Kang
最新回复 发布由 Kang
-
-
Oh, I'm perfectly fine with these obvious limitations. What keeps getting me is how they are too busy telling me about something they saw crossing the border into Angola to even let me know they are also seeing that enemy interceptor going straight for me. AI is not exactly DCS' strong suite, and AWACS/GCI has so little sense of priorities that it wants to be in the race for top contender. I rank them about on par with the ATC when it alternates between 'cleared to land' and 'go around' for a minute straight.
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, Mapi said:
Who are we?
The People's Republic of China's all new forum account, obviously.
-
2
-
-
While I do not entirely disagree with the sentiment, I would like to remind everyone that BLUFOR and REDFOR are concepts that only live in head of your mission designer in question. I, personally, also enjoy certain scenarios that are reasonably inspired by the world I live in, but especially in multiplayer (the only place where 'balance' really means a thing) there is no rule against using the modules you want to use for the sides you want them on. The 'traditional' redfor folks have just been handed an all-new MiG-29. Long overdue, I'd say, but it's there. Use it for, like, twenty minutes, before insisting that you need something else.
Thus, what it boils down to rather quickly, is just your usual 'I would like to use this particular airframe' wish.
-
Could be interesting, but would require the whole EW side of things in DCS to at least have a simple modeling that is reasonably consistent throughout the world.
Not even talking about the whole multiplayer balance thoughts that I understand many people don't care about, but in any scenario such a concept would be wildly disappointing if it was only effective for a select few targets and others were completely immune.
-
6
-
-
The western-made clusters aren't really much better in being consistent in their performance. The sole exception are the 'smart sub-munition' ones (like CBU-97) that have always been deadly. A BLG-66 or a Mk20 are just in the same boat as the RBK-250.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Alpiinoo said:
Hello, I am currently stuck between Spitfire and Mosquito for sale. I like Mosquito, but I'm worried little bit about wihout AI Navigator. Moreover, the lack of any news about AI makes me worried about buying the plane. I think I'll just buy the spitfire now and wait for AI to arrive for the mosqutio.
I happen to have both of them and my personal verdict is that I enjoyed the Mosquito more, but that may be in part because I am generally a ground attack enjoyer and find that dogfighting in the Spitfire often trips over some DCS core problems.
1 hour ago, razo+r said:You can fly it perfectly fine without AI, but if you are not convinced, just trial it for the 2 weeks and decide after that.
Seriously, this.
Quite frankly, I think the Mosquito wouldn't even need a George-style fancy AI. Something akin to what ol' Belsimtek did for the Huey would probably suffice. The option to have a 'pilot' keep it somewhat straight and level or maybe circle or at least hold attitude properly, while I work with the radios in the back. Skill issue? Maybe. But I find it awfully hard to do the entirety of the flying while also looking the exact other way and fiddling with the dials. It isn't even that doing a lot with the long range radio was always necessary, it just feels to me that they put a lot of work into modeling all that and then made it borderline impossible to use any of it.
-
4
-
-
Cluster bombs as a whole, in DCS, have an interesting tendency to alternate between 'completely useless' and 'ridiculously powerful' every few updates. Nobody knows why. This is not limited to the RBK-250.
-
1
-
-
Perhaps when that rework that has been hinted at several times over the years happens.
As for right now I figure it doesn't make a huge difference which language they use to tell me completely irrelevant stuff to ignore. Before somebody feels the need to ask, here my usual experience with the DCS AWACS in a busy mission:
AWACS: «Pop-up group of two, 90 miles, 330.»
AWACS: «Pop-up group, 150 miles, 025, hot.»
AWACS: «Bogey four ship, somewhere over Western Australia, flanking.»
AWACS: «Pop-up group, 75 miles, 347, cold.»
AWACS: «MERGED!»Yea, thanks a lot...
-
3
-
-
40 minutes ago, twistking said:
Not sure if joking or not, but since the release of those AAA guns, ED has released a lot of extremely high detail ground units; a lot of those being way less relevant for actual gameplay. Those man-hours should have been allocated to finishing what's already released. And this is a case where man-hours should be equivalent: I assume that modelling and animations are done by the same people. If ED had fulltime animators, we would not have that awkward situation in the first place...
As serious as BIGNEWY's 2022 implication that the crew has been missing for lack of time.
-
1
-
-
On 7/22/2022 at 2:26 PM, BIGNEWY said:
Its simple. We can release the models we have ready without crew, or we can wait for crew to be modelled.
If we wait and it takes time we get complaints.
If we release without crew we get complaints.
