-
Posts
374 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Zius
-
I'd say that this is one main point. I have a couple of FBW modules (except the F16 and JF17). To me all of them feel boring. You are more of a systems manager than a pilot. It feels more like playing a game rather than actually flying an aircraft (strange sentence regarding a simulation, but there you go...). If you like learning systems, particularly radar, then go for it, otherwise, I'd actually recommend to have a look at the F5. Or any of the Russian non-FC3 planes. The drawback of the F14 is, to me, the multicrew aspect. I think that if you have someone who can fly as RIO or pilot, the F14 can be an absolutely amazing. But if you don't, I think you'll miss that. I don't have the F14 for that reason. I'll probably pick up both the F16 and the F14 at a sale sometime in the future but right now I can't justify $80 for a module which I think I'll hardly fly. In the end it's about what you want from it. I don't do multiplayer so "being the best" or "flying the best aircraft" is meaningless to me. I want to feel like I'm actually flying / piloting. To me that means non-FBW and (mostly) analog cockpit. The aircraft that "do it" for me are actually the Albatros, the MiG-15 and the Viggen... But if you prefer Imperial gauges and want to learn basic radar skills / more complex avionics than 1950's level, then the F5 is a good choice. Or the Viggen (metric cockpit) for A2G.
-
Instant purchase! Seriously. And we already have an appropriate map, with more to follow.
-
Except in the Viggen. ;) With regards to the JF-17, how much is known about that radar, publicly? P.S. great post Bies, I enjoyed reading that! :thumbup:
-
I really, really, really hope either MiG-29A or Su-27A. And I really don't see the problem with either, as long as they are early variants, which are already widely available, even in the civil aviation world. Other "eagerly awaited aircraft" could be Tornado or Apache, but the multi-crew spoils it for me a bit to be honest. I imagine it can be awesome if you have a good partner, but I'm just not in the position at the moment. The F-15C could be it, but I doubt it due to Razbam doing the F-15E. Also personally I find the F-15 a bit boring, given what we have already.
-
I really, really, really hope either MiG-29A or Su-27A. And I really don't see the problem with either, as long as they are early variants, which are already widely available, even in the civil aviation world. Other "eagerly awaited aircraft" could be Tornado or Apache, but the multi-crew spoils it for me a bit to be honest. I imagine it can be awesome if you have a good partner, but I'm just not in the position at the moment. The F-15C could be it, but I doubt it due to Razbam doing the F-15E. Also personally I find the F-15 a bit boring, given what we have already.
-
IRL, the appearance of the horizon does depend on atmospheric conditions. The first can happen when the sky is absolutely clear and the visibility is great. Attached two photo's made at sea. Neither is taken in 100% visibility conditions but the difference is clear. The third photo, with the other ship, is also interesting. The visibility is very good, but the horizon is fuzzy. I think it is also partially an effect of the camera (DSLR but quite old one), it was taken in November so heatblur is not likely. ;)
-
it's not a fighter jet it's not a helicopter---IS A ?????
Zius replied to Xilon_x's topic in DCS Core Wish List
This I agree with 100% :thumbup: Why not both? And every rifle with a caliber bigger than 0.22LR -
it's not a fighter jet it's not a helicopter---IS A ?????
Zius replied to Xilon_x's topic in DCS Core Wish List
Looks cute, but it must be difficult to keep a serious expression while riding in a parade in one... :lol: -
Great idea! Instant buy for me! :thumbup:
-
Except that commercial equipment must be type approved, and is therefore expensive. Most owners won't bother installing new equipment unless there is a very good reason / obligation.
-
Yeah, introducing a different version as a separate module is something else. But I imagine there is also a lot cannibalisation. Say you want a Focke-Wulf now. Then what do you buy? Dora or Anton? Buying both seems overkill to me. If you do want two German warbirds, then get one FW and the Messerschmidt. Unless you really don't know what to do with your money anymore...
-
Yes, but those systems are rarely used commercially. The vast majority of commercial shipping for instance, uses only GPS. Theoretically they could still use the sextant but I fear that knowledge is decreasing by the minute. Some commercial vessels have Glonass but it's a distinct minority. Galileo is hardly used at all I think.
-
This seems to be ED's strategy now but I disagree with it. If I buy a module for a good amount of money, I expect to get the best possible simulation of that particular aircraft. If the version nr. at the time of my purchase was not the best possible simulation, then ED should provide upgrades / bug fixes free of charge because I paid for the best possible simulation of that particular aircraft. We'll see how much money ED want to charge existing owners for such an update, but in general I find it poor business practice.
-
Seeing who is around from the old day of LOMAC
Zius replied to BigOworm4u's topic in New User Briefing Room
I still remember how happy I was with Flanker (1)... In terms of flying and systems, it was a huge upgrade from Falcon 3.0. But the dynamic campaigns and "game play" value of Falcon 3.0 remains unmatched, in my opinion. It was not perfect, but pretty close! -
Welcome to the forums! One advice: take it a bit easy with the amount of modules first. Some knowledge transfers well between certain aircraft (especially from the same country) but there are also differences. If you switch around too much, you risk getting confused between aircraft. At least, that's what happens to me... I'd advise to first choose between American / Russian (or European, which are a bit in-between, depending on the aircraft), and first get the appropriate trainer aircraft (either C101 (west) or Albatros (east)). There is a reason why real pilots start with trainers, and besides, they are great fun to fly in DCS.
