ngreenaway

5 months ago

For cowbell, we must first have cows

you did, and thank you I rearranged your post because these all have the same response: in these, I believe youd be justified in editing your logbook lua file. In one, you legitimately completed the mission of your own merit in the other examples, you put in a good faith effort, yet there were issues outside of your abilities as a sim-pilot for you to continue. If a bug existed in DCS (ive never heard of such a unicorn), that shouldnt prevent you from using content you paid for. in the end, what we do, we do for our enjoyment. If issues are preventing you from enjoying things and youve done what you can...then more on. you and i are in the same boat, and yes i am conscious of what the DCS experience is for newcomers. It does at the same time need to be approachable for new pilots without ameliorating the experience for those with a higher degree of proficiency (hence, MAC!) I certainly dont disagree This is true, and while it may be to some degree cognitive dissonance, I am for the inclusion of those unlimiteds. DCS has an incredibly steep learning curve, and they can be useful as a sort of "training wheels", and there is a certain degree of accomplishment once you uncheck those boxes, along with the uncertainty of a new found vulnerability. Does a save feature do the same? perhaps. I dont see it as an essential feature, but like i mentioned, if it were included in DCS i would simply continue going about my sim, while you do what you wish with yours. As for labels, im of mixed feelings. i like a simple dot, the smaller, the better. Too much information makes the screen a mess. I do wish the dots would disappear when obscured from line of sight by terrain or parts of my own aircraft. in some airframes, its that way. in others the mod i used doesnt work. Is that cheating? in some peoples book, perhaps, however there are a lot of visual cues that exist for RL pilots that dont exist in DCS- glint off windshields, people and vehicles moving at realistic speeds, plumes of dust kicked up behind vehicles. The clarity of even distant detail by the human eye outstrips what DCS shows on even the best monitor, and most certainly my first generation vive (non-pro). If you feel thats a double standard, ill accept that. by all means, let it runneth! The whole intent of my counterpoint was to discuss the underlying considerations, not to say "stoopid noodz, get gud, lulz! -1"

If you're referring to my statements perhaps you should read the elaboration I did in my second post

There, now youve seen it. Next!

Maybe?! :megalol: I almost want it to get delayed just to see where this goes

It can be. Use smoke effects in Mission Editor

[YOUTUBE]kLSa3pO6Bc[/YOUTUBE]

I don't think you have a firm grasp on what you're trying to say. You're discussing nukes on an A-10 as if it were a fact, and when I show u that no, it's not a fact , you come back with Serbian birth defects & depleted Uranian shells. No one would dispute a claim that a-10s carry depleted uranium munitions. Here's the thing: DU munitions AREN'T nukes, and the DU rounds they carry are for the gun. They certainly aren't mini-nuke missiles

That's one thing I thought about but didn't mention- it doesn't make business sense for Ed to have someone on the payroll answering questions that could be taken care of for free by other forum members Secondly , that would quickly overwhelm Ed and other devs getting bogged down answering every question that comes along, when there are plenty of people on forum who are more than happy to help

Amen to that! Additionally, criticizing a statement must not be conflated with criticizing a person. There is a distinct difference between the two

Just because an aircraft can carry bombs doesn't make it a bomber. A plane made to fly slow& low over columns of tanks, happily BRRRRRRTing people and equipment out of existence, is not a good candidate for nukes, which require an aircraft to fly high or fast and preferably both While the air force did consider it a long time ago, they never did it. Check it, that's a fact. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/air-force-almost-had-10-warthog-drop-nukes-76711 Fwiw, that was part of an era where atomic bombs were considered for everything from artillery to dredging canals, and even back then nukes on an a-10 seemed like a bad idea

Or the existing system renders your suggestion redundant? In all reality, doesn't matter what system is in place, people -especially those new to the forum- are going to use what's easiest, whether it's the most appropriate or not. What's easiest is to post publicly, no matter how many safeguards they provide

I agree, 100%, and despite all-pylon- spamraam a-10's misdirection, I'm glad he posted here rather than Hoggit Still one thing about human nature is the tone of the reply is generally very reflective of the tone of the original querry or declarative statement

And some people need to peruse the documentation that comes with the aircraft, or the very helpful guides put out by Chuck owll before complaining that it's a pity from the consumers point of view that they can't load what they want, where they want, on whatever aircraft they like. I'm sorry buddy, but you walked right into that one. Just be glad you didn't make that post on Hoggit. There's a very steep learning curve to DCS, and part of the satisfaction that comes from it is derived from becoming competent in these incredibly complex (not looking at you, CE2) aircraft. We recognize the position you're in at the bottom of that learning curve, and some have given you clarification, but you also have to realize the statements you've made are the kind of thing that gives us a good laugh. People are going to have fun with that.

