have on it." If we're talking modern era jets and AMRAAMs, then we're talking 90s and beyond. However a lot of what I said in my previous post applies also to the Tomcat and Mirage 2000C to some extent.
  25. The SPO-15 fails when there's a lot of fighters and SAMs around. I recently finished the Hornet mini campaign and routinely I was in a situation where I had a few friendly F-14s spiking me from behind, a pair of MiG-29s in the front, maybe another pair of MiG-25s at 11 o'clock and two to three Kubs or Osas and a few EW radars. And I could figure that out just by glancing at the RWR or HUD. The SPO-15 wouldn't give me a quarter of this knowledge. TWS and also RAID modes help in sorting targets. I can easily see which bandits are heading for me and which are heading for the other CAP flight 10 miles to the left. Which enemies are notching, which are still hot and thus a bigger threat. Again, this is not something that'll be tremendously visible in a 1v1 or 2v2, but once there's a lot going on, you'll be glad you have it (or you'll miss it if you don't). And as far as HMI goes, I really appreciate the options that the Hornet, and to a lesser degree the other Western jets in the game give us. I can put RWR spikes on the HUD, on the radar screen and the SA page. I can set the best radar scale, number of bars, azimuth range (in the real MiG-29 9.12 you have a lot less control over all those things). I have a lot more information, sometimes maybe even too much, and a lot more options how to present it. I do like having my b scope on the HUD in the Russian jets, but for a lot of other reasons I consider the Western HMI significantly better. You can get around a lot of these limitations with the help of an intercept controller, but realistically, few of us will fly with one often, or at all.
×
×
  • Create New...