Northstar98
-
Posts
8207 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
21
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Northstar98
-
-
+1
Yes, essentially allowing the placement of cargoes on board ships from the mission editor.
If we could extend that to ground vehicles too that would be great - especially for the Tarawa class.
-
Agreed, but here's another idea.
What about using static objects to create airfields? Say you have a whole plethora of static objects that can be used to build runways, aprons, shelters, hangars, towers, NAVAIDs, lights etc. Maybe for things like runways they could be procedural - allowing them to have their dimensions changed in the mission editor, maybe have different textures to suite different materials. Or instead use building blocks and just construct an airfield where you like. Obviously there should be lots of variation to suite different nations and lots of different building blocks for ultimate configurability.
For things like hangars we could have it so their doors are animated by way of the current trigger system, same with lighting. For things like NAVAIDs all we need to do is be able to change a frequency/channel and type and just get it to integrate with the current NAVAIDs, for things like GP transmitters we can do the same and then set the beam elevation for custom glidepaths, same for PAPI lights.
Then extend the template system for static objects, so we can save our work and not have to redo absolutely everything. Once the mission editor improves (being able to see accurate top-down silhouettes of what your placing (maybe turn icon to silhouette at closer zooms or have a key command) or better, go 3D with something akin to Arma 3's EDEN (which is a full 3D editor, but retains a 2D view, which IMO is perfect for DCS, 3D for accurate placement of units, 2D for aircraft waypoints).
Eh just an idea, it's just to me stockpiling static objects and building airfields using them seems like a more straightforward approach. At least at the basic level.
-
Yes, I think what would be the best solution is to add trees as assets that the mission editor can use as static objects (that aren't tied to a coalition). Though the same thing is available for mods.
-
+1 would be great to see and would add more to DCS being a true sandbox simulator, which is what it's advertised as being.
-
Maybe, but with a single land mass, you're limiting the map to carrier-only aircraft.
You ideally want a large body of water that also has land on both sides, and possibly in the middle as well.
Iceland could work, but then you'd also want Norway / Denmark / Northern UK as well.
Not necessarily, I know we're not supposed to talk about or make comparison to other software but SF2 NA did it brilliantly - open ocean + Iceland, normally scenarios were against surface action groups using ship-borne aircraft, but also you could easily have scenarios with short-range CAS within Iceland itself (say BLUFOR on the west, REDFOR on the east) or have ship borne aircraft vs land-based aircraft - it's not necessarily restricted solely to ship borne aircraft.
Here's a proposal I have for a North Atlantic map, just by doing my best at drawing a rectangle in Google Earth.
The map measures up at roughly 1,740x840km, the polygon I've drawn in GE is roughly 1,450,000km^2, of which ~104,500km^2 is landmass - roughly a third of the NTTR map. It includes Iceland, the Faroe Islands and the Shetland Islands, it also includes Fair Isles. It just falls short of the Orkney islands and so is entirely bordered by water.
Iceland has 32 airports dotted around it, most of which are solely public or are private, but in DCS we have a sandbox so can do what we like. Only Keflavík really has military presence in the aircraft sense (NASKEF). There are other military installations on Iceland (such as NRTF Grindavik) but not much, I believe there are plans for a military airbase somewhere on Iceland by the US.
The Faroe islands are Danish territory 470km to the southwest of Iceland. It has 1 airport (Vágar Airport) and as far as I can tell doesn't have a military presence, but that's not to say we can't as mission designers add military installations semi-prepared airbases or unprepared ones. (Vágar Airport was initially a WWII development, so it has at least abandoned military heritage).
The Shetland Islands have 8 airports with paved runways, of which realistically only Sumburgh and Scatsa are potential candidates for what we have currently.
Sumburgh (formally RAF Sumburgh during WWII) currently has 2 runways, one is 1.5km long, the other 1.426km long - which is just about long enough for some of the aircraft we currently have in DCS, but it will be a bit tricky.
Scatsa (again a WWII development, formerly RAF Scatsa) has a single 1.36km runway - we're pushing it a bit here.
Both Sumburgh and Scatsa are slightly larger than the 'X' airfield near Kobuleti on the current Caucasus map, just for a sense of scale.
The rest of the airfields, are essentially just a short single runway and not much else, some don't even have a parking area at all. All the airfields are public/privately owned. There is a military presence to the North (RRH Saxa Vold) which could serve as a strategic location, but isn't an airbase, just an ex (but due to be reactivated) remote radar head.
