Terrorban
-
Posts
414 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Terrorban
-
-
IRL, BRM is just a low cost guided weapon used at low threat enviroment and maybe good at smashing some terrorist camps & tents:D.
Anyway, the code is now under adjustment, we will see if it works better.
I genuinely do not care about what your opinion on the value of this weapon is or what you believe it is used for.
Just try to mention the change on the update log this time. Seems like you guys forget to mention quite a bit of negative performance change in update log until someone points it out here.
-
I just told people how it works at the moment and how to use it better for current settings.
If you prefer unguided rocket fired at 4.8NM fine, that's your choice.:)
And I've witness ED's weapon change constantly from Flanker2.5,LOMAC,LOFC,FC2,DCSW1.5,DCSW2.5, yes it has been 20 years, should I blame ED for "exaggerated performance" too?:D
Looks more like you guys are simply not experienced in weapon development on DCS. Reducing the range is one thing but making the rockets wobble this much is just bad coding configuration.
Keep playing with the code, you will eventually get lucky.
Also, I would "prefer" using BRM but it looks like DEKA are sticking with this change. Now I prefer F/A-18 since it has ground radar now.
None of the weapons are realistic in DCS but at least other developers makes sure they are effective in what they should be doing IRL.
At least these rockets spin. :D
-
Heh, Good to know that each time I return to this plane, it gets even more useless while other developers's jets get better. So ED was right, they did release the plane with exaggerated performance.
It is now a glorified stunt plane with nice airframe features and modeling but very poor combat effictiveness.
Very dissapointing how I see this thread full of Foxwxl constantly saying that it is Beam riding weapon and telling people to dart into the targets above Mach 1 speed for the rockets to work under 4.5nm. In his head this somehow makes sense in combat situation.
Bigger joke is that unguided rockets are more accurate at those ranges. Dont forget to balance those as well guys.
Let me know when DEKA are serious about simulating a combat fighter instead of constantly toying around with settings.
This thing changes drastically with each update same with DEKA's satements and opinions.
I used to love these developers.. I still love this jet so I might come back to it if it actually works in combat again. I am sure all weapons on this jet will now be balanced soon.
Not looking forward to their next module. :)
-
Why do i never see you asking for the downsides of more realistic tracking? Like AMRAAMs not tracking reliably when there are mountains in the backround. It doesnt seem like youre interested in a specific, most realistic set of down- and upgrades, but rather buffs and buffs until the missile is undefeatable.
This is generally an issue im seeing with these threads. People seem to want better performing missiles no matter what, and scientific evidence is usually hand-picked to feed the bias.
Im glad to see that ED, in these threads often represented by Chizh, is not falling for it unlike some 3rd party developers unfortunately. This doesnt mean ED does not have its own interests, the neglecting of russian equipment, from AI SAM systems to air to air missiles is absolutely ridiculous, but thats a different topic.
This is a very narrow sighted statement. There have been countless debates on weapons sometimes outperforming and overperforming. The most recent one I can think of was how the anti ship missiles were doing too much damage and were not being picked up by enemy ani missile system. That got fixed after many complaints.
Similar thing was happening with the glide bombs and people complained for it to be fixed.
Just because you chose not to look at those threads does not mean we have not been asking for balance for the sake of simulation.
Negative aspects of any weapons are well kept secrets. If you know of anything specific, please bring it forward.
Also what do you mean by "people"? You mean everyone including you? If you have an opinion, share it but dont clump everyone together in your narrow observation.
I have never seen much complaints once the appropriate evidence was provided to justify the change. This time it is not the case. ED has said many times that they allow the development of systems based on public available information from the source. This time anything that the manufactorer stated regarding these weapons publically is being taken as either military bias or simply not good enough.
Chizh has also been very vocal in Russian section. There will always be bias from everyone based on their political opinions. We are just trying to look past that and get some believeable performance based on what we hear and read outside of DCS.
In the end even DCS does not simulate everything properly, it is very bare bone sandbox game. The jets may feel right but the world they fly in has so many missing aspects.
-
Is ED going to fix the issues with SD-10 now after they have forced changes on it which broke other aspect of the missile? I know they read this forum and are aware that the missile needs fine tuning again. Please, do not just make one big change and call it a day.
I understand that ED talks alot about transparency but they cannot just make a massive change like this before communicating with people who are actually paying for these modules.