Can not win really
Being reminded of the thread thanks to the bump one can't help but acknowledge how releasing these without visible crew sure was the correct call, seeing how three years later they still would be in the making otherwise, evidently.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Vampyre said:
The CH-3 retained the water landing capabilities of the Sea King and, funnily enough, was more stable than the Sea King on the water due to the larger sponsons located further aft on the fuselage. I wouldn't say no to a CH-3E Jolly Green either, but I also don't expect ED to make one due to its relative obscurity and correspondingly perceived lower potential earnings from a CH-3 module.
Ah, yes, that's true. I guess I made that mistake seeing how the Jolly Green Giant wasn't exactly known for doing much of that. But the coast guard Pelican is indeed the same fuselage.
While I do like the Giant, I would agree that a 'proper' boat hull Sea King would be nicer to have. Not quite believing in it, though.-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Vampyre said:
Well, yes and no. They could get away with doing an SH-3G or UH-3H as they were utility versions of the H-3 Sea King which wouldn't need the ASW fit. Now, While I would buy it, I think most would want the fully ASW missionized SH-3H. That being the case, I doubt ED would bother developing it.
While I'm hoping for an AH-1F, It might be something like a UH-1N or CH-46E and that would also be good.
At that point it would make more sense to go with the CH-3 Jolly Green Giant really. It would also avoid the whole float/water landing problem.
-
6 hours ago, Ornithopter said:
I think I'll be dissapointed if the mystery helicopter is some modern year 2000 plus model of anything We have a beautiful map of West and East Germany with Volkswagen Beetles and Busses and I want a copter to match the David Bowie era, not the smartphone era.
Standby for disappointment
-
2
-
-
Bit disappointed in what came out of that event, to be honest, but the good news is: with videos like that, the hype is going up again!
-
1
-
-
On 9/11/2025 at 8:52 AM, drspankle said:
In what way?
To some extent, in the literal way of the nomenclature being chaotic down to the very files, but more broadly as well, in that DCS plays it very loose with any sort of standardisation for literally anything.
-
1
-
-
On 9/11/2025 at 6:49 AM, Donau Hans said:
Pic 3: showing why early Magic I seeker has similar performance like AIM-9B
I can't say I agree with that. Frankly, I still fail to see where that diagram even mentions the windows in any capacity. But alas, we can leave it at that.
-
I don't quite understand what any of those pictures really have to do with that. Could you perhaps elaborate that?
-
1
-
-
That certainly gave my hype a +1
-
1
-
-
On 9/9/2025 at 10:21 PM, Czar said:
It is a very old feature. I meant, probably LOMAC old, that precedes our current image sharing services.
It might be, really, but I remember it gained some popularity (or maybe even re-introduction) not all that long ago. Definitely in the DCS 2.x era. It's just confusing all around.
-
1
-
-
I can relate to the wish, but I'm afraid the mish-mash of nomenclature is tied to the very core of what DCS is.
-
34 minutes ago, scommander2 said:
How about the combined arms?
I'm fairly sure that even if any sort of deity exists, they are perfectly puzzled as to what exactly Combined Arms is supposed to be.
58 minutes ago, dmatsch said:...For the forum topic: I wish that ED would release a "DCS 3.x", that has 2025 graphics capabilities, functional AI, functional FM, functional weapons, populated maps, updated legacy maps, improved ATC and Carrier ops, more static templates, fully-functional modules and maps BEFORE release, EA < 1yr, DCE, updated ME and scripting engine, involve (not alienate) UNPAID module builders, implement all the promised changes for the past 10 years, AND finally, reign in the
evangelistslong term members on the forums. All in one package.I would even pay for such a new and improved DCS -> but only when it hit v3.5.
You know, it's fun to dream sometimes. A lot of people throw the word 'functional' around easily here, you know.
But really, thanks for the laugh.-
2
-
-
23 hours ago, Qcumber said:
The big wing in flight. 15 spitfires and 6 hurricanes. The view watching them all take off was amazing. Unfortunately I did not video it!
What I remember vividly from my visit there, which has been years ago at this point, is that videos do not do it proper justice usually, and it is sometimes more worthwhile to just enjoy the moment.
-
3
-
-
There are a lot of interesting options, but frankly, I doubt they are going for the angle of mainly maritime use helicopters anytime soon, considering that it would definitely increase the pressure of implementing ASW as a whole new topic, as well as the need to expand/modernise watery assets. Remember the 'year of naval focus'.
-
1
-
-
Thank you for your insights and special thanks to Actium for having done the work to actually look into it. That answered my question. Yes, it does raise further questions, like... why? But lets not get carried away.
-
4
-
Don't forget to feed us ;-)
在 DCS: C-130J
发布于
I don't know. I certainly agree with the focus being on the actual aircraft and its systems being good, but I can't deny that little effects like that tend to go a long way. It's why a lot of the simulators of old seemed rather sterile, I feel, the way that the static cockpit and the world outside were so disconnected.