=475FG= Dawger
-
Posts
1904 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by =475FG= Dawger
-
-
2 hours ago, VirusAM said:
What is ctaf?
Inviato dal mio Pixel 8 Pro utilizzando Tapatalk
Common Traffic Advisory Frequency
It is the frequency that you announce your intentions when there is no control tower operational.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_traffic_advisory_frequency
-
2
-
-
The entire purpose of ATC is traffic separation.
DCS is, at best, a sleepy backwater when it comes to air traffic.
CTAF is entirely sufficient.
-
There is zero need for ”ATC”
In fact, what is envisioned in this thread would make DCS less realistic.
-
2
-
-
Without the active controls for the "demon" pilot, its basically just another external view like F2.
-
Nearly 30 years ago, an online multiplayer flying game had commands one could type in the chat buffer.
One of them was .shanghai <player>
It stuck the chosen player into your cockpit and slaved your view to his.
It was a great teaching tool, to be able to be in the student cockpit, seeing what he sees.
Far better than a second cockpit. And a lot less development time.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:
I’m not wrong about how to report a bug.
You are nothing if not predictable.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:
It’s not possible to convey exactly what I see on a monitor either. Screenshots and videos are compressed and it would require a 4K display to see exactly what I’m seeing. But this sort of info can be enough for others to try and duplicate the problem. It’s the normal requirement for making a bug report. All it would take to document a “vanishing” aircraft model is a track and a screenshot of empty space with a label where the aircraft should be.
What is a big part of the fun engaging with you is that you cannot even conceive of being wrong and absolutely must respond.
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:
There’s plenty of documentation here from VR players. If they can show what they’re seeing why can’t you?
https://forum.dcs.world/topic/335325-spotting-dot-bugs-in-vr/And trying to report a bug which can be documented is pretty much a waste of time.
That's the Mirror on the flat screen, not what you actually see in VR.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:
Well since all these unsubstantiated accounts about “vanishing planes” have led ED to wreck the game for the majority of players I think you owe everyone a detailed report. Show us an aircraft model literally vanishing in the game please.
This is why you look like an low IQ fresh water fish. How do you propose someone in VR show folks who are on flat screen what they see in the HMD?
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:
That’s puzzling because aircraft at this range are easy to see. You shouldn’t need dots at this distance. Perhaps you need to document that with some screenshots. Although the trouble with the spotting dots being forced on is you can’t do any On/Off tests. This was the last time I was able to test this myself. You can see the 3D models clearly visible here at normal zoom levels. This is on a monitor.
Its incredible that you spend so much time and effort expounding on something you are absolutely clueless about.
The emphasis was added above to point to your cluelessness.
You are certainly tiresome.
-
2
-
2
-
-
For me, flying VR, this implementation is the best its ever been. The very old issue of invisible airplanes between 3-5 miles is mostly gone.
Yes, I can see airplanes farther than I should against the blue sky but it certainly isn’t egregiously horrible.
All the whining had me prepared for something terrible and it turns out to be a pretty good step forward.
-
2
-
-
8 hours ago, sleighzy said:
Why this approach as opposed to the existing auto-start in DCS which does the same thing?
It doesn’t do the same thing. Game auto start is whatever the developer decides and are usually far too slow and stop without performing any post start switch flipping.
Building your own start macros can significantly reduce start time and do all the post start switch flipping.
I used to mod the in game ones until some dope at ED decided to put them in IC. Now I use VoiceAttack. Not as nice as modding the lua file but serviceable.
-
2
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Parkour said:
Here are the numbers. YES - I know they don't represent those not using Steam and are using Standalone. Yes, there are more playing Standalone, etc... but, the numbers available don't lie.
After the "Improved" Spotting Dots patch, there is the lowest counter of players playing DCS on Steam than EVER BEFORE. There is a significant drop after the Sept 30th patch with these "Improved" spotting dots. I know, for a FACT, that my entire wing has stopped playing (4 people).
People can say a hotfix is only for crashes, but their player base is crashing and they need to fix this ASAP.
Moving modded files to IC is what started this and really has very little to do with this latest patch. I am actually seeing numbers tick up a bit with the (allegedly) huge dots.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, SharpeXB said:
I honestly think this is a big part of the problem. Yeah this will creep up on you as you get older
one day you’ll wonder why you can’t read your phone.
