Jump to content

Snappy

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1176

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Snappy

  1. Snappy
    Well even better would’ve been to think that through in the first before going out and making big announcements about the oh-so-feature-rich public tracker that is coming. It’s not a healthy management style to flip flop back and forth and people lose trust in your public communication.Anyway it’s not coming so we can drop it.
  2. Snappy
    That tracker was cancelled by the same COO that announced it. For various reasons.Not very consistent behaviour I know.
  3. Snappy
    @IronMike, can you please add this to be bug tracker?Thank you very much. Kind regards, Snappy
  4. Snappy
    yes the acceleration chevrons are displayed on the HUD in the DCS Mirage. Edit: Kercheiz was faster Here is a pic from the manual showing them :
  5. Snappy
    Ah, thanks a lot for explaining ! It now makes a lot more sense to me . I was having the wrong idea, I previously thought that night vision goggles are used as a complete substitute for the naked human eye during night flying, i.e. for both, reading instruments inside & looking outside. Now I also understand why there is such a problem in flying non-specifically night vision compatible aircraft with goggles. Really thanks a lot @HarlikwinI learned something new! Have a nice weekend, Snappy
  6. Snappy
    Ok and if you dim your cockpit lights to a level so far down that you can't read instruments with the naked eye, inside the cockpit I mean ? Oh wait, or are you saying that in reality the Goggles are not used for reading the instruments at all and the instruments a read only by lookin down with the naked eyes , under the goggles and that the night vision goggles are only used for looking outside of the aircraft?
  7. Snappy
    yes, according to the Server FAQ , the F-86 is there. Check out the FAQ if you havent already, it gives a good overview of things: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1I-aD-s3zoEpV4gGu7QIrEdywkpklfT40te-mYlX3zk8/edit?usp=sharing Regards Snappy
  8. Snappy
    Well if you read the posts by the Kate Pederenko, she said it would incorporate public voting on issues/bugs. I.e. you likely would get the option to vote for A.I. improvements as a priority within the bug tracker and as you can imagine, you certainly wouldn't be alone with that wish to improve that specific area;)
  9. Snappy
    Could you explain in a few accessible sentences , why the concept of simply strapping on a NVG Device in your average helicopter and dimming down the cockpit overhead & instrument lighting to very low doesn't really work well in reality? You can skip the part about weapons employment, I can imagine the issues with that much better. Serious question and genuinely interested.I just don't have a lot of clue about NVG , except a very very basic understanding on how they work in principle. Kind regards, Snappy
  10. Snappy
    Yea, still would be nice if ED managed to fix this, if they can't fix the bugs on older modules it would be nice if they at least managed to fix the stuff they break later with their updates.
  11. Snappy
    Are you referring to their flight model or to their "decision making?" with regards to the change you noticed? For the latter (the "I" in AI) , I find them as stupid as ever. Droning around in big circles, only changing between horizontal and vertical circles.Also you can shoot tracers right past their canopy or wingtips and still they don't jink or change plane of motion. They just keep going on the same previous trajectory which just makes them easier to kill. As for the FM, I have yet to see an AI plane stall or not make a miraculous speedy recovery from low energy state. In my opininon they have a long long way to go before they get semi- realisitic or catch up to the unname-able competiton. However maybe we should argue in a seperate dedicated thread.The way ED forum management operates lately, especially in regards to criticism , I expect see this thread being "sanitized" any day now, due to going "off-topic".
  12. Snappy
    No. Expect a long wait until you actually see it in game for the majority of aircraft.
  13. Snappy
    Of course you can ask, however people have already asked for that for years , as well as for better AI decision-making.ED announced a new more precise FM for AI called GFM a while ago. However at the speed that things usually get developed, realistically expect to wait another few years before it’s really implemented widely.
  14. Snappy
    At what times are most of your flights / trainings usually taking place? Kind regards, Snappy
  15. Snappy
    You can wait for Enigmas official reply, but I 'm very sure, it is way too modern for the era simulated on the server. It brings capabilities far beyond what was available in the cold war of that time.Yes , Harriers already flew during the cold war's later phases , but they were very different from the variant we have in DCS and no amount of restricting loadouts is going to negate in inherent advantages in avionics tech of that new version.
  16. Snappy
    Why is this moved to wishlist? This is not a wish, this is something announced by ED's own COO. Very convenient to just move this into wishlist ..well done.
  17. Snappy
    Ok thanks for answering. I don't think this is a deliberate ploy by ED to generate more sales for future cold war modules, especially since of all those cold war modules currently in developement right now, only one is possibly done by ED themselves and even that is not confirmed at all. So they'd only get a minor cut indirectly , from the sales of the 3rd party modules that are coming. While I dont necessarily agree with you on the issue of the actual limit imposed on the F-5, I do agree it would be much much better if ED developed a consistent approach to overstress damage and applied that to all modules / i.e. mandated the same from 3rd party developers. Right now it seems there are huge variations in that. I think unfortunately this whole thing is just another sympton of ED being overloaded way beyond their capabilities which results in older modules not getting fixes at all or every once in a while a shoot-from-hip hotfix ,that then requires de-bugging which usually doesnt happen for a long while. Personally I just gave up on ED a while ago, the business model is just bad in the long run and likely not sustainable.
  18. Snappy
    On the latest beta the Viggen's HUD becomes close to invisible in bright weather conditions, even when not flying directly into the sun. Please fix this and increase contrast to the scene behind the projector glass. Examples(with HUD brightness already set on maximum) :
  19. Snappy
    Oh, ok ,thank you very much , didnt know that Mordants! Will have to try that next time.
  20. Snappy
    ED, can we kindly get an information update on where you stand with the public bug tracker that Kate Pederenko announced two years ago on hoggit? I'm sure it would be welcomed by the community. Thank you! Regards, Snappy
  21. Snappy
    Thank you for the explanation! Nevertheless I still consider this quite a bug and immersion-breaking. Less details and lower texture resolution (for better performance) would be totally fine for me for the cockpit view , but not large gaps and missing essential structure like wheels and tailboom. Even with „just“ trackIR it’s annoying. kind regards, Snappy
  22. Snappy
    When you use the "cargo view" function to look out of the pilot's or copilot's side window, there are huge errors in the 3D model when you look at your own hull. The main wheels are missing completely, the tailrotor boom is not connected/missing structure and the main engine/rotor connection is missing cowling/external skin. It the same on own sides, the view from the copilot side isn't better. This is quite immersion-breaking , kindly fix this. See attached pic , with problems marked in red:
  23. Snappy
    Yes definitely , at least to me it does look very very slow for that type of loadout. It is painful to watch lol, especially since you insisted on a dry takeoff without AB. No, but seriously , I think for that loadout it takes a really really long time to accelerate even to just around 600kph. Personally I used 1 or 2 zones of AB for takeoff and then cut it out after gear retraction but then I get the same crawling slow acceleration as in your track.
  24. Snappy
    Thanks, but I like to preserve the original colors of the HUD though and would prefer and official solution for this. But thank you !
  25. Snappy
    At sea level ( well 50ft above it ) and 20C ,so not really not much of a environmental challenge. No significant wind either.
×
×
  • Create New...