Buzzles
-
Posts
3011 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Buzzles
-
-
Not that it's a super accurate source, but wikipedia reckons the missile was only available to newer versions of the -21, not the bis version we have:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-21_variants#ArmamentSee down for the -93 and Bison.
-
1
-
-
-
Delete them.
-
1
-
-
Using the D9 and K4 as examples isn't great, namely because of the massive amount of info the Allies found or researched themselves during and post WWII on enemy equipment. As it was Intelligence, it was all filed nicely and kept over the years.
It's a weird situation where there's more data for them than some Allied planes, like the P-47, Mossie etc... where the manufacturer had the data and it's been lost over time as it wasn't as stringently recorded and kept. For example, ED had to do a load of CFD analysis themselves for the P-47, as that data had been lost over time.
It'll probably be the same for a lot of planes, gathering as much as they can, seeing what blanks exists, and deciding if they can, or if it's worth it to, fill them in to a high degree of confidence. ED have said before if it doesn't meet a certain threshold, they won't do it.
As for the other points, lack of adversaries only really applies to the more A2A orientated aircraft, and only then under some scenarios. There were enough different types flying in WWII that a lot of matchups did happen or were possible, if rare. Obviously it's not a completely moot point tho, as they'd be no point developing a pure night-fighter if there's not at least one major opposing one to come later on.
-
Not yet:
-
2 hours ago, Tank50us said:
So many people want the Phantom, and I can't fully understand why...
I get that for its day it is a very powerful fighter, and almost completely dominated the air in the Vietnam war, it only did that once the pilots figured out how to use its strengths in close, and it got a freaking gun. That said, one of the issues that I have with the Phantom is one of information. Sure, plenty of publicly available information is out there, the problem is that actually building a proper F4, from scratch for DCS is likely to be a very tough challenge, that ED has stated a few times they aren't in a position to do. My guess is that there's likely the fact that not many Phantoms are still flying, and of the ones that are, the owners are particularly protective of their Phantoms. Worse yet, all of the missile systems and radar systems have been ripped out (par for the course for del-milling something), and it wouldn't surprise me if some of those systems are still classified even today.
Believe me, I'd love to see the Phantom in DCS, but unless a 3rd party comes along with access to the information needed to make one properly, DCS won't be seeing a Phantom for a long time. Also, ED is working on the engine, they've said as much through multiple news letters. It's a long process, and something even companies with bigger budgets tend to be very wary on pushing very hard until they need to. So them taking their time with it isn't too shocking, nor is it something I consider a bad thing. I'd rather them release it in a functioning state later than a buggy state next month.
Now that that's out of my system, I wouldn't mind a D-model Hornet, because it would already have 90% of the systems a C model has, (the other 10% being stuff for the back seat), and if I'm trying to train someone in the Hornet, it's much easier to be in the pit with them so I can see what they see without having to try and yell at them over discord "YOUR OTHER LEFT!" It's also a good tool for navigation training as well. When I first attempted to join VCSG-3 they had me do an acceptance flight with one of their more senior RIOs who knew how to navigate a pilot, and two-seater aircraft are perfect for such a thing. After all, if they try to form up on me and there's a connection bug on the server, it could end with us both spiraling towards the ground in pieces (and laughing). So, getting in the backseat and telling them "go here, here, here, and here, drop a few bombs, and let's get back to base" is perfectly adequate in my opinion.
No-one has ever said or implied it's an information issue. ED stated they didn't have development resources, so it's on the backburner.
It's a widely exported aircraft, with just over 5000 built and a long service life. Info isn't going to be an issue.
Also your statement that "not many Phantoms are still flying" isn't entirely correct, especially when implying all the ones that do are civil ones. Phantoms are still active in military use, namely Turkey, South Korea, Greece and Iran. Japan only retired their fleet last year in December!
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, zone 5 said:
Not a troll but any idea when we can see the Roadmap? #thenativesaregettingrestless
Clearly a troll as, as pointed out above, you opened a thread on the same topic less than a week ago.
-
We've been asking for the 0,0,0 black knobs to be fixed for 5 years now, if I they won't do that simple thing and restore their previous textures, a full cockpit reskin is clearly out of the question.
-
7 hours ago, JokerMan said:
The module is Belsimtek, ED are the platform and well, hopefully 'no willingness' is not the case (though it's a tough counter to make Tucano, I agree). H
The module WAS Belsimtek, they were absorbed back into ED the other year. It's definitely now an ED module.
-
Claiming it'll decrease performance when it's been done in games for a decade or more in some form or another... yeah, not buying that unless ED are simulating individual blades of grass as physicalised objects in the world.
