Moos_tachu
-
Posts
245 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Moos_tachu
-
-
Thanks for the update Elmo!
For the Mirage 2000, any plans to add further feedback sounds for the cockpit switches and buttons?
At the moment a majority of them make no sound at all when moved.
This is anything but a minor detail in a simulation where you have no "physical" feedback like you get IRL, so you dramatically need sound feedback to confirm your inputs.
And this is especially true for the Mirage where most switches and buttons are so tini-tiny and dark-painted compared to those big and shiny switches in the larger American-born cockpits...
PS: and btw, in its current state the HUD bomb CCRP release cue is inverted on the roll axis (left & right are inverted), Razbam is aware of this bug and is going to address it soon, right?
Amazing aircraft anyway, keep up the good work!
Moos
-
Huge thanks shu77 for your amazing work :thumbup:
And congratz to Ugra Media for this excellent map!
-
Thanks a lot shu77 for your amazing work :thumbup:
Now have a good rest, Syria is coming ;)
-
1
-
-
Please find here the server log: http://51thfichiers.free.fr/temp/Logs.zip
-
Hello,
I suspect we had the same issue with my squadron last saturday.
We got 3 crashes in a row in multiplayer, custom mission on private server (open beta).
Every time, all 6 clients got timed out from server simultaneously.
Same mission every time, crash happens 1 or 2 seconds after a missile is shot at an AI Su-34.
Missile type AIM-120 or AIM-7, shot from player F/A-18 (different player each time).
Meanwhile, missiles were shot at other AI aircraft types, no issue.
Note that AI Su-34's were loaded with standard ground attack payload*, and might have attempted jettison when fired upon.
(*) Kh-25MR*4,R-73*2,R-27R*2,ECM
Cannot reproduce the issue in single player, seems to happen only in client/server configuration.
Client tracks failed on crash, and I could not find a proper log on my PC.
I will try to collect the server log and upload it here.
Thanks in advance for your consideration, and congrats ED for your otherwise excellent sim!
Moos
-
Yes of course, my earlier works on Caucus ended up in a number of products.
I remember having printed this stuff for my handbook of check lists :thumbup:
-
By the way, I've been told by my squad mates that I should share my PG campaign with the community... So when it's all finalized, I'll be doing that.
Do I have your permission to include some of your charts with the briefing? (i.e. the 4 airfields that will be used as primary and secondary bases)
Of course I will not alter the originals, and I will make sure to credit you in the campaign notes.
Thanks again for your great work :thumbup:
-
I realised I left most of the Lat/Lon markings off AL MINHAD, I have fixed that but havent republished yet. I'd be interested though I have published all with North Up at present however for a field like Al minhad it makes the diagram much smaller. ICAO standard seems to be to rotate the map in this situation 90 degrees so the diagram is bigger but the only obvious identifier in this instance is the North indicator arrow. With the Iranian fields there are some more, so would people prefer all diagrams North up, or East/west fields to be rotated 90 degrees.
Personally, I would stand with the ICAO standard on this point, for optimal readability.
Al Minhad AB is a good example: not too complex, but it has quite a number of taxiways and parkings already, and these are stuff you would need to get right without the size of their representation being an obstacle.
Indeed there is the North indicator, and I agree with you, people might easily miss it.
Yet there are also the runway indications (e.g. 09/27 for Al Minhad), and this is something people would definitely want to check out while using these charts.
Maybe a compromise would be to rotate 90 degrees not only the North indicator but also all the writings on the chart, so people would read it horizontally, and thus would know that North is up?
Don't know if this would be realistic though...
-
Not for all of them if I'm correct... though I may have missed the right set :)
Great job anyway, you deserve a good rest, and our deepest gratitude :thumbup:
-
Interested if anyone actually finds these useful beyond me.
Hell yeah!! :thumbup:
I'm putting together a coop campaign on the Persian Gulf theatre, and this is EXACTLY what I needed for my briefings.
Outstanding work, keep it up and you'll make at least one happy dude (and squadron) :)
-
First, I have talked about the joy of flight, not combat effectiveness. F-16 has always had a lot of hype as the ultimate dog-fighter, highly manoeuvrable and a pleasure fly machine. I am sure if we asked this community (before this video) about what aircraft is the funniest to flight for pilots between these two models, the F-16 would be the winner by a huge margin.
If you say so......
-
I think they will quite likely do a german Tornado, since they are (all?) German.
Pat is French ;)
-
I don't think there is another aircraft out there that excels the Tornado when it comes to low level flying :pilotfly:
Mirage 2000N/D ;)
So fast in low-level penetration that it's a pain to plan COMAO's with other NATO mudmovers, because they can't follow :D
-
It better be compatible with 1.5, I already paid for it and do not want to get Nevada yet. Forcing the costumers to buy another content package to be able to use the one they already bought would be a kick in the guts.
