TLTeo
-
Posts
2525 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by TLTeo
-
-
That means Heatblur have already found a fix and sent it to ED, but it hasn't been patched on the the public release yet (source: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3541674&postcount=10)
You should definitely not go for a refund over this issue.
-
It's already been fixed internally, no need to freak out like that. Bugs happen all the time when people work with big complicated codes and have to integrate them together.
-
So from your experience, how long will it take until the finished fix is integrated into the game?
I finally want to be able to fly this wonderful bird properly ;)
Typically updates are released on Wednesday every two weeks (hence the two weeks meme). The next one should be next week.
-
It's been reported already and supposedly will be fixed in the next update (https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=213213).
-
+1, it really worsens the game's graphics unfortunately :(
-
We will definately have some Top Gun easter eggs in there :D
On a sidenote, since I have seen that comment quite often, pls note that only a very very small portion of what you can hear will make the final cut.
We "brabble" a lot to immerse ourselves fully in the flight while we might be looking only to grab a few authentic "negatives" during one recording session. Often we record around 60 to 90 minutes, only to get those 5 to 10 mins of authentic callout parts that we are looking for. With this we aim on a maximum of realism and authenticity in a plethora of situations in which the players might find themselves during their flights in the F-14 Tomcat.
So when you hear some jibberish like "I don't got them" there is a very high chance this won't be in. However on the other hand this also creates sometimes interesting byproduct that we would not have thought off and then gets included as well. In this particular part where we dogfight, for example, we were only interested in "negative" and variations of that (and that's just a very small cut of the entire recording session). :smilewink:
Thank you all for your amazing feedback! And most of all, thank you to Grayson for his amazing work!
S!
Please keep the "I'm going to throw up!" line! It's certainly more amusing than bitchin' Betty yelling OVER-G OVER-G
-
The Harrier's powerful Pegasus has it still holding the time-to-climb record up to I think it was between 10-15,000 ft from ground level, it out-climbs the F-15 up to that point, after which the F-15 beats it to somewhere around 51,000 or more.
Yea I don't think the climb is completely wrong. By definition of VTOL a clean Harrier needs a thrust:weight ratio larger than one by a good bit. I don't know about the F15, but there are stories circulating around of Harriers easily outclimbing F104s, so what you showed doesn't seem to be completely insane to be honest.
-
Your attention to detail is amazing, I'm so hyped!
-
Is anyone else having trouble with communicating with the ATC (as in, they do not respond at all despite being on channel 4 as standard)? I'm currently on the (I think) 7th or 8th mission, it wasn't a problem so far but for this particular one I had to activate easy communication to get anything done :(
-
-
-
Jet AI FMs are generally pretty accurate in terms of overall performance (there are only a few deviations: They can sustain negative G that would flame out the engine, and have unrealistic control at very low speed) but the AI cheats in other ways. They aren't omniscient while cruising around, and if you sneak up in their blind spot you can get a shot off without the AI reacting. Once they've spotted you, however, things are different. An AI that's aware of your presence is always also aware of your speed, altitude, angle of attack, throttle setting and aspect relative to its aircraft, even when you're so far away you should just be a little spec in the pilot's view. In fact the AI knows these values to a greater accuracy than your instruments will display to you, because the AI code is directly fed flight data from the sim.
Not all AIs are created equal in DCS, and some (e.g. the F-15) are surprisingly easy to beat in guns-only dogfights due to artificial stupidity. The F-5E AI is not one of these: it will always use the exact control inputs needed to get max performance out of the jet. Combined with its perfect awareness of your movements, getting the advantage over the F-5E AI guns-only without a superior aircraft is incredibly difficult. The F-5E AI also has a working understanding of ACM and will use a variety of maneuvers to get the advantage over you: Slow down rapidly and the AI will do a high yo-yo to re-position for another attack, and if you suck it into a scissors and force an overshoot the AI will attempt to escape using a low yo-yo followed by a loop or high yo-yo to re-position onto your six. It's also rather good at deflection shooting, even against 3D maneuvers like barrel rolls.
Equip both sides with missiles and the fight gets a bit more even because the AI isn't very good at denying missile shots (it prefers maximum kinetic performance over preventing you from firing on its aircraft) and tends to shoot its own missiles outside of their launch envelope (the F-5 AI will fire any time it gets tone, even if you're inside minimum range or crossing its nose too fast for the AIM-9 to track.) The AI skill level also plays into this: while skill setting doesn't seem to change how the AI flies, it will change how quickly it responds to incoming missiles. Average AIs may fail to respond at all, while Expert AIs react instantly to any missile threat by launching countermeasures and (sometimes) using an evasive maneuver.
