Pikey
-
Posts
5916 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Pikey
-
-
I'm a little baffled to see an ED official state that wind direction and speed affects the trimming of the aircraft. It's basic pilot knowledge that wind has absolutely 0 aerodynamic effect on a flying aircraft, so if wind really is a factor in this case, then something is fundamnetally wrong with the FM.
Hey, if ED could afford aeronautical engineers as their Community managers it would be great, but I don't think it's reasonable to assume everyone at ED is. BIGNEWYS specialty is being nice and helpful. I guess your speciality is not :)
-
Deffo sounds like artifacts from the previous installation are in conflict. No you only need the dedicated server installation, the installation clearly didnt go to plan, I would suggest clearing out any other installation and checking the registry and user profile are all clear before going through with a server install again.
-
Yeah but the problem is the FOB(s) in DCS suck, ...
snip
...
I'd honestly pay for a decent FARP/Road base DLC like the carrier module.
That.
Is
THE
biggest
issue
for any mission that runs consecutively after another aka 'campaign'. You can't dynamically create them, have to Physically Touch the model to get services and it stems from the same single sortie issue as the entire bedrock of DCS that draws from a single table of content that can't be manipulated in so many ways after the mission is loaded to memory. And it's ugly, although you could theoretically do something about that.
It's a bit unfair that the usage of the module is tarnished with DCS's limitaitons on it and is a bit OT, but Harriers role is quite exciting in real world, the concept that a minature airforce of 6-8 supports Marine landings, and yet we don't have:
1) Farps that can be useful, spawned or look real
2) Embarking, disembarking troops/vehicles (from ship/vehicle)
3) A properly working Muliplayer Tarawa
4) Ships that can get anywhere close to shore
5) AAV7's that can path properly if they are spawned from a ship if you go down the scripted route
Which means the Harriers usage in DCS is pretty restricted, it should have the coolest role of them all, in my opinion at least, but the surrounding DCS environment is a little contributory to it's passionate complaints.
-
hah, do those snap rolls with a WH and no stick extension, that would be a strength, dexterity challenge! Looks good buddy :)
-
SAMs and radar wont pick up up at any range below 40ft, but they will pick you up above it at much greater ranges than the earths curvature should allow, so it's hardly "modelled". It's completely gamed, please test it as well as I.
I'm not sure we can jump to conclusions about the new map yet, so until proven otherwise: Maps are flat, coords are slightly manipulated to fit and radar has no issues to worry about with earth curvature, it's just filtered to not include anything around the 40ft mark. All that testing was done on flat sea around Viggen launch time and has not changed since ships would happily shoot you in a very binary fashion depending on your altitude in exact feet.
Be careful on what conclusions you draw from data.
edit: this is a useful tool for understanding how much DCS radars can see over the horizon. Very simple to test it on a ship with a known radar mast height.
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=60&h0=30&unit=metric
as you can see from the tool, there is magic going on in DCS ;)
-
Desire... you betcha.
Plans... who knows :) but where there is a will ... I bet ED would love to.
Always a good bet to check out the TFC plane list to see, if they have access to one its a good start but Ive never seen one in inventory before. I dont think any fly in the UK but theres 30 or so flying ones in the US that might be known to TFC guys.
-
Shame the thread went down the road of arguing the difference between far-fetched, reasonable, possible, probable, unreasonable, imaginative and so on.
At this point it's really just individual. I can absolutely guarantee that thousands of people do have the ability to enjoy the map concept despite limitations. For which, there are so many, in all of DCS, as to render the concept of playing anything with authenticity extremely restricted. And believe me, we could drag the conversation down from global orbats and geopolitics, right to the DCS simulation of radar and ECM and chaff code to find some kind of argument over realism. It's just not worth it though. Somethng has to give way for realism at every step.
As for assets, you have to start somewhere. Who would deny that the P-51 raised eyebrows and no one knew what to do with it at launch? But should we wait until the entire Luftwaffe were modelled before flying it? Or just some planes, the exact number being... 42? We could repeat the arguments over the 109K model, the P-51 Korean version or even the F-16 version and start talking about what combat these things saw and flew in. Do I have a right to be disapointed at the choices? Sure. It gets my OCD flowing that I can't essentially get Harpoon 3 down in DCS on a map with some relevant combat, but you know, we have all managed up until now and this map only gives us more tools, not less.
Being disappointed with the exact way ED develop is an excercise in futility. One can counter-argument every time with opinion and stand quite safely in a defensible position because that's an opinion. But the only real loser is the person that cannot make good use of what they are given in life.