My Internet connection is quite bad, I would need to download at least 3 days to get Nevada even when I buy it right now. I want to wait until 2.0 gets stable enough to actually be worth that download time, but I am not ok with getting Nevada just to be able to fly the Mirage, especially because that information wasn't there when I bought it. :(
I'm also not ok with waiting another god-knows-how-many month until 1.5 gets merged into 2.0. I paid good money for it and want to get my hands on the M2000 when everybody else does!
Sorry for the rant. I knew it wasn't going to be compatible with 1.2, but I had no doubt it would work with 1.5.
Dude, what's the point of writing down 5 full lines of text to complain on pure speculation?
No one said the M2000C would not hit DCS 1.5 :huh:
-
S530 Range
in M-2000
You may refer to this "old" doc (in French) made in 2007 by MajorBugHaha, good old times... :D
-
The final comments about the F-16 vs. the Mirage are against general mainstream thinking.
Why is that?? :huh:
Not the first time we hear an old pilot commenting that he doesn't enjoy FBW aircraft as much as he used to enjoy his good-ole' jetfighter from the 60's...
-
The AIM-54 is like a giant AIM-120
No it's not :D
One of the big differences is the Phoenix has no smoke attenuation device => big contrail => very easy to spot, even without a launch warning.
And once it is spotted, its limited maneuverability makes it easy to dodge for a fighter.
So I hold my ground: the AIM-54 was designed to intercept waves of Tu-95 and Tu-22, it is not efficient against maneuvering fighters.
-
+1
I really don't understand why people are so much into the F-15E.
Let aside the look and the number of bombs it can carry, there's not a single thing it can do that the F/A-18C cannot.
Plus the Hornet is truly multirole, and carrier capable.
Once ED's Hornet is released, from a gameplay standpoint the Strike Eagle will be pointless.
Yeah, lets stop development of DCS after the F/A-18C is released.
Everything can be done by the Hornet, there is no point in adding anything else
/s
C'mon, don't act like you don't understand me, you're smarter than you pretend to be ;)
My point is there is such a great variety of airplanes in the world, it is not only about US-built 4th gen fighters.
So after the F/A-18 is out, and the F-14 after it, the last thing we'll need will be an F-15 or F-16.
My money would rather go on a high-fidelity Russian or European 4th gen fighter.
And why not 3rd gen's after that :)
It may share the same role, but the F-15 is much more maneuverable.Aah ok, so actually people asking for the Strike Eagle don't know the airplane at all...
Thanks for answering my initial question :D
-
On a related note, is there anything the F-15E does that the F/A-18C doesn't? I mean in terms of weapons and how they are delivered.
+1
I really don't understand why people are so much into the F-15E.
Let aside the look and the number of bombs it can carry, there's not a single thing it can do that the F/A-18C cannot.
Plus the Hornet is truly multirole, and carrier capable.
Once ED's Hornet is released, from a gameplay standpoint the Strike Eagle will be pointless.
-
Guys... when I read the title of this topic, I expected to see only one video.
THIS is the ultimate Tomcat video. Ever.
It's a fact, no need to discuss.
24 minutes of pure awesomeness:
[ame]
[/ame] -
No. The HOT is not laser-guided, it's wire-guided.
-
Glad to see your problem solved :thumbup:
-
Guys, you need to read about Gazelle employment in the 2011 Libyan war.
Night missions from Mistral-class helo carriers, in close cooperation with Tiger helos.
The Tigers engaged light-armored targets with their 30mm gun, and provided designation to the Gazelles to engage heavy-armored targets with HOT missiles.
The combined kill report is just IMPRESSIVE, several hundreds of targets destroyed and a large variety of them: tanks, armored vehicles, trucks, AAA, artillery, infantry, etc...
The kill-per-sortie ratio is like 10 times higher than that of the air force and navy fighters engaged in the same campaign.
They got AAA hits but no loss, which was also an amazing achievement as pre-engagement evaluations rated the risk as very high and forecasted the loss of at least one or two helos.
A great tribute to the machines, and to those who man them.
They literally invented a new doctrine for combat helo employment.
-
Merci Az' ;)
how about you re read what I wroteHow about being nice with people who are trying to help you? :)
It might be obvious, but just in case, do you confirm you have been on this page and you don't have a yellow "SHOW SERIAL NUMBERS" button at the bottom?
https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/terrains/nttr_terrain/
RAZBAM December Announcement
in RAZBAM
Posted · Edited by Moos_tachu
From my understanding, this is the opposite of IRL behaviour, actually.
It can be seen in IRL videos, the pilot makes corrections "into the wings":
Attack run @ 10'05":
https://www.ina.fr/video/CPC08003568
Attack run @ 28'35":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL4uHt1V6-4
Explanation of the first video, quoting @jojo from another thread:
PS: And what about the absence of cockpit sounds? Razbam considers this is not an issue?
Moos