notproplayer3

Thanks for the technique, I'll try that too! Interesting, thanks for the info ! Will keep that in mind. In any case I managed to get back to mission 12 by modifying the loogbook Lua file so all is fine.

Sorry for the late reply and thanks for you response, I was using similar strategies when fighting those su27's but still no luck. The su27's just shoot too fast and their r73 are just too good and flaring doesn't help at all. Did you also have problems with the r73's always hitting you or that fight seeming very hard? Perhaps I am a very bad pilot but I feel as if the AI is really too good compared to the rest of the missions in this campaign. Edit: tried 8 more times, I found it literally impossible for me to kill the four. Second edit: I quit the mission to see if relaunching it will fix the problem but it put me back to mission 11, this is going to leave a bad after taste... Third edit: fuck, I quit mission 11 and now I'm in mission 10, what is wrong with campaigns ? Is it rising squall or DCS ? Can I change a file to put myself back at mission 12 ?

Like I said above, when the dynamic campaign is going to be added, nukes would add a lot of strategy and new planning since if the enemy has nukes, you are compelled to attack him as fast as you can for example but if you've got the nuke you've got the upperhand. Nukes could wipeout a big chunk of enemy forces at once (such as an entire airbase). Yes, right now nukes aren't that useful (well, I played a lot of missions with the mig21 and nukes), but in the future the could really take the role of deterrent or tide changer in a dynamic campaign. Only the future is going to tell if my predictions are going to come true. Pure gameplay wise, nukes are different to employ than normal bombs plus they've got different system procedures. Toss bombing in the mig21 can indeed be quite the challenge.

I don't understand how you are supposed to survive after the guy tells you: "sorry man we didn't want to do this either" "go to hell !" and you are instructed to survive. If I try to turn around to the east, I simply always get hit by their missiles (they have excellent AI ?). If I try to engage the 4 planes, one of them is bound to hit me with it's HOBS r73. At this point it seems literally impossible to survive, the su27's are just too good.

Everyone's preferences I guess, though when dynamic campaigns are added, if you've got one nuke, you could use it to destroy a whole airbase at once. Only time will tell if nukes will become more viable in the future DCS battlefield, I can only only speculate atm...

Absolutely right ! I still hope they get a rework some day.

What ? I hope you are not using the current rn28/24 as examples of "breaking the game" because while the effects may be lacking, in no way do they lag my single player game. So I indeed still do not understand ''they crash the game'' as I'm not experiencing ''the game not functioning properly when you do this''. In any case, I do not believe that the simple idea of simulating a nuke explosion is something that is impossible to achieve with today's hardware or even software like you make it seem to be. I've coded multiple 2d and just recently started doing 3d games as a hobby on unity and I've had to be as creative as I could in regards to making some aspect of those games have much better performance. I've got no basis nor knowledge of the DCS engine but I still think that making a huge nuke explode with some cool effects is something that could totally be very playable if the right tricks are used when coding. Performance aside as I'm sure coding a playable and well made nuke explosion while it is possible, remains something that could be quite hard to do. Why do I want nukes in DCS: they truly add a new aspect of DCS warfare, myself I've played lots of missions using nukes on the mig21 as they are very challenging to use but still very fun, this is my opinion. But in the future, I really do think that nukes could add a lot more when dynamic campaigns are added. There could be endless scenarios where nukes really turn the tide of war for you, suppose you've got the info that your foe has received one nuke at a certain airbase, you are very probably going to launch a quick strike mission at the expense of losing many planes. What if you've got one nuke ? Perhaps you could strike your enemy with a well planned attack and then play against a weakened army. The mission possibilities with user made dynamic campaigns would be endless, and the nuke could then really act like a deterrent unlike what it is right now. Yes, well ED's choice to not add them right now I guess, but you are right, there are more pressing issues. I just think that in the future, with dynamic campaigns, nukes would really be a lot better than what they are currently used for so I hope ED could reconsider.

Nukes in arma were a mod. Thank you but I do not want to hit alt f4 after I drop bombs: I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY "NUKE" = "GAME BROKEN" TO YOU. It's stupid to you but not to me since I believe lots of missions and scenarios could be made using the nuke (please don't call me stupid for thinking that). Avionics relative to nukes being classified is a very good point, again I would like to hear the official answer and not speculation.

