DefineHuman

So any shot of this being fixed soon?

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/newsletters/newsletter16082019-4keq7jgs8tot49kabc0ijx567ubvt2pi.html They've been calling it "Combined Arms support" or "Combined Arms integration" as though it adds something to CA as opposed to necessitating CA ownership for movement.

Lemme get this straight: you'll need CA, a $40 module, in order to simply move this $50 module around; it includes scale, lighting, aerodynamic, and ATC fixes that the current Stennis should have had, which it undoubtedly won't get now, and will possibly make owning this module a necessity for products by 3rd party devs who want to release carriers with similar features; it'll force large server owners to either use two carriers in order to avoid players who don't own the module having no boat ops (despite the additional units potentially compromising server stability), or just not use the carrier, lessening the value of this module for MP use; it's going into pre-purchase for early access before serious gameplay footage, or any kind of third party reviews, are released to players; the aforementioned lighting fixes are coming to an engine whose broader lighting fixes are a mere promise; its actual functionality is so sparse it comes down to a handful of animations, two mannable stations, and a ready room used for mission planning in a sim with no real mission planning infrastructure to date, from a developer whose track record outside the cockpit does not match that of their aircraft modules. Color me skeptical. The way I see it, I'm inevitably paying for this module. Not with money in exchange for the DLC, but sacrifice of functionality I want (like working ATC) in order never to touch whatever this is.

Very relieved to hear this. :thumbup:

Damn was I wrong. Apologies to bbzr, way off base pal. I don't know why I kept thinking "you're taking off faster at higher density altitudes even if the dials are in the same spot" instead of "the dials are IAS". I'll stick to my guns on negative lift though. Thanks for the explanations guys.

If we're listing off wishlist items, I'm kind of hoping the ANG relaxes its terms at some point and the A-10 gets similar weapons employment options as the F/A-18C. Would love to recreate some scenes from Level Zero Heroes, lol IAS changes with air density though. The higher you are, the faster you'll need to go for IAS to catch up. It is useful for an airframe because it standardizes performance points, but it's not fixed regardless of pressure altitude and temperature. That or the PHAK failed me. I'm not a pilot by any stretch of the imagination and I'd love to be corrected. If there's something I'm not seeing that you think I should, feel free to use a PM if you feel this conversation's out of place.

Going behind his back? I mentioned him by his username on a public forum, bud. I also don't know why me extricating myself from a frustrating discussion would matter. If you're a first-week student pilot, you know that IAS is not fixed across density altitudes. He got testy so I walked away. He's claiming to be a former ATP and it deserves a mention when he uses that to claim authority on good and bad pilots.

I feel I can be helpful here. This bbrz dude let slip in another thread that he does not believe that IAS is affected by altitude, nor that drag can affect thrust. This was after calling negative lift on the ground roll in certain tricycle gear airframes a made up, nonsense theory. Ditto for the idea that a wing generates less lift at high density altitudes, according to him that's untrue and engine performance is the ONLY affected factor. I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I'm doubtful he is who he claims to be.

Am I being trolled here? lol I'm relatively new on the forum so I dunno what this is. Just in case you're sincere, Also drag is a force that acts opposite to thrust. This is going to get frustrating for me so I'll stop here.

That's true for a plane like the TF-51. For the A-10, extending the roll past Vr certainly does create a 'sticking' effect. Look at the angle created by a wing's camber with weight on wheels. Compound it with a slight variation in height between the main and nose gear, a forward CoG, or with any kind of leading edge flaps, and an effect is created where the trailing air moves upwards prior to rotation. I'm assuming you're thinking of a ground roll in terms of a straight wing that's parallel to the ground, and therefore during the roll is moving air horizontally until capable of generating the elevator pressure to increase the AoA. That's not the case. you should reread my post lol. it starts off with "No I did not mean GS". Oh and as for the other stuff, you're speaking in part truths. High density altitudes do affect engine performance, but thrust isn't the only part of that problem. Stalls are governed by AoA, but there is a broader link between the elements I mentioned and AoA. Increasing pitch at low speed absolutely affects AoA and drag adversely affects thrust, like I don't know how you'd even attempt to argue the opposite.

