XeNoise
-
Posts
188 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by XeNoise
-
-
Okay so full disclosure here I'm not a big fan of FC3 level aircraft and don't see the appeal of them. With that out of the way; you seem to be more disapointed because you (and you have no one to blame but yourself) artificially assumed that they were going to add new modern aircraft as part of FC4. You kind of set yourself up there....
Not everything that a developer does is going to be tailored to you as a individual, there's diverging needs in the community. I only play multiplayer so I want more multiplayer refinements whereas people that play single player want more "dynamic" options and improved AI.
If you don't have a need for FC4 just don't purchase it it's that simple.
I can't really agree, not with you, nor with the incredibly funny guy replying with a meme which took 2 minutes to create. If only i was disappointed i would totally get it, but since many users are upset then maybe there is a reason for it? Simply blaming the community itself seems very silly to me, maybe you should look at the whole situation and analyze what went wrong.
Sure, nobody said there will be new aircraft but on the other hand no one said there won't. But ok, yes. It's my fault because i didn't think about the eventuality of a FC4 with dumbed down versions of already existing modules. I think one reason why i didn't even think about this possibility is because first of all there are many planes which are still classified and cannot be modelled entirely but would still make great FC-level planes. Secondly it was a good opportunity to expand the park of planes, giving us more choice. As a third reason i would say if FC4 would offer new content it would sell well also among us experienced users.
You are missing the point with that last sentence, now that i know FC4 is not meant for me i won't buy it obviously.
-
I really don't get why this is such a big deal. We all love flightsims but we are a niche within a niche. The first party and third-party devs need to be financially solvent. FC4 will:
1. I'm assuming inject $ into the pockets of participating third parties.
2. Bring new players into the fold.
3. You don't have to buy it.
I get the disappointment with the lack of a "new" red-for aircraft but I'm sure the devs hear everyone here. Just take a breather, take a 10,000ft view of the situation and put things into perspective.
1. This was the perfect opportunity to add some new aircrafts to the park with much less work than a full module would require.
2. This was the perfect opportunity to give us the chance to fly modern planes which are still largely classified.
3. It will be awesome to be shot down by someone flying the same aircraft just because this someone can skip action X and Y and therefore launch before you. You could argue that it's not much different with FC3 aircraft but at least you can expect it and act accordingly.
I think eagle dynamics is a great company and software developer but for the first time I'm really disappointed about their choice. It's redundant and a sub-optimal allocation of resources.
Moreover i'm actually slightly pissed because the announcement wasn't clear enough and i was seriously hyped during the last days.
-
Also i wish the AB would be blue in night. Would look really nice.
-
I remember this and i hated it, i was also there trying to calm the people which were about (or were, in some cases) starting to get furious even if there was no fixed date, i don't speak about this. Again i was not criticising but i won't explain further, since you anyway missed the point of my post. :doh:There are no hard dates for early access, so not the same thing. Most of the time people think ED misses their dates its because someone says July, and people assume its July 1st. Then through the magic of the internet, that turns into a promise on the lives of all ED's first born to get that module out... ;)Truth is, ED doesnt know a firm release date until a final build passes testing, most of the time that is a week or so before you guys see it. They have a plan, they have an idea and guesstimates, but that is it.
-
Both modules you list are early access, not fully released yet.
Yes so same thing, but for early access.
-
This is fiction. They haven't had any occurrences that I can remember of delays week after week after announcing a firm release date.
You dont need to check the forum four times a day, or every Friday, you can sign up for the newsletter and I am sure when 2.5 releases it will be in there.
Sure? I think nevada and m2000c were delayed for a week or almost. Anyways it was meant in a positive way, was not a critic. :) Specially because no other product on this world can hype me that much like DCS, so it's something good even if painful.
And no newsletter can replace a forum.
-
I see, i'll need to check the forum again like four times a day and every Friday hope that we will have a surprise. Actually we will, a surprise where they will reveal the release date, which will be delayed a week after while i will be literally (yes i know the significate of this word as well as how to use it and i mean it!) start to eat my face and speak about it to the people around me until 2.5 will finally be out.
