Fri13

Have you really ever played any of those my mentioned racing games? They literally teach you those things by hand! From the starting line to the finish line. From corners to pit stops.... In some of them the game can basically require you almost just to give gas or not and it does braking and turns and all for you! Because those games are teaching beginners to learn from the basics all the way to the experts levels where they don't anymore need to be assisted. But to reach all that, it is far far easier with the assisting features that keeps them fun and speeds up the learning curve until the player is ready to start ease with the assisting features and turn them off. In DCS there are no such assisting features that racing games offer, that you so completely ignore and claim otherwise than proven! Your argument is against the facts, and they are not an argument anymore but your stubbornness.

Okay, list the names to two categories. Interesting argument.... Based to what? Again, ignore as much want but your argument is already shown false. Did you read OP? Ah... So we can remove them the air refueling mechanics as they don't matter because you can fly entire map across without refueling....

You are welcome. That is not a complete list at all, but IMHO the main problems in the Harrier as so many things are built around those systems/features. These problems and systems that Harrier has, makes it more like a Flaming Cliffs 3 aircraft than a full fidelity. As even when you can click all the cockpit etc. You will eventually get the same simplified systems as example comparing a F-15C to F/A-18C or A-10A to A-10C II. First it is fun and fancy, but once you start to see through the surface, it just starts to feel being cheated or cheating.

Ah, yes you are totally correct. It was in just a normal mission folder. Here is from a Training menu: All the other three short versions skips the introduction and covers only AAR part. Don't know what they really do, but as far I know, the "Silver Dragon" is responsible for these and should be OK.

Harrier has such mission. So only Harrier has it and Hornet with that Qualification mission. Can be seen that by default the air refueling is not to be trained.

Road is enough. There is plenty of such straight lines in various maps to support short take-off. Random targets locations (and even existence) is nice suggestion. Btw, it is not a hotspot tracker but a delta T cuer.

Tells that you don't have real understanding what a farming is. In real world farming, farmers put every year everything they have on risk that is depending to get a good harvest on that year. And once they have invested all the money to the seeds that is put in the ground, they can't do much at all as everything is depending about weather for the whole season. If you would be required to place everything you own every year on such risk, you would be stressful how you are going to feed your family in the future. I don't think you have couple millions of dollars invested to your equipment in your name, it is easy to be a fighter pilot when the government pays the aircraft and all. And yes, farming simulators actually does simulate that thing but it is just a game, so you don't care so much if your farm fail because your economy skills were bad or thunderstorm destroyed your crop and so on. Just like DCS World is just a flight simulator, when you crash you don't die etc. I can tell you have not read the discussion, as for some people it simply is impossible no matter how much they invest time to it. Hence the wish!

My suggested "force tractor beam" would be usable exactly with the AI as well, as it doesn't take away the controls from the pilot (pilot is required to fly in the assistant envelope to be guided) or require player to be there. Currently we have a problem with AI that it reacts to things way too instantly. Like have a AI wingman flying with you and it manages to mirror your movements almost perfectly. There is no "rubber band" effect where you do suddenly something and AI would be caught by surprise that you just did 9G pull upward or you rolled toward it. We anyways need AI to perform different formation flights with the player, as well player to fly in formation with the AI. And this my idea could be utilized well with the both separate things. It could be used for training in a proper landing to ground or carrier as the "glide slope" would act as such. We have players that are just 5 years old to who are over 80 years old. We have those who might have just one eye instead two, have a one arm instead two, people without legs, people with neck problems, back problems, about anything. Isn't it wonderful if we could help some other people to fly as well, who are interested about it, but can't do it well? Like how many is suffering from the gameplay experiences because their hardware is not the $1200 custom made HOTAS but $45 second hand one? So sure ED needs to weight different option to offer at various people. It doesn't mean that they need to make it so that completely blind can fly etc, so nothing absurd.