If the Spanish can claim Guam in 15-whatever it was in randomly blown canoes, the Chinese/Russian/Korean/Martians can capture it in 2020. Just to make this absolutely clear, I haven't yet decided if a joint Swedish-Chinese coalition will already have possesion of Guam in their Red and white Viggens, before the US arrive in their P-51's led by the Grim Reapers talking in Farsi.
-
Harrier wouldnt cause quite so much passionate debate if it was so promising, at surface level awesome, and so delightful generally. When you have a module that looks so good but has a few nasty issues that linger, they become more than just an ink blot, they fester like sores and it abnormally slants the entire module as a result. A lot of the complaints are not quite about the actual bug and effect but the length of time it takes or is taking, (i need to use the present tense to be accurate) to resolve. As far as I can see, Razbam iterate in bursts and move on to other things without ever reaching deep on the systems front or communicating that much. This has upset some people who, lets face it, are PASSIONATE about the module. You have to understand, if people didnt want it fixed, they simply wouldnt post.
Razbam's art and modelling are unquestionably excellent. Their FM's are also very good. Their systems are good, but, their support methodolgies, communication and speed are a bit ropey and you buy into all that when you buy a module. I still think Harrier is a steal at half price, but once you spend dozens of hours of study on it and really use it in DCS, you begin to see what folks have been clamouring on about. I honestly dont think they fly it and test it enough in all the ways that DCS can offer to fully understand the deep view themselves and I have a genuine fear that the Harrier was left at the point where they had 75% in place, called it good and moved on hoping no one would notice. You dont get that choice in DCS, the audience is a tough gig to play.
-
Probably a test bed for newer map technology.
Surely additional maps will come.
Don’t understand why people second guess ED.
Gnashing their teeth over a free map.
Don’t like it, don’t use it.
Now wouldn’t it be hypocritical if you do.
I'm interested in what that tech is also and wether we'll ever get the tools released.
The real limit on maps is the size and objects right now. Theatres of war can be absolutley massive, possibly some of the issues with trying to get an Iraq or Balkans map done. What I would like to see is if the "new tech" helps grow maps larger and tackles some of the limitations. There's also curved world and things to build into joining up large areas.
-
...
Ok, so they could have expanded/improved/completed the Caucasus map instead of making this one.
...
Sure lets talk about that.
Caucasus is already the largest map of them all and with the largest object count. I would love to have seen the Ukraine peninsula or Tbilisi Marneuli which is the active military airport used. Does expanding old faithful really give us:
1. A US Base so there is a realistic home for US assets
2. An open Ocean where a Nimitz can reside outside of the Montruex convention
3. Good Performance <-- dont ignore this factor, as a test map this is very compelling versus the FPS you can get in central Georgia, which on the ground can be pretty harsh in VR.
So, why not a simple to play area everyone can jump into quick, do their testing on with good performance, have a few ranges and practice areas and when they are ready to lose 50 FPS, hit the PG map?
At least you provided and example, but on the basis of the question:
"Would you prefer Caucasus expanded with the same land mass as 5 islands around Guam or have Guam and five islands?" I'd still firmly press the button that said, 'New map please!'. And I think it would resoundingly be the winner in that competition. But please, try that as a poll to really know.
-
this!! exactly. at least one has understood my point. . . thanks.
No, I get the point, that's why I called out lack of assets in DCS. It's in fact worse than that because there is no way to actually land troops in the DCS ENGINE itself. I worked on an Aligator landing ship for that exact reason and its free to download but you cannot get them to beach properly.
...so why not make an all-water map in 5 minutes and release it free with the F/A18 months ago?If this is the main point, then it's woefully short of answering the question;
"Why can't I fly my F-16 on this map? Or my A-10C or Cessna or anything needing a runway"
Why did you in fact exclude all the modules for the new map that cannot use carriers?
That is what cost the time, creating not just a water map predominantly but actually finding a relevant piece of land to go with it. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about this point, folks are being woefully short sighted of the big picture.
So, a Single island with sea? A sort of practice test map like NTTR?
OK, that would indeed be possible, but then you have the same argument from another segment of the community:
"Why did you exclude multiplayer from your test map in the sea? We can't use it for Air Quake. Just two islands would be great!"
Nope, why not a string of islands so at least then people could make some multiplayer quick airquake games on the practice map.
OK, it's grown more complex now, the requirement to satisfy seperate communities at once with their individual needs.
The last requirements happened to all fit with a minimum land set - A US Air base for the majority of well sold ED modules, close to Asia for potential marketable interest.
However, the market segment this cannot satisfy cheaply is, "I want a place to excercise my XYZ fairly realistic scenario for an immersive experience/campaign".
