SparxOne
-
Posts
199 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by SparxOne
-
-
Well said, and i have the same questions on my mind. There was a clear focus on showing this new Abrams model and the MRAP, i'd wish to think that this is an indication that Combined Arms is being further enhanced or who knows, a possibility to some sort of higher fidelity ground units (Tanks in this case) ?
Either way, i'm glad seeing the ground stuff getting some love, always loved Combined Arms, always thought it has massive potential !
-
3
-
-
10 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:
The DCSDC go to great advances but has some "holes" no explained actualy, but surely will expanded in the future:
- Infantry operations with large only leg infantry and on motorized, mechanized, paratroopers and airborne formations, deploy infantry on attack, assault, defense, MOUT environments (forces into buildings, tunnels, defensive positions), support weapons, transport into vehicles, planes & helos, logistics and sanitary operations.
- Nick talk about SOF will coming, not bad see raids and others.
- No talked yet about logistic operations by air, meanwhile some movement talked by Nick about ED CH-53, ASC C-130 and others.
- Missing yet the naval operations, surely moving forward on next or follow years as transport, logistic by sea, landings, support operations, convoys, underwater operations, port use, and a long etc.
- Other point no talked yet has improve the artillery operations and all missing enginiering work (build fortifications, minefields, riveline operations, breaching obstacles).
All good points.
Though one i'd consider missing and has been on my wishlist for long now is how will Combined Arms be implemented withing the DCSDC ? Would that be a thing to take control of any driveable vehicle on the map and go about using it at your own wishes ?
Considering AI will be doing its own thing, whether defending or attacking points, if i were to take control of a tank in a random group to simply shoot stuff and progress manually with the rest of the group, will that be a thing ?
So many questions i'd wish to know regarding Combined Arms and DCSDC. Hopefully we get to have more info at some point
-
3
-
2 hours ago, Top Jockey said:
Glad to see the AIM-9 functions / avionics received some due attention in the F-16 ; although the Spot / Scan function is still missing.
Good news eitherway.
What do you mean by the Spot/Scan function still missing ? Not familiar with that function if it is linked to AIM-9 familly missiles
-
I think it is intentional and has always been the case, reason is, autostart will do the long INS alignement (Somewhere around 10 mins for a full alignement IIRC), that would force the autostart sequence to last 10+ minutes for it to switch the knob to NAV at the end of the alignement.
If i'm not mistaken, the autostart sequence will be considered finished with the INS knob still aligning, it is your job to switch it to NAV when INS is fully aligned
-
1 minute ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:
I have one of those old model's as one of my discord server's emojis.
Did you watch the video i attached though ? The comparison from the video with the image is really what shines in what i explained in my message
-
15 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:
Ignoring products is not a good look and ED already does that plenty. I'm not sure adding to that backlog of work would go over very well. Sure, initial roll out would ideally be for the Black Sea, PG, and Syria, but how long until the others? Should ED saddle third parties with having to go through the maps to add different ground frictions and behaviors for vehicles? That already sounds like a giant mess. After all, there's a pretty sizable group of WWII enthusiasts who'd love to see that level of fidelity for their Shermans and Panzers. This would be a project that could potentially balloon real fast.
In actuality, the sanest choice would be to actually give CA the love it so desperately needs. Better AI pathfinding, decision making, and options are the first stepping stone before we ever see better armored simulation. We'd REALLY need some AI changes if we wanted IFVs like the Bradley or BMP-2. What's the point in using those if you can't deploy and support infantry, you know?
To me, the damning proof is in CA's state. It desperately needs a little bit more love, some better physics, and handling, but it isn't getting that. Using it feels so rough, so janky, and not very engaging at the end of it. It really lacks immersion. What ED should do is revisit CA and bump up the standards of vehicles. Not to a full-fidelity level, perhaps, but to a level comparable to FC3. Some decent interiors, the ability to ride turned out so you can see your whole AFV, etc. Pick a few to update and provide those updates overtime. Especially the GHPC approach of giving us an external camera riding in the turned out position and completely absenting rendered interiors. It's vastly superior to what we have at the moment. And very, very doable.
