Jump to content

hughlb

Members
  • Posts

    468
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by hughlb

  1. You could make the educated assumption that ED have another 4th gen fighter lined up after the Viper. I mean, the Hornet and the Viper must generate the most interest in the customer base, so I don’t see why ED would not have a third fast mover lined up. We could deduce that it is the F-15C because they have already completed the flight model, perhaps some of systems based off the FC3. Its a hugely popular plane, less weapons systems and capabilities to create. Finally, we can probably rule out a MiG-29 or Su-27, and out of the big 4 US fourth gen, only the Eagle isn’t full fidelity. Also Wags likes puns and wordplay ;) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  2. They can't. It has been discussed already by Nick Grey: "without early access we would spend 50% more time and money to engineer the products as developers work better and faster with direct user feedback and when they see their product in the market. we would not be profitable. we would be vulnerable to customer 'fade' as they switch to other products or genres. we would not enjoy the 'right' to imperfection" You may want them to finish the Hornet first, but the scale of that project is too great for them to just work on that, and that alone.
  3. To the people complaining consider this: When you purchased the Hornet, what you were purchasing was the final completed product, with TWS, all the bells and whistles. That product hasn't been released yet, because the product is still in alpha development, meaning it isn't feature complete. Then what happened is you got given fair treatment - ED tossed you the keys and said, "because you paid us money before the product was released, we're going to let you come down to the factory and sit in the cockpit until it's done. You can offer some advice about the order you would like it finished, you can tell us where we have made some errors with the paintwork, button placement, stitching." Then when the Hornet is released, you get the product you paid for, with TWS, all the bells and whistles. This is what Early Access means. It is there to help ED develop your investment, but more importantly, it is a way of repaying you for buying the product before it has released. You actually have somewhat of a say in the order of development, as was the case with the Hornet, but at the end of the day there is a team of people still hard at work building your plane, and they are going to have to make some calls themselves about building the plane - that's just how it goes. If you are only happy with a completed product, wait for that product to be completed.
  4. Solution here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=251003
  5. EDIT: My apologies, I achieved a successful result by doing the following, so please use this as a rough guide for anyone who is experiencing a large 'deadzone' with a long extension, centre-mounted stick - I appreciate that is an unusual graph, but this is my understanding of how it works - basically there isn't a software deadzone for the DCS F-16 because you can see the control stick moving in the cockpit with minimal input. So my guess is the F-16 in real life has a certain amount of 'play' in the stick before input is registered. It is very minor, and on a short throw stick you wouldn't notice it. But with an extension, that 'play' is exaggerated. By making the curve the shape above, you basically skip through the play quickly, and get straight to the input. ____________________________________________________________________________ Original message: Fantastic module, but I have an issue with a centre mounted flight stick. I appreciate the real F-16 uses a side mounted stick that behaves very differently to a centre mounted stick with an extension. However, those of us who have centre mounted sticks with extensions, have an enormous deadzone in pitch and roll, which makes controlling the aircraft sluggish. I can adjust the saturation, but unfortunately that just makes the aircraft harder to control.
  6. How many man hours are put into the development of a complex module like the Viper, and what is the approximate monetary cost?
  7. Ah good information. I see what you mean, I have found the Hornet sounds that must constitute the sound, but obviously when you play them as files, it doesn't take into account the dynamic position of the sound, as the aircraft passes by - the 'whoosh' is actually just a pitch shift I guess. That's cool, I might have to try adjusting some of the radius in the sdef files. I'll see how I go.
  8. Does anyone know what sound file is used for the 'whoosh' sound, for lack of a better description, when an aircraft passes in close proximity to the flyby (F3) camera. I have always felt this is overdone, and was looking to replace it with a different sound.
  9. Yes, 63.8 with 143 files is exactly what I have too. May I ask, how did you install it? Where are the files sitting?
  10. Just a strange one. I have successfully installed Jafa's Merlin mod, which sounds great with the cockpit open and external. But with the cockpit closed, it seems to revert back to the default sounds. Also, I had previously tried Rlaxoxo's weapons sound mod v3 for the Spitfire, and the same thing occurred. Sounded great external and with cockpit opened, then reverts to old sounds with cockpit closed. Anyone else experiencing this? I installed using OvGME. I did not install these mods at the same time, just to be absolutely sure there wasn't conflict between them.
  11. Can anyone make a list of the changes they have spotted?
  12. Anyone have any experience with these drivers?
  13. With the MkIX now having a counterpart in the A-8, what is the likelihood of a DCS Spitfire XIV to fight directly with the late war German and US Western Europe counterparts? Especially considering development halted on the VAEO in-development module.