-
It's an interesting topic for sure. Given the commercial importance of GPS, I doubt that the US would turn off the system, even locally, in any situation other than all-out total war. As opposed to the limited conflicts we have seen the past 75 years. I suppose that, in these limited conflicts, Redfor can still use GPS...
-
Budget - Mid Range GPU Selection
Zius replied to chrisgrind's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
Yesterday I ordered a 1660 super. I think it has a good price/performance ratio. Considering I used to have a Radeon R9 270, which also worked reasonably ok for DCS (not great but ok), it's a significant upgrade. I'll post something once I get it. -
I would say: get something completely different. DCS has a lot of things to offer. If you are fed up with flying combat missions, then get an older, more basic aircraft and just practice e.g. VFR / IFR navigation. I really recommend the Albatros. It's very different from what you already own. It's a very versatile aircraft and a lot of fun to just fly.
-
Does ED ever consider incorporating user made mods into the core game?
Zius replied to MobiSev's topic in DCS Core Wish List
This is the problem I think. "Everybody" with some knowledge about 3D modelling or coding can make a mod. That doesn't mean it is an accurate approximation to the real thing to DCS standards, or not causing conflicts within the game. But checking the above is a lot of work, and some of that work has to be repeated for each major update. And, although it may make DCS "better", ED's business model is selling modules. These mods are free, so ED would be doing all the quality control work for zero income. On the other hand a "better" DCS could sell more modules, but it's questionable and apparently ED thinks it's not worth it otherwise they would have done it already. Also, compare how much time several 3rd party modules spend between "submitted to ED" and "early access". This can be several months at least. For a single module! What I would support is cherry picking. There are e.g. some AI planes available as mod, which are very welcome for some historical missions. E.g. the B-29. I think ED should include a B-29 somehow, and if they can save time and money by taking an available mod and upgrading that to their standards, then I think it's a great idea. -
Wishlist for Iconic planes and planes are perfect enemy for module we have
Zius replied to J-20's topic in DCS Core Wish List
While I think both (but especially the MiG-29A) are sorely missed, as well as should be fine to model based on the widely available information, I think those are not the topic of this thread. Topic of the thread are iconic / classic planes. I voted for: - MiG-17: Very widely used aircraft and used for an extremely long time, making it useful for a wide range of scenario's - Mirage IIIE: The same - F-5A: The same Coincidentally, I also think those planes can be a lot of fun to fly. The other aircraft were not that widely used, not for that long of a period. I'm doubting about the F-104, but didn't vote for it because I think it would not be that much fun to fly. I'd still probably buy it if it became available. The other three, instant buys for me. The MiG-21PFM is, I think, not that different from the bis. I think the bis was a better choice to model. If one were to develop another MiG-21, I'd vote for the Chengdu J-7. But which version?? -
I found my Flanker CD a while back... I have to say that I do miss the time when you'd get a nice printed manual, charts, keyboard lay-outs etc. with the game...
-
(Cough) (various swearwords) (Cough) Actually the situation is back to normal now... Thanks for the tip! I could not imagine I made such a stupid mistake but apparently I did it anyway... :thumbup:
-
The first error is: 2019-10-24 20:26:13.662 ERROR DX11BACKEND: DX device removed. Reason: 0x887A0020 Seems to be related to graphics card driver problem. I just downloaded new drivers from AMD. DCS loading screens seem to be a bit faster than before, but now DCS just plain crashes when loading the mission (final stage before entering the cockpit).
-
Thanks. Log attached. Antivirus: Kaspersky Specs: Operating System Windows 10 Home 64-bit CPU Intel Core i5 4670K @ 3.40GHz 43 °C Haswell 22nm Technology RAM 8,00GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 665MHz (9-9-9-24) Motherboard Gigabyte Technology Co. Ltd. Z87M-D3H (SOCKET 0) 39 °C Graphics ASUS MX239 (1920x1080@59Hz) Intel HD Graphics 4600 (Gigabyte) 2048MB ATI AMD Radeon R9 200 Series (MSI) 45 °C CrossFire Disabled Storage 223GB Crucial_CT240M500SSD1 (SATA (SSD)) 3726GB Western Digital WDC WD40EZRZ-00WN9B0 (SATA ) 39 °C Optical Drives No optical disk drives detected Audio Realtek High Definition Audio
-
Due to circumstances, I hadn't started DCS for about a month. Now I had some free time, downloaded the last updates (open Beta) and started DCS. One month ago, I had all settings on "high" and got decent FPS. Sometimes, e.g. with a lot of AI aircraft it could stutter a bit but mostly it was pretty smooth. Now DCS just freezes when in the cockpit, then stays frozen for a couple of minutes and ends up with maybe 1 to 0.1 FPS. When I put all settings on "low" it becomes more or less playable again but is still slower than in the past, as well as looking much worse. I have already tried several things, like deleting the "fxo" and "metashader" folders, turning vsync on, etc, but no success so far...