Snappy
-
Posts
1052 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Snappy
-
-
14 minutes ago, DD_Friar said:
Perhaps its a case of "chicken and egg"? Without the tools to move things around what is the point of having things that can be moved around, now we are getting a tool to move things around perhaps that will bring us the things that need to be moved around...
No, we had tools to move things around before since a long while, Mi-8 is well capable of troop transport and logistics.
-
4
-
-
I don't get how ED can start selling pre-orders without even defining which the product entails. Even more so since they name a specific release date on the other hand.
I don't want to support this business practice and won't pre-order it.
-
12
-
-
Am certainly not buying it. DCS is missing a lot of logistics and troop transport functionality , that any of it exists at all is thanks to the hard work of independent contributors .
Also and even more importantly , ED now starting pre-order sales without even first publishing a feature list, leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. Just to be clear , you don’t even know what you will get for your hard-earned money.Certainly don’t want to support such business practices. I find it a very bad decision.
-
13
-
-
2 hours ago, Gary said:
Can anyone please confirm my understanding below?
If I recall correctly, when the Hawk development "broke" with another developer - I seem to recall ED saying they had changed some terms and conditions in relation to working with 3rd parties and that it was a requirement of said 3rd parties to effectively hand over the source code should the developer remove themselves from the DCS platform.
Did I dream that or is the above basically correct?
Obviously if it is true -and Razbam withdraw from the DCS platform maybe ED can continue with the Razbam modules development?
Razbam are in a relatively weak position I would argue if the above is correct.
There are several problems with this..
A) Even if Razbams really withdraws completely from DCS , ED may not have the entire strike eagle source code yet. Even if there were contractual requirements to hand over the code in case of withdrawal , Razbam could, at least hypothetically,for example be hot-headed and flat out refuse. Then ED would have to resort to legal measures and that could take a long while to sort out. I'm not saying Razbam would do this.
B)Even if ED got the code from the code from either Razbam directly or after sueing or whatever, ED would need to get familiar with that huge heap of code, before they could start to work on it. I assume this would also take longer, since the F15E is a quite complex aircraft/module.
C) Even after getting familiar with the code , the F-15E is as mentioned , complex and I really don't ED having the capacity or spare employees to take on an additional project of this size and complexity and bug-fix and further develop it. Just look at the glacial pace of developement on their own modules, ( most of them in EA and unfinished) , they seem continously overstretched and regularly bust their own timeline estimate by large margins. They have announced the next few EA modules in developement ( Mig-29,Chinook, 2 Maps, etc etc.). I really don't see them successfully updating and developing this , even if they took it on.
So no, I wouldn't say Razbam is in a weak position. Regardless of which side you wish to take , from a customer standpoint and PR standpoint, this has been very very bad for ED as well, not only Razbam
-
9
-
-
@IronMike why is 9Line now going on steam saying there will be no steam-preorders, after Heatblur stating here several times that a steam pre-order is coming?
https://steamcommunity.com/app/223750/discussions/0/7735567974674839609/t
Is it another ED miscommunication or is the steam pre-order suddenly cancelled?
-
2
-
-
Hi @Bunyap,
just decided to re-do the campaign. I noticed in Mission 03 that either the briefing doc info or the data cartridge is wrong.
The briefing says that Lincoln Co. Airport where you are supposed to fly to coming from B7 is your L1 site .
This is not correct when you load the data cartridge , the L1 waypoint is Nellis , as is L2.
I know there was a problem that L2 can't be pre-programmed as you mentioned in this older thread:
However, then please correct the preset L1 waypoint data to Lincoln Co , and update the briefing doc with the info that the player has to manually enter Nellis as new L1 after stopping in Lincoln before departing again.
Or the other way around, keep it as it is, but then please update the briefing to mention that players who wish to land in Lincoln, need to manually designate it as L1 via the REF LOLA reference number entry.
Because at the moment its confusing for quite players who take the time to read the briefing documents and want to stick to the route.
Regards,
Snappy
Edit: Just flew Mission 04, here everything is set up correctly L1 location in nav system is Lincoln Co. , as it is mentioned in the briefing package.
-
Could we kindly get an update on this? The automatic countermeasure release mode still is not working in conjunction with the ECM pods. So at the moment there is no automatic countermeasures release available at all.
Also, is the automatic countermeasure release function in conjunction with the basic integrated APP-27 RWR planned to be implemented ?
-
2
-
-
45 minutes ago, Machalot said:
The figures look correctly matched with the paragraphs to me. But the captions are swapped.
Sounds plausible, maybe it’s only the captions that should be swapped. I find it hard to tell by looking at two static pictures as a lot of image quality depends on gain settings with linear , which seems very dark on default gain.
But the upper picture has seemingly more terrain details, so likely you are right.
-
In the current latest version, after the big update, the U22/A pod doesn't seem to indicate correctly.
In mode A ( silent recording) the MOTVERK light should flash to indicate signal recording . This doesn't happen.The light stays out.