What problems it creates that it doesn't solve? And how is that a equivalent topic? Why it can be forgotten when it is not same thing? Why would people migrate from DCS World to Modern Air Combat to do Air-to-Air Refueling if they need to leave everything else to DCS World? Yes that would be one solution to it, just get the player to fly in some kind formation of the tanker and fuel is received. But, it doesn't actually do what is asked as you need to fake the refueling process itself instead required to wait in the line, get to the position, control the speed and communicate with the tanker. All that can of course be done and fail as you anyways receive fuel there but it is not so much assisting to start learning to do the process. That is not so much different from my suggested "refueling box behind a tanker" where you would need to fly to receive fuel. But all these are step to better direction from what DCS has now to offer for everyone.

Making things more realistic and so on challenging shouldn't be a only way, it should the primary goal but not in expense that most people can't enjoy and play it. Hence options. Difficulty features to alter learning curve and help people to use various features. If these kind features would be exclusive that they remove realism from everyone, then it would be bad and unacceptable. But it doesn't. It is optional feature to be enabled by those who want to for their needs. OP presented their need well, and ED should really consider it to be added ASAP.

So now the "you know what I mean" argument. No, none knows what you mean when you don't know how to explain it, as otherwise you would have wrote differently than you did. You made very clear that argument was about "more than two and you are not a real pilot" as it is so difficult to master more. When in likely the case is that pilots do not get in service enough flight time to fly more than two before retirement. What are typical flight hours in total in service? Like if you are given change to fly in service for 1500-2000 hours, then you are not going to jump all the time between different planes because you want to do so. You are given change to tell your interest what you want, but you go to fly what is given to you. If you are not in a position to request different planes to fly, you basically fly just one or two. And that doesn't make you "true pilot" and it is not a sign that "it is to challenging to fly more than two in your career". You used an fallacy as your argument, you got bad feeling about it when it was pointed out and now you attack the person by claiming he writes nonsense and that it is off-topic that what you wrote. You just could not counter the arguments why assisted air refueling is a good thing and that should be added. So you used fallacy as argument and it didn't work.

Razbam promised to make a AV-8B+ once ED has completed Hornet A-G radar. As the + variant is otherwise same as N/A except throttle has one button and spring loaded centering wheel more, DMT removed (no TV or LST) and same radar MPCD pages as Hornet. Then just the few radar related new logic to use existing HOTAS functions. And they said they as full price for that.

My average flight altitude is 500-800 meters on fighters, low is 5-20 meters. I fly higher even on helicopters, but in combat it can be 2-3 meters. Tomcat and Flanker will fly a lot longer than 30 min at sea level. Unless you go full afterburner. How much beautiful things you can see through the cloud cover from above if you can't see ground either? How much more beautiful you can see ground when you fly below trees? Clouds are beautiful from both sides.... And as much ground can be beautiful under clouds, so can the sea. It is not about damage modeling, it is easy now as the ships don't have proper defense systems. And don't start about missions where ships are unprotected unrealistic manners and sea radars are too effective. And even all our anti-ship weapons don't have proper guidance modeling to impact below waterline. No need for that. We already have enough to start various missions between fleets. It can be done in new map, but we still should get ASAP (years ago really) a water only map. There is no need to delay that free map to get everything perfect in units. It literally can be done in days for simplest form without ocean floor height map with flat 800 m deep. It is likely a map editor default starting map as empty and water everywhere.

Thrustmaster can ask a lot in the past as Warthog HOTAS was the king of joysticks just 10 years ago. Others were Logitech or Saitek gaming devices and all futuristic ones. Only one manufacturer challenged them and it was CH. But put "all metal" warthog and difference was clear in feeling (but not technicality). Since then we have seen others to come, VKB and Virpil and some other less known manufacturers. More from a passion to hobby than to make profit in mass production. And we can see that difference. Thrustmaster still maintains that status, where it is not required to be challenged. Like from the begin Warthog HOTAS supported different grips to stick, where those were? Not anywhere until ED made a F/A-18C!

I disagree it being insanely difficult, as comparing to people who does actual manual writing. Example those that does technical manuals and translations from a French and German to English, and those who does write nuclear plants technical manuals for operators and emergency rescuers, and has done for nuclear submarines as well, not to forget people who does translations from the legislations between nations legal agreements and drafts etc. Compared to such a work, maintaining a A-10C manual for a DCS World is easier as you already have work to done for you in military and manufacturer corresponding department. Sure it is not so easy that anyone could do a such manual and maintain it, but it is not insanely difficult either. Like talk as well alone programmers task to comment a code they write. Everyone does mistakes, and some are acceptable more than less. And IIRC ED lost a year (or two) ago a person who was responsible for their manual writing, and they needed to get a new one. Or something like that for one project.... It can be a full day job.

