Buzzles
-
Posts
3011 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Buzzles
-
-
19 hours ago, Cigar Bear said:
And the gameplay would a little different from all the other 3rd and 4th gen fighters!
Definitely correct on that part as it carries two (2) bombs only.
-
7 hours ago, upyr1 said:
generic controls profile for helicopters and airplanes, which will set things like basic flight controls which would either be universal or very common for the differnt aircraft. This way we could have one place to configure at least the most common controls.
How would that work for curves/deadzones etc? I have different ones depending on the module.
The current way supports that pretty painlessly. -
On 3/8/2021 at 8:38 PM, Weegie said:
Ok Think I've got it, still far from perfect but
Trim neutral
Right rudder 70-80%
Stick back and to the right say 10%
Use ruddder to stay straight
Hold stick back until very late approx 160-170 kph slowly release stick forward to centre but still holding in right roll component, by the time the stick is centred, I'm getting airborne.
Still some roll compenent but nowhere near as severe
Thanks @grafspee for the words of wisdom made quite an improvement to my take offs
What you're describing is my experiences when still trying to take off at 1.2ata.
Honestly, just shove that throttle forward. At 1.4ata the Anton tracks pretty much straight down the runway with only a few dabs of small rudder corrections needed early on.At 1.4, I also have no problem getting the tail up, tracking straight and doing a 2-point take off.
I assume it's to do with propwash or airflow interaction with the airframe/rudder (or lack of) but 1.2 was hard, more throttle makes it easy.
-
On 3/9/2021 at 8:07 AM, gruntygame said:
I don't imagine it would take much work for ED to make since most of the work would be done once the F/A-18C is out of early access.
Not much work at all, you know, barring completely re-doing the cockpit, re-doing the flight model (the aircraft is different), wiring up the new cockpit and underlying systems for multicrew etc... only those small things.
Sure, it'd be cool and all, but just pointing out it's actually a fair bit of effort, and not really worth it over other planes currently when we already have some 2 person trainers.
-
1
-
-
You do get that info on the debrief, but yes, it would be nice to be able to turn on the debug feed (ED have shown this during the WIP screenshots) inside the mission editor for a specific mission.
Best of both worlds then, can turn it on when needed for training missions, but it can be forced off for proper missions/campaigns/mp etc... as you'd not actually get that detailed information when flying (outside of visual fx)
-
Hallo, meine Deutsch ist sehr schlecht, aber auf Englisch:
Right click on the middle box on the "Mission Payload" section, you'll get the pop up to add bombs.
oder
In the bottom left, click 'new' and make a new payload, you can then right click and configure how you need
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, SharpeXB said:
What differentiates DCS is that it’s a combat simulation, not just flight. It has realistic weapon systems and damage models etc. Making civy aircraft for DCS was a bad idea before 2020 and even a worse idea after. ED would do better to keep the focus on what makes this product unique and not try to imitate another sim that they have no chance of competing with. Bring on the AH-64, that’s the sort of aircraft DCS can do better than anyone but forget Cessnas. Those are done just as well elsewhere so there’s no need for them here.
Is your issue with ED doing a civvy aircraft? I agree that ED should focus on the sim and military craft, but if a third party wants to bring a civvy aircraft to DCS, are you saying they should be stopped?
-
1
-
-
Going back to OP, would I buy multiple variant modules of any plane? No, definitely not as full price modules, even with discounts if you own one already.
Would I be maybe pay for a full module once, and then a much smaller fee for an 'upgrade/downgrade' to add different versions? Maybe.
If the differences are substantial in cockpit and systems, eg F-14A/B -> F14-D, F-16A -> F-16C etc... and even then, I'd have to really want that sub version. I'd likely just stick with the main version I'd bought.-
1
-
-
Dunno if a dynamic solution might be better for the clustering issue?
Under 5km away, full label becomes a dot?
-
1
-
-
Consider turning vsync off.
People tend to not understand what it actually does, and it's harmful for performance unless your minimum fps is always over 60fps.
If you do get screen tearing, turn on freesync/gsync in your gfx card settings, not in game.
-
2
-
-
Okay, I see where you're coming from and get why because I like doing start up too, but isn't that going to result in an illogical scenario?
The other aircraft in your examples don't require an engine start for their instruments to be warmed up. Ground crew do it and leave the aircraft plugged into the mains until the pilot is ready for a flight, at which point the engine is started. It's representing rapid alert aircraft rather than cold and dark.