There's a very reasonable and attainable goal for them, but we haven't seen them even consider moving in that direction. Hopefully, this catches the eye of someone and they at least workshop it.This isn't totally related to what you say, but in a way unfortunately goes to show the development time being given to CA/ground stuff compared to the rest of the Sim for the past years. I came across this on a Discord the other day and i have to admit, it made me laugh, not in a mocking way, but more in a way of realization of where the resources have been lacking the most over the years, DCS is beautifull, unfortunately not everywhere
-
On 7/27/2023 at 7:10 PM, DD_Friar said:
Salute
Using an historical unit set on the Normandy 44' map, is anyone able to advise me please which trucks provide ammo for Allied and Axis tanks?
I have tried using the "Jimmy" and the M30 but despite using up all my shells in the Sherman and hitting LeftAlt + R nothing happens (plus I am right next to it)
I do still have some machine gun bullets left - do I have to be COMPLETELY empty for re-arm to work - bit naff if that is the case and will stop the idea I am currently working on.
Your advice / assistance as always appreciated.
DD_Friar.
Hello,
These would be the keybinds you're looking for to instruct a manual reload and stop that reload.
Why would you want to stop it you'd ask ? Because it can be quite long on certain vehicles with certain ammo types, +-15 minutes IRL for a full reload. While reloading, you are also blocked from any movement/interactions.
(These keybinds you're seeing in the printscreen are not the default ones i think, i cannot remember if i changed them from the default)
To know which trucks will allow you to rearm, my method is as simple as placing each vehicle or truck from the same faction in the mission editor and playing the missions and thus checking which one has the black circle around it in F10 view.
null
-
57 minutes ago, =617= Evil said:
Absolutely the right decision. Thank you!
I'm going to cry tears of joy the first time I take off in a Viper with a Sniper pod and towed decoys.
I cannot wait to discover the Sniper TGP, its capabilities and differences from what we've had all this while, just something new to use and get to fiddle with will be a good refreshment
Towed decoys is also a cool thing, but i doubt it will be as interesting to use as a new pod
-
Hello Bignewy/Nineline,
Just to be sure, will the Eagle also become available for pre-order on steam (with the 30% discount) at some point ?
Thank you
-
Just now, Silver_Dragon said:
Battlefield productins has dont give signs of live from years ago....
I know, i have not said otherwise...
-
3
-
-
On 2/9/2023 at 2:02 AM, NineLine said:
I personally would love full fidelity ground units as well, I hope we see it one day but I have not seen any plans for 3rd Party interest as of yet.
On that note, i'm sure you'll have nothing to say, but i'm really curious what happened to Battlefield Productions after they came towards us with talks of developing the ground aspect of DCS further (I know their main objective was around assets packs, but they did say a pipe dream could be FF ground modules).
They disappeared without a word even though it seemed like their intentions were quite well met with the community at least, can't say what ED thought of it and if they ever actually did contact ED, of coarse we won't ever know. But it's sad to think they were probably the first 3rd party to be ready and work on the ground side of DCS and it didn't work out it seems.
One thing they wrote though that makes sense to me would be this
"Not sure what the take up of Combined Arms has been, but having played it, it seems like it was a great idea that was probably not fully realised for various production reasons, the frame work is there, it just needs expanding as a concept and making into something which holds enough interest to generate its own player base.
Re: the co-existence of these vehicles vs the "Airforce" - yes valid points, but I think if the ground forces became good enough it could start to generate its own player base with people running servers possibly exclusively for land war "one day", with the options of AI controlled Air Assets."
I can understand ED isn't willing to risk the time and ressources on something that might not actually attract the amount of people hoped for, but this is why we're back at hoping a 3rd party is willing to take that risk (Which won't be Battlefield Productions from the looks of it).
-
3
-
-
I hate to have to bring another game here to make comparisons, but in my opinion, this one is worth it. Talks about upgrading CA to a level of better tank controls etc is nothing new around DCS, i can understand the argument that it is not feasable because X Y Z, but when looking at IL2, which is a WW2 flight simulator, or at least close to it, one could say they never had the game built to accomodate ground tank control etc, yet they did, and in quite a decent way if you ask me !
