Jump to content

captain_dalan

Members
  • Posts

    2590
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by captain_dalan

  1. Ah i see. Then we or on the agreement on that. Not much different as an end user experience. Most of us, the vast majority fly without a human RIO. And even then, only seldom venture in the rear cockpit. All that effort would be wasted on something more people won't really get to play with.
  2. Update: No track this time around, and no real crash either. But something happened to me last week, that almost looked like a crash on mission start. It was a generic instant action with an air start, i thin it was on the Nevada map, just a free flight. DCS hung as i clicked the start button, sound froze, and i thought i was about to have the first freeze in ages. Then the mission unfroze and i continued with the flight as usual except for one thing. My HUD was all skewed as if i had messed my gyro with an over g. Except i hadn't pulled any g's at all as i had just started the mission. The g indicator did show about 5 or 6 g's pulled though. As if the plane has literally shuddered at mission start.
  3. I would look at it the other way. Of course, this is only my perspective, so i won't claim others share it, but: 1. An update Bombcat B with a new HUD? Yes, it will be far less work then a brand new D. But how marketable it really is? Yeah, i know, people have been complaining about the existing HUD for ages, but how many would pay a full price for a new HUD? SOME certainly would. But how many? And the new possible loudouts? I don't think that would justify the sales either. Personally, i wouldn't buy it all, as mud moving isn't my thing. But you would you charge people with extra 70$ for a HUD and some bombs? And if you do, how many will pay, and how many will feel cheated for not getting it for free? I mean, if you go for something like, i don't know, a 20$ upgrade, then sure, you'll probably get rid of most of the ill will, but why not go for: 2. A brand new F-14D? The level of work needed would be much higher indeed, but not as much as starting from nothing. You already have the engines modelled, and the basic aerodynamic properties. Some of the internal systems as well. But even better, the user experience should be so much different, then you can clearly market is a new plane and charge it as such. I have no idea how the average DCS user decides on a purchase, but the F-14 fans and enthusiasts i know, would absolutely go for a fully priced F-14D. Everything from hot it flies, how it presents and processes information, what it can carry, even how it looks will be different. Something more to look forward to experiencing, unlike the crutches of a new HUD. Anyways, just my 2 cents.
  4. And often overstated and somewhat misleading precedence. Even back then, a flight would often consist of a pair in which one plane would carry a more fighter oriented loudout, i.e. Sparrows and Sidewinders, while the other plane would carry a pair of Phoenixes. And even if we decide to take "Save the Phoenix for the fleet defense" mantra, it's not like anyone flies realistic mission loads anyways. Cold war era or otherwise. The way i see it, the F-14 treatment in Cold War scenarios (open MP) is more of "keep it fair" mentality, as it always has been, then any attempt at historical accuracy. I just can't wait to see what excuses will be given when the Eurofighter comes around. They'll probably ban it from 90% of the servers out there....
  5. Now doesn't get me wrong, i have escorted strike packages on a view occasions, but as i said, the mission, or the game itself, doesn't really keep track of this. There's no (if you want to call it that way) "Mission success popup" for the escort. Add to that the fact that most open MP missions aren't designed around it at all. It was fun escorting that F-18 guy for sure, but it's not like he really needed it. And most servers, especially PvP are just like @RustBelt said, quake. Almost a BVR extension of a dogfighting server. I can't help but wonder why do we even start cold on the ground? The opposite sides start less then 200 miles from each other, why bother with take off at all? Just to pretend you know how to start a plane? While i can understand the dogfight servers as a training tool (which let us be honest, they really aren't, as their starting locations, positions and loadouts, don't really reflect actual training scenarios), most open MP PVP servers aren't even that. Air superiority and any form of CAP doesn't exist under such conditions. It's just "quicky" free for all melee.
  6. Not really my favorite screenshots, but i wasn't about to open a new topic just for this. Anyways, how do you guys like my new default snap view?
  7. General question here, were the ECCM and ECCM/Sealed introduced and used only with the D and it's new radar, or were they compatible with the vanilla AWG-9 as well?
  8. To be fair, the mission doesn't exist on most PvP open servers. There's no way of tracking it or scoring it. Even relatively "professional" E-sport events are essentially team death matches, something that hardly resembles any RL context. Planes aren't designed nor used in such vacuum. But it seems that that is what most of the user based wants. For all the snobbery towards the users of other products, we seem to be following the same engagement patterns with our product. Only recently did i see videos of some events that start adding mission elements to DCS PvP, but we have a long way to go.
  9. Having dabbed in the RIO seat a bit over the holidays (being my own RIO), i would certainly like to see some controls being added as orders we can issue to Jester. Ability to hook targets or assign "do not attack" to some comes first to mind, and of course MLC filter manipulation. I can see why some people swear by it. Oh, and let's not forget.... Happy Ney Year everyone!
  10. My eyes have been opened! I am going to name my firstborn after this guy!!!
  11. While actually looking for targets. does it stile home in on the data provided by the fire control computer?
  12. No worries, it's that time of the year, and we are all near then end of our wits for the last 365 days
  13. Yep, absolutely pointless for me now. Which i why i didn't get it, even though it used to be one of the major items on my original wish list in my old signature
  14. Yeah, these all sound like good things to have, but for someone who has no nationalistic/patriotic reasons to feel any attachment to this conflict (i'm neither a Brit nor an Argentinian) i always dreamed of having the chance to fly both the Mirage III and FRS1 over this part of the world. I mean, all these 3 together, meant to me as much as the F-14 and Miramar combined, which says a lot
  15. Is this still an issue for you? I haven't experienced one of these in more then a month now.
  16. Ah, such a shame. i was looking forward to this as well, even if only an eye-candy level of implementation . It's a Tomcat eye-candy, and we can never get enough of that!!!
  17. @Bankler Sorry for the late reply, it's been a long weekend! The good news is, it works, both for the Hornet and the for the Tomcat. Mind including a division of F-14A's as well with the next release?
  18. This is what killed the Falkland map for me. No point in ever getting it now, even if one day we do get a Mirage III. Alas, if only the Brits were as good at making stuff as they were in destroying the documentation surrounding them
  19. For general and most frequent use, no, you don't need to jump back. However..... in multiplayer, and in target saturated environments, you may want to. My most common gripe is target prioritization, which can't be done from the front. The FCC will always give priority to the closest contacts and to make things even more complicated, will always start tracking as many targets, as missiles you have available, only assigning prioritization once you have fired on any (those will become prioritized). This can overload and overwork your radar, resulting in either unreliable tracks or lost tracks. To mitigate this, i jump in the back seat, and manually select certain tracks i wish to avoid being tracked, and mark them as do not engage. Generally speaking, avoid engaging more then 2 nimble targets at the same time, or targets with large lateral separation. This is all of TWS engagements of course. In STT you have no such issues.
  20. Thanks mate, will run it this evening and share the findings.
  21. Also @draconus and @NeedzWD40 I ran the update, and the issue seems to have gone away, but i didn't fly all that much. Will try more this weekend.
×
×
  • Create New...