-
2
-
-
From what I've seen, not many people seem to realize just how great 1.5.4 is.
The problem is most of the changes are under the hood and hard to notice. Easiest way to see how much it's improved is to play a few hours on the beta and then switch back to 1.5.3... chances are it won't take long to go back.
Summary:
1. New sounds. In the cockpit, it no longer sounds like the engine is being shoved into your ear. There's wind noise (which changes with AoA!), ground roll, buffeting, etc. The wind noise really gives the impression you're moving through a substance, rather than magically floating around.
2. Overall stability. I've had many cases where I'm doing a long flight in 1.5.3 only to have it cut short by a game freeze or crash. Worst feeling in the world. I'm not saying 1.5.4 never crashes. But you'll find a massive decrease in the number of crashes/freezes while flying.
3. Servers no longer accept inaccurate position/velocity data for aircraft. Instead, it uses the last known position/velocity and holds the aircraft there until good data is received. This is HUGE. Instead of warping 20 miles back and fourth during lag, planes will continue in a straight line until the lag ceases, after which they will move to the correct position (usually not too far away). This means you don't have to worry about parking too close to somebody while rearming/refueling. You'll never lose the lead aircraft during lag. The tanker will never freak out and kill everyone trying to refuel.
Am I exaggerating how good this update is? Am I late to the party?
What? No warping caused by lag?? This must be heaven, any info about when it will be implemented in 2.0? Or bigger question: any info abput when 2.0 and 1.5 will be finally merged? I was not active for quite some time :(
-
Agree with Aginor,
I have an i7-4770 @ 3.4GHz, 16GB RAM and a GTX660 and I can run 2.0 extremely well at very high settings with no problems.
What OS are you running? Something to do with your Hard Drive perhaps, is it close to full? What speed is your RAM?
You said it, you have 16 GB. It makes a huge difference.
Some months ago i had the same config, but only 8GB, nevada was unplayable and i was hitting 5-6 fps when starting at nellis afb. Now i have 16GB and it runs just fine at 30-80fps depending from the location.
Ram usage is at 12GB when im in Las Vegas, and arround 9GB in the desert. In the old map it uses only 6-7GB if i remember well.
So the answer is: It's worth it, to upgrade, if the high ram usage is not a bug, but just what the sim requires to run smoothly. If you also play other videogames i would go for it anyways, since more and more games will take advantage of it, and with your config i don't think you're going to change pc anytime soon :thumbup:
-
Doesn't matter, i will buy every jet starting from 3rd gen and higher.
(Except most training jets, one will do the job)
Aginor, i think i've accidentally reported you instead of posting. Stupid touchscreens. :(
-
I think DCS is the most accurate simulator on the market and offers the highest level of fidelity plus it has ongoing development unlike many other sims. So why aren't more simulation developers developing for DCS?
I keep seeing some developers creating military aircraft for FSX and ask myself WHY? Surely there better suited to combat simulator.
Anyway I would be interested to hear why people think that developers producing military aircraft for FSX and P3D are not developing for DCS.
Jacks
Because you need huge balls and mad programming/organizational/modeling/scientifical skills to create a dcs world module.
Fsx modules are a joke in comparison and way easier to create. So they will sell surely less, but it pays off because the work is maybe around 5% of the work which they would need to put in a dcs module.
-
Yes this wasn't clear for that module.
Usually Beta means all the function are implemented, and only bugs needs to be resolved to come to release version
But that's a little OT
This! It's the only thing RAZBAM did wrong. I'm not disappointed at all becuase they could have let us wait until IFF would be implemented (if they implement it next week it would be two months of waiting for example) and i really enjoyed to fly around until now, i just don't understand why it's called beta since really important stuff still needs to be done.