The terrains have not been changed to make it look better for tanks if i'm not mistaken, they've always been this way, DCS could do the same, ground level detail is good enough to use CA and still enjoy yourself. Tank interiors in IL2 is what probably stands out, but once again, if it were up to me, it would really not be necessary, or really just a nice to have. CA could be like IL2 tank battles if a few modifications were made to make the ground war feel a little better, but overall, my feeling like is if IL2 was able to do it in a game/sim focused on aircraft, DCS can surely do it, but we know the deal here, as ED have said before, it's not about not wanting to, it's about having the ressources and time.
Edit : This makes it even clearer ->
-
3
-
-
On 1/14/2023 at 1:45 AM, Apocalypse31 said:
It won't matter what the Dynamic Campaign looks like if the Combined Arms pathfinding and unit control is still completely borked....and right now the RTS aspect of combined arms is not good.
Of coarse that's a legitimate feeling, which i have too, but who knows what they have planned with the coming of the Dynamic Campaign (And i'm hoping they do have something) ? Maybe they'll have an AI pathfinding overhaul and/or a revamp of the unit control too.
I mean, they are most probably aware just like you and me how bad these areas are, what good would it make to the so long awaited Dynamic Campaign if these areas were still as bad as they are ? How would the Dynamic Campaign even properly handle a campaign if the AI could hardly handle the pathfinding ? It must be something they worked on/ or is planned before the release of it.
-
2
-
-
On 1/10/2023 at 7:00 PM, Apocalypse31 said:
I'd rather see the game have its foundations as a Real Time Strategy game with First/Third person elements mixed in.
I want to be able to click on a unit and give it orders like you would in any RTS and then watch my units actually do the thing I gave it orders to do. Then I want to be able to jump into first person and control the vehicle - I think the game, Call to Arms: Gates of Hell, does this really well on a very small scale.
Most games that focus on first/third person like ARMA struggle with 'command options' and also require a LOT of people to do....anything. I call these "1:1 Scale" games. I'd rather see Tactical Commanders actually doing.....exactly that; tactically commanding things. But also give the players the option to jump in and pull the trigger when they feel like it.
This is how i also believe Combined Arms should be developped further. At first i am more into the First/Third person element, i really enjoy using Combined Arms that way, but i feel the Real Time Strategy element added would make it quite enjoyable throughout anyway !
Hopefully that is something planned with the coming of the Dynamic Campaign, from what i read on the Dynamic Campaign Newsletter on the 30th of Decemeber 2022 ->
"When a campaign starts, the strategic AI initiates the tasking process (ATO Air Tasking Orders, Ground tasking and Naval Tasking etc) for each unit in the side’s asset list and order of battle. This process of tasking and decision making is ongoing for the duration of the campaign and is a function of assets remaining and reinforcement and resupply cycles. It is important to remember that the player can take control of any AI unit and participate in its mission task and/or take indirect control over the strategic AI decisions, in addition to direct control over specific tasking orders."
The line i've bolded and made Italic hopefully sounds and ends up being what we're looking for, the mix between RTS and First/Third person control. Let's wait and see if that will actually be close to our wishes
Can't wait to see how Combined Arms is integrated with the Dynamic Campaign, i've always imagined myself being able to control what ever unit on the map while it is doing whatever task, say a TOW Humvee approaching a town with a few targets of opportunity, you able to manually drive it now and use the TOW as you wish, when you're done doing that, leave the control back to the AI and slot in an Apache and fly in that town for CAS cover, scenarios will be so dynamic (no pun intended), it will hopefully make it feel like an actual war being alive and ongoing, not the typical static defensive units we see all the time.
-
11 hours ago, Captain Orso said:
The thing is, before I make a wish, I want to know what ideas others have.
I think the very first question is really, do people really come to DCS to drive tanks? It hat really what players want? Should there be missions just for CA, with dozens of slots for an armored battalion with dozens of tanks, APC's, all the AAA, and SAMs, all manned by players sitting inside them--even multiple players in one vehicle--is that what players are asking for?
