Fri13
-
Posts
8051 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Fri13
-
-
If you make Western tech better than Soviet/Russian tech for comparable planes you run the risk of making this GAME unplayable in multiplayer.
also then you need to take into account other real world issues, like Russians probably having much more aircrafts to fight in the theater we have (are you willing to have 10 su27 per each f15 you get in Georgia in return for better radar?, and of course you cant model that in multiplayer)
It isn't unfair if one plane has different tech....
Is it now unfair that soviet A-A missiles are mainly a semi-active?
Or that Mig-29 can't engage two targets simultaneously? (Is it still so?)
To get the ratio up, we would need more players unless wanted to fly with AI...
I don't even currently know does the datalink for inertial guidance work between launching platform and missiles.
As example Su-27 would have longer kinectic range with R-27 to engage F-15C with AMRAAM because launch speed benefit. And if otherside forces AMRAAM launched platform to defensive or turn radar off, the AMRAAM is semi-dumb and easily avoided if getting outside of the basket before seeker activates.
I have no clue does these work in DCS.
The day we have Su-30MKI and Mig-21Bison level tech in planes in DCS, other side starts screaming help when silent flanking planes fires missiles guided in by a another one via data link.
-
first - i like this, this is a good development
second - are there no differences between "fighter radars"?
its an oft-repeated statistic, the US spends more on defense than the next twelve highest spending nations, combined ------ what does that level of investment get you?
"fairness"?
"gameplay"?
uh.. NO
i would propose that radar performance differs between aircraft - higher performance, more modern platforms should have an advantage
so, i would expect f-16s would do a better job at detecting helos on the deck than mig-23s (AI obviously) --- and f-15s should fare better than su-27s
etc
You can't really buy inventions and better results. Money just helps to get raw materials if needed but to actually improve the most important factor that is the brain power, not even hiring people will help there.
It is interesting as far I know the radars works currently On/Off manner. You either are on the range or not. So RWR picking up signal far before signal bounces back to lighters doesn't seem to be there. Notch etc does seem to work and all other fancier things from Mig-21 radar etc.
When it comes to helicopters, they are easy to spot via radar. The fuselag isn't the main radar bouncer but the rotor blades are. As radar works by comparing the timings of the received signals to you, the technology to have "look-down" radar is required only. Notch works because you get ground behind you and your fuselage speed to beamer basically stops, becoming a "static object" (against older radars). Helicopter rotors are rotating all the time, on one side the blades are rotating forward and one side rotating away, at high speed (rotor RPM is kept steady all the time) around 300km/h and straight and round edges the blades are, are pointing to all directions continually. The radars can even identify a helicopter type by the signal, how many rotor blades it has and can even spot the flight style of the pilot from how blades are operated.
So if the radar can look-down (old tech), helicopters are easy to find as long the rotor disks are visible to radar. What eliminates the idea of "stealth helicopter" completely until the blades material can be 100% energy observed so it "sucks" radar emissions (and would work same time as RWR) and that is pretty huge task as the rotor "is the helicopter" aerodynamically.
Until someone "rotates" helicopter upside down, so the helicopter fuselage is over rotor disk, helicopter can't sneak around any radar without using terrain to block radar emissions reaching it. And then the fuselage could be made less visible and allow it to do "invisible pop-up" with some surprising manners. It is perfectly possible by aerodynamics and even the flight characters would stay same as fly-by-wire does rotate your controls around.
PS. Don't you think the "Defense" is a strange word if the military is all around the world outside of their country borders
-
1
-
-
Update: now with Mig-21 for few days and it feels little stupid when usually I spot air targets (C-130 and F-4 / F-5) before Mig 30km radar range does draw the blob. Makes to feel that radar has no use in Default Weather :-(
-
DCS has been a 64bit application for approximately a year now, IIRC.
Ah... Totally forgot the 32bit support was dropped....
-
Bummer the Su-27 trim hasn't been fixed yet. This plane is close to unflyable IMHO. Full trim nose down and I still have to push my stick forward even further to stay level. MS FFB2 with FFB activated, of course, every axis totally linear. Didn't test without FFB yet, but I highly suspect my problem is linked to the FFB trim mechanics somehow as I don't see others complain :D
That put aside (as well as the MiG-21 double trim), the changelog looks great, quite something happened, which is always good :)
G940 FFB doesn't have a problem with a trim. Nicely the trimming moves new center where wanted. Need to test it more tomorrow as didn't push it to limits at all.
-
Well the M1A2 improved in a few ways (better optics, can zoom a bit but not near as much as RL), but the AP round dispersion at 2200 meters is ridiculous, shooting well outside the inner reticule during test shots. Anyone else experiencing similar?
Dispersion at 2km is akin to what it'd be at 4km in Steel Beasts. Plus the LRF still cuts-off at 4km range...