I'd still prefer to hear ED's version of why they aren't considering to add nukes. It's a lot of work so what ? All of the weapons in DCS are a lot of work. Take for example air to air missiles, ED seems to have invested a lot of time and effort into their FM. Then you have jdams for example, with custom trajectories and such. I could go on about the work they put in the weapons so I'm sure that if ED really wanted to, they could add nukes (frankly I don't know anything about the game's engine and how it could handle the sheer calculations of a nuclear blast radius' damage so it perhaps could be technical like you said). Your opinion is that nukes aren't worth the work (which I can understand), but my opinion is that they are. The fact remains that the f15e (and perhaps the fa18 and f16) could carry nukes so if some aspects of the simulation of those planes aren't present, all I ask is to know the real reason why those weapons won't be added, what you said may very well be the case, I just want to hear it from ED themselves if possible.

I really hope heatblur makes the F-4A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I/J/K/L/M/N/O/P/Q/R/S/T/U/V/W/X/Y/Z module

I fly the huey with no rudder pedals and with no proper rudder axis since the Z axis on my t.16000M stick and the pedal on my TWCS throttle are broken. I actually use the wheel on the throttle for rudder. I use the DCS control indicator to help me recenter my controls. I can tell you that flying the huey is still very much a blast. Mainly because I got used to it but I feel as if my capacity to fly the huey isn't altered at all in my current setup. Yes, I believe from personal experience that you don't need rudder pedals at all to enjoy this helo or any helos in DCS currently.

Quite a hard question to answer, I have Raven one and Rising squall (currently on the forth mission of rising squall and finished Raven one). Can you AA refuel or land on a carrier ? If not I wouldn't advise you start with raven one. Rising squall is very easy systems wise and flying wise, yes you should start with this one I think. From what I heard the other campaigns are thriving to be more realistic. Raven one for example, from the top of my head you need to learn how to enter coordinates, use the TGP and LGB's, learn smart weapons (jdams, harms) and some other systems. Flying wise you need to know how to AA refuel (including night refuels) and how to land on carriers (including case III night landing). Very realistic campaign though. If you just want to fly fun missions with minimal loiter times, very little time reading briefings, and system knowledge, again, Rising squall should be the way to go.

T1600m hotas. The shit quality of both the twisty z axis on the stick and the pedals on the throttle made it so they are unusable because of the controls stuttering. I'm actually using the wheel on the throttle for rudder and I use the control indicator in DCS to see how much I have turned the rudder. It seemed impossible to use helos at first but now I have been flying like this for two months and honestly I'm sure I could fix it easily but I'm too lazy for these kind of things at the moment. I have gotten used to it and I feel like I fly no worse than before.

I guess there are purists who would want as realistic loadouts as possible and I must admit that in this case, I agree with them. The thing is that most exotic loadouts I know in dcs were actually tested and flown (there are pictures of them) Examples of that are the 6 aim54's on the f14 or the triple maverick rack on the f16. But I just can't seem to find any evidence that the triple gbu config has been tested on a f/a-18c. I still hope someone could mod these triple gbu's or other crazy, technically possible but never flown, loadouts. Would be fun toying with those around. I just don't think we should expect it being officially done by Ed.

Yes, I believe this issue has already been reported. It actually involves the cargo weighing nothing hence the excessive swinging. It's funny because it literally made me fail a "the memory of the hero campaign" mission. Pretty game breaking I admit.

+1 It would be amazing.

Of course on multiplayer people will want to fly the best planes if they don't want to get their asses kicked. In single player though people gonna chose what they like to fly since the scenarios are going to be adapted to the plane they fly. As someone said above me, the majority plays single player. What is this logic ? Pretty much half the military world has or used to have hinds as main attack helos. Apaches are the minority in comparison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-24#/media/File:Mil_Mi-24_operators.svg You may be thinking the hind or the ka50 are "uncool" and this is your opinion but try to understand other opinions too. The US ain't the only country in this world you know... there are actually people who like and want to fly russian built machines. You seem to be pretty biased as an anti russian as I believe what you say is blatantly wrong. This isn't even the debate of this thread yet you still take the chance to shit on russian equipment (quite ironic since you've got a mig21 in your pfp). North Vietnam won on the Americans with soviet equipment and especially with soviet built planes, sams, and AAA. The mig29 had a helmet mounted sight with high off boresight capability which the Americans didn't have. In any case I could go on about soviet military technology and how interesting it was but I don't believe this is the topic of this thread. How about we keep talking about why I want the BS3 and you saying how you don't want the BS3 ?

