Dappman
-
Posts
161 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Dappman
-
-
Because people may be holding on to that money to give the module as a Christmas present, time constraints, some sort of expectation, reduced frustrations after day-to-day checking for news and seeing no Viggen, (off chance but still) maybe someone was holding off on vacation days and wanted to save them for the viggen release and go ham....
They will displease the community with delays? If they hold on to the product for an eternity after promising a release and never providing a timeframe or date it just seems like vaporware. Subliminally reduces the reality of the product at the same time hype goes down. Especially with silence, the standing of the developer goes down. This built up demoralization ends up making the "hype-leak" larger and draining more hype from the community. In the ends this ends up with more headaches for everyone with no benefit in the end (if anything more negatives).
In the end this conditions the consumer to be frustrated from the time from announcement for development down to the actual release date with sharp increases during these times of delays.
I'd rather be an informed and slightly disappointed consumer than frustrated and left in the dark.
If they weren't prepared for a release, making announcements on products prematurely when they don't even have a demo reel of the aircraft is on them. Half these 3rd party developers just drop plane announcements randomly because they just felt they may work on that at some point. If each plane is going to take 1-2 years to complete, announcing development on 3 planes ends up being up to 3-6 years of development schedule baring delays and parallel development on updating, bugfixing, and unforeseen circumstances. Not only is it hard to find people who play the same game/simulator for years, but it is hard to ind a product that has survived 10 years without major overhauls etc... These developer also have to then bring their older aircraft to newer DCS standards in future DCS releases. This also brings up another point. Will DCS last 5 more years? 10 more years? will it end up being a different engine altogether where all previous aircraft and systems may also completely have to be redone due to new engine API's?
There's plenty of good reason to NOT announce things until you're good and ready and giving time estimates is part of ANY job/career (Especially programming! I remember having to go through the trouble of finding my speed in my first development job compared to my proprietary projects which I could work on at my leisure). Understandably you have to deal with more bureaucratic red tape when requesting information on these combat aircraft, but its not their first rodeo per say. In fact, if there's announcements on development when necessary documentation (or anything pertinent for that matter) has not been secured for development then that's just irresponsibility.
Don't use "Devil's advocate" as a way to excuse lack of critical thinking and research.
Vacations, Christmas or any other reason does not mean anything. Christmas isn't some magical deadline that if they miss they will lose business. They have not announced a release date only upcoming info on the Viggen. The info is probably delayed now yes, why didn't everyone expect that? They have done it every single time. Literally every time.
-
Most air-to-surface missiles are being updated for improved fidelity flight dynamics and guidance. After that is complete, our engineer will do the same for the air-to-air systems.
Thanks
-
I think you mean pull my finger. Smell my finger is something else.
-
There was supposed to be a part 2 for the now known Viggen and Corsair announcement last March. Over a year ago. Still didn't happen.
I'm not mad or anything I know they will get it out when they get it out. Some people haven't learned...
-
You know what, I read an official report or debriefing on the US military operation Allied Force (you can find it online) a while back and now that I think about it they didn't talk so much about munitions being used (unless they were really expensive) but they made a pretty big deal about how many hours they were putting on aircraft frames and how costly it was and hard to sustain.
-
I saw that too, I would like to know why. Actually, it isn't AGM-65, it's AGM-114 Hellfire. According to Wikipedia, the AH-64D Apache is able to use AGM-65. But most of videos on youtube, they are using the Hellfire.
Yeah you're right they were Hellfire missiles. I forgot about those.
But on the topic of Mavericks check this video out. Most bad ass missile strike I've ever seen. These things pack a punch. Turn volume up.
-
I've seen footage of US Apache pilots using $100,000 Agm65s (*correction, AGM-114 Hellfire) to take out a single insurgent.
-
As a long time Falcon flier, honestly, I think the DCS aar is unrealistically difficult.
F-16 would be easier since it's fly-by-wire no? Also wasn't the Falcon BMS AAR really unrealistic until 4.33?
I would think AAR is like flying helicopters in DCS. It feels impossible until you train for hours and hours and then it clicks. I'm bad at it but I don't feel the need to practice AAR since I have never needed it. If I need gas I need weapons too. I can maintain speed and heading with the tanker but I can't for the life of me maintain altitude.
