Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. How do i feel at this point...
  2. Is this RuAF spec? https://newsbeezer.com/vietnameng/russian-pilot-bombed-syrian-rebels-with-us-gps/
  3. I agree with you in almost everything you said, I said all about the lack of realism about the scenarios just to demonstrate how absurd it is to make a drama about the date of manufacture of the module, or the realism in having nvg, when we have in DCS a lot of even more controversial situations. I have years designing missions in dcs, I know very well that it is necessary to bend reality a little from time to time. This is why I do not understand or justify the controversy with the implementation of nvg in the hind, nobody forces you to use it, it is optional, it can even be deactivated. We know that it is common for each country to implement its own modifications to these helicopters and experiment with new technologies, even if it wasn't designed for that, so it is not a break with reality to allow it, as long as you experience the problems that you should have in a cockpit not adapted for nvg, and YES, you will experience that. You need to turn of almost all the lights, lower the hud brightness and you'll be blinded every time you shoot something, but i think it is useful for navigation (specially at low altitude), and this is VERY important for any attack helicopter in modern scenarios. So people who like extreme realism can lock the NVGs in the editor and fight the Mujahideen in Afghanistan around the Burj Khalifa in the 80s.
  4. Speaking of realism, it's funny that some people worry about the helicopter's manufacturing date, but not the fact that they expect it to be used on missions in Afghanistan in the 80s, folks, we don't have an Afghanistan scenario in DCS, we also don't have a scenario from the 80s or 70s, you criticize the lack of realism in the implementation of the helicopter, and at the same time pretend to imagine that Dubai in 2010s is Afghanistan in the 80s, are you serious?. Most of the scenarios we have in DCS are from 2000s+, the oldest is Caucasus, which is based on the mid-90s, even the liveries of the mi-24 are contemporary!, people don't realize that the helicopter that we have in DCS is still flying today by some countries, almost exactly the same, with small modifications, we have to think about the Hind, as a vanilla version of what several countries fly today. I'm sorry but it's hard to take you seriously when you demand realism and pretend to fight the mujahideen over nevada casinos, if we really want realism, we must understand that DCS offers us possibilities between 90s-2010. (or WW2) This is the realism you want?
  5. I don't think that having night vision goggles on the helicopter is a big deal, first of all because it is optional and second because it seems to be practical, at least for low-level navigation, but not for combat operations. Keep in mind that the fact that the helicopter is a model produced since 1972 does not mean that you have to use it in a mission based on 1972. This helicopter is still flying today, with almost no modifications in some cases. Each country has made its own improvements, such as adding modern communication systems or GPS systems (just plugging it in some place), but it remains almost exactly the same. So being able to use any accessory from the modern world should not be seen as a crime or a challenge to reality, because it has been shown that despite not being designed for that, they can be used. I agree that it is unrealistic to have nvg in a mission set in the 70s or 80s, because that technology was not yet available and there is no precedent for that to happen, but we also do not have a scenario based on the 70s in DCS, so you decide. "Mi-24P (Hind-F) The gunship version, which replaced the 12.7mm machine-gun with a fixed side-mounted 30mm GSh-30-2K twin-barrel autocannon. Often fitted with night vision goggles for use in the Hunter-killer Role." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mil_Mi-24_variants
  6. Jammer was active, that makes any difference? R27-ER is suppoused to be a semi-active missile, it can't guide itself... right?
  7. It's magic? it's science? what is it?
  8. Actually, DCS has a pretty good ground environment for a simulator that focuses on air combat, of course there we have Combined Arms but (for now) that's is just a complement. We have A LOT of land and sea units of all kinds and detailed scenarios. Right now, with the mission editor, you can create almost any CAS scenario you want, for the A-10, the SU-25, Viggen, Mi-8, F-5, Huey, every aircraft in the game, even those who feel out of place in the sim. They have no GPS or TGP to find their target? no problem, you can trigger a smoke marker, a signal flare or drop an illumination bomb on the area, you know... how it is done in real life, also a briefing with useful information can be a great help. Sadly that is not what you will find in most of public multiplayer servers, most of the players just want to drop gbu to a bunch of tanks from 30.000ft or kill some migs. Of course there are multiplayer missions where you can find a more complete and varied experience (and more realistic) to enjoy that aircrafts that feel out of place, but most of them are private servers. A lot of people think that the Mi-24 don't worth the money and is out of place, same thing with the Viggen, F-5, Mig-21, Mi-8, etc, because most of popular public servers are deathmatch arenas with parking lots of tanks... Description: Typical gorund targets in multiplayer public servers. That is why a think that a multiplayer dynamic campaign (done by ED) where you can find realistic scenarios for the different types of aircrafts in DCS, is very important to help people that don't have a group of friends or is part of a private flight group and don't know how to use the editor to create their own missions, have a place where to try different modules in a multiplayer environment.
  9. This topic reminds me an important fact about DCS, we have different types o players with different ways to enjoy DCS. I could list 3 types of players: - (Type 1): Those who like the competition, that only play public multiplayer servers trying to get the highest score, destroying 16 tanks in a round or becoming "ace" in a single flight. (They usually fly only the most modern and "capable" aircrafts). - (Type 2): Those how enjoy the pleasures of a cold start, procedures, configuration, calibration, a good mission with a well done briefing, but hate the chaotic and unrealistic environment of multiplayer servers, being shot down just 5 mins after spending 20 mins preparing for takeoff, so they only play singleplayer. (They fly whatever the mission has or they want, because who cares? they play alone) - (Type 3): Those how know that the best way to fly DCS is having a human RIO or wingman or be part of an squadron, where communication, coordination and strategy are key to complete the mission, they use to play coop missions in private servers. (They fly everything, because the weaknesses of an aircraft are compensated by the strengths of the others) Depending of how you play DCS, you might think that an aircraft is very useful or totally useless. The Mi-24 can be a deadly and useful aircraft in a modern combat scenario with the right mission for that kind of aircraft, with a good intel/briefing and support. You are not supposed to send a Hind to the same mission with F-15/F-18/SU-27 deep inside enemy lines surrounded by powerful anti-air systems and enemy fighters, that is a fact in real live and should also be in a combat simulator, but all we know how most of the multiplayers servers are... I know that there are good designers who make an effort to make realistic and challenging multiplayer missions and campaigns that you can play in public servers but i think it is up to ED (they'r who have the tools) to offer a dynamic multiplayer campaign, well designed for most of modules we have in DCS, that's an opportunity to players type 1, 2 and 3 meet together some times.
  10. This please... Or this...
  • Create New...