跳转到帖子

2alpha-down0

Members
  • 帖子数

    144
  • 注册日期

  • 上次访问

最新回复 发布由 2alpha-down0

  1. 9 minutes ago, Df555 said:

    I see too much pessimism in this thread. Of course, no one expects the F-35 to be anywhere near 100% accurate, like almost any module in the game. But let's not forget that DСS is a long-lived project. As time goes on, more data on the F-35 will become available and it can be implemented. Even in a year, more refined data will probably appear. Even the F-16 and F/A-18 are still being developed. There is no need to demand that the F-35 will appear already completed.

     

    So pay $70-80 for a barebones guesstimated module, with further undefined features that may be implemented based on documentation that may be released at some non-descript point in the future?  Assuming they feel like doing that at all, and don't just abandon it declare it "feature complete"?

    Good luck with that.

    • Like 4
  2. 4 minutes ago, Canada_Moose said:

    Lol.

    'Those of us who know'

    Anybody posting here in a niche forum for a niche game is fully aware. Do you really believe ANY of the modules are fully accurate? I don't for one minute. Then again, I also don't pretend to be a real fighter pilot just because I play DCS.

     

    Of course they're not "fully accurate."  But they are reasonably accurate to a high standard, and that is their appeal.

    This won't be.  This *can't* be.  That's the problem.

    • Like 8
  3. 2 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:


    Folks the additions to FC2024 will be flaming cliffs level. 

    Current full fidelity versions remain as they are, they will coexist. 

     

    Do you know *how* exactly they'll coexist?  Will DCS/the mission editor see the FC and FF versions as separate types of units?  For instance, if I make a mission and want to allow both types, do I need to now put in, effectively, twice the number of client aircraft as I did before?

     

    This seems rather clunky and begs the question:  When is the dynamic slot system coming?

    • Like 2
  4. On 3/26/2024 at 8:15 AM, SharpeXB said:

    Sorta off topic but… I’m not necessarily saying this is incorrect, a modern jet fighter is by design not too survivable. It’s a fuel tank wrapped around a jet engine. Plus you’re usually getting hit in the game by a missile warhead. The state of the systems modeling certainly varies by module and their state of completion. But the bottom line is landing a damaged jet is something that will very rarely happen in DCS. I understand though that’s not the only use case for this system.

     

    Almost every one of our missions, someone RTBs with combat damage.  I don't know how many times I've brought in a damaged Sabre with no brakes or hydraulics.

    I understand why it's a low priority, but it would definitely see use in DCS.

    • Like 1
  5. On 12/9/2023 at 1:54 PM, 336_TheAngryGamer said:

    The placement is not consistent, but when I try to fly the F-86 online, I haven't tried off line, I have a blue haze blocking my view? it is a new occurrence and I tried to find a fix with no luck. it is almost like there is a submenu on screen that I just can't quite see. and if I position myself correctly, it disappears. Has anyone encountered this? if so, were you able to resolve it? 

    I fly with a Quest 2, steam version. 

    Are you using multithreaded DCS?  I've encountered this in the F-5 using single-threaded DCS, but not in MT.

  6. On 12/7/2023 at 4:51 PM, rkk01 said:

    Had the same problem today…

    couldn’t place a Leander in the bay, but could put HMS Albion (mod) in there

    Has this always been an issue? I’m sure I had some older missions with SA RN assets in San Carlos Water

    No, it wasn't always an issue.  I've got an old mission that has ships in San Carlos Water that can't be moved around in the editor because the water is no longer deep enough.

  7. On 10/4/2023 at 5:11 PM, MysteriousHonza said:

    Thank you, can i ask for a bit more info? Will we get OG Aim-9P (smoke), then P2/3 (smokeless) and P-5 or P just becomes P2/3 with reduced smoke engine. 
    Then even if a bit off topic, its still kinda close to aim-9s.

    There is huge issue with R3S and R13s and R-60 from magnitude (mig21). R3S is pulling 5-6 Gs more than it should (16Gs instead of 10-11), flies shorter and its IRCCM is 15 times better than Aim-9Bs (0,66 vs 10,0!! 15 times better with pretty much same seeker design), it should be same or atleast similar. Certainly should pull less and be multiple times worse against flares. Its CCM is currently BETTER than 9L(0,75), 9JULI (0,75 - should be better than 9L =>irccm head from german 9Li program) and close to 9M/R73 or Magic IIs 0.5 IRCCM, same goes for R13M, M1 and base model R-60 (0,66).
    R13s i cant find info but considering they should be copies / inspired by Aim-9D and Aim-9J/P, they should pull similar Gs due to aerodynamics - 9D/G/H were limited by frontal fin design, even stronger servos in H couldnt help it and missile pulled 18Gs max - R13M should be 18 instead of 22 and 13M1 gets same design as 22G J/P sidewinder. Cant comment on these much as i dont know how much stronger servos and different frontal fins changed 9Js pull from 9Es as its 2 things combined unlike on 9G/H where servos did nothing but when they added double delta frontal fins on H, they pushed its envelope over 30Gs (9L development program - it was made on 9H body, servos, engine). 
    So R13M1 could be more similar to 9J 20-25Gs, its doing 35Gs now. 
    All these missiles can track in frontal hemisphere too. 
    Again cant comment on R13M1 and R60 but R3S and R13M certainly shouldnt do that. R3S is almost all aspect in that regard. 

    My question is, can we expect these to be changed with sidewinders, are they worked on or we wont see them changed ever? 
    Thank you. 
    Adding video of R13 and R3S ignoring flares and tracking into frontal aspect - R3S (R3S should eat them from side - it shouldnt track from side at all, it was limited to around 30 deg left/right as these old seekers had to see internal parts of engine nozzles they guided on)

     

     

    Nice finds, but this probably needs to be a new bug report thread in this sub-forum in order for ED to acknowledge it.  I hope they do so.

    • Like 2
  8. The map has to be manually installed on dedicated server.  Open up "Run" from the Windows start menu, type in the file path to your DCS_updater.exe, then type "install SINAIMAP_terrain".  Run that command and the updater should start installing the map.

    Full command should be something like C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta Server\bin\DCS_Updater.exe install SINAIMAP_terrain

    It can also be done in Powershell from the bin folder, but I just used Run.

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1
  9. The map has to be manually installed on dedicated server.  Open up "Run" from the Windows start menu, type in the file path to your DCS_updater.exe, then type "install SINAIMAP_terrain".  Run that command and the updater should start installing the map.

    Full command should be something like C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta Server\bin\DCS_Updater.exe install SINAIMAP_terrain

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 3
  10. 15 hours ago, Jself said:

    Any one been able to get the new Sinai map installed on dedicated server?

    Found the answer on the ED Discord.

     

    Open up "Run", type in the file path to your DCS_updater.exe, then type "install SINAIMAP_terrain".  Run that command and the updater should start installing the map.

    Full command should be something like C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta Server\bin\DCS_Updater.exe install SINAIMAP_terrain

  11. On 2/6/2023 at 10:11 AM, MadKreator said:

    Most use SRS Radio plugin. Some servers use Discord. I don’t think I’ve seen any public ones use the built in VOIP

     

    We have DCS VoIP enabled on our public servers in addition to SRS.  I've never heard of anyone using the built-in option, though.  They use either Discord or SRS.

×
×
  • 创建新的...