@ResonantCard1 It seems you are very vocal about your opinions and you are free to do as you wish but please don't state your opinion as if they are facts. 0 reason you say ? Zero reason to you perhaps but for me here are some reasons: The ka50 is a single seat aircraft which, depending on ED's implementation of the AI gunner may be an advantage gameplay and enjoyment wise over the apache. Secondly the ka50 is excellent in ground attack if you know how to operate it regardless of if the apache is better or not. As zhukov said above me, comparing both side to side doesn't really change a lot to the fact that both are capable in the ground attack role and it is largely irrelevant to suppose one will be fighting another. These two reasons are pretty superficial, yes, but I also believe people fly what they like to fly. It ain't solely about competitivity, both helos are different and different people are going to enjoy one more than the other. Why else would there be many types of older planes in DCS then ? If I apply your logic I could very well say that why is there a mirage 2000 when there is a f16 that is better at the air defense role ? Why is there a f14 when there is a f/a-18 that is easier to operate and has more capability ? People fly what they like to fly and it seems to me that you think nobody can like the ka50 when compared to the iconic ah64. I think you're very mistaken. I still love and will always love the ka50 regardless because I know what it can do and if there is something better like the ah64, I don't care, it doesn't make the ka50 less awesome in my eyes. This is why I strongly disagree with your point of view. I just want good simulations of aircraft I admire, the ka50 being of them (and don't get me started on the mig29a you fervently didn't want to have). This is what DCS is to me. Ohh, almost forgot to disclose that all of this is obviously my opinion just as what you said was yours (which I respect).

I will say that while I found the module to be top notch quality and the flight model seeming very realistic to me. At first I absolutely hated flying because I always got into vrs. That's why I spent an enormous amount of time with the huey instead. Then I picked the mi8 again when the hind announcements came in because I wanted to learn to fly this bird because I believe the hind would have been quite similar in terms of flying it. Yes, just like you I was scared that because I hated flying the MI8, I would also hate the hind. Well, let me tell you this. First I flew the mi8 like the huey, crashed a lot, then I took every thing about approach when landing a bit slower (I start to slow down on landing earlier than in the huey) and simply doing this made me feel as if I could control the helicopter exactly like I wanted it to. Right now it is my favorite helo to fly, even a bit more than the huey. Your thread is really interesting because I feel as if I had the same experience as you. So, even though, I am biased, I can tell you that the mi8 might very well grow on you just as it did on me.

I agree with you, plus it is nice already having those liveries you mentioned. Interesting stuff, thanks teaching me something new.

Cold war europe map would be very awesome in my opinion. I don't really know exactly where it would be located but in any case, the upcomming mig 29, mig 23 and mi24 modules would be perfect (without even mentioning the mig 19, mig 21, mi/8). The red side would almost be totally complete. For the blue side though, I admit it ain't perfect.

This is something I very much wish for too. ED has said nukes weren't something they wanted to add to DCS and I suspect it has to do with political or publicity reasons. In any case, the b61 seems to be pretty much a standard weapon for the f15e. On the same topic I heard f/a-18's and f16's could carry nukes (the f16c has a nuclear consent panel even). Can anyone specify if those planes we have in DCS could or even did carry atomic bombs ? I would love to see realistic nuclear scenarios in DCS.

Je pense qu'il faudrait aller voir sur le site DCS où t'as acheté FC3 et puis dans "profil" et dans la section "mes commandes" clique sur FC3 et il devrait y avoir un bouton qui affiche ton numéro de série.

If people are giving their opinions, I'm going to say that for me at least, training missions are absolutely essential even if there are basic and few of them. Nevertheless, hasn't ED got a policy where any module should come out with at least the bare minimum of training missions ?

forum problems aside, this thread presents an awesome idea. Yes Afghanistan would be awesome for everything and especially helos ! The Mi-8 and the upcomming apache and especially the hind would fit so perfectly. This is not even mentioning the planes we gonna get that would fit in.