I cannot imagine the ED will ever make DCS-CA into anything that will draw in the numbers of players like you see playing something like War Thunder, or Arma III, or whatever. But if vehicles driven by a player, the same as players fly airplanes and helicopters, is not what players are coming to DCS to do, what is the point of investing time and money into developing it, when the resources could be used for other aspects of the ground war, that would actually appeal to players?
While i agree with you concerning the invesment of time, money and ressources, i like to keep in mind how much potential CA has in DCS, from what its main purpose was back in the days to how it slowly evolved to what it is now, CA remains a really fun experience when used in proper scenarios
CA will never replace a war thunder tank experience, neither Arma, because CA is barebone compared to them titles, but just like plenty things in life, unless you create an appeal/ necessity for something, don't expect said thing to have any demand/use, and by that i mean, nobody needed internet back in the days, yet today every single person in well developped countries need it, nobody needed cellphones back in the days, yet today people spend a months wage on a new cellphone every 2 years almost, social networks (Facebook, instagram, ticktoc etc), nobody needed them back in the beginnings of wide spread internet, as you guessed it, same story for them, the vast majority of people use them nowadays... (I could come up with tons of other exemples, but you get it i suppose
)
What i'm trying to say here is that CA could become a very appealling product of ED, something allowing another fun experience in the world of DCS, but that would require what ED simply doesn't have or are willing to put into it -> Time, money and ressources.Until that changes, CA will stay as it is, fun to have (In select scenarios) but far from a necessity.
-
11 minutes ago, silverdevil said:
yes it does look like the screens from your friends look pretty good. but within the range less than 3 i would think it would be. helios is something i do not use. though here is a post about it.
I do not use Helios and never did, did a complete fresh reinstall of DCS, so Helios is totally irelevent in my case. Reading through that thread would help me in no way.
-
20 minutes ago, silverdevil said:
i find that the mav alone as a spotting device is nearly useless. especially when target is in between other non-target objects. the trick is to use the other sensors to target the object (ala TGP) and use the mav boresight to get a lock on the object.
Yep thanks for the advice, which i already used in fact (Before my video quality went to what i have), but that still doesn't solve my problem unfortunately.
-
To follow up on what i was previously saying about feeling like i'm alone in this issue, 2 different persons from my group Discord sent me screenshots of their maverick video quality, the quality difference compared to mine is significant, can't be telling me now that this is as intented and maverick video (As it is in DCS) should be as blurry as mine, why would their quality be so good than ?! Hopefully by the end of the year i'll find a solution...
Here are their screenshots : -
34 minutes ago, NineLine said:
The Maverick camera is usually pretty blurry in real life from what I have seen, do you have any real world examples where it is clearer than what we have?
In most cases ours is a little too clear.
Thanks
I can agree with this, the maverick video shouldn't be crisp clear, but to the point that i'm almost unable to distinguish a tree from a house, or a house from a truck, i don't believe this is how everybody on DCS sees it, and i'm only talking about DCS as i of coarse have no real life evidence to show.
I'm asking this because from what i'm hearing from other users, they all have a very crisp, or at least much crisper video quality then the one i'm getting and showcased in my previous post, this is why i'm asking where the problem on my end lies, as there has to be one, i feel like i'm the only one around having this issue. -
On 6/20/2022 at 9:59 PM, NineLine said:
Excellent, glad you got it sorted!
On 6/22/2022 at 1:07 AM, SparxOne said:Could you please elaborate on Helios ? I am having the same problem with my mavericks, been happening for about 2-3 weeks and simply abandonned trying to sort the problem.
Since you got it sorted i'd like to as well now lol, but i have no clue what you mean by Helios ?
If possible a step by step of what you did to point me in proper direction to fix it on my end too, would appreciate it, thanks
Sorry for bringing back up a thread that is answered already (For one person only). Since my message that i've quoted, my problem has not disappeared (You can say i'm quite patient yes
) and am still having the issue the OP had. Picture below dates from May but is still very relevant as my problem is just as the picture depicts.
I am also linking a track file, up to date for this one, if that can be of any help.For info, i have done a fresh reinstall of DCS, deleted what ever was left from mods what so ever, i am still having the blurry video feed from the Maverick D.
