跳转到帖子

Kang

Members
 查看个人空间  查看他们的动态

  • 帖子数

    2,495

  • 注册日期

  • 上次访问

 内容类型 

最新回复 发布由 Kang

    C-130J release date speculation

    在 DCS: C-130J

    发布于

    Coming home to these news...

    You've done it. You've really done it. You've released it all to hell! You absolute madmen. But please, @Someone, aren't you aware that this is not how DCS works at all? You can't release your module right when you said you would. Like, exactly in the launch window. That'll spoil the whole community!

    Thanks a lot, the download has started and I'm certain that I will enjoy it tremendously, drawing me right back into a proper DCS experience. Bask in the glory of having achieved this release and the prospect of probably getting paid for all the preorders soon, and steel those nerves for the lists of little things on Monday.

    • Like 2

    C-130J release date speculation

    在 DCS: C-130J

    发布于

    Okay, so here's the thing:

    I know that the plan was for it to release within November and things are being sliced a bit thin there now. I am also aware that it has probably shipped off to ED headquarters, the dingy apartment above that supermarket in Switzerland, already, but: I'm busy this weekend. At least on Friday night and Saturday morning. Could you do me a solid and, well, nudge it a week?

    2026 and Beyond Speculation (and Wishlist) Thread

    在 DCS 2.9

    发布于

    Sometimes I get the feeling that a few of you are speculating for the first time, or are we all so jaded nowadays?

    Here's my speculations:

    • Aerges Simulations fans rumours that the Mirage F1M variant will be released on or around Valentine's Day
    • Ugra Media finally owns up to the typos on some of their promotional material, admits that Urga Media is a completely different company and the similarity of company names is sheer coincidence, but it went alright so far
    • Deka announces their next project. It's called '???', a Chinese concept plane that got cancelled so early in its development phase (September 1980 to December 1980) that nobody ever even gave the project a name
    • In a surprise move Eagle Dynamics releases the Dynamic Campaign next summer. It is a separate module for each map you want to use it on and basically runs a bash script that pseudo-dynamically generates missions with the Quick Mission Generator while also drawing a lot of random arrows on a map. It's much applauded main feature ends up being that it automatically tallies up the budgetary loss caused by each sortie
    • Probably a lot of expected things, really. Maybe one or two of the developers who were set up with subforums and never bothered to post any updates on there make announcements that nobody outside of their small circle of discord friends sees. Maybe Miltech shows us the Bo-105 in motion. Maybe Heatblur releases the A-6 AI asset.
    • And of course: RAZBAM returns to DCS triumphantly, announcing that they were all silent for so long, pretending to be locked in legal battle, because they wanted to keep it secret that they were developing a B-47 Stratojet as a joint venture with ED as their new 'Golden Days of SAC' series, due for early access release on September 18th 2027
    • Like 6

    Problems on the forum

    在 Forum and Site Issues

    发布于

    I noticed this week that even reading the forums now requires a user login. Is there a reason for that?

    While it obviously isn't a huge deal, I found myself looking at the forums less now, as I would have once in a while otherwise in a quick break.

    Serious Question(Not Trolling): Why do so many users love the Syria map so much?

    在 Chit-Chat

    发布于

    I say it's decidedly more diverse than Persian Gulf is, that applies to airfield infrastructure, to built-up areas and very much to landscape. Persian Gulf is a well-done map really, but it struggles slightly from large swathes of its area just not being overly interesting IRL. Well, admittedly opinions might differ on that.

    At the end of the day I agree with you that I mostly find myself return to Caucasus, really. Might just be more my climate zone? It also runs the smoothest, I'd say, but buys this with comparable lack of actual landmarks.
    Concerning CW Germany, I really enjoy that, but maybe it is because of some performance issues I've had, I mostly end up enjoying flying around on it, and don't really have a lot of missions set there. I honestly can't tell you why otherwise. 

    • Like 2

    F-35C for Naval Aviation

    在 Wish List

    发布于

    6 hours ago, Gierasimov said:

    This is easy. Amount of $$$ from A version WILL determine if ED takes on C and B versions. I would think C makes the most sense to drive more SC module sales, but as always, ED knows better. 

     

    To be fair, I can see the reasoning there, and it shows ED learned something.

    Going for the 'all thrills' version people want first, certainly makes the more basic version afterwards a hard sell indeed.

    • Like 1

    NAVAL Modules someone ?

    在 DCS Core Wish List

    发布于

    4 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

    Let's see, and I think here, we are mixing up terms.... ED spoke of the "year of the naval focus"... and we all know he was referring to the Supercarrier module focused on carrier operations, not naval modules proper.

    Just a few examples of things that are missing from the SuperCarrier and that affect all AI...