IIRC the Su-25A had years ago a axis for the gunsight (not a HUD) height adjustment, but it was removed and set as buttons only. On me it does work properly that I can set it up/down with buttons. The buttons does not move it between Fully Down <-> Fully Up but in increments. It takes maybe 6-7 presses to go from one end to another. So just keep pushing it to get it up/down. Annoying, but I would take any day back the axis for it. I think it should be a True North and not a Magnetic compass. You have basically just two buttons to do all, "Previous Waypoint" and "Next Waypoint". You normally go from Take-Off/1st waypoint -> Waypoint 2 -> Waypoint 3 -> Waypoint # and then finally Waypoint -> Approach -> Landing. And then it will skip around back to begin. The last waypoint for the landing works such way that it will automatically first guide you to the approach point at begin of the glide slope, and then it will automatically switch to landing that is at center of the runway. You can skip the approach waypoint but then you are guided directly at the center point of the runway. IIRC the approach point is 15 km from the runway, and if you are not in emergency (damaged etc) it is better to fly first to approach point and then turn to runway, and if you are in emergency and you know the runway heading, you can jump directly to "landing" mode and fly visually closer to the runway skipping the possibly dangerous 15 km circle. In reality the navigation has just a few waypoints, starting airfield, the ending airfield and secondary ending airfield. As far I have understood the waypoints are more for a "circuit" or "loitering points" that are used more as a bullseye than navigation. So you go on the area and then from there you get the call as heading and range etc. But as it is a FC3 aircraft, you can add as many waypoints you want. As well I don't now remember does it same thing as with the Su-27S or Su-25T that the approach waypoint starts selecting the closest airfields in distance order.

I don't know what file it was, but editing it with a text editor you could change the graphical quality in the mirror. IIRC by default you don't see trees, but you can enable them in the file. You can as well change the drawing distance and such similar things. But the Display Resolution is the key thing in game menu as draconus says.

It is part of the ARBS that does the correction calculations. It is same function for the moving target prediction as to the aircraft it is same thing does the target move or does the aircraft move by the wind.

They use X-52 on the desktop, but if you look at their actual simulator sets, they have something better.

Do they even use UH-1?

If can maintain status quo in performance requirements and yet improve graphical qualities, then it means we are gaining in hardware resource use by optimizing it.

Little off-topic but: That would be so cool to have, as many joystick firmware's supports such functionality to separate a short and long press as different Input ID (games see a different button). I don't see a problem to make it for the DCS World as well, where the game registers DirectInput as now but it will register it separately as Short or Long, as well it could even support such features like "On Release". We already have modifier and shift functions, and those should as well be used for various systems as Button + Shift. In a way that if just the button is pressed then it is a button, but if a button + another button is pressed then modifier is used. The current control assignment would be added with a tic box to set the binded button mode. So you do it just like right now but then there is a tick box for "double press" or "long press" or "on release". Just like with axis we can tic a box for "Inverted" or "Slider" etc, and game reads the input from DirectInput and then outputs it at configured manner to the module. There could even be a small value box with 0.1-1.0 second value in 0.1 second steps to set the time when long press is registered or inside what the double press need to happen.

Ahem.... KA-50 manual has many "not modeled" parts.

It might be same Harrier has before Warthog, that you can send and receive pictures and text over datalink to JTAC. You ball then back and worth, where JTAC can draw to you on the picture you sent that what is target and where are friends etc. The Harrier systems as well allows to send TPOD video to ground units that has the L3 Remote Operations Video Enhanced Receiver (Rover). So likely that same feature was added to warthog as well. But DCS doesn't support that. It requires that Combined Arms would get support to that and could link with Harrier and Warthog to see pictures/video and in JTAC case send the 9-line digitally to Harrier pilot that simply accepts or rejects it until both are happy. So if it is coming, it would be cool to be ground unit and get pictures from targets etc.