And sorry, this is where the more important requirement of "cheap" is eroded. In fact, this requirement is the most complex of all that also erodes at module compatibility. The intersection of "Give me an authentic battleground, cheap, where I can fly my A-10C where it operationally flew and a place for a carrier" is mutually exclusive of a cheap map.
This is what folks that are saying they would have rather had something 'else' for, and it does not work.
Still waiting for a better suggestion, but heaven help if you guys were programme managers for ED, the question on "What would you have the map team work on instead" remains unanswered by the part of the community that want an authentic battlespace of relevance.
FWIW: I too want that to design on. All the inadequacies cited above ARE relevant and correct. It's just we are not getting it for free guys, you need to be a lot more circumspect than your own small view of the way DCS is used.
-
...
However, I would also like to give a little support to flanker1's opinion because I think he has a point and that you have answered his comment with too much negativity.
The fact that a DCS user talks about "waste of resources" sounds legit to me. There are people who are waiting for bug fixing and for the completion of EA modules and so one could think that maybe creating a map whose utility is questionable is a wrong way of managing ED's resources.
I, myself, don't feel able to judge that and if ED has chosen to develop this map for free instead of doing something else I guess that they have their reasons and that they surely don't have to explain those reasons to the users.
I just wanted to say that you can disagree with the opinion quoted above, but it makes some sense.
If the "map team" at ED were not working on a "map" how would making them work on something outside their role be better resource management? That's does not make sense. I guess you didn't know there was a map team and their expertise is in modelling and art and placing millions of objects over months comparing to satellite imagery. Not avionics, bug fixing or programming or fluid dynamics.
Let's consider some alternatives that fit in the "free" category, which so far, no one offered, from those that registered disinterest. I'd be open to agree with a better choice, but none at all are presented.
ED key modules: A-10C, F-18, F-16 and upcoming SuperCarrier.
Current map: Caucasus. A Georgian and RF conflict in 2008 and other years invariously and also not accessible by Nimitz class carriers or indeed any carrier.
- They need a map where their main modules can be flown for free, especially a carrier, but including a US overseas base for F-16.
- It needs to be cheap(ish) in man-hours to develop (read sparse population, and sea)
- It should have a large amount of open ocean to cut down effort and include carriers and current DLC
- Would be nice to dual purpose WW2 if possible
- Would be nice if close and of interest to Asian markets
The risk of both ignoring a US base and interests and open ocean together would garner much more negativity despite lacking land to work in. Sadly we cannot fight the main markets that are buying these products, even if my personal wish would be to simulate non US conflicts in Russian era tech. Something was always going to be sacrificed. The short list of overseas garrisons of relevance with mostly ocean are the Phillipines and Guam. The remainder like Italy, Djibouti, Japan, South Korea are much more complex maps as to put them into the realms of paid DLC. The rest are simply either inland or in progress. Korea is a good place but modelling an enitre country that size needs to have some cuts to make it work. Similarly the Balkans have Italy and huge areas populated. Yemen is probably the best next current hotspot with the Iranian proxy war, but i think it's a little too low tech and low involvement to be worth modelling (but better than the pit that is Afghanistan).
Guam is still more relevant than the Caucasus for a US Carrier, you just need to use fictional scenarios, like most of the sandbox play in DCS. Ficticious scenarious are most of what you find simulated in DCS. No one is doing the 2008 Georgian conflict with a Blackshark. A-10C's are embarrassing there. Carriers are ridiculous. It needs a US base.
DCS suffers from a displacement of time eras in it's assets generally, despite the massive choice. Everything after WW2 and before the 80's is off the cards due to lack of assets (if you discount some SAM systems). Not enough people want to fly 60's-70's era planes. Everything current day is a bit meh to fit all the modules. Still looking to Iraq, Balkans and Korea for accurate depictions using the current assets, but they are huge huge maps that apparently aren't able to be done in the current engine. Free was cheap, cheap was ocean.
TLDR; having the map team work on a more basic water map was what many of us asked for, and I rather they gave us this than the next DLC map for a cost. Anything else would have never been free. If you aren't interested in carriers and F-18 however, then you will need to pay money to see what you want with the favourite minority module of your choice.
- They need a map where their main modules can be flown for free, especially a carrier, but including a US overseas base for F-16.
-
DIdn't see it mentioned in the audio enhancedments part for VOIP but players now have the option of picking multiple output sources for both game and "headset" of the pilot which allows you to split the audio to two different locations - i.e. you can put general engine and noise to speakers and RWR to Headset. That wasn't specifically mentioned from ED either, but it is in and working at the same time as their Phase 1 of VOIP
-
I think form what I understand, correct. The "Windows bar" and window controls only appear in resolutions less than your primary screen. the same or larger and they disappear. This is automatic its seems but I think you can set a custom resolution if you rememeber the size for a full window on your desktop and you might get the window control you are after. Never thought about it before tbh.
