Jump to content

Hawkeye_UK

Members
  • Posts

    833
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hawkeye_UK

  1. Anyone else who is English, speaks english clearly lol, have used Voice attack for years without any problems have issues with this programme? Even jumping between the custom pages on the kneeboard is hit and miss. Still not been able to see the log sheet as yet with "show log". Try and getting a flight to attack air defence's or armour - nope not recognised. Terrible - wish i had just stuck to my own voice attack profiles that have worked well for years, however i liked the look of the kneeboard.
  2. Just to clarify i can see the custom kneeboard. Jumping between the sheets is hit and miss - fails 65% of the time to select a page. Still not been able to get on "Show log" Went in A10C instant action, Syria for quick test. In flight page so wingman will say open formatation, but try and get him to attack say "air defense" "armour" etc is just a non starter. And why Anvil instead of "jtac", again rarely did "Anvil" load the page. Terrible. What a waste of $20 that was. Never had an issue with my own voice profiles. Im English, obviously speak english well/clearly, yet this just fails to work.
  3. Delete and copy in the new keywork collection. LOL What a nonsense this program is - having purchased and installed Viacom pro today (im not new to voiceattack been using it for years) its about as clear as mud. There is no AI communications in the keywords either to replace or select. Regretful purchase wish i had just stuck with plain voiceattack and my own profiles. Also when i close voice attack now it constantly tries to reopen! Unistall and delete for me
  4. has anyone else updated past 2.28 open beta, i have tried 2.29 and 2.30 and both will not work with errors and says microsoft net. Unistalled gone back to 2.28 and works fine! Also it would be good if there was somewhere with a changelog rather than when you just install it, have looked everywhere and cannot find one, or rather one that is not current.
  5. Yep i posted on a similar topic only a few days ago - what has happened? ED state VR is a priority to them but it needs to be evidenced as currently im sure many VR users will have seen little development. When the clouds first came out, given it was long awaited it was disappointing to note that VR was put on the back burner and released in a pretty poor state, and since the update back at the start of the year no more has been done to address this issue. Didnt realise that this was affecting pancake mode also! Post and OP does need an update surely? Yep this is exactly what i see in VR, just add shimmer and slight up and down movement. Its alwasy the clouds in the distance but it does make some weather settings shocking and totally immersion breaking. I do recall seeing when they released the new weather, what 10 months ago that this was just the initial attempt and that apart from presets we would have control over the cloud layers - Silence after that point, has anyone head anything more? Maybe i missed something ?
  6. Thank you at least we can make an informed choice now that their are no firm commitments. Note this really should be a day one release even for EA, having players in MP that think everything is enemy is going to create problems.
  7. Nearly 2 weeks on is this such a hard question for ED? I'm guessing there is an internal dev roadmap please can someone take a one minute look and confirm either way? If not am I better posting on the Russian fronting forums if this hasn't been asked as yet as not seen any contribution to this thread as yet from ED? @NineLine @BIGNEWY Please can one of you clarify will George Ai be able to visually ID and classify friendly or hostile units unlike Petrovich upon EA release.
  8. Fistly please brief yourself with this post as an example. Note this issues seems to apply for all Warbirds content, how are we in this position? Please can the dev's have aircraft climb at acceptable boost pressure and speed rather than some set figure that effectively means player aircraft are having to max out to keep up with the AI (and exceed continuous manifold pressure). Also why are the AI (and in this example the player P-47 also) able to climb at max boost which in reality would lead to an engine failure (thought the improved damage model was here)? All climb rates should be set at or slight below max continuous manifold pressure, not emergency war power. This affects every campaign released for Warbirds content. Needs resolution as a matter of priority by the WW2 team.