  14. I can share my experiences with this issue. I had this issue on my Mk1 Gunfighter base on the y axis. I eventually had a replacement base sent to me by VKB, which was checked by them. Guess what, the second base had the same issue, though this time on the X axis. I never got an explanation as to the cause of the problem, nor was the issue ever resolved. Both bases were from different batches. You can see my thread here: http://forum.vkb-sim.pro/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=2666&sid=93d5ed23a6c69b6295891cad582eb199&start=15
  15. Does the Mid-life overhaul also include any graphical improvements to the interior and exterior? Little things like the cockpit wall textures, and HUD glass modelling are still a bit inconsistent. They are only little things, but the MiG-19 really raised the bar.
  16. I get that, but is it used exclusively for firing at targets that cannot be locked, or does it serve another purpose?
  17. It would be really useful to hear about the correct process to engage targets transitioning from extreme BVR distances to the merge - from the pilot seat. Is there any content available that details this chronology? As a hypothetical - let's say we have a two ship, Su-27’s at 50nm, hot. Do we remain with TWS to ensure both targets are tracked, maintaining a better situational awareness by tracking both and allowing us to get two missiles off? Or do we STT a single target at that range to provide a better chance of hitting the target? When we have fired, do we turn 180, or continue to the merge? Do we have to remain within gimbal limits for the radar? Let's say the two Phoenix both miss for whatever reason. What is the process? Do we change to PAL within 15nm or maintain TWS? I am aware that raising the ACM cover does the following: Enables High Gun Rate, Missile Prep, SW Cool, Shortens Ph/Aim7 launch from 3 to 1 seconds Should I always enable ACM at a certain distance from an inbound target to "prepare" the plane for a merge? What if the target is still BVR, will ACM mode adversely affect my potential tracking? ie. does the reduction in launch time also compromise the ability to detect or track targets outside of a range threshold? How about when to switch from Normal mode to Boresight? I find I’m often losing situational awareness as we approach a merge.
  18. It’s used to really compensate for the joystick length variance between a desktop joystick and the stick in the plane. Most desktop sticks are both really short and offer no real weight. This totally changes the way the aircraft responds to input compared with the real thing. Curves allow you to mimic the input response around centre, without it, the aircraft can feel really twitchy. I have a long extension and still use curves, but I use “user” curves to set for a flat response around centre and a fairly linear (straight) response for the rest of the travel. Works really well.
  19. In fact they would do both at the same time - different departments, different tasks.
  20. Quick test: Max mach with 3x Aim-7, 2x Phoenix, 2x Sidewinder, 2x droptanks @ 35k ft = M 1.6 F-15C by comparison - 6x AMRAAM, 2x Sidewinder, 2x Droptanks @ 35k ft = M1.9
  21. I think there needs to be a distinction drawn between the F-14 variants and the L39 variants we presently (will soon) have, and Super Hornet module. The F-14 is the best comparison because it represents a late model A and a B, rather than the D, so comparable systems with the significant change being the engines. With the Super Hornet, we would be looking at a completely different airframe, with unique aerodynamic properties, as well as different engines, and slightly different cockpit. There would be quite a bit of additional work, in fact it would be a project unto itself. But more importantly, how do you monetise something so similar, but also quite different? The Tomcat comes as a bundle of A and B, as does the L-39, because I would assume the two variants were comparably straightforward to develop together, with only, as I said, engine changes for the F-14A. If ED went on to develop the Super Hornet, would they make it a standalone package or would they bundle it with the existing Hornet? If they did bundle, would they increase the price of the "Hornet" package to account for the additional work? If so, how do you think that would be received? Not well, I'd imagine. Especially considering people buying the "Hornet" package would question why ED would develop two very similar aircraft and charge more as a package deal. If they didn't charge additional for the Super Hornet, then why would they bother developing it, it would be a net loss. If they created a standalone package, it would be so similar to the existing Hornet that it would undoubtedly split the market share for both modules. Something like an F-16C on the other hand, offers again, a similar but just different enough aircraft, that performs similar functions, for a variety of export partners, on the back of an established following through the Falcon/BMS community. The Super Hornet is probably just on the wrong side of the fence to make it a viable module. Now for me personally, I'd like something like a MiG-25 or F-117, because I want unique experiences that don't exist in the sim presently. I'd also buy a Super Hornet, but it'd be a difficult module to rationalise investing into, given the existence and popularity of the Charlie.
  22. Okay, please allow me to fall on my sword. I did a level acceleration test against some contemporaries, measuring the time taken to travel from Mach 1.0 to 1.8 at 30,000ft clean. These were the results: 1:20 MiG-29A 1:40 F-14B 1:45 F-15C 2:00 Su27 >2:00 F/A-18C >2:00 MiG-21Bis So in reality, it’s quick. I am amazed by how quick the MiG-29A is, but then it tops out in the high Mach 2’s, so that perhaps isn’t surprising. Is there a reason why the F-14B tops out around 2.2, is it all about the inlet flow control?
  23. Ah, that’s the issue I’m sure. I didn’t do that. The Tomcat acceleration appears really slow above Mach 1.3, which I’m sure is accurate. Was the aircraft really draggy? It seems odd with all that power from the engines, and swept wings, I thought it would accelerate quickly.
  24. 2.1 clean on low fuel at 35k. Am I doing something wrong?
  25. The MiG-25 would be ideal really.
×
×
  • Create New...