metzger
-
Posts
1029 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by metzger
-
-
Well, the way I see it, and it started quite some time ago(may be when MAC idea was born) , ED is clearly trying to attract a wider audience even if that means compromising the untill now philosophy to only model what can be modeled to very high degree of accuracy.
They already stated a lot earlier that they developed the new modules based on modular system so they can re-use certain systems with other modules.
Basically, re-skin a viper, op the radar, op the rwr, make it undetectable, mix up the helmet with adding some oped Apache functionalities, add OP irst, OP mws... and you have a dcs version af an F35 for 1-2 years of development.
Since nobody can really say what is accurate and what not, they can always go with 'correct as is' or prove it with public documentation - good luck with that on f35. The perfect module!
Ofc they can alway claim is the best representation of f35 in a hobby sim game, since it's the only one. At the moment, the free f35 mod is the best representation of f35 in a game :)
I personally am done with DCS until atc, better AI and DC are released. By the time this happens, god knows what it will be.
Sent from my SM-G985F using Tapatalk-
1
-
-
At least it will be easy to make a home cockpit - just put a big touch screen, and you are done
Sent from my SM-G985F using Tapatalk-
7
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, NineLine said:
That is also an aspect people leave out. If we did only aircraft we could model 100% 1:1 we would have a very slim line up, and the Ka-50 and A-10C would not exist.
NL, Why you exaggerate like that ? No body here expects and speaks about 1:1 100%. Do you honestly believe that F-35 will come even close to A-10C level of accuracy of simulation ?
But I personally don't care much about how good f-35 will be. In the current state of the DCS playground as whole, any rumors for more EA modules is just meh..
On the positive side, the video showed a lot of DC and ground battle, so there is hope after all. If before anything else DC comes in good working state and brings a decent AI improvements, then ED can release x-wing starfighter if they want in closed alpha state
.
-
2
-
-
What is 'dcs standards ' in your opinion ?If ED think it’s doable to DCS standards then it’s good enough for me.
Some of the pontificating on this thread is outrageous and way out of order.
DCS has come so far and I could only have dreamed about such fidelity and graphics when I started on C64 and Amiga sims.
How about we just give these guys a chance to deliver? If you don’t like the final product when it comes out, don’t buy it but please stop being absolute killjoys to the entire project.
Do you really believe they can model f-35 with the a-10c level of accuracy ? Or even hornet level of accuracy? I very highly doubt it.
And in dcs playground, how are you employing f-35 in a remotely realistic tactical environment?
May be with the dcs 'realisric' awacs
.
Sent from my SM-G985F using Tapatalk
-
Yes, ED strictly.Really? Care to name some examples? I assume you are strictly talking about ED (otherwise the F-4 Phantom would be a prime example of that staement being wrong)
A-10C was released in very much completed state, with gameplay mechanics only available(to this day) for the a-10 wingman and AI jtac. And is to this date probably the most complete and depth module DCS has.
No 7 years EA BS.
+ nttr map bit later developed for the a-10.
Similar with ka-50 black shark2.
Both came with specific mechanics for the AI + content - deployment campaign was really good for the time.
Later modules started to appear more rough, without any specific additions for their specific use cases. They stopped making free campaigns with the modules too.
But still in ok state.
I think around Viper release, things started to smell. It was in a bare bones at release barely usable, or accurate. They slowly dropped the accuracy, e.g. BS3 now F35... no way they can make f35 with A10C depth and accuracy.
Sent from my SM-G985F using Tapatalk
-
4
-
-
Well even if a dev that work on maps can't work on modules or AI, they can always hire less map devs and use the extra budget for AI or module or whatever devs. This excuse is so lame I can't believe people keep buying it...ED repeats ad nauseum that aircraft teams can't and won't work on maps, and while that is very understandable, those very aircraft teams can also be put to work on the Yak-52 I'd think and finally finish it...