I would say it is very WIP the whole CAS weapon managements.
Like example look the BMP-3 stabilization (very lousy) and then units missing firing rate etc.
ED has lots of work on their desk to add even basic (enough) features for what we have now (love the pretty realistic rotation speeds etc).
-
Where did you go Flagrum? ;)
Joking aside, the Mi8 is the best module in DCS at the moment. Or rather I should say the best module I own, I dont have the Mig21 and it also looks really cool. Something about how the helicopter handles and feels just feels right to me, its huge imposing size, power and even docility in handling is fantastic. No wonder the 8 is considered one of the best helicopters in the world.
I really, really, really hope that Belsimtek goes on and does the Hind after the Cobra, because even though I like the Huey fine and everything, it cant hold a candle to how beautifuly the Mi8 flies and handles, and we all know that the Hind is basically the Hip on steroids :)
I love flying with Mi-8 as it just handles like a dream, second only to KA-50. Huey is even today to me a unbalanced suicide box with rotors (but love it too!). Sadly haven't got much time to fly either as KA-50 has taken usually the time from helicopters.
Now Mig-21 is resting next to those in a "virtual hangar" and noticed after buying it that Soviet vehicles have the most amazing basic feeling and simplicity over technicality.
Like a Mig-21 and a KA-50, the Mi-8 screams about pure tool. Mount a rockets etc and it becomes so lovely!
Now I just hope I someday have possibility to transport troops, UAZ/BRDM or do some other tasks like rescue pilots from sea, work as rescue pilot for civilians, land personnel to submarines etc.
PS. I dis read a rumor that Mi-24 might come out before AH-1.... Those two are next day 1 bought decisions.
Mi-24P or VP would be so cool.
-
Switching to two 8GB sticks for the 1866 RAM I picked up will cost me $100 more, but I went ahead and grabbed an extra 2 4GB sticks.
I had read over and over 16GB was overkill unless I'd be doing editing, but with DCS, who the hell really knows haha...it might be the one game that actually benefits from 16GB.
Yeah it was only a Bronze+ though and I'd hate to fry an extremely expensive system by cheaping out on the PSU. I upgraded it just to be safe more than anything.
As long the DCS is 32bit, it can't request from OS to allocate more than 2GB if RAM. If DCS is compiled to be aware of "Large Address Space" it can use (and request) 3.2GB. The rest 800MB goes to rest of the full 4GB.
But once DCS is 64bit, it can request over that as much OS can allocate for it.
The benefits using more RAM than 4GB (even with 32bit architecture) is to have possibility to run multiple 32bit processes and allocate them max memory (32bit CPU needs to support PAE extension).
The benefit is as well that OS can use RAM as disk cache so each process gets <4GB and OS has 4GB for disk cache etc.
Throw there a 64bit system and disk cache is so big that its easy to use all unused space as disk cache.
-
I think it is definitely because the Russian aircraft at designed to operate under tough conditions that they have such a tough landing gear. You can tell by the size comparison to the puny f-15 gear. But I remember watching the flanker documentary that the landing gear was even more strengthened for the sea flanker variant. That makes me wonder whether the current Su-27 gear implementation is a bit too overpowered.
The difference of strengthened landing gear in Su-27K (Su-33) is to make sure of aircraft lifetime rough landings, while Su-27S will not have so many rough landings at all.
Huge difference are you landing 90% of the time on carrier and 10% of the time elsewhere or landing 50% of the time on dirt airstrips and 50% of the time on airfields.
I have found myself that Su-25 has very easily blowing tires :megalol:.
Now with Mig-21Bis landings seems to be rough in DCS too. :pilotfly:
As what comes to F-15C, I remember reading that while it does have a hook, its landing gear can't withstand the carrier landings.
-
I wish someone would make C-130 and some Russian cargo plane too. Make the price lower than combat planes as it could then attract civil plane simmers to DCSworld. As they could like to fly cargo from airfield A to B, enjoy being escorted by fighters. Maybe do a quick drops without landing etc.
One day if we have paratroopers and we can command squads and platoons well in CA (not as individual soldiers if not zoomed very close, but as groups) it would make very interesting to fly cargo plane behind enemy lines to drop troops there and then get away.
-
Haha, I meant AC for attack, C for the rest. In Vietnam war USAF dropped Blu 82 daisy cutter to create LZ for UH1, some sources said one or two companies of North Vietnamese People Army have been wiped out clearly using these bombs (LN developed nuke for MiG21 having the same effect)
Rubbing balls against the nuke?
Woah...
-
I grabbed Mig-21Bis when it was in Steam for -25%. It is most expensive module I have bought for ED and one of the six games I have ever paid over 50%.
I was little wondering is there sense to buy it now, as there could be a risk that it is -50% on Christmas sales or after Christmas. But I toke the risk and I love the plane already.
