Jump to content

Vincent90

Members
  • Posts

    319
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vincent90

  1. Great to hear it, congratulations with your child!
  2. @Flyning-CAT Имеет смысл, Спасибо
  3. @1:43 , почему пламя внизу?
  4. There are a couple of different tables in Chuck’s Guide, which one do you use? Could you upload a video or Tacview of it? I’ve tried to verify it, but didn’t succeed. I’ve done the following tables from chuck’s guide: (All attempts were done twice to get some form of variability out of the equation without going overboard). All tests were done by dropping 2 mk82’s at the same time. - 250 kts, 500 ft, -20⁰ - 280 kts, 500 ft, -20⁰ (outside of guide scope) - 300 kts, 500 ft, -20⁰ - 250 kts, 500 ft, -30⁰ - 300 kts, 500 ft, -30⁰ I also did a 130 kts, 100-150 feet shallow run, just to check the damage model and if I could continue flying with the wings gone. I did indeed get hit by the 82’s and lost the wings, but the plane crashed as well.
  5. Thank you for the fast reply, swapping out the "HOTAS Flaps Up/Down" for "Next/Previous Flap Detent" solved the issue
  6. I have the weirdest problem with the flaps, for example on “Training Mission 1.2” and “C-101EB runway start” I can toggle between Up and Down between the flaps, but as soon as the flaps go to Take-Off, I can’t get them back up. Only when I keep the “retract flap” button pressed, it goes up, only to lock back to the Take-Off position again when I release the button. I haven’t flown for a long time, so am i not seeing something?
  7. This is nothing new and has been going on forever, ED’s standards and 3rd party standards are one and the same, and has always been. This goes right back to the whole EFM/PFM confusion and the clarifications of Yo-Yo about them A10C: Its inaccuracies were reported right after the module launched by testers, and ED decided to ignore them NS430: Same story UH-1: Was sold in Early Access with ‘multicrew coming’ and now, 7 years after the module launched there is still no multicrew in sight. MiG-29: Oh dear… The PFM has spawned tens of pages in its thread with a dozen of MiG-29 pilots contributing about its strange inertia characteristics, but hey, a single source knows more than the dozen opposite sources. NEVADA Test and Training Range: Came years late, with the assets that make the NTTR the NTTR missing (thankfully modded in place by some really dedicated guys) and with a resolution that was lower than the old Caucasus map, with only Vegas and the central airfields in high-resolution. Yak-52: Comes up at its 2-year anniversary, with LOD and ADF shining by absence. Belsimtek’s MiG-15: Had a critical bug that literally made it impossible to fly it to the starboard side, and was left there for 18 months (and appears had the thread deleted since then) Leatherneck’s MiG-21 was dumped out of Early Access with only 60% of the aircraft completed, and in the past 4 years had little to no development, with Chizh blatantly (and honestly) saying “If you want to make an accurate model of the MiG-21, there is nothing stopping you”. No, I want to get what I paid good money for… RAZBAM and Polychop: It would surprise me if anyone was unaware about how the community sees the products Heatblur’s Viggen: Instead of finishing this one up first, it has now been over 3 years and will take at least another year of work. This route of work is being continued with the F-14A, that the team desperately want out of the door ASAP, instead of finishing the F-14B and only then take on a third aircraft. Octopus I-16: The dev mysteriously vanished 6 months ago, and hasn’t shown a sign of life ever since. No updates to the I-16, nothing. The list goes on and on and on… , and I won’t even go over the WWII modules and their problems. The current situation isn't any different than 2013, but with the hype around the full-fidelity Century fighters and the massive increase in user base, the facts remained obscured. Only now, with the increased userbase coming to the same conclusion and some other factor I won't go into, the argument starts to show itself again. With the launch of Flaming Cliffs 3, ED was upfront that it was just a port of FC2 and nothing more. What was wrong with that honesty? Didn’t the module sell well enough to resort to the current model of having to put out new modules to finish unfinished modules? There is a name for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme And finally, I constantly hear about ‘If ED doesn’t do it, nobody will’. First of all, the cake is too big for other devs to ignore and second of all, why stay in a toxic and abusive relationship that only costs you money and where promises are intertwined with lies on a daily basis?
  8. If anyone is willing to sell their old hats, i'm interested :)
  9. Seems quite reasonable when looking at the pictures http://www.airforce.ru/content/attachments/40655d1344897869-04_b.jpg