  9. Thanks Reflected sorry been a busy week so late replying! That is very interesting, i had no knowledge that the WW2 fighters had hard coded climb speeds, that is crazy and explains alot! So if you set a waypoint and thus reducing flight speed to get to that point, they will ignore it and still climb at their set speed. That also explains my point reference say blue nosed bodney. ED really do need to work on this, along with some of the flight behavours when getting to a waypoint also (they can represent a flock of pigeons at times all going in different directions). I will pick it up also and start banging the drum as this literally will affect every mission and explains why other WW2 content suffers. If they want WW2 to grow this needs resolving and dev time. I Personally have no issues with keeping up with the AI in the campaign (have carried on with it), i think alot of were people go wrong with this is poor rudder disapline/control and sideslipping and thus braking, i even know another player that was having issues and not removing the take off rudder trim lol (now that will limit your speed). It just pains me to have to be on max boost or circa 52 when i know that in reality that is 5 minutes of use. I want to be able to climb on 42 and keep up with the AI which is just not possible. We are meant to be playing a simulator (coughs) and well im sure the aircrew at the time being a single engine aircraft spent most of the time sweeping the temp and pressure gauges, they would have looked after them, no point maxing anything unless you need to as it was their only way home. I'm also skeptical of the way/rate in which the cooling works on both the intercooler and oil in relation to some of the boost settings and altitude. Thanks for the reply, and as i said great amazing content you provide for the community, look forward to your coming mosquito campain especially with the DF you've hinted at. I've been having some great fun with that in the mossie of late especially when combined with ww2 sound files. Great way of navigating whilst being entertained lol.
  10. Yep you cant do that in MP and alot of my posts are not for me personally, but born out of consideration for MP and newer players coming who have issues telling what unit is what and causing meyhem. Its frustrating that ED always put preference of things that look well or go bang and then worry about the systems that are required to operate it at a later date. Not good.
  11. PS - Sorry i know it sounds critical, dont be mistaken i love your content, amazing work, just needs a polish thats all and this is just hopefully constructive feedback.
  12. Reflected whilst climb rates are set by ED - the actual speed of the flight is set by yourself and this is changable. Recommendation, reduce flight speed, they are as it is maxed out requiring to fly well beyond normal engine limits to keep up either way and certainly not great for fuel. I'm not quite sure why you have been so high with the speed, there is a solution, along with smaller waypoint's with fixed cruise limits. Appreciate you are having to compensate for ED's stupid coding, but it wont be the first time or the last. Your video referenced above absolutely highlights the issue, your sat at above emergency manifold pressrure boost (52) all through the set course section for over 10 minutes. The maximum is 5 minutes and appreciate ED havent modelled engine damage accurately yet but i dont see why we should literally have to flog the engine to death. Currently its not right and after playing mission 1 i have now stopped the campaign, dissapointed to be honest. Please can you revisit this campaign and have more sensible speeds set to actually make it realistically flyable (within parameters). Edit - i note its also an issue in some of your other campaigns on Normandy map from memory, been a whilst since i played them.
  13. Guys lets not over complicate it - i'm just asking ED if they are even going to attempt to have some form of George ID ability, pretty vital for a helicopter gunship.
  14. Yep as i said its an isolated incident against 1000's of sorties, mistakes happen. There is some irony in your comments, i understand all too well the reality of fog of war. I was saying also about Afgan, your referring to an operation 15 years earlier. Reality is ask anyone that's been out there they would never not want an Apache overhead. Anyway back on point, this is away from the thread posted. Reality is if a gunner can see he should 99.99% be able to ID. At present its not even modelled. Enough said. Your also trying to compare FLIR to Optical, the two are very different.
  15. The point on all of this is that we need to ensure ED are clear on what they are selling. At present there is no confirmation either way, which is not right. As for being able to ID targets IRL, bare in mind in the 1000's of sorties undertaken, these are literally the exception. In terms of the Apache, there was two instances in Afgan, both involving personnel, not vehicles. One an American crew, the other a British, both in early stages of the conflict, both involving failures from both air and ground personnel. The reality is if the gunner can visually see a vehicle it he should be able to ID, if not he's in the wrong job. Lets not make excuses for ED not implementing what should have been a day one release, aka modelling the vital systems to release munitions prior to ones that sell modules.
