Jump to content

Karon

ED Closed Beta Testers Team
  • Posts

    1174
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Karon

  1. I said "Increase separation". Bugout, if you will If it wasn't clear by now, the rules of this bfm thing make little sense when it comes to the Tomcat. Ergo, the problem is not the FM, but monolithic rules that don't aim to provide the intrinsic balance that is fundamental in any fair competitive game. Or, using a different perspective, how the vigens rules simply don't care about flattening the differences between aircraft. In this case, just pick another aircraft and have fun. The concerns and discussion about the FM sounds exhausted to me.
  2. Then I have the feeling that the Tomcat may simply not be the best fit in this scenario, and no negligible improvement will suddenly make it the top dogfighter: power and endurance are pointless if the arena is as big as a napkin. The huge and heavy radar and sturdy construction meant for naval operations are counterproductive. It is also much older than the competitors, which come with the pro of leaving a bit more edge to the pilot, and the cons of requiring much more effort and skill. This does not mean that a good pilot can't thrive flying the F-14. The Tomcat is a magnificent aircraft, and one of the best fighters until the end of the Cold War, but no aircraft is the best in everything. (and before someone says F-15, they tried to make a naval version, but they had to tinker it so much that it became a brick, compared to the standard version, and de facto a different aircraft. AG-wise, they made a separated version altogether.)
  3. Sure, but it doesn't have the endurance: you can build separation and fly cold for hours in the F-14, no one will ever catch you. Then you can reset and come back, or just force a draw vs someone better than you. What prevents you from doing that? Unless, as I image, you have imaginary boundaries to limit the area. If that's the case, it'd mean castrating the F-14 of two of its primary advantages. Which is nonsense, and makes this arguing about an acceptable tolerance rather pointless. It feels like someone complaining that a shoe is slightly too tight, but perfectly usable, whilst his whole leg has been amputated.
  4. Question: you know you can take the hornet, add empty pylons, and level the playfield, right? If you want to go even deeper, you can also aim for the same DI for external stations, so you have "balance". It's quicker, you can do it right now, and it's future-proof. More importantly, it's not a waste of devs' time since removing the pylons it's pointless in any other setting (which are probably 99.9% of the cases). Another question, out of curiosity, how come that the F-14 manages to lose in your "BFM tournament"? It has more endurance and power than anyone else (I take for granted that you don't use FC3-level planes). It can build separation and simply force the opponent to RTB due to low fuel, and at that point, it can strike.
  5. workaround: keystroke *2
  6. The problem of the AI is as old as the game itself (older if you include LOMAC et similia). Unfortunately, rather than using manoeuvres and tactics, it just charges straight, at best it places you on CC, and its only defence is perfect notch, and sometimes it turns cold. What I did for my campaign (Iran '87) was randomising reaction to threat, skill level (to simulate different hardware and capabilities - never Ace though, it's just silly) and numbers (to simulate poor intelligence). It worked very well, and you never knew what was coming, and good they'd fight. Also, no DL, no AWACS, limited EW for the Iranians, so SA was all radar work and comms. This made any engagement chaotic and relied a lot on the level of the participants, and allowed mid-range AIM-54 STT shots to connect (I limited the 54s a lot, btw), without seeing the usual UFO manoeuvres from the AI. Unfortunately, as long as the AI in DCS does not improve, providing a more realistic scenario, it is up to the mission designer.
  7. Ho provato VR, ma preferisco il monitor e homebuilt setup. Anche perché prendere VR per guardare in 3D due display 2D fa un po' ridere a pensarci nullSto aspettando una soluzione di mixed reality efficiente, qualcosa che permetta di usare i punti di forza di entrambe le cose, senza dover usare un cockpit 1:1. VR poi ha altri problemi, come l'isolamento, che é un problema. Beh, stiamo divagando. Hai giá lasciato un feedback riguardo a ció che vorresti dal body?
  8. Ho il TIR da vent'anni e ho provato VR, so che la testa si puó spostare. Inoltre ci sono snapviews e via dicendo. Ciononostante, ci sono tante fasi del volo in dovrebbe stare disattivato per lungo tempo, quindi mi chiedo a che serva in primo luogo. Post FENCE IN, ad esempio, io lo terrei disattivato, ci sono troppe cose da controllare velocemente e come routine che sarebbe un "dentro/fuori" costante. Oddio, dipende il CAP si usa molto spesso (anche se KB é quasi tutta visibile), vuoi tenere sott'occhio lo AN/ALE-39 appena prima e durante BVR→WVR, per dirne due. Certo, non sono fondamentali come il DDD, ma l'idea di fare on/off boh, mi sembra piú immersion killer che tenerlo sempre off. Come detto, de gustibus.
  9. You can easily disappear from the AI's sensor if they are not supported by an AWACS.
  10. Replacing an expert with a new person does not mean that the changes are implemented any sooner, quite the opposite.
  11. Purtroppo é un po' ingiocabile averlo, a meno di avere un cockpit. Il pilot body é una di quelle cose che fatico sempre a capire. De gustibus.
  12. Dietro é stuck ma dovrebbe esserci un workaround. Visto che é tutto muscle memory, avere il corpo in mezzo é solo una rottura visto che copre la stragrande maggioranza dei controlli ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  13. Interesting, this solution causes my DCS to become a transparent window. It still has priority, as I can click the desktop, but it does not show anything. The only way to close it is via TM.
  14. Karon

