

Buzzles
Members-
Posts
3012 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Buzzles
-
To be fair, it's not their fault as the patent set was sat on for years with very expensive licensing (iirc), I very much doubt VKB & Virpil could afford it. Only reason why MS could do it was because they own/co-own some of the patents. They expired earlier this year though, so hopefully TM and Logitech pick up the ball. Still falls down at the first hurdle though, as it requires everyone to have FFB devices. They weren't cheap at the time when they were actually around.
-
They didn't wear the pressure suits simply because of the altitude per se. They wore them mostly in case the cockpit depressurised or they had to eject at high alt / high speed. Same as U2 pilots. Fwiw, an EE Lightning was taken to just over 88,000 feet in zoom climb during pretty normal operations. It's totally possible. Hypoxia is also time dependent, as it's oxygen depletion over time, and even if the masks aren't supplying *all* the needed o2, they're still supplying some. Popping up to those alts and then coming straight back down to the service ceiling isn't going to mean instant unconsciousness.
-
[RE LOGIN FOR FIX]You have been permanently banned
Buzzles replied to ebabil's topic in Forum and Site Issues
Same on desktop. Had to log out and back in. -
Your memory might not be what it once was :P BST announced the F4 (and AH1) for that matter, before they were absorbed back into ED proper.
-
The Legit Discussion for the D Model Tomcat
Buzzles replied to HairyPOOnuggets's topic in Heatblur Simulations
I'm surprised HB haven't got a sticky about it for that exact reason. -
The height aspect certainly needs to be looked at, it definitely shouldn't be the same at altitude.
-
Fwiw, the Cobra isn't a surprise either, previously announced as BST were doing it on the backburner before they were reabsorbed back into ED.
-
Ah, I didn't realised that'd been explicitly excluded, rather than people just guessing it had been due to the reasons you mention.
-
Because it's the boring choice, could be the F-15C, and ED's comments about it being a facemelter etc... is just hyperbole/marketing. Would certainly fit with the "no Russian, not new new" comments, and would round out the current batch of primary USAF fighters. Unlikely to be the Mudhen as Razbam are doing it.
-
How about new languages for ATC communication?
Buzzles replied to DustyFox's topic in DCS Core Wish List
Provisionally yes, but as a optional module/pack via the module manager. If I'm not going to use the language, I'd rather not have it installed and taking up space. -
Pfft, get off your high horse. I don't remember seeing any massive or frequent threads in this comment section specifically about the forum demanding a complete revamp. And yes, you publish something on the web, or hell, in public, you sure as hell are gonna get told it's horrible by complete strangers and get insulted. There's nothing new here about that.
-
Looks terrible if I'm honest. Massive waste of space on the sides, styling is pretty bad too. It looks like a very mid 2000's default skin forum now.
-
No, thank you. I used to hate joining servers for CS/HL/UT etc and being forced to dl dozens of character models and skins, which I wouldn't use. With skins in DCS being a massively larger, I definitely don't want to spend ages dl'ling skins when joining a server just because the server admin has added their and their friends' skins.
-
Dunno, I honestly don't use them too much in the -T. If that's the "cost" for a hi-fidelity Su-25, so be it.
-
Yes, but I'd rather them just be under /Documentation in the DCS install directory, considering they're version controlled. Saves being in MyDocs is one thing, but no games should be shoving version controlled data in there.
-
The engine can only cope with 1300kph IAS, above that it dies. It is a Mach 2 aircraft though. IAS is very altitude dependent. Mach is too (to a lesser degree). 1200kph IAS at sea level = ~1200kph actual speed 1200kph IAS at 30,000m = ~2200kph actual speed ( > Mach 2) Mach 1 at 0m (sea level) is ~1225kph Mach 2 at sea level is ~2450kph Mach 1 at 30,000m is ~1086kph Mach 2 at 30,000m is ~2172kph tl;dr: keep IAS below 1300kph, for high mach numbers, fly very high.
-
Was the side-mounted cannon genius or a mistake?
Buzzles replied to Volk.'s topic in DCS: Ka-50 Black Shark
The better (stiffer) the mounting, the better the long range accuracy. Pretty much true for all guns, so the KA-50 is probably more accurate at longer range as I suspect it probably has a more ridgid mounting. As for why, I can only guess. I suspect you might get more concrete info in the Russian side of the forum. It and the Mi-28 were both planned to replace the Mi-24. With rocket/gun runs being the for CAS and they both can do that, maybe the utility of the chin turret mount is better for it over raw accuracy? The Mi-24P with its huge fixed cannon is a thing though, which sort of discounts that thought. Or it could simply be a design choice, with the KA-50 planned to be used a bit more as a standoff weapon so more focus is on ranged accuracy? Or it could simply have been a choice to give more space in the nose to sensors? The Russian side can probably shine more light on the subject. -
In this context, yes they are. The numbers in the Natops/-1 are not arbritary to be equally clear with you. I think we're both aware they're engineered numbers, calculated down based on what the airframe can do at max (from structual testing in the factory) with a safety margin (normally 1.5x), with a further margin added for airframe lifespan. They are most definitely not a hard number = plane breaks just past it, for reasons previously discussed. So picking it for this g-limit option you've proposed is an arbitrary choice, again, in this context. That said, Nat-Ops/-1 limits +1.5x I could get behind though, as although a non-real number, it probably actually closer to the real airframe limits. I think we're both in agreement that there's definitely things that need to be done by the devs to improve this entire area though :thumbup:
-
To be clear, I was saying arbitrary in regards to the numbers you picked, not the 'limit' itself. I'm definitely a No to a number based server restriction stopping people simply pulling harder and the aircraft artificially being stopped, which is what you'd described. I'm a Yes for better DM's, and draconus says, better g-modelling for pilots, in order to improve realism and I think that's a better way to achieve your goals.
-
There's pilot accounts for F-14, F-15, etc... (basically anything without an non-overridable limiter) all going over the written limit in their respective manuals, both in training and in real world combat, so even going by the operating manuals isn't exactly fair if you're claiming realism is the goal. As your post is in response to the event, I'd say you'd probably have a stronger argument stating that over-g DM's need more development in order to serve your goals, rather than enforcing an arbitrary limit via the server config. As an aside, pretty much all the WWII birds have over-g limits resulting in wings breaking off, others modules do too to various degrees as well.
-
Why does this topic keep coming up? ED, and Wags specifically, have said the Apache is a matter of when, not if. That's really easily findable via a search too.
-
Just as a point here: as the F-14 doesn't have a limiter, and you can also find accounts that Grumman testers pulled up to 10.5g fairly often with no ill effects on the airframe (there's also some early Grumman marketing stating it too iirc), what's your 'real-life' limit in the this case? The max 7.5g rule the F-14 hit the fleet with in the 70's? The later reduced 6.5g that was chosen to preserve airframe life? Or are you picking the known mechanical limit? More generally, what problem are you trying to solve? Is this related to the debacle from the recent charity event? Where it was a 0.1s spike in the recordings caused by server instability/lag and not a real over-g event? Most airframes in DCS do implement some over-g damage states.
-
I just mapped it to one of the big switches on the bottom of the X-55 throttle, as they're spring loaded it exactly matches the behaviour of the real button.