Jump to content

Snappy

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1176

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Snappy

  1. Snappy
    Slightly OT, but why are they test-flying with a cluster ammunition dispenser weapon on the second to last picture? It looks like one to me, but Spain is also a signee of the convention on cluster ammunition . Or are they testing for potential export customers? Regards, Snappy
  2. Snappy
    Yes, I read it too, although I found their statement in it about the currently used AI SFM a bit bold , let me quote: “Although SFM produces accurate trajectory parameters such as turn rate, specific excess power, flight envelope..” yea right.. Let’s hope the new model is significantly more accurate.
  3. Snappy
    No, don’t get me wrong Arew, I understand your frustration and your position. But by now people should know how ED usually operates and that EDs definition of EA translates into long stretches of buggy(in certain areas) and incomplete product state, after they got your money. Still people seem to be willing to throw money at them, as soon as they market the next new shiny toy for pre-order & EA despite the track record. In an optimal market your expectations for the F-14 compatibility of the carrier would be reasonably valid, but again this EA, even more , it’s EDs version of EA. So you really shouldn’t be surprised, even this long after product launch. You bought into it with EA. You should expect to wait a bit longer I guess.
  4. Snappy
    Tracks or it didnt happen
  5. Snappy
    Well thats your opinion. Beside its kind of questionable to make any real distinction there, between bug and feature when it comes to EA . The F-16's earlier inaccurate flight model could then by your definition also be considered a bug, yet ED referred to the EA label and that it would be improved later on- which it was btw, later in EA. I would say Supercarrier compatability with anything else but EDs own F-18 is a missing feature and apparently not high on their priority list, otherwise they would ve implemented it by now. The current implementation is just a no frills bandaid patch- over so that ED can formally claim you can use the supercarrier with the F-14.So OP will likely have to wait until they get around to improve it. It's just the nature of EA.
  6. Snappy
    I know you’re not gonna like it,but it’s EA. Meaning it is incomplete and will likely take a long time to finish. As long as people keep giving ED money for largely incomplete modules and without a clear schedule or time frame for completion, nothing will change.
  7. Snappy
    The AI FM is only half of the problem, the other half is their „decision-making“ process, if you want to call it that. @b0bl00i‘s example seems to be more a problem with the latter than the former. I really wish this would get significantly improved. They still act very stupid and changing their FM won’t change it. One example: Shoot at them with guns in a tracking solution, they simply don’t react, they don’t jink, they don’t change plane of motion , they just keep flying in the same predictable previous flight path until the next burst unsurprisingly kills them. Don’t even get me started on the constant looping or the vertical zoom climb , which simply makes them a perfect target for heat-seekers against a cold background.
  8. Snappy
    Lookup tables as basis for FM are better than their image.Even commercial level D simulators use them. But they are only as good as the data they contain and there seem to be serious flaws in the data for the AI FM. Simplification would be one thing, with less data points across a range and extra/interpolation ,but looking at the way the AI flies there really seems to be wrong data in it, making them pull stuff they physically can’t.
  9. Snappy
    Lets not get into a discussion about the business model as this leads OT. Suffice to say, they need to churn out new modules to keep money coming in and due to the complexity of the average module, they have ever more EA modules to finish and (broken by updates) modules to de-bug, while at the same time the next new modules have to be produced and coded to bring in money . Plus they will soon run out of popular all-star aircraft that sell like hot cakes to the broad majority of customers . Not to mention the tech gap to bridge from the old core. You can easily project where this leads in the medium to long term. Personally, I dont see this working out. But if you want to discuss the business model, make new thread, or write in one of the existing ones about it. This one is about likes and dislikes.
  10. Snappy
    Simply take "like" and "dislike" if "love" & "hate" is too strong or loaded for your taste. Like: - Cool visuals, normally good systems & flight modelling, sandbox possibilities. These 4 points are awesome. Dislike: -AI. AI. AI. both in air and ground units, the simplified FM for AI too. The whole AI issue drags this entire sim down immensely in single player. -The long overdue core issues. -The way older modules are still marketed, but really not cared for and pile up bugs. -The various variants of the " I'll ask the team, if there is any progress, We willl let you know when we have something to report.Thanks " - statements by community mods, which basically mean nothing and could be dropped completely or would be better be substituted each time by a simple: "This is an unpleasant side effect of our business model, live with it or stop buying" -The way ,even accurate , objective and on-point criticism is treated on the forums. -The overblown marketing hyperbole at time, i.e. over-announcing time and again, big plans & features and then having problems actually delivering in the projected timeframe or at all. regards, Snappy
  11. Snappy
    Thank you very much for your clarification, regarding the „window“ related to wingspan and the inherent limited practical usability for gun fights. I understand it better now. Maybe a short paragraph about this limited usability in real life could be added to future manual editions, so people who are not familiar with gunsights don’t get unrealistic expectations. I appreciate your presence here and providing support! kind regards, Snappy
  12. Snappy
    No its not.It was implemented with the latest update.Check the update presentation on top of the forums. It has a picture.The predictif function does not immediately change the gunsight appearance.But if you are in range and position with enough lead for a shot you get a double square or triangle around the target on the HUD, to btiefly summarize. But the exact mechanism is still a bit vague , hence my questions. regards, Snappy