Sent from my SM-G985F using Tapatalk
-
1
-
-
Tbf, the quality of released modules has been decreasing for the past few years. In terms of polish, content, and depth of simulation. Seems like the trend will continue. But this is probably driven by the user base and the users they are targeting.So my take away from this thread is, the quality of ED upcoming module will decline in term of realism whether ED like to admit it or not.
And yeah, nothing is gonna convice me then.
Seems like enough people don't care if it is finished, polished, accurate enough, and there is good playground for it. They just want more modules to hop in the mp airquake. If this is the aimed audinace which ED calculated will bring the most revenue - it's their company.
Luckily, for Viper fans, we have the other sim, and for some fans of older stuff, we have the other other sim, which will release Korea 51 soon.
I had some hopes to do RW in dcs, but given the current state of the sim outside the cockpit, and the lack of any initiative from ED to focus on improving it, I am not very optimistic.
Sent from my SM-G985F using Tapatalk
-
4
-
-
People don't complain here as some put it. Just expressing their disappointment in the direction DCS steer. After all the debates to finish what is unfinished, make it more stable, improve the core mechanics and missing essential functionality...
Instead, they went after people who are not satisfied with the big variety of modules already but keep screaming for more. Fine, enjoy the half-baked unfinished cockpits and empty dead maps.
Sent from my SM-G985F using Tapatalk-
5
-
1
-
-
Actually, none of the maps in DCS match the time frame of the modules we have, may be only besides Caucasus. All of the maps beside ww2 ones represent the location in 2020ish. Even Afghanistan. Dubai during the 2000s and Dubai in DCS is completely different. DCS is all over the place with modules and maps and almost nothing matches, therefore a lot of imagination is needed. It has always been like that. Think about mig-15 and Saber.. same.
Sent from my SM-G985F using Tapatalk -
If you find a safe position out of enemy range, just sit there and expend your missiles. AI knows you are there but will just sit and watch the HOT hit it in the face.
Unless the mission designer scripted something, dcs AI is not really reactive. It just waits, and if you go within range, it will shoot.
Relocating just means you are risking to go in range of something you didn't know it's there. Relocate only if you need to fix LOS problem or something like that.
Not being stationary probably helps a bit in some cases, but zu-23 or even infantry with AK is as accurate as shilka, so if you go within dcs defined range, they will snipe you out with first or second birst despite if you are moving or not.
So, in DCS, the most effective way is to hover out of range and shoot the sitting ducks.
Sent from my SM-G985F using Tapatalk-
4
-
-
I never said garbage nor that it isn't known.The AH-64 instructor Pilot you're quoting here is also sure of this. The crabbing issues are known and have been mentioned by him and others countless times before that the Apache has about two and a half more sideways movement than it should. Doesn't mean the rest of the flight model is unstable or otherwise garbage.
The Apache flight model at the current state has a major issue with the tail rotor, which affects it in multiple ways, not just crabbing.
The guy before me said the flight model is decent.
But with that flaw, I personally just don't find it decent. It's annoying all the time because the crabbing alone is in your face during the whole mission, and you constantly have to fight the tail rotor.
Will it be fixed ? Probably. When ? Who knows.
It also makes lining up rocket shots more difficult than it should be.
Sent from my SM-G985F using Tapatalk
-
1
-
-
Ok that means the rest of DCS helicopters are wrong because in no wind conditions nose/tail and aerodynamic trim in balanced level flight is matching very close in any of them.No, they didn’t. It’s a trait of *all* helicopters to fly crabbed even in no winds, it’s to do with the interaction of main rotor torque on the fuselage and the tail rotor anti torque. There’s also a rolling moment imparted on the helicopter as a result of tail rotor thrust as well that has to be countered with opposing cyclic.
Anyway, all of this is known and has been discussed ad nauseam. Throwing zingers that are flat out wrong doesn’t help anything because Boeing designed one heck of a stable helicopter.
I am very sure Boeing designed a rock solid and very responsive aircraft that doesn't crab like this.
Sent from my SM-G985F using Tapatalk
-
2
-
-
If ED fix the AI and implement a proper SAVE. The DC is already possible kinda.
