Kang
最新回复 发布由 Kang
-
-
17 minutes ago, dresoccer4 said:
maybe one day we'll get a full proper arctic map with massive floating icebergs (which you can land on of course), polar bears & penguins, and lurking nuclear subs under the ice
. I'd buy that map in a heartbeat.
Haven't you heard? Several of the available maps feature lurking nuclear submarines already.
-
1
-
-
Have you added the Cargo Bay M4 in the weapon loadout?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:
It won't. I think the only way to make actual volumetric snow happen without making an entirely new winter map from scratch, is with voxels. And ED's terrain API is most likely VERY incompatible with voxels.
I'd disagree that a voxel system would be the only way of making that happen. There are other ways which would be more suitable to work with DCS, but they most likely would still mean a lot of work that might not be justified.
-
2
-
-
I'd assume it is rather a limitation of the datalink. I'd assume that transmitting entirely new targeting data to the missile is just a bit beyond what that little antenna can handle.
The F-14 with its radar firing AIM-54s has this problem a lot, really. It is generally employed at altitude where the loss-of-track might not happen just as easily, but once it does, the missile is basically lost.
-
With a look at the table paura19 provided:
Defensive systems count for 8, the SKE antenna counts for 2.
-
I frankly doubt that there is a lot of licensing happening at all for AI assets. Anyone actually connected to ED is welcome to correct me on that.
While it is true that there have been lawsuits about that kind of thing previously, these were aimed at developers who were raking in completely different kinds of money (thus making it worthwhile) and who featured some of these products rather prominently (giving it a bit of a case). It is much more of a thing when you build a full module, which is marketed nowadays as 'a comprehensive and complete simulation of this particular type'.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, GrafRotz said:
weired... pls let me doublecheck that and ill post screenies for that. Was wondering why it did not accept that. As i said,i am pretty shure its on me, thats why i asked for a howto.
It might be a simple issue of format. I remember the A-10C lets you skip the first part of the coordinates, for example.
-
I've been setting the destination one manually so far. I think one reason might be that the CNI-MU expects somewhat detailed approach information, basically which runway and through which ingress point, which DCS itself does not provide from a 'landing' waypoint.
-
2
-
-
50 minutes ago, GrafRotz said:
Still fiddeling aroung but when trying to fill out CARP Init, precise LatLon is not accepted and the IP is off due to rounding.
How do I set a point, waypoint, IP or any other solution with precise coordinates to get a drop at a exact point?
Custom Waypoints do not accept MGRS, but LatLon with minutes and not seconds. I saw a youtube tutorial where he sat waypoints from the new waypoint tool, or waypoints from the mission editor, which should be fine, but how do I set precise waypoints within the CNI?Could 100% be stupid me
please help me out.
Wait what? I'm fairly convinced that they do.
-
The angriest lawnmower... Yes, that would be a lovely addition.
-
As much as I agree that this is probably one of those false positives, I can't shake the feeling that the chain of argument of 'Look around the forums belonging to the very people who distribute this file, they say it's fine' is a bit of a dodgy process.
Also, it probably fell out of the allow list by being altered.
-
I know this is not a helpful contribution at all, but I saw the thread title and have to say it:
QuoteWill there be a Trial program for Germany?
Can't do that until they extended the map to include Nuremberg.
-
3
-
-
Oh sorry, my bad, I got that confused. It isn't in there at all, sorry.
You can find it in the C-130J Checklist tablet (where the cargo system also is found), it has a SETTINGS tab and that's where you can set this.
-
Personally I think I'll just wait to see how the promised Mk.77 fire bomb turns out both in effect and its visual representation in DCS before I want to get into big-time bickering about variations on it.
From what I understand there are several versions of the Mk 77, differing in size and differing in what exactly the filling is, but I'd say the practical difference between 1960s Napalm and modern-day for-PR-reasons-legally-distinct-totally-not-napalm is probably not something so noticeable that a first implementation would have to take it into account.
-
1
-
-
I find there is a slight difference between two methods of setting up the CARP point:
- You can go through the Mission page and enter the coordinates for the drop point here
- You can select a route waypoint and use the MFP LSK to go to pretty much the same page
I have taken to using the latter option, usually because I set up a general route first, but it seems to me this makes a difference here.
-
1
-
I'd say the question of a damage model for the individual crew members is a completely different wish, that I can get behind as well, but is utterly unwarranted to be considered a condition for adding crew, by the current damage modeling of ground units as a whole.
-
2
-
-
I found it in the special tab for the module. It might not be accessible while you are in a mission, try going to the options from the main menu.
-
1 hour ago, AhSoul said:
Does the WP before the DZ have to be labelled 'IP' for it to work correctly?
No, if you don't find it helpful you can name it anything else. The IP doesn't have to be lined up precisely either, as the CARP INIT will create the TurnPoint automatically.
I haven't done any MP with the C-130 as of yet, but I set up my flight plans using the plane systems. Either with the cursor on the digital map or putting coordinates into points and turning them into a route.
-
Little update:
Had the chance to re-run the mission and the issue did not appear again. So... disregard, I guess.
-
I have a small issue with air drop chapter of the training mission.
It starts out with a black screen, which I figure is intentional for the little intro, but I'd assume that it is supposed to be deactivated, which did not happen for me.
Funnily enough, it is only visible when looking straight ahead in the cockpit, so most of the mission actually works out fine, because there is a lot of work being done on the CNI-MU, but whenever I try to look out the windscreen the whole screen turns black again.
Not sure if this is just a random glitch happening singularly here or an issue with the mission script.
-
6 minutes ago, Indianajon said:
Thanks @QuiGon, I tried that but no joy? I have been creating waypoints in the custom data page. I assumed it was left LSK1 but no joy. LSK2 works fine for MGRS.
As an example if I has 12°34'56"N by 78°90'12E would it be N1234.56E7890.12 or would it be N1234.56E07890.12?
I have tried both on the custom data page but it won't accept either. I'm sure it's me that's the issue. Just can't work out the mistake?
The second option there at least is the format the map cursor produces, so I'd assume you should be able to type it in as well. I'll try it out when I can.
-
That would be very much appreciated indeed. And that is a rock fact!
Relatedly it wouldn't be bad if we could get those optional markers for more maps. Real life installation locations, general points of interest. It's some work for the map designers, but really, I feel that it would also help because it would steer more players towards points they have spent a lot of time on.
-
2
-
-
Have had the chance to try it out at last and I do agree it is a very nice module so far.
-
2
-
-
I don't get the mild outrage here.
The system that changes the range does indeed work quite well, and it is specifically useful for the majority of players who do not have a physical detent to work with.
It is optional to allow people who have a throttle to prevent this 'rescaling' so their physical throttle lever corresponds to the setting properly.-
3
-
Cargo mass only adds the containers empty mass, any content inside has zero mass
在 normhl33@gmail.com
发布于
Seeing how none of the core cargos have been prepared for the C-130 in any way shape or form by ED, I'd assume that its unit weight is supposed to portray a full container. It's really all a core question ED needs to look into.