  13. Snappy
    It is at least up for discussion yes, but honestly, there should be a priority order and this sim has much much bigger problems than this and these should probably tackled first before adding on-top candy like that. Regards Snappy
  14. Snappy
    Hi , will the future manual versions get more information about this function? What exactly are the conditions for it to indicate the shoot cue correctly? Don't get me wrong. I know how to make it work and get the symbology to appear, but I mean this: Is the shoot cue only valid at 0kts closure between me and target ? Or also if there is positive/negative closure rate? Does changing the wingspan selection knob, change the predictif function's calcution,i.e. is it factored in? So far I'm getting mixed results from it.. It often seems to tell me to shoot and when do I hit nothing, and in reverse, when I shoot by my own estimate using the radar gunsight I get hits, but no shoot cue appeared. I am talking about tracking shots only of course, not snap shots. Kind regards, Snappy
  15. Snappy
    In your DCS settings, do you maybe have the "Global cockpit illumination" option set to OFF? If so, try ON. But in general, night vision flying seems to be less than optimal after the DCS lighting changes, it seems the MI-8 didnt get well adapted by ED . Regards, Snappy
  16. Snappy
    No absolutely not , I agree with you. However I‘m not sure this is going to make them change their MO.. Probably its more effective if they noticed a change in their customers buying behaviour. @WobblyFlops, hm yes, but honestly this overstretching is nothing new or recent. Even before the upgrade to A-10v2 was announced.But it’s not my problem if ED picked a questionable business model.They probably can keep going for a while but in the long run I think people will become saturated by it. That also goes for your point no.2 ED let the core game languish for a long time and now they have loads of issues that need improvement or fixing. As for for your Point 1, not sure what to make of it. Yes some people might actually like less systems , but again this is not what ED announced or advertises. regards, Snappy.
  17. Snappy
    By now, people should be aware of ED‘s standard operating procedure. They announce features/modules in a big way , but have huge problems in actually delivering and/or completing. Either accept it and keep buying into their marketing or make your own decision who gets your money.Not much more to say about it, unfortunately. Regards, Snappy
  18. Snappy
    Hi Enigma, thank you for your quick reply.Ok, understand, looking forward to other and more diverse Helicopter missions on the server then. Regards, Snappy
  19. Snappy
    I read the FAQ for the server. Do I understand it correctly that the only task for Helicopters for now is simply relegated to flying to the front and attacking ground targets there? Regards, Snappy
  20. Snappy
    @ElementLT, hi, just discovered this mission and gave it a go. Very nice idea & setup. However one question , flying the Mi-8 on troop insertion and CSAR, I often get homing frequencies like ADF 48.4 Mhz or 46.8Mhz. I'm probably having a brainfreeze moment, but on which radio exactly am I supposed to pick those up and home in on? Because the Mi-8 ADF works between 150 -1400Khz. The other 3 radios work on these bands: R-863 VHF/UHF 220 to 399.975 MHz YaDRO-1A HF 2 to 17.999 MHz R-828 LVHF 20 to 59.975 MHz Unless I'm wrong the only radio capable of tuning these is the R-828, which you CAN actually use for homing/navigation , however, as far as I know, in the DCS Mi-8 there is no way of manually tuning the frequencies for the R-828 , you can only select between the 10 preset channels, but you don't know which frequencies are behind them. They are preset in the mission editor and not visible to the pilot in the aircraft. Anyway I had a look at the presets in the mission editor and even those don't seem to match the frequencies I get assigned in briefings. So how am I supposed to navigate to my insertion or pick-up point in the Mi-8? Thanks in advance, Kind regards, Snappy
  21. Snappy
    Thank you for the Info. Better than nothing! And thank you very much for requesting changes to the ME capability in this regard! Snappy
  22. Snappy
    Hey thanks a lot! You re actually right! It was combination of two things: Because I first tried placing with the Mi-8 , which really does snap away to the nearest land base if you select "take off from ramp hot" or "take off from parking" , I thought it was always this issue, when the helicopter is suddenly moved off the ship helipad where I placed it. After @AG-51_Razor Razor mentioned the smaller helicopters I tried with them, but I had zoomed in too much in the top down / model viewer in order to place them exactly on the ships helipad. So I only saw them disappearing from my zoomed in view centered on the ships helipad and then I assumed, it's again the same thing as with the Mi-8, they're moved to land base. Now after your post I zoomed out a bit more and like you said, the helicopter snap to the center of the ship, but when you run the mission, they're really placed on the helipad. Cool, thanks for that! Unfortunately it was really the Mi-8 which I wanted to place for take off on thsese ships :// , so my problem still persists, but I learned something new about the mission editor, so its still a win :)) If you ever find out, how to work around that with the Hip, hit me up! ; ) Kind regards, Snappy
  23. Snappy
    No- It was a good idea and worth a try though. But thats not the problem. I tried, with both Huey and Gazelle, same problem. You just can't place player/client aircraft on these ships, despite them having a dedicated helicopter landing platform. : // . Hope this gets improved .
  24. Snappy
    Hi, is there any way to place player helicopters on the cargo ships or destroyers with a visible helicopter pad? I tried using "take off from parking hot" , but unlike on aircraft carriers, the helo doesn't snap to the pad, instead it repositions to the nearest parking on a land base, which is obviously not what I want. Regards, Snappy
  25. Snappy
    Did you find any solution or work-around to this? I just ran into the same problem, very frustrasting, especially since the cargo ships and some destroyers obviously have a dedicated helicopter landing position, so there really shouldn't be an issue to using the "take-off from parking hot" or similar option. But it doesn't seem to work. Regards, Snappy
×
×
  • Create New...