Announcing a company decision after it has been made is not transparency, it is an announcement.
For the sake of transparency, I would like to know what ED's future plans are for SD-10 and all the other JF-17 weapons? Will they review the performance again and amend some side effects which were introduced with this missile change? What esle is ED planning on changing? Are you guys also looking to make changes to the aircraft's performance and flight model?
I am asking because in order to adjust my expectations, I need to have some idea on what to expect in the future. Please give people who are paying for modules on your game some clarification.
-
Now ED has gone silent. Also Deka have done the same. Who can we go to to get some things like supposed battery life fixed?
What other weapons will be changed now silently? My guess is that they will also revisit BRM rockets and AK missiles.
Are we simply just going to have to accept that AIM-120C is the best missile in DCS on all aspects and everything that reaches it or surpasses it in ANY aspect is therefore automatically wrong?
They have already ignored and left russian weapons weak, now they have targetted the chinese weapons to give them odd and similar performance oddities which plague the russian missiles.
Since the game is so focused on American aircrafts, we are a minority and cannot compete vocally since nobody seems to care much.
At this point it seems like the best bet for any 3rd Party to do well in DCS is to make NATO jets like Heatblur are doing to gain any proper assitance and support from ED.
-
We have plans to publish diagrams of aerodynamic research, and those parameters that will work in the new AMRAAM model.
We don't know what SD-10 model exactly. For aerodynamic research we used that 3D model, which is included in the JF-17 module.
Our weapons team is very busy with current developments, but we will try to help the Heathblur team to finalize the AIM-54.
The development of weapons in the core DCS team will allow the development by one standard, and release weapons of the same quality. This is a big plus for the game, since it relieves the game of an armaments race, when external developers, wishing or not, sometimes try to make their weapons better than they are in reality.
I do appreciate all the effort you guys are promising at the moment. Please do not change half things now and then leave it untouched for another year or two as it is getting quite frustrating.
I hope this time when you say that there is a change coming, it will not stay half complete for long period of time because the development focus changed to the next latest ED released module.
Please fix the core game before introducing new content. With more modern jets coming to this game, it is now clear that performance simulation part is going to be far from accurate, for obvious reasons. Even the real pilots have already said that this is just a game and the aircrafts behave similar but not like the real thing.
I just hope that you guys actually finish weapons development so we do not have to see so many changes coming to them each time there is an update. Fanboyism or not, fluctuating weapons performance is really annoying. People on here will always have constant debate about everything available in DCS and it would be quite professional if developers, including ED not get influenced by them.
Standardizing all weapon behaviour seems to be the safest way out of the political debates since there will always be constant heated arguements around these war machines.
For further clarity, can you also specify how much involvement ED will have when the 3rd Party Developer is designing a new weapon for their module? Forcing a developer to abandon it's work and replace it with your own after they have completed it sounds like a waste of their time and resources.
-
I want to clarify the situation a bit to reduce the amount of insinuations.
We investigated the SD-10 model in CFD and compared the data on the drag coefficient with what would be in the game. After which we wrote our recommendations in Deca.
Let's discuss PL-12/SD-10 zero-lift drag.
Fig. 1 shows in-game drag curve (before corrections) and CFD one. As you can see here is a major error at supersonic speed - decreased zero-lift drag about 30% from CFD and high peak around transsonic.
CFD data is obtained on 3.9M elements good quality mesh using SA-turbulence model. Coeffs referenced to 0.0324 sq.m area.
We sent these results to the Deca, after which we obtain a missile correction.
As you can see, the gap in the supersonic part has decreased by about half. In the transonic region, the peak has grown even more.
This means that the missiles at high altitudes and speeds continues to fly better than the CFD one.
This is great and all but can you also provide same exact data, in the same graphical manner, for AIM-120C and place it Side by Side so we can understand what is so unbelieveable with the performance of SD-10 when compared with what you have done with the new AMRAAM in game now?
I would love to see the differences and inaccuracies since you guys keep saying things are not correct with the SD-10 as they should be when compared. Please also specify which SD-10 model was used by ED for this study. There is nothing confidential about saying just the model name as we already specify NATO weapons that way in this game. So far neither Deka nor ED have specified what version of SD-10 they have referenced when developing the in game model.