    • There is still nothing related to "helicopter operations" nor the deck crew for takeoffs, landings, deck movements, etc. (I see it as imperative, especially when it is an aeronaval operations module. The fact that we still don't know anything about this is almost heresy).
    • The Naval Operations ATC is restricted to the aircraft carrier (and is very limited).
    • There are no Task Force formations (Main Group, AAW, ASW screens, Radar Pickets, etc.). Nor coordinated operations, many of which are essential for WW2.
    • You cannot add or detach forces from a Task Force. Nor can you have Task Forces acting in coordination.
    • You cannot define search sectors, threat axes or relative positions, nor can patrol sectors be defined on the maps. The same thing happens with aircraft, no CAPs over Task Forces or defining aerial search sectors (something also essential for WW2).
    • The aircraft carrier itself does not have differentiated radars or subsystems, the armament is weakened (cannons can engage air targets or have deprecated), and very important things are missing, such as the physics of a ship on the sea (we still have the same effects as in LOMAC), and, of course, no one has deigned to put electronic countermeasures, decoys (launchable, airborne, and towed), Chaff, and Flares. Something very essential.
    • The "unmasking batteries" maneuver.... no ship does it when attacked..
    • Let's not even talk about combat formations and tactics....

    This has already been discussed at length in several posts and has been left gathering dust... And we know that ED has limited resources, but it wouldn't be bad at all to finally have a naval "team" for both the AI and for physics and a real maritime engine (sonar, swell, weather, etc.). Creating modules requires hiring several engineers focused on this (the same as the terrestrial issue).

    You know how much I love the naval subject... (Harpoon V and derivatives), and I know that current technology is advancing tremendously and there are topics that are still restricted and secret, but the mode of operation is cataloged, and of course, there is enough open information about WW2 combat tactics, so it wouldn't be bad to see some progress, especially with the Pacific coming.

    Regarding modules, it's as Wags says, 15-20 years in the future at the very least... if ED moves in that direction and there are resources... 😞

    I didn't mean to insinuate that said 'year of focus' was expected to result in a full ship-based module really, rather I am in full agreement with you here that the AI naval assets are still sorely lacking in many regards.

    Frankly I don't see any chance for a naval module without a lot of other things getting solved first.

    • Like 1

    NAVAL Modules someone ?

    在 DCS Core Wish List

    发布于

    Just now, draconus said:

    You're not very fair here. There were a lot of ships added since then, most notably during additions of modules F/A-18C (SCs, Tico, Arleigh Burke), F-14 (Forrestal), AV-8B (Tarawa), South Atlantic (a dozen new ships!) or F4U (Essex) but there were also other ex. from Deka (Types 052B/C, 054C), CurrentHill (Project-22160) or ED (Ropucha) and I might have forgot some more.

    The Supercarriers were a paid-for module of its own, the Arleigh Burke is only (or was at least then) available to SC module owners, the Ticonderoga has been in DCS long before that, the Ropucha, I admit, I forgot although it is much more recent addition, and all of the others you mentioned got added by third parties.

    Maybe I am not being very fair just now, but I'll stand by my statement that the 'year of naval focus' was a major disappointment.

    NAVAL Modules someone ?

    在 DCS Core Wish List

    发布于

    On 11/13/2025 at 12:58 PM, Kappa-06MHR said:

    Is ED ever focus on naval ? I follow newsletter and developpment of DCS since 7 years and I never see ED focus on that aspect. They must, it's a very cool aspect, with a lot of new mission that change comparing to classical warfare. The best new I have seen the month is the remake of the Grisha by Currenthill (And I hope the Rezky Krivak II class will follow). I love making KH-25ML pass with buddylasing between Kamov on thoses ships.

    If memory serves me right they declared the 'year of naval focus' around the time the F-18C released, to make the Supercarrier thing more viable. That year of intensive focus produced the Handy Wind bulk carrier, so... not a whole lot.

    NAVAL Modules someone ?

    在 DCS Core Wish List

    发布于

    It sure is an interesting thought, but seeing the state of AI naval assets and how the 'year of naval focus' turned out, I wouldn't get my hopes up.

    Frankly, I think we will see both ASW from the air and probably flying boats implemented in modules before that.

    • Like 2

    A separate setting for water state

    在 Groove

    发布于

    16 hours ago, Mike_Romeo said:

    You do know that waves are created by wind right? They cant exist independently from each other. 

    If only there was a fairly long thread discussing this already. And if only anybody had linked that previously.

    • Like 2

    Virtual aviation museum

    在 Military and Aviation

    发布于

    I like the opening and I think this'll be very interesting.

    Little point of criticism, though: I'm sure you could get a bit more traction by putting the language selector a bit more prominently on the front page. Yes, people, there is the option for English, it is just a bit hidden in the menu on the top right.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

    Terms aero

    在 Chit-Chat

    发布于

    On 11/5/2025 at 5:43 PM, Silver_Dragon said:

    Welcome

    "Spike at 11 o´clock" & " mud spike" has Military Brevity code... That has standard NATO radio coms, and never need translate them. You need learn the code context.

    [...]
    check here for a help list about the BC:
    https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/es/files/3339186/

    I like that list, it can be added to your kneeboard and it has the common and important ones. You'll find there are a lot more, but they are rarely used in DCS. Also, do feel free to ask if you come across something more obscure!

×
×
  • 创建新的...