I don't think ED has access to info that FlyingIron Simulations doesn't have or can't get. The optics would be pretty bad for them to release it after a dev has shown a sip model...I mean, it's *possible* , ED could be further along on theirs, but I don't think so. I think the ah64 makes the most sense, but I don't know how likely they are to follow the hind with the Apache...

I am of the opinion that if you don't like something, don't use it. What you use or don't use or your sim won't affect my enjoyment of my sim. I'm offering a dissenting voice that it's not that necessary of a feature (if we only have voice to agreements and not disagreements, it would certainly does the perception of just about any topic on this board.) I understand the blow to morale when you fail on an extended mission. But if say, you fly a load..save, go pick up another load, save...pick up another.... Then you've changed the dynamic of the task. If you remove the ability to fail on the basis of your performance, you also remove the accomplishment to succeed on your own merit. If that accomplishment is unimportant to you, by all means, save all you want. You remove a certain degree of suspense or stress because you're no longer invested in it for a whole mission , but only for a segment. There's nothing really on the line, cuz there's nothing to lose. The stakes become very low if all you have to lose is a few minutes of flying. I didn't understand that at first when I began with dcs. I began with unlimited fuel, as I was focused on mastering other basic competencies. When I first turned the unlimited fuel off, however, for the first time I was on the edge of my seat& my flying took on a new character...in the ka-50, hearing constant "watch ekran" alerts, seeing my plumeting fuel level and wondering if I'd make it, if I'd have to autorotate in, or if I'd end up a smoldering smudge on the countryside... Same can be said for a carrier mission, fly the mission and save just before landing, so if you don't make it, you only lose the last few minutes... knowing you have nothing to lose reduces the pressure to do well, and therefore reduces the relief when you get it right Do what makes you happy. If they put the feature in, use it I suppose. Maybe you really don't mind the intangibles you lose in the process. But I'm happy with the way things are, and wouldn't call a save feature necessary. From my point of view, I'm glad it's not there

Get rid of those big boxy things behind the wings, and u might be able to load up some cruise missiles too

I was kinda on board with the save feature till I read this comment. And yes, I know the pain of this mission, I did 3 of the slingloads & went home when I saw my fuel level. Save is nice for a long mission so you can work on it in bites depending on the time permitting, but pausing while away does just as well. But saving to bypass the effects of a critical mistake? No, I think dcs is fine without a save feature

Or just get the SC. It's hardly a bank breaker

because

I see some room in the middle, can we squeeze in a tomahawk and a couple iglas? :megalol:

I love it. This was good for a good laugh. Perhaps it's good tho. Considering OPs low post count & the sudden influx of similar type questions for things we take for granted, perhaps the free trials lately brought a bunch of new people in who wouldn't have gotten into dcs otherwise Op: dcs stands apart from other games, in fact I don't consider it so much a game but more as a hobby. You'll find your mission loadouts are constrained by reality. If an aircraft doesn't carry something in real life, it won't do so in DCS. Download Chuck's guides (Google it, you'll find them) . The enjoyment of dcs isn't from seeing how much of what missiles you can load on an aircraft, but rather by learning all the features, systems, and procedures like on a real aircraft. It's not something you fire up& start blasting stuff out of the sky right away. Just learning to land without damaging an aircraft can be rewarding. Perhaps you may want to start with some of the simpler aircraft and work your way up

5 months, not 6. In all reality it's been just shy of 5. Your post says one thing, but the tone behind it says the complete opposite. I get wanting an update, but this has been explained ad nauseum by numerous people on this forum. The update to stable is condition based, not calendar based. We could perhaps see an update for stable next week if all is well. If not? )Shrug( Look, with as much noise as you've made over the past couple months about not getting what you want, I don't know why you haven't just jumped to OB , at least till stable updates.