MobiSev
-
Posts
607 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by MobiSev
-
-
Has anyone else experienced random loss of control of FC3 planes since the last OB update?
-
2 hours ago, Snappy said:
I don‘t buy that 90% of customers are SP, very few play MP claim that ED likes to put out as its really not clear how they arrive at that data and how it’s defined.If I play 2/3 SP and 1/3 MP in which camp do I end up according to them?
Same, I really don't buy that stat either.
Also, an easy way to not fracture the community with a new asset back is to go the supercarrier route and just simply not let people control the new assets. That way they can still join servers and see how cool the new units are, thus encouraging them to buy the pack to gain control access. This seems like a no brainer to me.
-
3
-
-
Just now, GGTharos said:
No. The AIM-120 and AIM-7 (and maybe AIM-9?) got a completely new FM - ie the underlying code and flight model are completely different. As well, those missiles received a CFD treatment to determine their coefficients of drag and lift. It also comes with a new autopilot and other fun stuff (tm).
The R-27 and 77 will get that treatment later. For now, they have had their drag and lift tweaked in the current FM to make them fly much better than they used to, so aside from academic differences, they are on a similar performance level as the missiles with the new FM.
awesome, thanks for the response!
-
-
22 hours ago, StormBat said:
If you could make playable infantry, I would love a recon soldier with a laser pointer for JTAC. An anti-tank soldier with Javelin/RPG. Improved anti-air soldiers. Of course assault Inf with various guns/rifle. A demolition expert with fun explosive charges/satchels(when you just have to take out a bunker/enemy position), And a sniper/spotter. Full immersive/clickable tanks/vehicles would be amazing too! Hope something comes out of this Battlefield Productions, I really do.
Well, we already have RPG troops, but a blue equivalent would be cool too! Well, I guess the RPG troop model could be updated lol. However, ATGM troops would be a game changer! I'd be hyped for that. Basically, infantry need some love lol
-
2
-
-
17 hours ago, PoorOldSpike said:
So just to recap, you asked which Blue point-defence units can engage missiles and glide bombs.
I posted tests with every Blue AA gun and every SAM unit (including long range ones) against incoming Russian KH-29T TV-guided missiles, and the only Blue AD units (AI) that engaged them were the Rapier and the Roland, so that answers your question, at least regarding KH-29T's.
It'd take me forever to test all the other Russian missiles and glide bombs and I don't have the time, but if you can narrow it down by telling me what specific ones you want me to test, I'll have a crack at it.
PS- just to clarify, "point-defence" means short range, so don't get them mixed up with longer-ranged "area defence" units
WIKI- "Point-defence is the defence of a single object or a limited area, e.g. a ship, building or an airfield, now usually against air attacks and guided missiles.
Point-defence weapons have a smaller range in contrast to area-defence systems and are placed near or on the object to be protected"
Thank you for that. Prob should have clarified that I was referring to the system's ability to intercept missiles.
11 hours ago, jackmckay said:Chapparal - all very lethal. So, Blufor does have quite good IR defences
The chapparal's missile guidance is bugged in DCS. It will not take an intercept course to the target, but go behind it and make a very high G turn, making it useless
-
On 1/10/2021 at 10:39 AM, Fri13 said:
The ground units in DCS are not to be in combat against each others, but to be a training assistance for the cockpit simulation to pilot learn a proper procedure to engage them.
So pilot knows he is going to attack a target X, then procedure for it is this and then learn to do the this procedure.
This is as well why ground units like MBT's and infantry can't be put fight against each others as they annihilate each others in seconds, instead in hours or days of combat. Their purpose is to just sit as targets for air units to attack them with proper procedures.
yeaaahhh....no lol. You should see some of the servers in MP lol. There's some full on dynamic campaigns out there with large ground wars, etc., letting players control the units (shameless plug for Red Storm Rising). That's why i was wondering about the point defense SAMs on blue. If there was a counterpart to the red TOR, I was going to put it in the server
-
1
-
-
34 minutes ago, Tholozor said:
Are you releasing when you hit IN RNG, or IN ZONE?