Anyways, M-2000c will be the best plane in that game (for me) and i can't wait. :pilotfly:
-
I think it wouldn't, i recently upgraded from 8 gb to 16 and it gave huge improvements. If i have some programs in background + chrome with 5-10 tabs + dcs world it uses max 11.5gb so you should be fine. Still nttr might use even more ram soon.I saw in recommended requirements 16gb of ram is preferred . I have 12 now and was thinking about upgrading to 16 , playing a quick mission with task manager on I seem to top out at 8 used . Would upgrading to 16 make a difference ? -
if we are at it: in the movie you can hear warning sounds which i can't hear in dcs. Do you guys think that also those will be reproduced or does it affect only newer models? (2000d/n/5)Yes, don't know for other country, but in france this reaction is pretty common (not only for fighter's pilotes)... in fact, actors are pretty good.But i think there is gap with the english translation... i readed quicly the subtitles, and i saw that many ironic and humoristic subtilities are totally lost in the english subtitles... that let thinking the movie is completly serious while in fact, there is a real comedy component. In english, the pilotes seem so, so serious, while in french, they use funny words, expressions and comic behaviors.
-
+1
I can now start creating some Swiss Air Force (Mirage III) skins :-D
Geeeile sieech :D
-
Actually this is what ruined it for me. Since every server was using it (still now some lazy admins forgot to correct it :) ) i started to hate it.
-
After two weeks of trying it i can say that the mig doesn't have any chance against the mirage. This only theoretically speaking, if both pilots would be skilled the same. Practically a mig can still be really dangerous, even towards an f-15, a lot of skilled pilots in this community which knows how to use a mig until it's limits. Also a lot of mirage pilots are getting killed because of not having any IFF, it's just damn dangerous to intercept and visually inspect a bogey before shooting it.Hi folks,I was just wondering how the 21 compares to the M2000.
In my eyes they're very similar. Short range interceptors, short range radar, 4 pylons and a gun. No questions that the M2000 has better avionics and better missiles.
But I read that the M2000 is a quite bad turner, good roll rate though.
I wonder if a clean Mig(only one R60 at pylon 1&2) is faster due to very nice thrust to weigh ratio. In addition, turn should be almost equal or in favor of the Mig?
anyway, can't wait for release
I just act like it's still a prototype and i am testing it. :P
-
Is it also possible to use an axis on a controller?
-
Yesterday i started from ramp with 2x magic and 2x530 + fuel tank, the configuration was on A/A by default, no alarms. Maybe it was a bug since i also remember that it was requiring a/g mode with the same config.
-
I can't wait until an adcanced submarine model will be made, so we can experience such a terror and count the fishes from the cockpit. That would add a lot of .. Immersion.. Litterally:D
-
The problem is that until server admins will keep throwing eastern and western aircrafts in both blue and red teams,i will always need to inspect the bogey visually..
-
French girls don't bitch. They gently nibble on your ear while moaning "over geee, ooover geee, oooover geeeee" as your sound system plays "je t'aime" and your instrument panel lights up in a warm red.
You also get a gauloises afterwards.
:music_whistling:
:lol::lol::lol:
-
I have a question but i don't think i should open a new thread for it.
If one day at an airshow i will have the possibility to sit in the cockpit of a m2000c, will i be able to confuse the presenting pilots by showing that me as a civilian, am able to start the machine on my own? :P
-
Can somone please explain in details how to use the radio and what it is it used for ? is it t o talk to other player or what ? Im used to flying the FC 3 aircraft so to contact the tower for landing or take off i simply press ( \ ) how do i do that in the Mirage 2000 ? please help
Same but sometimes you won't get an answer at nellis. In that cse you can set it on manual and frequency 125.0
In that way you will get an answer. For the rest im in your same situation, passionate f-15 pilot. Hope someone will answer.
Four Additional Flaming Cliffs Aircraft
in DCS: Flaming Cliffs
Posted
Once again, Nine, there was nothing wrong with your communication, it was actually helpful and i thank you for letting us know. FC4 is not meant for us and that's totally fine, it servers it's own purpose and the health of the sim is a priority for all of us. There is no issue at all with this and i don't think that anyone will blame ED for developing it. The only issue was with the first announcement which could have been more explicit about the fact that it won't contain new aircraft, obviously people will think of new planes and the possibility of FC versions of existing and fully modeled modules didn't even came to our mind. Therefore i think that blaming the community for building hype is wrong and unprofessional, it's important to analyze what went wrong and in best case do it better next time. Nobody will hold a grudge here.