Jackjack171
-
Posts
856 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Jackjack171
-
-
1 minute ago, TheGhostOfDefi said:
But can you denie the player later on the possibility to reequip the JHMCS by the ground crew?
Ah, I see. I thought the servers had that capability!
-
1 hour ago, TheGhostOfDefi said:
Would be fine with me.. Together with a INS system implemented like for the 16 now you could use the F-18 for older szenarios pretty well.
I'm a bit confused. In the ME, as @fagulhasaid, you can change the entire helmet, cosmetically! That squares it up to 2 different ways to have it off, the switch and not mounted at all.
-
2 hours ago, Atazar SPN said:
The Hornet's canopy texture effects and DDIs are third-rate. It's really very bad. I'm beginning to doubt if they don't want to do it well, or if they don't know how to do it well.
The issue has been reported and fixed internally. No need for insults.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Micr0 said:
JackJack, when were you in?
Yeah, it's really not possible to describe to someone how dark it is. I miss the adrenaline. Like the guy says in the vid below, "I don't think you know what dark truly is....."
I served from 1997 to 2018, how about yourself? Yes, it is hard to get others to understand some things. No stars and no moon sometimes. I do think that the small boys in DCS are a little too bright at night.
-
3 hours ago, Micr0 said:
Draconus, Yeah, that is a handy trigger, but it still doesn't drown out those pesky flood lights during the recovery setting. Like you said originally, there is room for improvement.
Minsky, I'm actually not "asking" for anything. This was just an idea to improve the immersion. The challenge of night carrier operations is how dark it actually is. Just taxiing around the deck can be terrifying. Personally, I like to make it as challenging as possible to re-live the glory days.
You'd be surprised at how many do not like a challenge!
Looking at the DCS picture, the deck would still be illuminated without the unnatural backlighting. Overall, it appears to be an overdone light effect. I hope they fix this someday. I was a yellow shirt for 20 years. You cannot see the hull number at night...unless you look really hard and squint. And you can barely see the island from the bow. The shadows and lighting sometimes drown a lot out. The further up the bow you go, the darker it gets. I had to lift my googles to put a bird on CAT 1 or 2. But I'm preaching to the choir here!-
3
-
-
19 hours ago, Tholozor said:
@Jackjack171 Do you have a track we can look at? Do you have the option enabled that synchronizes cockpit controls with your physical controls that might be changing something?
I will check and produce a track.
-
On 4/9/2024 at 11:32 AM, skywalker22 said:
What do you mean with autostart? Do you HOT start the aircraft (all set and ready to fly)? If so, then the alignment is already done and you don't need to do it again by your self.
If not, if you are in so COLD start (aircraft with no power and shut down), then you have to do the alignment process one way on another (so or choosing Stored Heading or Normal alignment)
I have this problem. I hot start, everything is already on yet, my INS drops out of alignment. I see the VV in the briefing screen but as soon as I hit START, I lose INS. I get an associated WARN caution in the HUD as well. Everything is on but there's no VV and my DED which had radio info read's:
INS INFLT ALGN
COMPASS HDG ***
FIX NECSSARY
And this occurs at the start of every mission, airborne or not! If I recall, that didn't happen before. Am I doing something wrong? Inflight should already be good to go without me influencing in a hot start scenario, or so I thought.
Some advice would be greatly appreciated.
-
Same here! Was going through final checks when I heard an explosion. Had to taxi past the wreckage...wild!
-
I agree that the DCS carriers' Island lights are incorrect. Definitely better than pre-Super Carrier though! Just a quick note, the light pattern used for launches are not the same for recoveries at night. I imagine it might be difficult for ED to simulate this. When the launch concludes, the Air Boss or Mini (can't remember which) will call to his sailors to rig the lights. We had a cheat sheet for it as it was kind of complex. Also, the rotating beacons are missing. Should be a (working) set forward of the island, amidships and aft.
-
1
-
-
-
-
USMC F/A-18C ops out of Kandahar it is. This will be fun!
-
1
-
-
48 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:
If you end up with one feel free to drop me PM here on the forum and I’ll send you a screenshot of my settings so you can have a solid base to start from - everyone has their own preferences primarily as to how much force is needed for full “deflection”.
Will do. And thank you. I really appreciate it!
