Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Trettifire

  • Birthday 01/01/1872

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
  • Location
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Second that. It'd be cool.
  2. I'm getting the same. George calls the target destroyed but it looks fine. Or I'm CPGing and the targets looks as good as new but BDA says critically damaged or destroyed.
  3. Cool work, Caldera. It is interesting to see, as you say, how effects are simulated in the game. This type of data would help in weaponeering for missions. Don't let the critics and nay-sayers get in the way of curiosity. If we didn't have people like you in the community, we would not catch the slight differences and imperfections in weapon effects. After all, it's just a computer sim made by people. Keep it up.
  4. As the title says, I have a bug to report that only appears in multiplayer. Using Game Master role for Combined Arms, I am able to fire Tomahawks from the Ticonderoga and MLRS easily in single player, but it does not work in multiplayer. I am unable to find any track files to use for a bug report. What should I include in the bug report?
  5. Ju-87. Multicrew. I would absolutely love it.
  6. Fantastic! Looks great so far. This is precisely what we need for WWII scenarios!
  7. I'd even be happy for an AI version, but a fully clickable version would be absolutely awesome in VR. Not to mention the siren...
  8. Well, not much to add to the title. The Channel and Normandy maps would have a substantially larger potential for reenacting actual historic events with a flyable, multicrew Stuka module. And also add its own particular flavour with dive bombing (F4-U too, of course). Anyone else for?
  9. Trettifire


    Wow. I guess all these sites are wrong, along with RT's documentary on the Ka-50. But I'm sure you know best. https://www.airvectors.net/avka50.html https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.php?aircraft_id=286 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-50 https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ac/row/ka-50.htm http://www.military-today.com/helicopters/kamov_ka50_hokum.htm And before the trenches here get any deeper, I threw out the 2S6 as an example because you can use chaff to throw off radar. You also have the issue with airborne threats and their radar missiles. The reason I wanted chaff was that it was on the actual aircraft, regardless of A16s opinion, and that it should be fairly easy to implement for ED.
  10. Trettifire


    Yeahhhh...I'm not disagreeing with you but the real Ka-50 did have chaff, didn't it?
  11. That would be exactly what I'd be looking for. And marked so it is easy to see which is which. A lot of these servers allow you to generate your own A-A or A-G mission anyway, so I'm sure having HOT start AC wouldn't ruin the fun on those...but I see your point.
  12. If you have another opinion, fine, let me know, and please come up with constructive arguments why. Or just say that you disagree. Don't be a dork and waste everybody's time with gatekeeping. I'm a grownup. I have a limited time to play computer games. I enjoy playing on multiplayer servers because I like the interaction with other players and some of the server missions are pretty cool. I have a few friends that I play with, and we normally fly seriously and within the "simulation" aspect of DCS. What I don't understand is why most (in my experience) multiplayer servers have all the aircraft in COLD START. Some of these take quite some time to start up, and the mission tasks RARELY require more than a minute or so to set up systems on board and getting ordnance. So there I am wasting perfectly good game time waiting for the aircraft to spool up and align on auto start. And yes, my fellow gamers, I realize that some of the immersion and realism is in having to run checklists and crank that baby up manually from the get-go. But after a bajillion startups, and frequently having my a*s handed to me in involuntary air to air combat (I'm an air to ground kinda guy), vegetating through those 4-5 minutes for each startup seems kinda wasted. Is this cold start pandemic a conscious effort from the server administrators to add a level of realism? Is it to avoid too rapid regeneration of aircraft after deaths? Is it because that's what people really want? Or is it a conspiracy to run my frustration through the roof? And in good style when complaining about stuff - a few recommendations that I think could ease my frustration at least: 1. In server description on the multiplayer section - add "COLD START AC" or "HOT START AC" as a comment. 2. Name aircraft "AV8B - KOBULETI - COLD" in the "select role" list. 3. Stop using cold start aircraft in yer server, matey. Thank you for your attention.
  13. Nice manual, still a lot of work to do, but beautifully done so far. Alpha, are you associated with the RAZBAM crew? I see you have been active in the bug section.
  • Create New...