-
I'm just wondering, do the folks that don't know what to do with Guam from a geopolitical points of view only play the 2008 invasion of Georgia by Russia on Caucasus with realistic Orbats, or the WW2 Nazi invasion of the Maykop oil fields when they pushed to the SE looking for oil? How many servers only play Operation Preying Mantis on PG? Is this a sandbox or are folks stuck in only recreation of things that happened, because if you aren't stepping outside that box, you ar emissing the best part about DCS guys, come on, use your imagination, Guam has been directly threatened by a rogue nuclear nation for the last couple of years at least and it also has history during WW2.
I feel like i'm defending a great choice against some really unimaginative naysayers that got disappointed with a free offering :)
-
So .. to my knowledge, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, Guam wasn't really an aerial battle. It was bombed from the air by the US B-24s .. but as far as I know the Japanese fielded no aircraft in that battle at all. Even if they did .. there aren't any Japanese planes in DCS. Nor are there B-24s .. we have the P-51 but I can't find any references that says it fought in the Battle of Guam.I'm also not sure how you could make a realistic modern scenario out of it. I mean I suppose you could do a modern fantasy "Russia declares war on the US and decides to invade the Marianas Islands" type scenario but it's a little contrived.
Honestly .. it's a nice island and the screenshots look great .. but I'm not sure what we're supposed to do with it.
Defend it?
-
+ 1000
Some guys like to fly over water / ocean
:D
There's a simple calculation to be made. How much does it cost (you)?
Apparently the guys that like "free" also want 3 years of placing millions of houses including their own back yard modelled in three different eras.
Terrains, with the current engine are modelled with a large attempt at accuracy, you can find such examples in the current priced DLC. Things like sam sites, army bases, ports have reasonable accuracy. Over that many million of objects the hope that you would get something with city terrain for free was always a choice between Bob Hope and No Hope.
A sea based "terrain" made sense in the current direction not only for ED but it's surrounding marketable DLC and assets as well as being requested many times by customers. The Black sea is closed to US Carriers, A Nimitz cannot get on any free current map in DCS and now, it will be able to.
And if one couldn't work that out, then one's expectations are set unrealistically. You wont get something like PG for free, the effort is ridiculously high to create.
Sure I'd like the world too. But an argument against common sense is literally that.
-
1
-
-
ED, I am a fanboy since the first piece of the flanker series, but what a waste of ressources. . . sorry. . . no one needs that. never heard before that this island is ever existing in real world. . . why no area with historical background, e.g. cold war, balkans. . . i dont need a holiday map.
:helpsmilie:
You've never heard of Guam? What cave do you live in?
-
Damn I was so close with my Kuriles guess. But actually this is better than the Kuriles, not for perhaps a hotspot, but for gameplay online, both in WW2 and beyond. Guam is most likely included, there's 14 islands surrounded by deep blue Ocean, which is exactly what we asked for.
Thanks and good pick ED! This will see us through a multitude of needed scenarios across the years and satisfy a broad range of communities whilst being "fairly" cheap to produce.
I think the only question is... Modern airbase, old airbase or some hybrid?
-
Hi Tomsk!
Good news I think then on all fronts. I had to do some tinkering. I have a attached a single sqn example fixed from your mission that does something as close to realistic and expected as possible with F-5s. Bear in mind this is something of a black art in places and support is "best effort".
At 0820 the group of two F-5s are airborne and head to the zone you indicated. That first time varies and cannot be brought forward easily, its part of the problem and the "black art thing". I changed their CAP to a racetrack N-S to look a bit more professional. They sustained that until 12pm and RTB'd with 40% fuel at which point, a few minutes after, their handover CAP flight spawned in and began taxiing. That's a good performance for those guys, even if AI cheats physics.
I did not notice altitude issues with the grouping, but I definitely changed the speeds as they are in kmh (devs love metric but it rips my knitting).
I updated moose to latest Dev - I have to support a single version and it can only be latest.