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:
This is as good a place as any to ask that question
I bought both the grip and base. I have an older version though, that doesn’t deflect at all.
The current version of the R3L allows for the same 1/4” deflection the real F-16 stick does.
Cool. Thank you!
Would the angle adapter base be a thing or is that overkill? None of the grips are available so I'm thinking of purchasing the base and dusting off my TMWH grip. I understand what you said about the programming. Probably why they are never in stock. Must be good equipment! -
49 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:
Sorry if I wasn’t clear but that’s not what I meant.
There is an option in the Realsimulator software that emulates behaviour that is coded in the real F-16 flight control software. As in: it was specifically designed for it and it’s actually what I was referring to in my first reply in this thread.
If those 3 alternatives were not specifically coded to emulate that behaviour as well, that would explain the uncommanded roll you are talking about. I don’t think you can blame those 3 manufacturers for that though: consumer hardware is generally designed to be as compatible as possible and to work the same way regardless of the aircraft you’re virtually flying.
But with the FSSB R3L that’s different. Sure there are options that make it more customisable (you can use the index finger switch as a hat for example while the real F-16 doesn’t work that way) but you can disable that feature if you want to use it as a real F-16 stick.
That is the point I am making: the FSSB R3L both on a hardware and software level is specifically designed to mimic the real F-16 stick and how it works in the actual aircraft.
May I ask, did you purchase the grip or the base or the entire setup? I've been wanting this setup for a while but it's always out-of-stock. I currently have the WinWing F-16EX and it's almost overly sensitive or not enough.
Didn't meant to derail the current topic of a roll problem.
Thanks in advance.-
1
-
-
-
3 minutes ago, NIGHTHAWK1 said:
PhantomHans, don't judge all of us by the few rude posters on this thread. There are some here that are willing to help. But let me make a kind suggestion (and I'm not saying go away), perhaps try Falcon BMS. It has gotten really good over the 25 years it has been around, they have a new terrain engine coming, and that community is much more friendly and helpful, they are all volunteers and not so snobbish as many are here. I quite another sim because they kept calling it a "engineering" and yet it was just a sim.
No one was rude at any time...normally I would pipe down, but the OP is no victim. He was offered a plethora of advice. Thanks for welcoming him to your community. That's awesome.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Oceandar said:
It's bit hard for some people maybe because it needs improvement from ED and make it more realistic ? The other sim that can't be named did it and for me, now it's much easier refueling than before.
To OP don't give up trying. I was like you before. You need to be patient. Every time you feel frustrated just stop and try it another time. I've been playing ED sim since Flanker era. Believe it or not, I was only able to do air refueling after I flied DCS and it's not even smooth.....connect......disconnet......connect.....disconnet lol.
Keep trying and be patient, you'll get there
Good luckThat advice and then some was given to him earlier in this thread. He chose to check out anyway. It's all good!
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Tippis said:
There's the whole slew of posts telling the OP what he wants, eg. that he doesn't actually want to play DCS; that he should go elsewhere; that he's wasting his time. Plenty of gatekeeping because he wished for something that has been discussed plenty, with plenty of reasoning why it would do all kinds of good and very little reasons why it would be bad. And yes, there was quite a bit of hostility in all of that. There's always quite a bit of hostility in the opposition to improvements to this part of the game.
It's not the bluntness that is the hazing — it's the insistence that new players must struggle through the same lack of features, the same anti-learning environment, the same unnecessary impossibility of direction as the old-timers. And that any suggestion that this situation could be improved is derided as “turning DCS into an arcade game” (or some variation thereof).
“The ambition is to hand hold users from novice pilot all the way to the most advanced and sophisticated operator” is how ED themselves describe DCS. “Both hardcore realistic and casual gameplay modes and options available” is listed as a key part of the feature set. In other words, the goal of the whole damn simulation is to not do that, but to improve and make the kind of accommodations to novices that the OP is asking for so that the bad old ways ultimately go away. There's literally no reason to hold up the “I did it the hard way, so you can too” (implied: so you should too… in fact, in some cases it's not even implied, but explicitly stated) as some kind of ideal to maintain, and that adding helper features somehow betrays the core idea of the game. In actuality, adding such features is fully in line with what the game is supposed to be, and lacking them means we still have some ways to go.