In mode B-E (active emitting) MOTVERK light should illuminate steadily (same as it does with older U22 pod) when the aircraft is illuminated from the front by radar and the pod is actively jamming. This doesn't happen. Instead the MOTVERK light now flashes in MODES B-E , when the pod is jamming.
I attached a short track and its related mission file which demonstrates both issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
2
-
1
-
-
Hi @TOViper,
noticed a small issue, on Page 113 of the current manual , the example images for the Linear and Logarithmic radar picture are swapped,
The logarithmic radar picture for is under the text for linear and also vice versa:
null
-
2
-
-
Do you use high or low-drag bombs? Which speed are you flying during/before the drop?
-
Hi,
I recently decided to refly the single mission "Hunting the Hunters" where you have to search&destroy the
frigate looking for the allied sub. However it seems not possible to give orders to my wingmen on this mission.
After taking off, I select special channel 1, press the comm menu button and tried various orders, but they don't reply orfollow my orders. Neither do they reply when trying the other special channels.
Does anybody have an idea or can test this?
Regards,
SnappyOn a side note, it seems communication behaviour in the single missions / instant action is a bit inconsistent, besides wingmen/flight being on special channel 1 usually.
But for example on "tank busting" mission , you can issue orders to your wingman while using the "interphone" comm menu ( and he will reply) , while in "beachhead interdiction" it seems you need to use the actual PTT of the FR22 to bring up the comm menu , issue orders and for the wingman to reply. If you do it via intercom on that mission , he wont answer, at least not to me.
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, DCAl1 said:
I am aware of the this as I acknowledged in my original post. However, Boeing themsleves have published videos of the F15 QA pulling insane manoeuvres and an EX video titled 9g turn. The EX is based on the QA or as I understand it, the QA is a cut down version of the EX. The 2 videos I linked to above are supposedly using public sources for their info, so that being the case, there's no indication here that any oif the information from those 2 videos is in any way leaked and not public. I wouldn't repeat it if I had any inkling it was "leaked". Obviously with any aircraft, public and actual performance figures are likeyl to differ in any event with the aircraft likely more capable that the publicly published figures. There does appear though to be enough public info here to enable a DCS model to be designed which should be an easy mod given 95% of the aircraft is exactly the same as the previous F15's.
Do you realise that a few videos (even if some originate from Boeing itself ) with OSINT data, plus some guesswork is not nearly enough to make a full fidelity module for DCS? Plus , as you mentioned yourself, it’s radar is highly advanced and therefore surely equally highly classified. Like it or not, but the radar is one of the elemental systems of a modern fighter jet, so if that can’t reasonably simulated , why bother with rest, even if there was enough data for the rest. Which I‘m sure there is not.
-
4
-
-
34 minutes ago, MYSE1234 said:
It is the camera position. Here's an image that show what the pilot would roughly see. One circle for each eye. IMO the current HUD is quite generous in what you see.
There will some small be changes though.
Hi Myse, ses, I read some more in that manual.Seems you are right. I stand corrected .
But maybe you can understand that I find it a bit confusing, their explanation of total field of view vs effective field of view:
If the pilot can only ever see a 9 degree cone of the HUD image with each eye, which is 18degrees total, minus some overlap between the two eyes , why even design the system to project so much more symbology off to each side in a total 30 degree FOV ,( so almost twice the actual effective FOV) , which is never seen with the eyes under normal circumstances?
Or I'm maybe misunderstanding something or it gets lost in the translation to english.
Anyway, thank you very much for your continued work on the Viggen in DCS! -
3 hours ago, VikingSail said:
We don't know the placement of the camera. It could be that the camera is placed directly behind the HUD and therefore you can see a lot more than where you would be able to see from a normal sitting position (i.e. leaning against the back of the seat).
But the argument from the PoV of the usability of a product still stands. We don't necessarily want everything to be 1:1 accurate. Because it is a game product. It is about making the general audience happy with the implementation of simulating on-board systems.
I do not think this is a camera position issue. Take a look at the real world AJS 37 manual DEL 1 KAP 1, Chapter 17, the HUD/CI section, has quite a few pictures of the HUD images , amongst others these:
You can see, in level or almost level (referring to pitch ) flight, all 4 5 degree pitch line value numbers are in the field of view.
It doesn't make sense to put pictures in the pilot manual that the pilot can only expect to see with his nose touching the HUD combiner glass.
They would use pictures that show the image as the pilots will actually see them from their normal head position looking at the HUD.
The manual can be found here , the pictures above is on pages 270& 271 (in a PDF viewer , not the manual page numbering):
-
21 hours ago, VikingSail said:
Yes. From a functionality point of view, the new HUD can make it impossible to read all the necessary symbology at the same time. At certain headings for example, you can't see either of the two bearings because they are too far outside of the HUD.
The old one worked better.
@MYSE1234 yes, there really seems to be something wrong with the lateral scaling or FOV of the new HUD, not only in VR , but in 2D also.