--ZONES local cap_blue_01 = ZONE:New("CAP Blue #001") --DISPATCHER local detectionBlueGroup = SET_GROUP:New() detectionBlueGroup:FilterPrefixes({"EWR Blue", "SAM Blue"}) detectionBlueGroup:FilterStart() local detectionBlueArea = DETECTION_AREAS:New(detectionBlueGroup, 20*1000) local blueDispatcher = AI_A2A_DISPATCHER:New(detectionBlueArea) --SQNS -- 1st F5 Squadrdon -------------------------------------------- local f5_1st = "1st F5" blueDispatcher:SetSquadron(f5_1st, AIRBASE.PersianGulf.Al_Dhafra_AB, {"1st F5 CAP"}, 20) blueDispatcher:SetSquadronTakeoffFromParkingCold(f5_1st) blueDispatcher:SetSquadronLandingAtEngineShutdown(f5_1st) blueDispatcher:SetSquadronGrouping(f5_1st, 2) blueDispatcher:SetSquadronCap(f5_1st, cap_blue_01, 6000, 7000, 500, 600, 700, 900, "BARO") --remember speeds are kmh. blueDispatcher:SetSquadronFuelThreshold(f5_1st, 0.4) --default allowed 2% fuel on pure rtb, this returns them at 40% internal fuel which is a good mix for that range and time blueDispatcher:SetSquadronCapInterval(f5_1st, 1, 1800, 1810) blueDispatcher:SetDefaultCapRacetrack(22000, 22000, 0, 0, nil, nil, cap_blue_01:GetCoordinate())Now... the thing that really is the tricky part is the blueDispatcher:SetSquadronCapInterval(f5_1st, 1, 1800, 1810).
I've set 30 minutes. I believe if these are shot down inside that 30mins (when does it start, who knows) then it shouldnt be filled as per sustained flights - that's optimistic figures for surge operations. However, i have found this method to be a complete mystery to me. It definitely is waaaaay too short by default. I think even as it was, it seems to force the CAP to land sooner, like this airforce has such amazing turnaround it can afford to keep engine time down and pilot hours short! I just dont understand it's inner workings but changing it this way allowed it to stop RTBing until the fuel threshold was met. Incidentally that fuel threshold is from 0 to 1.0 and covers ONLY internal fuel. So if they start with 170% fuel due to externals, 0.4 will still be 40% internal fuel.
Have fun!
-
Two things.
First the easy one.
AI afterburning around doing stupid things, that's DCS, it's just particularly weird. Not sure if restrict AB as an option works, currently without scripting then do 550kts with their wheels down trying to line up for approach. Sorry MOOSE cannot cure this.
Second... the patrol length and grouping. I've not had this issue, but I dont doubt you have. Your expectations on what it should be doign are correct from what you say. Unfortunatley without the mission, script and logs I'm not sure where to begin to help. I would suggest jumping on MOOSE Discord and talking it through in the A2A_Dispatcher channel when someone is around, along with your mission so we can try to reproduce.
ah sorry... i see you linked the miz. I will look now.
-
I've tested in the exact same weather conditions as the Stennis and Tarawa; both static and dynamic. The Kuz is the only one that doesn't have deck sliding issues under those same conditions. Though the Tarawa does have much less sliding than the Stennis.
Since you can't get a Tomcat or a Hornet to spawn on the Kuznetsov, (red USAF client will not snap to the Kuznetsov in my build) its not even reaching an apples to oranges level comparison. Module to module there are differences in behaviour, with F-14 being the dominant slider. I'm fairly sure its to do with the flight models stickness to the surface. A general complait voiced a few times on these forums is that; in the FM's, when the plane touches down to land lightly, it "sticks" to the deck rather than lightly bouncing off under power. Whatever this stickiness is, and the combination with the way objects are dealt with, is the core of the physics problem in DCS, which is where the word "core" is accurate and meaningful. It's a physics issue with objects and seperate modules FM's.
However I'd be open to testing a Tomcat on a Kuznetsov to do a fairer test, I just can't make it happen without tinkering with things.
-
Plan it in Combat Flite instead, the routing plans in DCS ME are pretty iffy for timings, never seen AI keep to them. If you are workign with AI that is. If its the same mission I recommend letting it run through and recording the TOT for the AI. Elsewise, ignore it completely and set your own ToT and therefore take off slot. Depending on the module you can get a good TOT with an inbound leg that you can adjust speed on.
Considering you want to do some planning, may as well do it right :)
To answer your question better... run the mission as a dedicated server that starts 30 minutes earlier, in the mission, set the AI to do whatever it is you want them to do 30 minutes later. This allows you to join 30 minutes ahead and have a hope of meeting your take off slot.
-
If you mean the "BigSmoke" that came at Normandy time then no, there is no API to remove it. Normal smokes last exactly 300s refered to above. Im fairly sure its been requested for many months.
-
1
-
please add client setting "disable auto radio/communications menu popup"
in DCS Core Wish List
Posted
+1