Nah didn't mean GS. An example: in high density-altitudes airfoils require more speed (equating to a larger mass of air) to develop lift, extending the ground roll and requiring a high climb angle if there are obstacles past the runway. I think we're saying the same thing there. Rotation is really all about creating a positive AoA, it's why the front gear tends to feel 'glued' to the runway if the ground roll's unnecessarily extended, but if rotating before Vr the wing will stall and may even cause enough drag for the plane never to reach its climb speed. But takeoff speed is certainly not dependent only on gross weight, it will vary with those variables, and therefore rotation speed is also not only dependent on gross weight. If a headwind can shorten your ground roll, then is weight the only contributing factor? Ground roll, rotation, and climb speed are all linked. If you're interested, I recommend you check out Stick and Rudder by Wolfgang Langweische, it really helped explain AoA to me. Yeah I figured that out after I posted lol, I'll keep that post there since it discusses some unrelated misconceptions, even if my foot's slightly in my mouth at the end.

Not really how it works. 1) The speed you rotate at is not the one you take off with. It's usually about 10kts less than your take-off speed. 2) That speed is dependent on weight, density altitude, temperature, wind, etc and is not static across maps, missions, or loadouts. You can use a bunch of performance charts to figure out not only your rotation speed, but your climb out speed and roll distance. It'll provide you with a better idea of how 'things are done'. Finally, 3) It doesn't take it a while to get past 50 knots, that's just indicated airspeed catching up on the lack of flow given to the probe. Get the CDU to display your ground speed from taxi to roll and you'll see what I mean. Maybe if you provided us with the mission you can't take off on, or at least its weather data and your weapons/fuel weight, we can help you with specifics. In so far as controls being a possible issue, you can just hit Right Ctrl + Enter to see if brakes or the throttle are actually holding you back, but I kind of doubt it's not just an overweight hog.

If you mean a paid subscription that unlocks all modules, then fair. But making DCS as a whole subscription-based? nah, no thx. i'm not paying an extra monthly fee to use what i already own a license to.

This seems like guffawing to avoid addressing the point. It was not intended as an insult and I don't understand how you saw it as one. You told me that when ATC is fixed, it may extend to the carriers but it will not be as good as the Nimitz if it is. Why would core functionality be purposely made inferior? Imagine forcing hornet owners to pay extra for the ability to use afterburners. That is strongarming. It is not meant to be insulting. It's predatory targeting for anyone that bought a naval plane. Carrier ops are too niche to be a core functionality of the flagship module but also how dare you insult us by suggesting this isn't right? Come on dude.

Are they specific to a player that bought the F/A-18? ED's current flagship? I mentioned earlier that keeping all the other bells and whistles behind a paywall is fair. But specifically developing ATC with the intent of it being inferior to the Nimitz module to strongarm players into buying essential functionality is just not right.

That's very disheartening. Unless by scope you mean something other than ATC. As I said, all the new features like elevators or deck crew are understandably being sold in the new module, but ATC is so essential, and to say that it's going to be inferior unless you pay for an add-on whose features don't actually interest you is frustrating. It feels like the equivalent of making us pay for realistic weather. This is a flight sim.

So there just isn't going to be a fix for carrier ATC at all? I'm not interested in deck crew animations or elevators or player LSOs or whatever that aforementioned mission functionality is. Just on a base simulation level, the only people who'll have proper ATC are Nimitz owners? Is there no plan at all to extend working carrier ATC to the base game? We'll forever be using the broken one that was intended for airfields, which, I'm sorry, isn't even that good for airfields?

No tutorial is comprehensive enough in DCS. If you can run the cold start tutorial fine, that's the only one I find useful. Otherwise, the manual and YouTube are better teachers than the tutorials. Seriously, if you rely on tutorials, you're not gonna learn with much depth. There's a lot you'll be missing.

I really love this campaign, but I just finished mission three and if it weren't for my AI wingmen I don't think I would've. It's kinda nuts that a JTAC would mark a target using WP at night, no? I couldn't tell what was burning smoke or WP smoke, I couldn't even tell if there was smoke until I was within a mile and a half of the target area, and I ended up shooting one of the Pig HMMVs by accident. IMO a laser mark (whether for the TGP or NVGs), or at least MGRS coords, would've been much more effective. I don't see how type 3 control would be valid under that much darkness and precipitation and at danger close. There's a few bugs too involving AI wingmen not engaging assigned targets and choosing to RTB instead, or your ready to copy instruction not disappearing from the F10 menu even when you get another one (leaving you with up to 3 options that state 'ready to copy'). Still... my favorite campaign. Nothing else in DCS has come this close to feeling like CAS. The acting has a lot to do with that. Mad props, I hope you find the time to iron out some of the kinks.