But it's definitely a low hanging fruit and not really worth it. The dust kick up is much more useful and actually worth getting working correctly imo.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, Iron_physik said:
the RN-28 (1KT bomb) of the Mig-21 is about 6000x to strong compared the blast radius it should have.
RN-24 (10KT) is even worse by a long shot, if I'd had to guess it acts more like a 30-60MT bomb when it comes to blast radius.
properly implemented these 2 nukes wont be much of a issue anymore.
im currently working on a video where I modded the A-4 mod with proper values for 10KT, in tests against flying aircraft it already is alot more realistic.
I still disagree.
Using your previous "correct" distance for 10kt bombs, being ~1.36km for moderate blast damage, that's still a large area.That SAM site? Gone with one bomb. That airport? Gone with one bomb.
And you don't even need to be pinpoint accurate with it. Players will take the _most efficient_ weapon they can get their hands on, for DCS where there's literally no other penality or decision factor needed, that'll be the one with the biggest bang.For the Mig-21, why take a pair of FAB 250 or FAB500s on the wings and need to be super accurate with them to take out 2 targets, when you can just take the nuke and just be somewhat close and take out multiples?
Honestly, I just don't think player controlled nukes add anything to DCS.AI delivered ones? Yes, there's an argument there as it'll potentially lead to some interesting missions, but even then, it'd probably just be a failure scenario.
-
1
-
1
-
-
The nuclear panel should be simulated if possible, for system completeness. The only bomb that can be dropped should be the inert training version.
Player dropped nukes in DCS are honestly pretty pointless, as they're basically close to 'I win' buttons, which is why the Mig-21's are disabled on most servers. They add very little, but can take away quite a lot.
-
3
-
-
-
Yes, it's been broken now for 5 years:
Discussion in this thread, as the gunsight isn't off per-se, but the bullets are too slow:
-
5
-
-
Already happens.
The content creators just need to PM the Community Managers/Wags/3rd Party Devs and offer it.
If they haven't, that's up to them.
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Shimmergloom667 said:
In times like these, where SSDs are dirt cheap, there is literally no upside to forcing a limitation like this unto the user.
Well, not that it affects me, but while space may be cheap, bandwidth might be another matter.
There's skins in CoreMods that are *far* too big for what they are and definitely should be a lot smaller.
I could see why people would gripe about having to dl them, especially if they're on a poor/slow internet connection.-
3
-
-
Troll thread right? No-one gets to 100+ posts and doesn't know the name of the company's forum they are posting on.
-
Yes, once they've finished the Kiowa:
-
1
-
-
Why don't you instead have a single link to something like Linktree, or another place where they are aggregated?
Therefore you won't be reliant on ED or the forum software, and can have as many as you like.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, SharpeXB said:
I cannot think of any game that literally plays itself for you because it’s too hard. Having adjustable difficulty levels, yes. But watching it play itself because you can’t? No. That form of entertainment is called a movie.
I've been reading the thread but not contribuing bar my single post, and no-one but you has suggested hands off Auto AAR. The suggestions have all involved player interaction.
-
Gonna be honest, last time I posted in the other Easy AAR thread, I was against it.
However, I've been convinced by some complelling arguments with decent solutions, namely the one saying you still have to get into position and roughly hold it.
Yes it makes it a bit easier you don't need to go the full hog and be super precise which I'd normally be for, but the point of EAAR unlocking more missions for people and therefore removing the use of Unlimited Fuel as an option is what swung it.I'd much rather see people doing Easy AAR than using unlimited fuel.
-
3
-
-
It actually used to be a option back in the day if I remember correctly.
Not sure why it went away, I assume it was an issue opening the pdfs from inside the app.
-
1
-
-
Yeah, prolly the modulation.
It'd actually be really handy in the F10 view to show what modulation the freq is using eg "127Mhz (AM)". I get tripped up sometime.
-
Buy the biggest you can get for the price you can afford.
That'll be a normal SATA SSD.
NVMe are good, I have one for a boot drive, but honestly the performance difference for random access betwen NVMe and SATA is nothing in comparison from the jump from HDD to SSD.
You'll want the space for DCS too, it's far bigger that it needs to be (yay for maps, uncompressed textures and silly big liveries!) and it'll only get bigger.
Plus as mentioned, you 100% do not ever want to max out a SSD, 80% usage tops.
I'd recommend a 1TB or more SATA really, you'll want the space.
-
2
-
Would you pay for a Huey II ?
in DCS: UH-1H
Posted · Edited by Buzzles
Sure, when ED actually finish the module and deliver working side by side multi crew, and if they decide to actually focus on a verison, unlike the mishmash we have now.
As they've only partially delivered that, then no, I'd be unlikely to pay for Huey 2.0 as it stands.