Most of the terrain in the Shetlands is relatively flat and barren - perfect for potential sites for constructing FOBs and semi-prepared airbases. Maybe in the future we could effectively build airbases in the mission editor with static objects (such as runways, aprons, hangars, towers, NAVAIDs, lights etc) providing we get the assets for them.
The other alternative is to extend quite a bit further south (~280km) to include the most northerly UK airbase - RAF (formely RNAS) Lossiemouth, which is ~270km from the southern tip of the Shetland islands. Lossiemouth has adjacent to it RAF Milltown - now closed, used as a transmitting site for the RAF VOLMET and STCICS. Adding this region adds 20,000km^2 but cuts up the Outer Hebrides, and the northern portion of Inner Hebrides, something I think is undesirable (I like having areas as complete as possible).
The problem here is that the landscape is much more complex, the Shetland Islands are fairly flat and barren, the only complicated bits are the cliffs; the Faroe islands are more hilly but otherwise relatively featureless (but still looks great IMO - perfect for a quasi-Falklands bomb alley scenario) and Iceland more complex and featureful, but still mostly barren. The north of Scotland however has pretty complex terrain, both along the coasts and further in land as well as complex archipelagos and features more populated areas. If it could be done, getting as much area as possible that would be great, but for me something like Iceland, the Faroe Islands and the Shetlands seems perfect and more doable in a (hopefully) much shorter time frame.
For a predominantly naval map, it would be great to see underwater, with a sea bed - which the current 2.5 Caucasus map has got darn near nailed (apart from we can't go there - yet), I think Normandy has it to (but I don't own it). But one thing I'd like to eliminate that's present in Normandy is land borders where there should be ocean. The map I propose is entirely bordered by Ocean, so preferably/hopefully no land borders and instead endless water and underwater land.
This map has ample area for multiple surface action groups/battlegroups, is near perfect for amphibious operations whilst also supporting logistics and long-range bombing. Obviously it's more catered for naval operations (both above and below the waves) but land based aircraft and land based conflict still doable (you could kind of envision a Falklands style campaign). Yes larger aircraft aren't so great because the only airport with large runways is Keflavík, the rest are only suited to aircraft that can do short-field operations - though we could still operate Hercules aircraft including KC-130, we just need to be careful with aircraft and how heavily we load them, but then all the more reason to have airfield arresting cables that we can place as we desire (even if it's not strictly their intended purpose).
Just on the side whilst I don't mind flat-earth projection for now, I wonder if this map, if it were to be considered could use spherical projection? Not really that important, just an idea.
Blimey, death by words much, but any thoughts on this?
-
You can place static object helicopters. The end result is exactly the same, you just use a different menu to do it.
Yeah but then you can't use that helicopter later on in the mission as the real deal. It's useful for setting helicopters up as uncontrolled that takeoff and do their mission some time after mission start or for when you make a multiplayer server you have all the aircraft already spawned in so you don't see as much of a stutter when a new player joins (at least I think, that's sort of how that works...)
-
+1 seeing the same thing as Exorcet
-
I mean if we could DCS-ify (shhh that's word) the entire (or as much as we could) of CS C-130 pack for FSX/P3D that would be heaven on Earth for the C-130 family
-
I think we'll see it once ED gets the weather system done proper, with multiple cloud layers and hopefully weather regions.
-
Whilst I'm all for the adding of new naval assets and overhauling current ones I feel like the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier isn't as good of a choice compared to other RN assets. Yes, it would be cool to have as an AI vessel, but the issue is both it's RADAR systems are heavily classified and the aircraft it operates aren't likely going to be able to be player controlled in a very long time. Near enough all the aircraft are classified, some can't fulfil their roles properly due to DCS limitations (well, that will probably change in the future, but at the moment, DCS limitations limit what they can do). The F-35B, the Merlin HM.2 and the Wildcat HMA.2 are all horrifically complex even if they weren't classified, making them extremely difficult and time consuming for playable aircraft and we're not likely to see them for at least 20 years. The Wildcat AH.1 is most likely very complicated too minus the EO system and the RADAR, it will also very likely have too many classified systems. None of the Wildcat's weapons for either version (except Stingray) are operation yet - they're still in development and won't enter service until the 2020s.
So what we'll have is an aircraft carrier without aircraft, and if we do get aircraft they'll be AI and heavily approximated.