  10. AFAIK, the only Chinese unit that flew MiG-19P's, or its license-built copies of it, was the 38th Air Division which implies that the livery should be called "112th Air Regiment"
  11. Two thumbs up for this :thumbup:
  12. Nice! Will the circuit breakers work? :)
  13. Before I read an article about the MiG-21 module on some obscure military Blogspot, I had no clue DCS even existed. Smart move from Heatblur to actually market the module to ALL people that could be interested in something like their F-14 sim.
  14. I actually think the textures are one of the better ones in DCS, and certainly on par with anything ED/Belsimtek have produced. Could you perhaps take a screenshot to show what part of the textures you feel are subpar?
  15. +1 on the earlier suggestions, it makes no sense to keep shoehorning stuff into a template that doesn't fit, especially when the realistic approach is quite easy to implement.
  16. So if I understand the issue correctly, we're now having this: Instead of this? EDIT: noticed I forgot to draw a pressure spring where "throttle" is written
  17. some more questions: - what cockpit buttons and switches can we expect to still get animation? - will the RAT be modelled or does it take too many resources? - Will the BK-90 get his altitude programming back? would love to hear an answer to these :)
  18. The UTI manuals were of no use, however in "MiG-15 Vol.1: 'Fifteen' MiG-15 in Czechoslovak Air Force 1951-1983" by Miroslav Irra, I found this picture, showing "far" the closest, and "near" the furthest from the pilot: https://imgur.com/a/ZX917z9 So now we have THREE independent sources showing that "far" was the closest, and "near" was the furthest. That should be sufficient to make a decent case to BST.
  19. Has the radar been fixed yet or is it still the same?
  20. Which build are you on? I'm checking it, but I don't have/can't reproduce these issues on 2.5.4.26552 Openbeta
  21. I concur, rather a finished module than an eternal beta one
  22. HAE5904, the question stems from the fact that the USSR wasn't a faction in DCS until recently. Aircraft modules that were made before that faction came into existence were simply thrown into the "Russia" faction. However, after the "USSR" faction came into existence, ED/devs never bothered to include soviet weapons to the USSR, causing the USSR to miss the liveries of the MiG-15bis, MiG-21, Mi-8, etc, etc... If you want to make a Cold War mission with the MiG-15, you HAVE to choose Russia as a faction or else you get the default (North Korean) livery.
  23. By the way, do you guys manage to get "4 red, 1 amber" during pre-flight check? I only get - BLOC CAB - PRES COMB - PRES CAB - X GEN CC which one am i missing?
  24. The problem with these AI systems is that you don't know HOW they exactly learn. A few weeks ago, I read an article about a deeplearning AI that was tasked to descern patterns in images (here is an article about him/her: https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/31/this-clever-ai-hid-data-from-its-creators-to-cheat-at-its-appointed-task/?guccounter=1 ) We don't know for sure if he really played on a level playing field, or that he just learned a similar algorithm.
  25. Bought the C-101 a couple of days ago, and so far i'm really, really impressed. I didn't expect much, but I don't think I've ever been so impressed by a DCS module. The production values are simply outstanding. The manual, the artwork in the loading screen, the gauge coding, the external objects during start-up, the missions, everything is sheer amazing so far. The thoroughness of the training (especially the first one) missions is especially great. Its nice to learn the practical application of the manual, and what is happening under the hood instead of flicking switches for the sake of flicking switches. (I'm still trying to find out which of the inverters connect to what on the MiG-21). I'm having a blast playing with that breaker box. Also the realism of the lcd displays is uncanny, they're the best i've ever seen in a videogame. Kudos for that. Some things though: - During start-up, you need to check engine response without computer to ensure proper functioning of the engine. To do this, you turn off the computer and apply throttle until N2 is 75%. However, ITT surges uncontrollably when N2 is over 70%, both during stationary and taxi runs without computer. Is this supposed to happen, even though N1 and N2 are performing as expected? - I can't hear the trim tone, even though the breaker is right where it should be? - The number "3" is rendered in a slightly different color than the other numbers on the HSI, is this intended? I've added a screenshot, but it isn't to clear. Would posting a track help you out? By the way, what is the roadmap of this module? What are you guys currently prioritizing and in what sequence can we expect features to be added? The reason i'm asking is mainly to know when I can expect the Random Failures in Mission Editor to be implemented.
×
×
  • Create New...