I just hope there would come soon(er) western planes to give challenge for it, like F-4 or Mirage III. Now I love fighting against F-5 but AI is little silly :-/
-
This would be to me a next fighter module I would buy (aircrafts what I buy next are Mi-24 and AH-1).
What makes Mig-21Bison so great? Modern A-A missiles and then datalink to others. If we ever get Su-30MKI level module, Mig-21Bison is a must then. There would probably be a market for even India as the map.
But bad thing just is that Su-30MKI probably is pretty classified as they didn't even use the radar in other mode than Training mode in Red Flag so the USA wouldn't get the classified radar data.
But dreaming Mig-21Bison flying with datalink to Su-30MKI that can guide with its radar Migs on the enemy. Migs having a smaller RCS making them hard to spot and they get quickly in and out. As far I know, capable to even launch missiles via datalink that Su-30MKI guides in.
So I would wish that we could see Mig-21Bison sometimes 2017-, after we have got all kind other modules too, like western comparable models for Mig-21Bis.
Bought the Mig-21Bis module yesterday and I have been having really much fun first time with fighters (I am helicopter pilot down to my heart) as there is something with the radar limitation and the fighter flight capabilities. Makes very nice to fly interceptions (not flied a single A-G task yet!) to its limits. I don't even yet know where is the fuel gauge, so I don't even have a clue how much I have burned the fuel. But I have been flying to 130km range, destroy C-130, do some dogfight against 2-3 of the F-4 and if survived then flied back to 130km to base and landed.
Mig-21Bison would clearly make this totally different kind beast, capable to challenge even the F-15C in dogfight (and from 30km).
But I hope that if Mig-21Bison module comes, it would be a "DCL" to Mig-21Bis module, a upgrade priced.
As I believe we could really enjoy more if there would start coming different variants of existing modules (Su-27 family, KA-50 models, Mi-24 variants, Mi-8 variants).
Of course all required thing would be the "base module" and then get wanted variant or all of them individually priced as upgrades.
-
Leaning in TrackIR and zoom on throttle (G940 thumb wheel).
Wish it would be easy to alter zoom to make head movement slower so TrackIR movement would be more natural.
When someone (ED) adds a virtual binoculars to game (like 4x or 7x or even 12x) that are required to be taken in hand (takes little time) and put away, and while holding the view is surrounded by sharp black but added lens effect (edge is little smudgy) and it is possible to be gear up in load out/airfield with wanted variation, we could assign the view zoom as "cheat" that doesn't go further zoom than cockpit move allows and have it as mission option be enforced on/off.
-
I have seen video recorded from cockpit when next Su-27S (or SMK, without TV anyways) pulls cobra and the altitude gain is only about 10m or less when looking the position of thrusters nozzle level. Of course there is always a small altitude gain but it isn't "anything", like when F-22 pulls cobra it gains altitude dramatically and can't recover back to same altitude.
So when comparing Su-27 (Without TV) to others, it can do cobra without gaining altitude. It really is that it just raise the nowe , slow downs a little bit and then lowers nose back down.
-
Dont use the logitech profiler. Assign buttons and axes in DCS itself.
You can use the throttle's R1 & R2 wheels for rudder if you want... IF you are lucky enough to have ones without TERRIBLE spiking...
They are easy to fix. Requires just opening the bottom of the throttle and then unscrew one screw that is holding one cable little too tight, pulling the joint.
I have somewhere photos from that process, I even extended the arch to keep cable "in line".
And then I hotclued the cable ends to secure they don't move. Perfect results after that.
And what comes to profiles, only thing I miss is possibility to get Throttle MODE switch recognized as switch. But because Windows doesn't recognize it at all (neither does Linux get any I/O from it... what is very strange, meaning is is pure software based) it can't be binded anything. Sad thing. But Logitech told that game developers can add the mode button...?
-
IIRC the SMK was never operational, ie a prototype only.
Indonesia has those in operational.
"The three Su-27SKM single-seaters (serials TS2703 thru TS2705) were delivered in September 2010, with the first two on September 10 and the final example on September 16. After the official handover on September 27, this completed the 2007 order"
http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-27/su-27_operators.htm
http://www.mars.slupsk.pl/fort/sukhoi/su-30-id.htm
The strange thing is that other states some being SK and other being SMK (SKM?).
-
SK version is just the export version of the first production model, the SU-27K (Flanker-B) which entered service in the mid 1980's. Now seeing as the R-77 only entered into production in the 1990's you can be pretty sure that that right there is the head-shot that effectively neutralizes ANY attempt at endowing the In-SIM Flankers with actives - not going to happen.
So this is valid list of variants and main upgrades? http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-27/su-27_variants.htm
Meaning Su-27SMK is first to carry R-77?