Here's the near enough list of RN assets that I personally think would be better suited to DCS where it is right now, aircraft for them won't be as classified or complex, they'll even be out of service. Here goes:
Aircraft carriers:
- Invincible class (in all variants - Sea Dart, Sea Dart + Goalkeeper, Sea Dart + Phalanx, Goalkeeper, Phalanx)
- HMS Hermes (post 1973 fit)
Amphibious Assault
- Fearless class LPD [preferably in both fits: Sea Cat + Bofors 40mm and Phalanx Block 0 (I think) and GAM-B01]
- Albion class [before 2017 refit, due to installation of Type 997 ARTISAN, unless it can be sufficiently approximated)
- HMS Ocean (before 2014 refit, again due to Type 997 ARTISAN installation)
Frigates
- Type 22 [preferably batch 1, 2 and 3]
- Type 23 frigate [before Type 997 ARTISAN fit]
- Type 12M Leander class [preferably batch 1 and batch 2 (with the Sea Wolf/Exocet conversion)
- Type 21
Destroyers
- Type 42 [batch 1, 2 and 3]
- County class [batch 2]
Patrol
- River class [preferably batch 2, if not batch 1, as well as HMS Clyde fit]
RFA
- Bay class LSD(with it's FFBNW weapons)
- Wave Knight class
- Fort Victoria class
- Tide class (might be more difficult - only entered service last year)
This is the list I'd like to see, if we can do more modern then why not? But the problem I have with the Q.E. class is that it's aircraft aren't likely to even be able to be done for a very long time, whereas aircraft for the other ships can be done with less hassle (RAZBAM are even planning UK Harrier IIs).
Obviously more improvements in the naval environment are required to really get these ships to thrive (working well decks for LPDs/LSDs, working davits, hangars etc as well as different ship states etc). But now that we've got underwater the potential for ASW is available, so I might add submarines to the list too
- Invincible class (in all variants - Sea Dart, Sea Dart + Goalkeeper, Sea Dart + Phalanx, Goalkeeper, Phalanx)
-
It was good to see that the PAPI lights are working again now. Thanks ED!
And looking lovely too :thumbup:
-
+1
For me the best way is just bring up the file -> new window when you launch the mission editor, and have a tab on the new mission GUI (idk what to call it, the window where you change coalitions and their countries) for open.
-
My PC definitely doesn't like loading new parts of the terrain - once it is loaded, fine not too bad except from the odd drop out (but then again what I judge as being fine for other's is unplayable).
(note this is just the map here - I'm not going to even dread what happens if I try flying anything)
If I'm out at sea with some ships all is very good - and very pretty. I likey, I likey very much - bloomin' marvellous - hats off ED! Black Sea is looking VERY nice.
But yeah my RAM hits about 95% of what it can take just on the mission editor. Time for an upgrade me thinks...
-
The water in the Caucasus is now transparent - I'm hoping this means the facilitation of more water assets such as torpedoes, mines and depth charges.
The new Kilo class submarines look stunning (being the most recent naval asset excl. the WIP China assets pack (at least I hope they're WIP)), and the modelviewer confirms fully animated so it is completely FFBNW underwater activity.
For actual player piloting submarines however, I think this will be difficult - not impossible but difficult. But in a realistic sense I can't imagine anything more than a RN A-class submarine being done - simply down to complexity and classification. I don't think you could do any more modern without approximating near enough everything.
But if this is going to be added it and a playable submarine added, the submarine should be as simple as possible - of course assuming that we have a proper underwater, though by looking alone it seems that we do (though aircraft don't sink yet, I'll test whether ships sink to the bottom - I doubt they do though EDIT: they don't), just because there's less to go wrong than a more complicated submarine. This really applies also to whether or not we receive a full fidelity ground vehicle, or full fidelity ship, the initial modules should represent a more basic craft and not something complex, just because I can see them being less stressful to fully implement and there's less to go wrong.
However DCS is going to need a lot of changes, and to it's engine yikes to proper facilitate watercraft even at an AI level.
Subject to that and apart from the things that make it problematic I'm all in favour - I'll see if I can dig out that book on naval warfare - since this is a research thread.
-
Hi Guys,
Pretty petty and low priority request here, but now that the stunning DCS 2.5 is here and the water in the Caucasus map is transparent for all bodies (at least the one's I've currently tested). And below the waterline of ships is now visible, I wonder if we could in the future see a minor improvement to the F11 free camera to see underwater where applicable?
Again super petty request - only for the element of 'coolness'
EDIT: After managing to get the camera underneath the waves reveals why this might not be a good idea - but at least it confirms underwater is now in DCS proper - many thanks ED! :D
-
I'll try and arrange this in priority order.