I would also like to use this opportunity to ask, will you change the performance and behaviour of AIM-54 with your own personal study results? True Grit are also working on Meteor missile it seems. What involvement will you have on the development of that missile?
My concern is with the missile performance in general. If all missiles will be behaving in similar manner and have no unique profile to them anymore, this standardises the Air to Air game aspect.
-
As an A2G focused player, I would like to know if this is going to be the early Air to Air original model or are you guys planning to doing the later Multirole variant?
I can see that you have already started working on modeling the cockpit so this decision should have already been made at this point.
Any clarification on this would be very appreciated. I will grab this jet no matter which variant but would like to know if us A2G players have some missiles to look forward to and not yet another bomb dropping air superiority fighter.
-
Glad it all worked out in the end then.
-
I don't have problem with paying money but I would compare it with the amount of content in upgrade vs the amount of content in the full module. The price needs to reflect according to that. I am willing to pay $20 max based on what they have promised would be added with the upgrade.
Even then, those systems would have to be fully developed and properly simulated. Won't even bother if they try selling it unfinished under an early access badge.
This is just my own personal reason. I don't expect or want people to do things based on my personal standings.
-
If anyone has been having problems with the HUD not showing the altitude ladder,and the heading bug.go to controls,special,and tick mini map,this will solve the problem..and also thanks to all those people who saw my many request for help in solving this problem..and ignored my requests..nice to know how helpfull people are on these forums..NOT:mad:
Ignorant and rude. Will make sure never to help you.
-
Where do we have to go to tell ED that they need to STOP adding static reflections into cockpit glass? The new lighting adds so much shadows and colours into the cockpit and the static image is taken from default day time and breaks immersion. It does not even simulate the flight stick movements or panel lights.
-
I personally think we have enough of those ancient MIGs now. I hope Deka make something a bit more advanced than MIG 21. Something closer to F-14 when we talk about systems.
-
Glad to hear he is not sick. For now we wait and see how long this will take. More time to try out all the new hornet features in the meantime.
-
The cockpit looks good to me. Nowhere near as good as the F/A-18 but then again, neither does the F-16 look that good inside. The FOV is certainly a problem. Instruments are now too far away on monitor screen.
I will hope that ED fixes this but won’t hold my breath just yet.
-
I hope the developer responsible for radar development is feeling better now. This is quite a significant bug which seriously impacts the jet’s usefulness at the moment.
-
Just updated the game. I have no idea what OP is seeing. The new lighting is pure bad. It makes no sense. The night time is the worst in general with super bright panels and objects.
Very specific time of day looks somewhat good but overall this is a pure downgrade with exaggerated HDR and bloom.
If this was an attempt to copy the new Flight Sim game shaders, it looks like a knock off version of it.
Especially the cockpits of ED's own modules look very plasticky now.
-
So I should not update the game right now? Seems like this patch is a glitter bomb.
-
Thanks for the info guys. This is good bit of information and explains the reasoning behind the military's decisions when developing or upgrading their arsenal.
-
All the components required for retractable proble would probably add more weight and extra maintenance time. An F-16 type of refueling system would have been better but I don't really know how the internals of this jet are designed.
If we look at it, all light fighters have static fuel probe. The interesting part in JF-17 is that it can also be removed.
-
So the same guy who does the textures is also in charge of the 3D modelling? I am not clear on the team members of Deka but didn’t assume same person was doing both things.
-
I don’t understand why their graphics artist needs to hold back on internal textures since Deka has said that with AAR, there will be no visual changes to the cockpit. What is the graphics guy working on currently?
-
It was already possible to bind the MFCD buttons but this is going out of the way to give this jet a function which it does not have. Swapping profiles without having to access the CMBT page.
The change does not bother me as much yet. But I agree with Jonne that this is clearly compromising realism for gameplay. If Deka keeps making more changes like this then I am gonna get very vocal here but right now this looks like a one off since so many people here were constantly begging for it.
I REALLY hate how easy the devs just say OK we will add it. Start a poll or something first to get the opinion of your majority of playerbase before just doing changes like this..
Laser rockets
in Bugs and Problems
Posted
Razbam announced back in 2018 that ED is making APKWS for hornet so they will feature it on harrier as well when finished.
Join the waiting club then. Why not make it work for the time being instead of having a complete useless weapon available? There was nothing wrong with it before you guys completely broke it while knowing there is no alternative available atm from the head developers.