-
The back seater is not a "copilot" :doh: . He's a Weapons System Operator (WSO - pronounced WIZZO). They are navigators.
The pilot (aircraft commander) can control and operate all of the sensors and systems that the WSO can and then some. However, it doesn't work that way. The workload is divided as needed w/the pilot flying the airplane, using the radar, looking for threats, pickle the weapons, and so on. The WSO will operate the mission sensors and coordinate the attack.
If this was what you were wondering :smartass::D
I know hes called the WSO/navigator, I also figured he was a co-pilot my mistake.
But anyway, I'm asking because I want to know if we can single player pilot this plane when it comes out.
-
-
So I just purchased the A10-C warthog and Flaming Cliffs from steam. Installed, fired it up, and now DCS is telling me that I need to unlock it by making an additional purchase of a "serial number" directly from DCS sales. If that wasn't enough, it throws this dialogue up 20-odd times before you can escape out of it.
This is a huge scam, I just paid $100 and now there's an additional unlock fee. That's completely illegal. DO NOT TRUST STEAM OR DCS. If you were suckered into paying the unlock fee, I hope you used a credit card so you can do a charge-back because you've been ripped off.
It's sad and disappointing that things like this still exist in this day and age.
You have to go to modules and download them...
-
DCS Tucano
in RAZBAM
I think this plane is cool, but at the same time I'm thinking this could be an F-16 or at least 75% of an F-16.
-
Any word from ED about the poll where DC scored top?
-
I've always thought the A10 needed this. Would be awesome to be able to set SPI/MARK just by looking at something.
-
What's the disadvantages to the bubble system? I always assumed DCS, and most games in general don't render objects that can't be seen, such as inside houses and stuff.
-
What does the auto hover actually do? I just trim for hover and it's fine, don't even use it anymore.
-
GBU-12s need line of sight for laser, maybe the bad weather is affecting it. Also try selecting the GBUs with DMS left and right instead of directly clicking them on MFD. I've heard that can revert it to its standard profile setup and the laser won't fire.
-
"...with our WWII aircraft we used the Mustangs that we own to create the most accurate simulation of the pony ever done"
You guys own real Mustangs?
-
For the record I would pay well over $100 for a proper DCS dynamic campaign.
-
ED's main focus is aircraft simulation, I play this sim because I want to step into an aircraft. I dont want to sacrifice any of that for a mediocre RTS game. I am all for dynamic in the sense that one mission impacts the next to an ultimate goal, but I dont really need a RTS mini-game in the sim, least not in that sense.
Ok and I respect your opinion. I don't think it's a minigame, it's an overview of what is happening and the capability to plan missions in real time. Like a hugely advanced and dynamic form of the briefing before a mission in DCS. And even if it is a mini-game, what's wrong with that? Like I said you can play it like that, you absolutely don't have to. I was just pointing out how capable it is.
You say you don't want to sacrifice time spent in an aircraft. I'm not being a dick but have you actually tried this system? You don't have to sacrifice any more time with this system than you do in the pre-mission briefing in DCS. Again, not being a dick so don't take it that way.
The DC is very popular even with DCS users and for good reason. The only reason it didn't get even more of votes in the recent poll is because the majority who didn't vote for it haven't actually tried it. The large majority want this. We want it bad. BAD.
-
A dynamic campaign is essential to have in DCS. I just learned what it can do and it blows me away. I thought in a dynamic campaign you just get generated missions some what based on the outcome of the previous missions. It's not that at all.This is a tutorial example from Falcon BMS on planning a package. The entire war is running constantly. You don't even have to step into a plane you can play it just from the "commanders" view. In BMS online the war is running in real time 24/7.
[ame]
[/ame] -
These pictures are amazing.
-
-
The vram showing in game seems to be wrong. My vram was showing 15GB. I don't know how its supposed to work but I have a 3GB card and I don't think it would even play if the vram usage was higher than the actual card.
DCS Huey accuracy test from a military pilot
in DCS: UH-1H
Posted
Amazing depth of testing. Absolute joke of a scoring system.