But with the abysmal state of the AI, and the willingness of ED to admit and start fixing it, I highly doubt we will see a playable version of a dynamic campaign any time soon. Maybe for our children or grandchildren..
Even the current scripted scenarios based gameplay, which is 'supported' for decades, half the time most of the content is broken and doesn't work.
-
3
-
-
Yea.. pretty decent. Especially in yaw control :D
And Boeing designed a helicopter which with perfectly balanced loadout and no wind flies sideways and you have to look at the FPM through the side window. Or maybe this is a safety feature to confuse the enemy
Sent from my SM-G985F using Tapatalk-
2
-
-
YoYo, I had similar issue in one mission in syria. Spent days to troubleshoot and couldn't find what triggers the wingman to do this weird behavior. Starting the same flight from the same airfieald (taftanaz) was fine on an empty from scratch mission.
Then based on ChillNG idea, I removed all static units which were anywhere near the runway, deleted and re-added player flight and problem was solved.
Give it a try, might be the same problem.
This wingman start taxi before the player or doesn't taxi and take off at all kinda issues occasionally come all the time. Really frustrating
Like half of the time DCS single player is broken...
Sent from my SM-G985F using Tapatalk-
1
-
-
- ability to add waypoints to the flight plan of your flight. Currently, you can modify the position of the already created wayooints but not add new ones.
This will allow for missions where the player is responsible for planning the route.
- ability to adjust advanced waypoint actions for your flight.
- drawing functions. Especially useful for OH-58
- add/modify kneeboards
Sent from my SM-G985F using Tapatalk
-
Yea thank you! I think that was it! I had similar issue with AI wingmen on Taftanaz. Removed all units near the runway, re-added my player slots and now it works fine. So I guess that was it. After 2 days of trying different stuff never thought about this.Not exactly sure what caused the issue, but we've seen an issue with H4 airbase specifically where the AI won't taxi if there are any ground units/statics with 60 feet of the runway. This was introduced with the last update. Thankfully a very easy fix, just required moving a few objects.
I don't know if this is the cause or not but H4 itself appears to have moved by a few feet, you can tell as all the statics are now slightly out of position and the player staring position is slightly in the dirt off the taxiway in some missions.
No idea if Ugra is fixing or not, they never tend to say a lot publicly, I would recommend making changes in the editor yourself.
Damn spending more time debugging ED broken stuff than playing :(
Sent from my SM-G985F using Tapatalk
-
1
-
-
Hello,
So this is a really long long topic. But I can quickly give a few examples from what I have heard. Note that I am no real pilot but have played DCS for quite some time now including with some real military aviators.
- First, as far as I am aware, requesting engine start is not a thing in military or at least it is rather uncommon.
- Always when you contact a controller or any new agency on the radio, you start with who are you calling, who you are, where you are and what you want. E.g.:
"Nellies Ground, VIPER ONE, Two Vipers at Foxtrot one four three with Charlie for Taxi to active" --> you are saying who you are, where you are, weather info you have and what you want.
Reply can be:
"VIPER One, Ground, taxi zero three right via foxtrot, alpha, hold short zero three LEFT"
Then readback can be very short and truncated from what I've heard:
"zero three right, foxtrot, alpha, hold zero three left, viper 1"
At the hold short, you would inform ground if he does not give you further instructions before you arrive there:
"ground, viper1, holding short zero three left at alpha"
He should clear you to cross:
"viper1 cross zero three left, hold short zero three right and contact tower one three two decimal five five"
readback:
"cross zero three left, hold short zero three right, contact tower, viper 1"
contacting tower once ready, since it is a new agencies, again who you call, who you are, where you are, what you want:
"nellies tower, viper 1, two vipers holding short runway zero three right for departure "
tower - "viper1, tower, wind is xxx for x, runway zero three right cleared for take off "
readback "zero three right cleared for takeoff, viper one"
-- at hold short, always ask for departure, and should always get cleared for take off. Never request clearance for take off, and should never get clearance for departure.
-- Informational calls such as winds are not read back
-- this ofc is simplistic example, and I will repeat, I am nothing but DCS enthusiast, so take this example with a grain of salt.