Take a look at this HUD picture from a real Viggen: (taken from this youtube video at 3:25.
null
nullnull
null
It easily shows the four 5 degree +-pitch value numbers at the upper&lower left/right corner all simulateanously in its field of view. There is even a little more viewing room on the left where "17" course value moves into view.
In DCS now after the big update , depending on viewpoint , you are lucky to get two (if any at all) of the 5 degree pitch marker values into view and then only on one side, usually none of them are within field of view:
Also in level flight, only the upper 5degree plus numbers are barely in view , while the lower ones are completely cut off:
So the HUD field of view seems to be too narrow in DCS or stretched laterally. These screens where taken in 2D, latest DCS version.
Kind Regards
Snappy
-
2
-
-
27 minutes ago, MYSE1234 said:
Soon. It's in progress.. What can be seen now anyway, some of the stuff are no longer visible due to it being fixed
Got it, thanks a lot for your quick reply!
-
6 hours ago, MYSE1234 said:
It's actually the switches on the ends of both of the panels in question. The left one is next to the KB switch, and the right one is on the same place but on the opposite side of the cockpit.
The imperial unit stuff was added by accident to the changelog,and was not meant to be there. Maybe in the future..
What about the rest of the items from the changelog that @Rudel_chw mentioned?
-
18 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:
IRL, all Tomcats are targets as soon as the wings move forward no matter the opponent.
It isn’t quite that way in DCS, which bodes well for the Phantom, IMO.Yawn , how much more of an incorrect blanket statement -overgeneralisation can you put out there?
Its simply not true, as shown by the ACEVAL/AIMVAL face off and other occasions where the light grey eagle drew the short straw..
And I don’t care which aircraft is supposedly objectively better, much depends on pilot skills anyway.
I just dislike factually wrong overgeneralisations.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:
There's no real need for a trainer outside of light attack stuff. If you lawndart, then you restart.
I second this. Trainers make no real sense in DCS or you have specific interest in that aircraft.
Unless you want to LARP a military pilot training programme .
Otherwise you can just skip to the aircraft you aim to fly afterwards.
The added complexity is probably offset by the additional work of having to relearn a lot of things if you transfer from a trainer aircraft.
The Mirage F1 BE being the only exception.
5 minutes ago, Exorcet said:I think the idea is more centered on a free to play multiseater, which could be a nice addition to DCS.
Though we have the free trial, so you can already coordinate with someone to multiseat for free. The new verification needed is annoying though.
Hm ok, but that’s not what OP wrote.He specifically talks about trainer aircraft and teaching.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, Mr_sukebe said:
As per the screenshot. The way that video flows is with the first 2/3rds being "this lot is on the overall plan, but with no dates", followed by the "coming in 2024" with the clips of Iraq and the Mig29a. That seems fairly explicit to me.
Well Iraq maybe, the rest not, according their discord.Seems more like the „beyond“ part.
-
1
-
-
On 1/3/2024 at 6:17 PM, Bremspropeller said:
Not observed is meant to mean "I didn't look for it".
There's a 40° heading-change in the 90° bank test.
Ah ok, got it! Thanks for your clarification!
-
23 minutes ago, Mr_sukebe said:
and interesting to note that they were the only modules that ED have committed to deliver in 2024, i.e. that the Corsairs, Intruder, Kiowa are not guaranteed for 2024.
Committed to deliver in 2024?! Where did you get that from? The Newsletter says , quote "Let’s take a brief look at the new aircraft under development in 2024"
Nowhere does it say these will be delivered in 2024.-
5
-
-
On 12/27/2023 at 11:33 PM, Bremspropeller said:
Just did a quick and dirty test on the Caucasus Take Off quick mission. Some data-points:
At 2500ft and ~310KIAS/ Mach 0.5, the aircraft will take about 15s from a 30° bank to 10° bank and another 30s to reach almost zero bank. Heading change not observed. (R bank)
At 3000ft and M0.6, starting at 30° she took 5s to get to 20°, another 10s (15 total) to 10° and didn't quite reach upright before the minute. Heading change not obsserved (L bank)
At 15.000ft and M0.8 (~400KIAS) at 90° bank, she took 8s to get back to 60°, rolled through 30° at about 18s and never reached less than 10° of bank before I had to jank her out of the dive that had developed. The nose went through about 40 degrees of heading change. (L bank)
Power = iso, same for all trims.
Interesting.With any significant bank angle I would have expected an observable heading change since the lift vector is now tilted to one side in the direction of roll and now has a sideways component, which is what normally produces heading changes.
DCS: CH-47F FAQ Discussion
in DCS: CH-47F
Posted · Edited by Snappy
This module feels very rushed to me.First the start of pre-sales without a feature list despite a planned release in 2 month.
Now it turns out that the logistics & support aspect that is the whole main purpose of this helicopter will not be available during EA but only at some undetermined future date.
If it wasn’t for user-made script solutions there would be close to zero to do with it transport-wise, except sling loading.
Really don’t like the direction ED is taking with this one.