-
Su-27 has no 77s ingame because the variant DCS models cannot equip them IRL.
Isn't the variant Su-27SK?
And wasn't it brought up that one country (don't remember what) that states owning Su-27SK is carrying in photos the R-77? (It was by someone just saying that it then can't be a Su-27SK but must be Su-27SMK or was it a Su-27MK... Even when markings matches on plane to register)
-
Couldn't care less about DirectX 12, as however it may improves graphics , if ground forces can't even follow a road as a railway bridge will stack'em, AI drives in circles when formations get stuck etc. all beauty of the new graphics won't enhance the actual "gameplay".
This community has some very talented mission builders. Most of them stopped building any new missions and wait for DCS World 2.x to get the real problems fixed.
I'm sure ED gives the AI and ME a good overhaul and lots of bugs will be addressed, but just eyecandy won't save the day.
I don't care about DirectX at all, just waiting that those serious problems gets fixed with 2.x series (sooner the better) and if that requires the EDGE, then it is important.
I don't find current map as problem by visually, but simulation wise as it makes feel stupid to fly a A-10C or KA-50 when it is always same without surprises. And by same I mean that trees or even buildings doesn't cut line of sight, a AI that always knows where you are, a magical weapons and radar ranges that are cut in thin air and you can jump in/out over them. A ground vehicles that engage you while you don't even see them or those can't even cross a small river or find a way to get trough a small city without getting jammed.
It is always fun to try and seek a new planes and weapons. But when quickly you learn how to exploit the internal rules (limits) then it becomes frustrating experience.
Like try to sneak in a KA-50 to area where is a SAM behind forest, when you suddenly see a missile coming at you because you entered in its range while there is no way it would see you or be able fire missile at you.
Not nice to fly a CAS tasks when enemy AA doesn't need to consider a engagement zones depending terrain obstacles.
Alone fixing a huge amount of simulation rules (LOS etc) and adding bunch of randomization with probabilities (LOS with angle of views instead magical 360° view all the time), situational awareness to AI so it doesn't end up sitting as duck when being attacked etc etc.
The feel of frustration is huge when existing modules can't be used without sudden immersion break up because you just didn't "play by the game rules".
Alone a such basic fixes would make combined arms a very serious module when we would need to take care of all ground elements instead just terrain height.
Flying on desert will not have a such problems as typically trees are not there giving cover or such.
-
I'm quite serious:
Maybe mind control was a bad choice of words. Non native speaker here... :D
DCS + Mind controller headset = Firefox (movie)
Just missing the Mig-31 module
-
Did you get that from Google Translator?
EDIT: Also, at no time has anyone from ED ever called EDGE a 'game' engine. Perhaps that is the root flaw in most of your assumptions.
I'll quote this again.
No, but from developers videos about EDGE and New maps, terrain SDK etc.
And dont be a "true believer" that DCS isn't a "game".
Otherwise not even developers would talk about new physics, terrains and visual effects that EDGE brings.
I am not talking EDGE is the core for everything, just simply as it is stated, the graphics engine that renders every visual piece. As I stated earlier, edge doesn't seem to touch anything that is behind the scenes like liquids in fuel tanks or oil pressure simulation etc.
-
ED has not spoken to that issue at all.
Because ED has not even stated everything is just about moving graphics to GPU side or port current to DX11 as is.
They have said multiple times they have been developing "from scratch" (totally new, if someone doesn't understand) a new game engine to take all out from latest hardware as well as possible. That means EDGE is designed for multi-core systems with latest (1-2 years old at top) features graphics cards can pull.
We do not know anything about performance as there are no benchmarks. We have only developer videos about new engine benefits and plans from early alpha stage (over year old now) and then few videos and dozen or so screenshots from simply new engine change to current map (without changes to it) and coming new map.
We don't have knowledge of new AI or new physics algorithms than in very limited hints from ED or partners with new maps.
I have a hard time to believe that ED would be so incompetent to utilize a new engine for just DX9 -> DX11 upgrade without rethinking and designing everything else for future as well. Otherwise they need to dump everything again if needed to rebuild again all physics and other things to get better than EDGE delivers.
Just give them benefit of doubt that ED has skills and knowledge what they need in future, as how accurately they develop a new modules and consider current technology, they have merits to pull things amazingly well together.
They follow forums and their customers needs and wishes. And once they make from scratch a new engine, it isn't that you write everything as they were on current one.
They have a dream of complete combat wargame from fighters and bombers to helicopters and ground vehicles, even up to individual soldiers on the ground. And to follow their dreams, they know what they need to do.
-
If you wish to put words into ED's mouth, feel free. Try not to be too disappointed later.
So ED has said they don't allocate CPU and GPU processing power but will stick everything to single CPU core?
1.2.12 -- radar modeling - fighters vs helos
in General Questions
Posted