For the Anton, you're asking for the ground crew to start and run up the engine to temperature, keep it running so it stays at proper temp, then to shut it off when the pilot appears so the pilot (you) can restart it immediately. Even ignoring any fuel burn, that's a kinda odd scenario, right? Why wouldn't the crew just leave it running so the pilot gets into a warm and already running plane?
-
Considering warming up the engine is done after starting it, isn't the 'Take off from ramp hot' option that's already there exactly what you want?
-
37 minutes ago, zhukov032186 said:
I knew they were almost the same except for the afterburning engine but didn't realise they changed the sweep. Interesting. On both the wings and the tail, too.
From the wiki page there's more: thinner wings, extra wing fences, removal of the automatic >m0.92 speed brake, and importantly: a radar gunsight.
I'd be more than happy to see the -17 in DCS, be nice to almost have the whole suite then, as we've got -15, -19, -21 and soon the -23 and -29 as full modules.
-
I remember the discussions about this back in the day, so went digging for thr threads:
It's a design decision, and it was much, much more pronounced at launch:
It was changed shortly after to what it is now (see the follow on replies):
Honestly, I'm not bothered if it stays or goes, literally just use it for tiny corrections at low taxi speed, and it's not like you don't have to use the proper brake steering for actually turning on the ground because of it.-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, JohnTheSavage said:
Yes please. For multiplayer, where you have a human ATC, it can be quite annoying to have the AI ATC constantly talking over everyone in the background. Drives you insane after 10 minutes on the ground
For MP, better solution than just turning it off would be an ATC slot for each airfield. Player occupies it and AI shuts off for that field. No player? Get AI ATC.
-
Yeah, you'd hope they'd have gotten around to it by now, considering it's a couple of minutes of work to make the change and check it in to source control, easy bug to knock off the list and helpful one too.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Sure, you can save the position, but I concur with the OP, either the sight's a bit off with regards to the default head position, or the default head position is wrong.
Be nice to have it fixed either way. -
If you already use the standalone (not Steam), then just buy it on ED's store and it'll all be good.
-
Look at it this way, HB have announced the A-6 module properly, so even if you really, really, really want an F-111 from them, there's zero chance of it happening in the next 2-ish years while they're working on the A-6.
Might as well let this thread (and the Tornado + F4 threads) sleep for a while.
-
3
-
-
39 minutes ago, john4pap said:
I'm a little confused with all the different opinions about the grom. Is the ability to lock the pipper on target the only contested matter about it being realistic?
Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk
Technically no, iirc the radar set in the bis (the -22) doesn't generate the right type of beam for the Grom.
Edit: more info -
3 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:
Please understand everyone is allowed to have an opinion, and treat everyone with respect, even if we dont agree.
Pass your thoughts and opinions, if someone doesn't agree it is not a problem.
We have no plans to add a auto pilot to aircraft that did not use it. We are actually considering removing game flight and avionics, it is not used very often and creates more problems than it solves.
thank you
Excellent news on potentially removing 'game' mode and avionics, if only for reducing the list in the input menu
Can you ask if the 'take off assist' option can be removed too? It's pretty telling when all of Chuck's guides and the common view on the forums is to turn it off as it's a hiderance not a helper. -
As above, the two free standard ones are TF-51 and Su-25A.
However, as we're currently in a free period, go to the module manager in the main menu (top, it's the 9 box icon) and you'll be able to install everything that's currently available during the free trial.
-
You misunderstand my post regarding "new vendor technology", of course the 3 big players aren't new.
Doesn't change the fact SAM is an AMD specific technology, and Nvidia have a comparable technology. Yes, it's all built around the newer PCIe spec, but currently it's not implemented in an software agnostic way as far as I'm aware.
All I'm pointing out is focusing on that sort of thing _right now_ isn't the optimal thing to do for DCS, as other aspects of the sim engine need more work first.
-
Bumping this as it's frustrating as a feature, due to it being inconsistant over different modules.
A8, P47 etc require the new LShift+F1 to get into transpose mode, but other aircraft like the F14, Mig-19 and I suspect others still work the 'old' (and frankly better) way of being able to middle mouse button your way between modes, no new binding required.
What would be your preferred F-4 variant?
in DCS Core Wish List
Posted · Edited by Buzzles
Yeah, this thread:
There really just needs to be a pinned thread for the most common ones atm, to cut down all the extra threads.