What dope is going to fly without corrective lenses if needed?
This is just more proof you don’t have a clue.
In VR, the most common vision problem associated with age, presbyopia, disappears.
On a flat screen, you can just sit farther away, wear glasses or adjust resolution. Or all three.
-
3
-
-
9 hours ago, Zabuzard said:
I dont recall what exactly he says without checking in-game right now, but what he says is taken exactly from our real-life F-4E WSOs.
Super exact and precise brevity wasnt that common at that time in these situations yet. (Not that I want to get into this discussion now, perhaps a topic for a different thread if you want to challenge that claim
)
We were all well aware of the importance of word order way back when. We had indoor plumbing and electric lights too, believe it or not.
-
1
-
-
Once again, word order matters.
Forward 5 feet would be more useful than Move 5 feet forward
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:
Even on the earliest aircraft, you used wing warping to turn. In fact, the Wright Brothers' big innovation was rolling into the turn, as opposed to trying to turn the Flyer like a boat. It was always combined with rudder at that time, of course, but you always needed both, early planes were quite a handful to keep going where you wanted them to go. Ailerons were a big deal, but they didn't fundamentally change the way aircraft were flown, but rather allowed doing it with much less effort. In WWI aircraft you had to use the rudder to get them to roll at anywhere near combat rates, but those were flown with all your extremities and your rear end as well, more or less at all times (especially rotaries, what with the huge spinning mass in front and their otherwise diminutive size).
The reason you only use the rudder to roll in the Tomcat at high AoA is that it doesn't have ailerons. What it does have is spoilerons, which induce roll by decreasing the lift on the appropriate wing, something you can't afford at high AoA, because they'll stall that wing and send you spinning. It's somewhat similar with the Phantom, it does have ailerons, but at high AoA, it needs all the lift the main wing provides, and any deflection there risks stalling one.
The up aileron does precisely the same thing as a spoiler which is why every pilot everywhere is taught to keep the stick neutral in the roll axis at high AoA/Stall recovery.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:
Is G Warming a thing in DCS or no? I think it was planned
Greatly misunderstood.
IRL, it doesn't increase your G tolerance. It is solely to check your fitness for high G.
-
9G is only spiked for a few seconds. The highest sustained G is only going to be 7-7.5 and only a few aircraft can do that.
Ill considered pilot physiology modeling is the single reason my group does not fly a well known title.
Many people fly DCS using snap views and no head tracking.
Not a good idea.-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, Nealius said:
Every aircraft rolls with rudder deflection at high AoA, does it not? And official, period training videos make the same “blanket statement”, so I fail to see the issue here.
High AoA isn't required. Rudder induces roll for a variety of reasons present on all aircraft to some degree or another. High AoA is where it is most prominent and useful.
One of the techniques I used quite a lot when flying aircraft without autopilot was to keep the wings level with my feet if I needed both hands for something. This was always in cruise flight.
-
1 hour ago, Tippis said:
And you were all in favour of it when it was working for you.
So let's just say that your opinion on the matter is… tainted. You, of all people, are not in a position to complain that other players are “cheating” by setting their game up a specific way.
Yes they are. They provide excellent extensions to fill in some pretty egregious gaps in both content and functionality. In fact, some are pretty much obligatory to get the full experience — stuff like SRS, LotATC, Tacview, SLMod. And that's on top of those that fix very nonsensical and outright anti-realisitc design decisions, like that spotting mod, the clear canopy mod, the good old F5 RWR mod, the gun dispersal mod, and any myriad of terrain mods. The list goes on.
Unofficial mods are not just a great idea — they're a key component in what makes DCS great. Up until the point where ED make it less great by arbitrarily and pointlessly restricting them because some clueless people get a bee in their bonnet about some perceived irrelevant advantage this might conceivably create according to this prophetic dream they had but refused to back up with any kind of evidence.
The whingebags ruin the game for everyone, to a massively larger degree than cheaters ever can because, ultimately, such a tiny set of people can even be affected by cheats to begin with, and the number of cheaters that exist that could affect this tiny set of people is itself vanishingly small. And, let's just reiterate the point above, ironically, it's occasionally the whingebags who are the ones who actually cheat… at least according to their own definitions.