    DCS News Update

    No. Nessuno che conosco lo ha, solo management al piú. Per usare un dev method il pezzo di carta non serve. Senza offesa, eh, ma la cosa delle certificazioni in italia mi ha sempre esasperato e non l'ho mai capita. Qui tanto sei 2m-6m in probation, quindi se era richiesto e te lo sei inventato sei fuori senza battere ciglio (anzi, in probation puoi esser fuori per qualunque ragione non discriminatoria gli aggrada). Va beh, siamo "un po'" OT
  15. Karon

    DCS News Update

    Figurati. Il problema é che chi non lavora in IT non realizza che il 99.5% del lavoro non si vede. Immagina una casa: la vedi e immagini che le fondamenta vadano giú qualche metro, no? In IT, le fondamenta vanno giú per km. Il mio punto di cui sopra é che in IT la gente non si siede e batte tasti a caso. Questo era vero 30+ anni fa, forse. Da anni a questa parte ci sono metodologie di lavoro come Agile che aiutano a organizzare il lavoro. Mettendola giú facile, in un planning meeting si valuta il lavoro da fare in quello sprint (= quanto di tempo predefinito), viene assegnato quanto lavoro ogni feature richiede e cosí via. Man mano, ci sono commits del lavoro fatto, valutazioni per vedere che tutto funzioni bene. Se é cosí, si rilascia la nuova versione. Immagino che ED faccia qualcosa di simile, con una data di prevista consegna interna seguita da una release in closed beta e, se tutto va bene, si passa alla open beta. In questo caso, sembra che qualcosa sia andato storto. Loro danno una data plausibile per la fine dei lavori interni e il push a open beta. Di solito va tutto ok, ma questa é una major release e quindi é piú complessa. Passeró il feedback che parte della community non vuole piú sapere quando le patch dovranno uscire. Meglio cosí? (← non riferito a @Topo)
  16. Karon