Uh, ok. In my experience I always felt like the AI does stuff that seems questionable; for example in the F15 vs F5 aggressor mission in FC3 I always feel like the Tigers can keep up with me (in a clean Eagle) in a climb which just seems silly. Maybe I'm screwing up somewhere though.
-
Per wikipedia the Strike Eagle weights about ~10% more than an empty Eagle so it definitely won't turn as well; the engines may make up for it a bit but all in all I would expect it to be worse WVR. It's probably still pretty good when compared to many fighters though.
Out of curiosity, how recent is the harrier variant being modeled? You say that the NATOPS is vastly outdated when the most recent one available is from 2011 with the TACMANs from the early 2000s. So presumably what we're getting is more or less what's in service right now?My understanding of it is that the US Harrier IIs basically have three versions:
- the original day attack version, which entered service in the mid 80s
- the night attack version, which we have in-game, was an upgrade over the first one that started in the early 90s
- the Harrier Plus variant which is the most modern, comes with different sensors including radar, AMRAAM capability, and a bunch more stuff.
If the manual Prowler is mentioning refers to the day attack version it's definitely outdated compared to what is in DCS.
-
-
+1! The fact that a relatively obscure plane like the Viggen is so liked by pretty much anyone who's ever tried flying it in DCS really says a lot about the quality of the module.
Heatblur did such a good job on the Viggen that I decided to wait for the Tomcat rather than buy the Hornet actually.
-
They have separate teams working on the different modules, so past the Mig-19 there isn't a set schedule. Whoever finishes first, releases first.
-
I was simply trying to say that your argument of "large aircraft carrying heavy loads aren't ideal for SEAD" makes no sense when as you just said the vast majority of planes flying that mission are exactly that. The argument of "large plane with two crew members is too valuable and can't dodge missiles" has zero basis in reality.
-
EF.3? Could you elaborate?
A few British F.3s could launch ALARMs and were renamed EF.3.
-
Also, using the F-15E for SEAD does not make since. It is far more expensive than a F-16, so if you going to taunt some one to shoot at you, it does not make since to use a more expensive aircraft. Additionally, you risk two people instead of one. Lets face it, it is expensive to train Pilots and WSO, so it does not make since to put them both at risk when one pilot can do the job. Lastly, F-15E fully loaded is not the most agile thing out there. To me it does not make since to send a large and heavy aircraft to go dodge missile.
For the sake of being annoying and playing Devil's advocate: Tornado ECR (or EF.3 actually)
-
Ops my bad. I figured it would be ok since that link pops up out of google as the first result, no shady torrents or anything.
-
Specifically to DCS, remember that the AI uses a simpler flight model so it can't do things that shouldn't be physically possible.
In case you haven't read it, this has great info about dogfighting: http://falcon.blu3wolf.com/Docs/Fighter%20Combat-Tactics%20and%20Maneuvering.pdf
The part about similar 1v1, guns only ACM is probably the most relevant to your question, but the whole thing is a great read if you want to learn about air combat.
-
Apparently some things didn't make it in the last patch, so it should be included in the next one (hopefully!)
-
The 4th surprise is still under wraps
Seeing as your roadmap was already posted...Harrier campaign? ^_^
Also, I think a Flogger-B variant (say, a 23 BM or BN) is much more likely than a Mig-27 because it would be closer to the MLA we're getting. Either way it's a very interesting module though!
-
I agree about the community modules but those two do look good (I personally haven't seen any community module to the level of the 339, it may not be commercial level but it's definitely very very well done), and honestly if we were to obsess over variants we wouldn't be flying anything at all. The Warthong and Eagle versions are also off by ~10 years, and the Sabre we have served in Europe rather than Korea and pretty much never faced Mig15s, just to name two. The truth is we are never going to get picture-perfect historical accuracy in aircraft lineups, and that's fine because that's not the goal.
[FIXED] AJS-37 Viggen Crash to desktop
in Bugs and Problems
Posted
The post I linked is from a Heatblur dev. Doesn't get more official than that.
Seriously, you're way over reacting (and, no offense, but you're showing that you've never had to develop complex software before). Bugs happen all the time in every module (every piece of software that gets changed a lot really), are more or less unavoidable simply because coding stuff is hard and complicated, and yes, they are annoying, but at least when it comes to Heatblur they actually get tracked down and solved pretty quickly. This particular one literally couldn't possibly have been solved faster; in fact, the only reason it still hasn't been solved is that last Wednesday stable was brought to the same version of beta and therefore no additional changes were pushed.
In the meantime I suggest you relax and start reading the 375 pages worth of manual :P