Making DCS better by adding helper features does not turn DCS into an arcade game — it turns DCS into what DCS is ultimately meant to be.
He doesn't want help and plenty of that ilk don't. OP stated that himself! The OP also said he wanted to go to WT, and I agreed with him. Pretty cut and dried.
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Tippis said:
Also, being all accusatory and looking down your nose at the people who want to see the game improve just screams of elitism, snobbery, failure to teach, and lack of imagination. See how that works? And unlike making the game better and striving towards the kind of hand-holding that is a key feature of the game, ED can't really fix that kind of negativity… Well, mostly not at least.
LMAO no. This community is by far the most anti-newbie I've ever encountered. Every single time someone suggests improvements that would make new players' lives and learning progression easier, they get drowned in abuse and accusations and vitriol.
There is plenty of knowledge and experience out there, but unless you're willing to go through the traditional hazing of old, you are not worthy and need to go somewhere else — that is the one consistent message of naysaying and gatekeeping that they face if they just wander in. Some are lucky enough to come in via established communities, but they get their help there, not from the wider community as a whole. It's also in these smaller communities you find the support for these kinds of features, because they understand what's missing to make it easier to teach those newbies. They have to deal with the gaps in the feature set on a daily basis.
We offered help, the OP refused. Not sure where the "look down the nose" part came from, or any of it. I'm far from elite so...but if feelings are involved, it is 100% on that side. This is not an emotions-based debate and I nor anyone here is responsible for how someone else may or may not feel. There was no hostility at any time. If bluntness is seen as hazing, we have a lot more to worry about and that's a topic for elsewhere. As I said, we are here to help but if one doesn't want it then...
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, freehand said:
You talk absolute nonsense you constantly twist every thing to your liking it's ridiculous.
Was thinking the same about the twisting...thought I saw it, but you just confirmed it!
-
2
-
-
19 minutes ago, Tippis said:
So are the training wheels we cite as various methods of making AAR easier and exist on a graduated scale. If the OP wants them to stay on, then that's his choice and it affects no-one. His keeping them on isn't a reason to not implement those helpers.
Citation needed.
Some people want to ice skate uphill for sure! You are correct, this is an endless debate. I'm not citing anything though. You've seen the comments just as I have. I'd bet that they (the comments) are still there although locked. This topic screams ineptness, entitlement, and a failure to plan. And somehow, ED is supposed to fix that...wow!
And this community is one of the most helpful out there. A plethora of knowledge, experience and help. The OP thinks otherwise.
My training wheels and helpers are my hands, feet and eyes. The sim is cheap and ours to do with as one chooses, all day. Practice makes perfect and there are many ways to learn if one WANTS to...but sadly, that's not the case here.-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, Exorcet said:
It actually turns out that they can. If the assist did exist and people used to refuel in missions, it could help get them accustomed to the idea of doing it manually.
One real life analogue, training wheels, are intended to help the user work up to the point where the training aid is removed. Even if the user at first never considers moving up the ladder, they can change their mind later.
Some people may never move up, but that's also fine. If it doesn't impact you, who care?
No where does the poll say against.
33% support is a sizeable amount of the playerbase, so that poll seems like a good indicator that it would be a popular addition in a sim where not everyone is going to be interested in every feature.
I care because it's a forum where people talk and exchange ideas, no matter how ludicrous they are. We all have the ability to throw our 2 cents into the hat. Training wheels are temporary and meant to teach! As the OP stated, he's not for learning AAR, he wants it done. This is a time and ineptness issue. None of which are ED's problem BTW! If memory serves me correct, the majority of users asking for this state or have stated similar reasons.
That in itself is enough to squash debate!-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, Tippis said:
Sure they can.
By adding in tools and options to make things less of a needless grind, players can get more out of their available playtime. If it's about skill acquisition, then this translates into more skill for less time expenditure, which is a win for everyone.
We're tool makers. We do this for that exact reason.
Sure!
Storage alignment with autostart
in DCS: F-16C Viper
Posted
I'm sure that had something to do with it. I swapped controls from my Winwing F-18 HOTAS setup to my Winwing F-16C setup to fly the Viper and something in there went crazy. I still don't know what exactly, but she hums like before now. Thanks!