The MiG-29 and Su-27 seem unlikely but I'd be very interested in the others
- Su-27S Flanker-B (full fidelity)
- MiG-29 (full fidelity module, even if early MiG-29 Fulcrum-A)
- MiG-23M or better
- Su-17M4
- MiG-27
- Su-24 (probably still too classified and improbable)
- MiG-21F-13/MiG-21S (I know we already have a -21Bis but I like my variants)
- Yak-38M
- MiG-19S (I know we're getting a -19P)
- MiG-9FS
- Yak-28 (P, I)
- Il-28
- Tu-22KD/Tu-22M (I'll take a Tu-22 AI for now, the current Tu-22M is good for AI)
- Tu-16 (I'll take AI)
- Tu-126 (even if AI)
- Tu-142 (upgraded AI model, and/or player controlled)
- Tu-160 (I know it's AI but is in a dire need for upgraded graphics)
- An-71 (I know it was cancelled but maybe a what-if?)
- An-24 or An-32 (player controlled)
The problem with more modern flankers (27SM and above) is that ED could face legal action if they go for it - because they're classified.
I think it's safe to say that things like the Su-30, Su-34, MiG-29M, MiG-31, MiG-35 aren't coming for a very long time (when they're out of service).
- Su-27S Flanker-B (full fidelity)
-
Track?
-
Yeah, the tutorial was made before the speed indicator was fixed to be made more realistic, hence why it's incorrect.
-
Hi All
Regarding the Su-25 engines appear swapped, from what Ive have noticed its the animations for the core and not the actual engines, if you start eng 1 left all starts ok and left engine runs and smokes when throttles up but right No2 engine core is rotating left No1 is still stationary, this bug is not new and has been around for quite a while, but i suspect from apparent inaction is a low priority bug.
Happy Bug hunting!!
Been around since the start of DCS 1.5.x if I remember rightly it did get fixed but it's broken again.
I'd imagine this is low priority in comparison to more pressing issues.
-
There are still many models around which are old. 2.5 was mainly a graphics engine update it seems.
Yes
I'll test it on the L-39 when I get home.With regards to L-39's S-5 rockets I believe the L-39 uses the UB-16 pods whereas the Su-25T uses the UB-32, I'll have to wait until my DCS 2.5 finally installs to verify.
I know for a fact the MiG-21 uses own-built 3rd party weapons AFAIK, if this is the case there really needs to be a common weapons pool that each of modules can use where applicable. Same for the NAVAIDs (MiG-21 and AJS-37 both have their own NAVAIDs which are exclusive to those aircraft - even though DCS already has RSBN but the MiG-21 doesn't use the same system as ED, the AJS-37 TILS system is pretty much a different kettle of fish because no other aircraft at the moment can use it).
In short what razo+r said - there are still outdated models that need exterminating and replacing. Be it planes, ships, ground vehicles, weapons or static objects - there are plentiful in need of replacement.
-
Yess, massive, no ALL of the thanks to all of you at ED An absolutely milestone and the works of sheer devotion and hard work of biblical proportion - for FREE!
I have absolute faith that DCS is the crowned supreme of flight simulators both now and in the future.
Really words are meaningless in comparison and really don't do 2.5 or ED and everyone who has helped along the way any form of justice.
Again every congratulation to everyone who has worked towards this. ED take the lead!
If only my PC was took it as such, it's days seem numbered...
-
Oh nevermind, it only says it did 1.5.8 again, i'm so confused haha
What do you mean by ''DCS_Updater.exe update @openbeta''
Find Eagle Dynamics -> DCS World -> bin
Should be in your program files or wherever your DCS install is located.
Click on the bin folder then hit shift and right click, select the option 'open command window here'. (On windows 7, might be different for other versions)
Once the command window is open type: DCS_Updater.exe update @openbeta
This will launch the updater configured to transfer your current branch to the open beta - I'm doing it right now to go from the 1.5.x release version to 2.5OB
-
I wonder if a Syria map could be bolted onto the current Caucasus map? So if you own both -
they are both connected. Although I am probably talking utter nonsense.
And an Afghanistan map, well could we not do the same thing with the SoH map?
-
CROP CIRCLES!!!
In all seriousness I'm going to try and replicate this once 2.5 finishes downloading - though with my crap-tacular system well... yeah
New map idea: open water
in DCS Core Wish List
Posted
The Sea of Azov is a pretty small region - not exactly suitable for large naval operations. Plus we practically already have it, minus the other airfields with the Caucasus map.