Not happy with just ruining the game for some with their own abuses, they want to make sure ED ruins it for everyone for no remotely sane reason whatsoever.
Excellent summation.
-
1
-
1
-
-
This issue isn't binary integrity check (IC).
IC is applied to a set of files. The question is what should be included in that set.
Most agree that we should all be playing with the same basic physics so files related to flight model physics and whether or not an aircraft is actually rendered are probably safely assumed to be included in the integrity check system.
The problem is a very few, who we all know well, are very vocal about expanding the definition of cheating to include everything you can possibly imagine.
The result is things get done by ED, like including many previously modifiable files under the IC umbrella.
The result is the game moves away from public MP PvP and gets hidden away behind password protected servers where groups can turn off IC and use mods to their hearts content.
Whether or not this is good for the long term future of DCS is open for debate.
Personally, I have hardware issues that prevent me from spawning in DCS VR. I have zero motivation to fix them. My wingman of over 2 decades hasn't flown DCS this year. The rest of my group are doing other things.
The lack of enthusiasm isn't down to spotting dots alone. Its the total package of DCS moving towards a policy of punishing us all for the mostly imagined sins of a very few.
At some point, I'll just move on and put DCS in my past as I don't think the trend is likely to reverse.
19 hours ago, MoleUK said:God I miss the clear canopy mod as well. The baked in reflections on the Huey/Hip remain godawful, and it's been a year since the IC change made the fix to that problem no longer viable.
ED really should have copied over some of the quicker autostarts for a tickbox option for each module as well.
Yes, they took away a lot of really nice mods in a vain attempt to satisfy a few nutcases.
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:
It puzzles me why anyone would play like that though and be an unwitting fool for cheaters.
This is where your disconnect is.
You cannot imagine anyone who doesn't think like you do.
People who 'cheat' in video games are laughably pitiful, only exceeded by those who worry constantly about being an 'unwitting fool'.
DCS was more fun for my group when we could tweak the spotting dots mod and write our own autostart macros and fly in MP PvP servers.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:
Nobody likes playing a sport or game with the idea that they’re being cheated on or that it’s even a possibility. No other multiplayer game would have such an obvious hack available in it. Again it’s rather naive of DCS to be like that. For all you know you were visible to your opponent as a big orange ball all those years. Doesn’t that make you feel ridiculous?
No, but I prefer pink.
Seriously, you presume to speak for everyone but it is you with the issue here.
In the first place, you assume that everyone defines ‘cheating’ in the same manner which is a ridiculous presumption.
I and everyone I know viewed the spotting dot mod as a wonderful tool.
Secondly, it is a game built for enjoyment. DCS was never intended to be some sort of multiplayer competition sport. Treating it like one is what should make one feel ridiculous.
Who cares if some sad soul in a basement somewhere is madly tweaking files in order to see me as a giant pink fuzzball? Not me, certainly.
At least he sees me so there is some hope of a fight.
-
1
-
Update on improved ATC?
in DCS Core Wish List
Posted
Having flown around the world for thirty years, I am quite familiar with ATC in its various forms.
The first duty of the pilot(s) is see and avoid.
What someone says on the radio does not relieve the PIC of that responsibility.
In VFR operations in the US, you aren’t under positive control, in general, except for a short time in the pattern and on the ground.
Some places force everyone into positive control by forcing IFR, even when the weather is CFB.
That seems to be the average DCS player’s idea of ATC as is evidenced by your post above. Regimentation with ATC acting as PIC and the pilot merely a control actuator.
Not feeling comfortable unless a controller is issuing instructions is a sure sign of someone not qualified to act as Pilot in Command. Had any pilot working for me or in a training event I was conducting exercises expressed such a sentiment, they would not retain PIC privileges.
Its a silly idea. The PIC is the ultimate authority on the operation of the aircraft.
As to airfield procedures having defined states, this is also incorrect. What you see published is the example ideal but deviation is common. In fact, one of the main roles of a tower controller is to manage deviation to promote greater operational tempo. So, ATC will often mean greater deviation from the supposed “defined state”
Again, CTAF is enough. We don’t need some sort of series of computer hoops to jump through in order to operate at an airfield
If real ATC is your thing, find a human who wants to play ATC.