If you will make NTTR missions, I strongly advice you to browse 476th website. They have really really good info on NTTR ranges, procedures, restrictions and targets. Also pretty neat NTTR template.
https://www.476vfightergroup.com/nttr/nttr.php
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, DonLuicia said:
Thanks for the feedback. Yes, I will probably do a few more missions. I'd like to build another one that includes the Urban Operations Complex at the southern end of Dog Bone Lake.
Yes, realism is one of those things. I wanted it to be realistic but also easy to understand for beginners. A mixture. Of course, it also plays a big role that I only know real procedures and Brevity from the “Internet and Books” and not from pilots, controllers or JTACS, etc.
Great, I would certainly play more. Thanks for doing it for the community.
Ask ChatGPT to generate brevity and coms, it is actually pretty decent for most of the stuff.
-
What exactly was broken on the map ? Is it something fixable in ME or it has to be fixed by ED ? I have similar issue with AI wm on my mission and can't find how to fix it.
Sent from my SM-G985F using Tapatalk -
2 hours ago, DonLuicia said:
Hey guys. I created a small mission. You have to fight moving ground targets in R-62A & R-62B. On the Dog Bone Lake there is or was a range that is or was specially designed for moving targets. HSMT (High-Speed Moving Target). I found this interesting and developed the mission.
https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3342263/
Really nice practice mission. Thank you. I wish there were more missions like this aiming for both immersion and practicing.
Coms VOs are not 100% brevity correct but good enough.
-
1
-
-
The negativity comes because no matter how much and cool new stuff the release, the bugs and the unfinished stuff prevents people from enjoing it.
What's the point of having the cool stuff then ?
Just to give a few examples:
- Many missions were broken due to the LIVE LESS THAN % trigger not working. You hop in, spent 1 hour to prepare and fly a mission to end up in frustration as mission cannot finish. Fortunately that was fixed in the last update, but was broken for almost a full year prevented me playing a few of my favorite community missions.
- F-16 weasels campaign is now broken due to h4 bug.
- Missions constantly ebd up miserable due to AI misbehaving..
So you fancy the new cool thing for a few hours, then hop in to do a mission, and it ends up in frustration instead of fun..
Let's see how AI will handle the new fog now, or we will have to choose when making missions - AI or Fog.
Sent from my SM-G985F using Tapatalk-
5
-
1
-
-
Yea right, '2 bingo fuel' '2 ejecting' is my favorite bug, no one else ever reported it...or endless '2 contact armor xxx for xx' '2 contact armor xxx for xx' '2 contact armor xxx for xx'Common misunderstanding. Coders of fog have nothing to do with WW2 modules avionics bugs.
It's getting tiring - they repeat that these are just your own favorite bugs, same with the guy with his own favorite AI bugs. I've got my own list too. But big picture is what you see in patch change logs.
Just report bugs, make a wish and move on. If you like something - buy it. If not - vote with your wallet.
Those are ED trademarks all over flight sim communities... but the guy with favorite ai bug.
Sent from my SM-G985F using Tapatalk
-
1
-
1
-
-
Caucasian fir is the tallest tree in Caucasus area. It varies between 30 to 60 meters. It can only be seen in the mauntains at 1200-2000meters height.
Nothing taller than 30m can be seen in the lower mountain areas e.g. under 1200m.
Abd we speak about dense forrests and ideal conditions for the trees, not urban areas.
Sent from my SM-G985F using Tapatalk-
1
-
1
-
More realistic AI opponents
in DCS Core Wish List
Posted
And also why ED can not adjust the current AI flight parameters to more plausible levels as a workaround until the mighty DC, GFM is ready, which might be after another decade if at all. It's clearly possible considering that not all AI are ufo, but important ones like mig15 and 21 are.
It's beyond me why ED ignores those obvious issues for years while they keep being discussed in forums for years. Doesn't seem ED cares for anything that won't bring immediate cash flow.
Sent from my SM-G985F using Tapatalk