Both
-
Did ED change something with the GPS logic? seems that JDAMS miss a lot now...at least the larger ones (GBU-31)
-
On 1/6/2021 at 6:44 AM, Silver_Dragon said:
As Blueforce pinpoint systems:
France:
-Crotale/NG/Mk.3-Mistral
-VLMica/M/NG
-SAMP/T
Germany
IRIS-T SL/SLS
LFK NG (on develop)MANTIS
Italy
CAMM-ER
SPADA
SkyGuard
SAMP/T
UK
Blowpipe
StarStreak
Stardust
CAMM
USA
Avenger
IM-Shorad
It would be cool if a lot of these were in the game. And FYI, by point defense, not talking about planes, but missiles, glide bombs, etc.
-
On 1/5/2021 at 1:46 PM, zerO_crash said:
There is a difference between not having a flyable module and still being able to join a server, versus not having an asset pack and not being able to join a server. Also, no one ever said that the majority of DCS community is online, quite contrary, according to what ED have stated. Most of us who are in clans fly singleplayer a lot. However just because it´s a rather small percentage online, doesn´t mean that it doesn´t exist. If it´s 2ooo people online right now, then creating servers with specific packs (that as opposed to not having modules, will not let you join a server) will bring that number to 20. That´s the issue. And if multiplayer is not important, then I wonder why ED used so much time with improving net-code, made it possible for dedicated servers and all the other multiplayer implementations.
If that wasn´t enough, we are now moving into a time where new modules released finally feature multi-responsibility aircraft (F-14, L39, C-101, EB-339, Mi-24, AH-64D, F-4 and all the other upcoming multi-seat modules), thus making it optimal to feature multiple human pilots in one session. Flying in those with an AI is a cripple. This is definitely not something that should be neglected!
The Super Carrier is not a flyable module and was still tweaked to work (initially it was set to not let you join MP servers with it too). The same can be done for asset packs, in fact, it would even be free advertising for them as people would see the units, but not be able to control them. If they are good, then people will want to have the opportunity to control them. This is what happened with me and the supercarrier tbh, i saw it in the server and really wanted to use it due to that...ended up buying it-
3
-
-
I just hope that, if a deal is reached, it won’t be a requirement to own in order to join multiplayer servers. This would be a deal breaker for me.
maybe just don’t give players the ability to use or control the new assets in tac command if they don’t have them, but still let them join a server. The super carrier does this nicely.
-
1
-
-
34 minutes ago, iFoxRomeo said:
Something like this?
Yep, that's it. It can cause missiles to bleed energy like crazy or go stupid and miss.
-
On 12/31/2020 at 12:29 PM, razo+r said:
Probably related to this one?
Sort of, yeah. It only really seems to happen during high AoA turns (it's fine when the player being watched is flying straight). It can get pretty bad at times.
-
explosion effect of missile seems to be way too small for the size of the warhead.
-
-
For example, if I wanted infantry to use a TOW ATGM, would it be possible to change the weapon the infantry uses away from a rifle and make it an atgm?
I know you can do this with planes and allow weapons that ED did not intend to allow (the SU-27 being able to use the SD-10 for example).
-
When you put a ship in a mission in MP (dedicated server, norender enabled), the group name will be blank. This can be bad for server scripts that rely on naming of units / groups.
-
bump...this is still a problem. Groms are useless at the moment
-
1
-
-
i can lock the ground, the radar screen shows that i locked something, but when i fire the grom, it goes dumb. Anyone else having this issue in MP?
-
Title says it all. Easily reproduceable: create a mp mission, get in a plane, have someone else get in tactical commander and watch your icon when the maneuvers are made. This can cause enemy missiles to go stupid since they cant follow the warping
-
It seems that really the only reliable point defense SAM is the TOR on red, and the Roland does not seem to do that well.
-
The SPJ pod works crazy well in comparison to any other jammer in DCS. I think other jammers might only give you 1 mile before SAMs engage? I've been able to fly a lot closer with the SPJ before burn through distance. Same thing against enemy fighters. You can get a lot closer before they see you on radar.
-
15 hours ago, Northstar98 said:
That's just the stupidest thing.... ED literally has everything they need to make it controllable (damage model, ammo, etc.), and there is literally no reason to not make it user controllable...just give it the T90 sight. It would probably only take 5 minutes to do.
-
1
-
Loss of control bug
in DCS: Flaming Cliffs 3
Posted · Edited by MobiSev
FYI, I believe we found out the problem in our server. Players kept randomly losing control of FC3 planes. We went into the miz file and found that there was a random failure table set to true for all planes. This is strange, since we disabled random failures in the mission editor, yet the table still existed in the miz file. Deleting those tables fixed the problem.