    DCS News Update

    Dall'inizio del mondo, fino al 2014 IIRC, ED era un'entitá astratta, come molti devs. Dal 2014 al 2017/2018 si sono aperti lentamente. Negli ultimi anni, la comunicazione é diventata molto aperta. La costante é che se ED non comunica, la gente si lamenta. Se ED comunica, la gente si lamenta. Non so come ED lavori internamente. Avranno un sw dev method tipo Agile o Scrum, immagino. Alla fine dello sprint ci sará commit a una certa cutoff date dove faranno il merge del lavoro di core e terze parti, faranno un po' di QA e, se non ci sono blockers, fanno il release. Qui sará successo che, post merge, qualcosa é andato storto e c'é un blocker. Due soluzioni: 1- bloccano indefinitamente, senza ETA, e aggiornano solo quando il problema é risolto; 2- ci lavorano giorno per giorno e man mano postpongono la data. Soluzione #1 rema contro all'apertura invocata per anni. Il grosso della community si scazza ma capisce che un blocker magari non ti fa nemmeno avviare il gioco e attende. Soluzione #2 ti espone a gente che non ha idea di cosa sia l'IT e preferisce avere un gioco che si inchioda che aspettare ed essere aggiornato costantemente. Cosa scegliete?
  17. r/agedlikemilk ?
  18. In an effort to update and review the Air-to-air part of the book, I recently put together something long overdue: a look at the AIM-7 Sparrow. Since incorporating the whole study into the book would be overkill, I started by posting the study on the website as a reference, whilst the book will have a more succinct recap. I launched about a thousand missiles, focusing partially on the 7F, but mostly on the 7P. Everyone knows how the Sparrow performs already, and how to make the best out of it. Still, I noticed a few interesting properties of the missile, that will affect how I use it in the future. Part I; Part II; Part III.
  19. I have a couple of pages here: https://flyandwire.com/kneeboard-pack/ The idea was finding the closest setting to get the desired spacing (15ft or 60ft). I wrote a simple script that, starting from complete tables, fetched these values. Hope it helps.
  20. None, mate. If you are new, start from the avionics and for 95% of the basic scenarios you only need a simple setup in the mission editor. Even something as simple as a race-tracking target whilst you are in active pause makes you see how the angles change, and force you to learn where, when, how the contact disappears, and to take action. For instance, you will see the target moving close to the notch, and you can pause or slow down time and focus on how the vectors appear on the TID AS vs GS, and how the return moves towards the MLC region before disappearing. You will also probably see how the target enters and leaves the ZDF, depending on how you set up the racetrack. You can experiment with different radar modes, see how the symbology changes, and so on. If you are looking for a place to start your journey, you can hardly go wrong with the bible itself: https://www.heatblur.se/F-14Manual/ Don't get me wrong, you can do all this in a campaign, online, or anywhere you want, but those situations are often complicated and can easily become frustrating. Therefore, I suggest you to start in a simple, controlled environment, get the basics done quickly, and then move on to campaigns and missions. Speaking of which, you can do the piloting stuff yourself (remember to disable Jester), then jump in the backseat. Iceman, besides the granny-speed turn ratio, is a fine pilot, especially now that it can navigate to defined steerpoints. That being said, the choice is yours, of course. Do what you find more enjoyable. Good luck, and shout if you need anything
  21. AAAhhhh... the reality of casual servers! 😄

     

  22. Thanks! The original plan was focusing on the F-4 post F-14, which is easy because it's very similar to the Tomcat, especially the Navy version, and then the A-6. That's why I poured a lot of time into concepts that do not immediately come to mind when the Tomcat is discussed, such as Kill Boxes, or "old-style" intercepts. The F-14 can use these concepts proficiently, and they were bread and butter for the late A-6 (KB) and F-4 (intercepts). Although I spent my first 11 years in DCS flying only the Ka-50, I don't think I will do anything like this for the AH-64. I don't think it is necessary: the Apache is a very common aircraft, and sources are plenty. Moreover, you have RL pilots talking about it, such as Casmo. They can make much better content with a fraction of the effort. The only aircraft I'd throw everything away to work on it is the Tornado though!
  23. Thanks mate You know, generally speaking, I understand the rants, but I don't justify them. As you said, it's usually a case of not understand what happens. In this regard, I managed to fly a couple of hours on Blueflag last weekend to test the new 54 with old firing parameters. I'm putting together a short video covering some stuff such as what I look for before shooting, what to look on the DDD. For example, I lost guidance for ZDF, and I knew it was about to happen, and I knew what was going on, but perhaps a new player can be confused and blame the DCS / F-14 rather than himself. And that being said, Draft V is out now. More information here: https://flyandwire.com/2022/09/12/virtual-backseaters-vol-i-public-draft-v/ Some of the additions include: Air-to-ground; Timeline; Air intercepts; General updates; Plus other topics I already covered on the website, such as: INS “Must know” issue and fix when operating from a carrier; AIM-54 v2 first look; Simplified stern conversion, to conclude the more immediate approach to timelines and intercepts; Feedback is always welcome!
  24. I have found the discussion about the evolution of intercepts and timeline very interesting, as it is reflected quite well by the docs available (with all the caveats that this entails). The jump between 70s - 2000s and around and post 2010s is quite neat.
  25. Careful, the NAVGRID is not True. In fact, you can orient it to offset and point at the Magnetic North, similarly to what I mentioned before with the Echo point. By doing so, although the reading won't be magnetic, the eyeballing you will make will be more precise.
×
×
  • Create New...