I am now at a loss as to what could be causing this problem even after like i said, reinstalling the game fully fresh.
-
Oof, comparing DCS and War Thunder, my stomach right now
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, NineLine said:
I cant answer why it might not make sense or anything else, but this doesn't match the MLU documents according to the team, sorry.
Totally understandable, i am not going against you ED trying to replicate as accuratly what the 16 should be like, as much as i appreciate your precise work on the plane, reality feels weird thinking the guys that created that logic felt it was adequate.
That is all i'm trying to express in this thread
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, JTFF-Marco said:
Not quoting anything so hopefully my message doesn't get deleted.
I remember reading that in the later tapes (M5), the logic was the same as described earlier in this thread in the M3 docs. The FCR stays cued to the HMCS LOS and radiating after TMS fwd has been released. So It would be very surprising that they changed it only for the M4.2+ jets...
I have no official manuals what so ever, but either way, even not being a fighter pilot myself, i just can't get around the current implemented logic of this, it feels impractical at most to have to manually press TMS up while looking at your ennemy to get a lock, why add a step to the pilot, especially in a stressful situation like a dogfight, while both other ACM modes will lock automatically without pilot input ? The current method just adds a reason to fail on acquiring a lock because reasons while maneouvering in a dogfight.
It made total sence that all 3 ACM modes worked the same in terms of locking up a target, pilot selects the mode he wants to use -> Boresight slaved to the HMCS, Vertical scan or the 20° HUD scan. When one of the modes would be selected, that is all that remained to be done, now the pilot just had to fly his plane accordingly to get a target in the respective mode scan area and the radar would lock first target it found in each modes.How does it make sense that the Boresight mode requires a manual input from the pilot to lock the target and not the 2 others, i can't find any logical reason to that.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Hugoslav said:
Today I came across the same problem, but finally found out what's going on with HMCS logic. So here is a quotation from ED's "DCS 2.8.0.32235.1 Open Beta" changelog that should explain it:
- Updated ACM BORE HMCS logic. Hold TMS Forward to slave radar to HMCS line-of-sight and display the ellipse. When TMS Forward is released, the radar will attempt to lock the nearest contact within the ellipse out to 10 nm.
-so you have to hold TMS forward when aiming and release it when aimed on your target, than radar will attempt to lock a target
I don't understand why it's like that, to me it seems very impractical and it doesn't meke sense to meke it like this IRL. But hey, it is what it is. If it's realistic now, than it's very impractical but we have to deal with it and if not then hope ED will fix it.
I also feel it's very impractical, i'd love to know the reasoning behind such a thing.
The way i see it and used it before this change was basically having the ability to direct my radar in a precise beam (The ellipse) with my helmet line of sight and catch any target my eyeball wouldn't see.It was useful when flying in the mountains and having difficulty actually spotting a target just under the 10 mile limit ACM mode, sometimes while slaving the ellipse around just looking i'd pick a target and therefore it would allow me to react instantly even if the target was 50° left or right. Now this would be impossible without using the HUD front scan or 10° vertical scan which are fixed facing forward, meaning any targets not directly in the rather small facing cone would go unnoticed by my radar. (Bold part : Who would go about constantly pressing TMS up while looking around to achieve the same result we used to have by just looking around and pressing nothing ?)
Another aspect i find impractical is the simple fact that when in a dogfight turning around each other, it just felt way more logical to only have to aim your helmet sight with the ellipse on the target and let the radar lock as soon as possible (Probably faster than what we can achieve with the normal human lag ~200ms, especially considering sometimes the target would pass in that ellipse for a split second), rather than now having to either constantly keep TMS up until target gets lined up in the ellipse, or having to manually press TMS up everytime the targets falls into the ellipse, to me that just feels like an unnecessary step the pilot has to take when it could be done automatically by only looking at the target and letting the radar do its thing.
The less steps there is to do something, the easier it is and more convenient no ? Here we are adding a step for a reason i cannot think of.-
3
-
1
When P-38 ?
in DCS Core Wish List
Posted