  16. Hi Bignewy When you say no news, what the Dev's have just shrugged their shoulders and blanked your question? That is a concern. Surely there must be some news as in no its on the roadmap, yes there is a problem, no there is not a problem. I fail to see how there can be no news to share - this implies you are just being ignoring? Also lets just highlight that this has been ongoing for a long period of time.
  17. ED, Please can you confirm whether George AI will be able to visually ID targets and differentiate between friendly and enermy units. I note to date, AI Petrovich still cannot and thus with free fire will purely kill all units infront of him. Extremely poor given MP servers and ground and newer players given if Petrovich can see it through his scope he can visually tell if hostile or not. I assume you will be using part of that code for the apache. Prior to pre purchasing the module there are potential customers that would like to know the importance that ED is placing on this and whether it wil be included on the build as a vital operater ability for the AI from day one EA. Please confirm with the Dev's and respond back to the community so an informed decision can be made. Thanks.
  18. Whats the light level like? Don't forget if dark it will only work by cycling your external lights on and off
  19. Unbelievable thread for what purpose? So you can meta the game in MP, the F15 is already bad for that and over G's as it is - and the answer should be a definate no. I have been an advocate for quite a long time to not have this asset in MP (apart from the 3 button start) servers for this very reason, it over performs on G pulling as it stands and needs actually reducing. Planes are more limited by what a pilot can tolerate, not just an airframe, most people start passing out at sustained 5g. Pilots at 9G is for a limited time with full G suit and extensive training on how to stress and hold blood in the upper body / brain. That said there are many components that would be damaged at the level you propose, not including the airframe itself. Please close this ridiculous thread.
  20. Surpirsed no one mentioned the following point already. Case 3 landings the runway lights and the boat lights itself are not visable until almost in the groove, literally they appear mile and a half ish. Please can we see the runway deck lights from much further out ! Also as reported datum lights need tweaking, meatball not visable enough either and unusable during daytime. Lastly great job Cobra & Heatblur team - looks fantastic the deck is so so much better than the SP!
  21. I note the overheads to run the hind are alot higher, which is especially true in VR and or running a post affect sharpening like reshade. This is on 64GB or ram, 5GHZ CPU and 2080TI (hardly a potato machine although not the fastest since 3090's are now out). It seems that at ALL times the sim is modelling (and thus using CPU/GPU) in full detail the front seat (essentially useless in MP). Simple question, why is this? Surely it makes sense to only model the seat your using, or at least make it an option so that in MP you can shut off the front seat and it not require the overhead. This will yield HUGE performance gains.
  22. Nineline it doesnt affect me personally as on the warbirds i have this function off along with rudder correction, but i was wondering what the hell was going on and why people were struggling to get airborne with the mossie all of a sudden. Im passionate about the module and in fairness i've been looking forward to this module more than any other and have been an advocate of people buying the module after the initial excellent release, so its frustrating to see the situation play out with no consultation with the community first. I mean a post could have been done on these very forums for new players do they want this feature removed as its not working properly yet, leaving in until new solution working, or leave status quo etc. Then action its results. Especially until the FM has been finalized and the trim setting's for joystick assignments are refined to a realisitic level. What you have now is a situation where people are clearly struggling to enjoy what is a great, gorgeous, beast of a module, albeit in EA. Again i reference the poor commercial sense on this issue, hence the frustation. We need as many people into warbirds with positives experiences so that they buy more modules and thus allow this area of DCS to expand. It's also why i'm an advocate of people using stand alone and not steam (if you check recent posts re funding allowing more dev hours). So not to have learning "stabilisers" is like trying to get a child to ride a bike for the first time. Its a cliche but so true you dont get a second chance to make a first impression. I also have seen as people get more into warbirds they will often start with this option on then cut it down to 75%, 50% and then 25% and eventually off as they get a feel and more experienced with the FM (and generally by this stage bought into the hardware required).
  23. Already reported as soon as the module came out. Nothing concreate reported back on whats going to be done for this
×
×
  • Create New...