"Buddy Spike" - DCS World Online Events

[Tello]

I only have one request(the same as always) and that would be red/blu change sides/airports :D - I have also created a conspirazy theori that BF team will not do it in order to trick me into the BLUFOR so I can try and take off from the south ;)

On a seriuos note: Will there be a "SimpleRadio setup happy hour" where simpletons like me can join say TS and get a walktrhough so I don't mess any files up and/or can be sure I done things right and testing and so on.

Happy testing everyone !

[levanoga]

1989

When is BF taking place exactly? I know its in the 80's somewhere but the exact time. The Avenger is still considered an 80's vehicle unless BF takes place before 89.

 

The bigger question is what are the KA-50, SU-25T and A-10C doing there...

[winchesterdelta1]

When is BF taking place exactly? I know its in the 80's somewhere but the exact time. The Avenger is still considered an 80's vehicle unless BF takes place before 89.

 

The bigger question is what are the KA-50, SU-25T and A-10C doing there...

 

I agree. If you want to go 80's that does not mean just take AIM-120C away and ET. You have to take everything away that is not from the 80's. Now it looks like they just succumb to the pressure of people complaining about AIM-120. But for good measure they took the ET away as well. Otherwise the F-15 guy's would start to complain to much. I can not see any other reason. Otherwise all non 80's planes and vehicles would not be in there.In my opinion they should take all non 80's assets out or call it "nerf campaign". If you want to fly 80's so bad there should also take the negative consequences of not having SU-25T, kA-50 and A-10C.

Edited July 14, 2016 by winchesterdelta1

[Etherlight]

I do not understand where this weird notion is coming from that Blueflag rounds need to be associated with specific time periods. From what I have read it was the goal to create different setups that allow for different gameplay experiences, which certainly can roughly lean towards time periods, but not necessarily need to.

Yeah, of course you can take away all A-G capability of RED, because you set some arbitrary cutoff date, if you want an empty server that is. It's a stupid proposal. Now if DCS had most or all of the available Aircraft of a certain time period, sure, there would be options to do it then, alas it does not.

So the only reasonable thing is to work out different setups that work. Work in the sense of "There is actually fun in a more or less balanced, but generally working gameplay experience to be had."

Sure, you can make claims of the "But mimimimi, Nato was so much superior in that time period, this is a Sim, so Blue must be superior, too!"-like but what happens then is what we saw in Round 6, which was over very quickly, had ridiculously low playernumbers on the team that got ****ed in terms of balance and a high level of discontent in the process.

You need to be realistic about this: This is not a realistic flight simulation. The missile physics are galaxies away from that, most of the flight models and sensor systems are, too (looking at you FC3). This is a game and it needs to be treated as such if you want a reasonable number of people to actually enjoy it. Not many people are willing to suffer constantly in terms of gameplay in the name of """realism""".

[IASGATG]

"80's" is just a meme to get rid of specific weapons from the game.

[M0ltar]

Is there a reason why the A10C can only carry 1 AGM-65-H per side now for a total of 2 instead of the 6 in the past? Lat night I was able to carry 6 and this morning, Im down to 2.

[BodyOrgan]

I agree. If you want to go 80's that does not mean just take AIM-120C away and ET. You have to take everything away that is not from the 80's. Now it looks like they just succumb to the pressure of people complaining about AIM-120. But for good measure they took the ET away as well. Otherwise the F-15 guy's would start to complain to much. I can not see any other reason. Otherwise all non 80's planes and vehicles would not be in there.In my opinion they should take all non 80's assets out or call it "nerf campaign". If you want to fly 80's so bad there should also take the negative consequences of not having SU-25T, kA-50 and A-10C.

I would be okay with this, but thinking about it, it would probably be better to restrict the weapon loadouts on those aircraft where applicable allowing people who only have those aircraft to participate still. For example, no targeting pod for the A-10C (get it as close to the A-10A as possible), no vickers for the 25T (get it as close to the 25 as possible), not much can be done about the Ka-50 since it doesn't have earlier tank missiles it can equip. Maybe just replace it with the Gazelle since red forces fly it too though we'd be excluding those with only that module.

[karambiatos]

I agree. If you want to go 80's that does not mean just take AIM-120C away and ET. You have to take everything away that is not from the 80's. Now it looks like they just succumb to the pressure of people complaining about AIM-120. But for good measure they took the ET away as well. Otherwise the F-15 guy's would start to complain to much. I can not see any other reason. Otherwise all non 80's planes and vehicles would not be in there.In my opinion they should take all non 80's assets out or call it "nerf campaign". If you want to fly 80's so bad there should also take the negative consequences of not having SU-25T, kA-50 and A-10C.

 

They need to put in 80s assets actually

 

*cough*tunguska/tor/Buk*cough*

 

I would be okay with this, but thinking about it, it would probably be better to restrict the weapon loadouts on those aircraft where applicable allowing people who only have those aircraft to participate still. For example, no targeting pod for the A-10C (get it as close to the A-10A as possible), no vickers for the 25T (get it as close to the 25 as possible), not much can be done about the Ka-50 since it doesn't have earlier tank missiles it can equip. Maybe just replace it with the Gazelle since red forces fly it too though we'd be excluding those with only that module.

 

Vikhr is 80s though.

Edited July 14, 2016 by karambiatos

[BodyOrgan]

They need to put in 80s assets actually

 

*cough*tunguska/tor/Buk*cough*

 

 

 

Vikhr is 80s though.

Oh, then I guess it's fine.

[karambiatos]

Oh, then I guess it's fine.

well it's really 1989, so it kind of isn't in my opinion.

[winchesterdelta1]

I would never vote to take any thing away. Not missiles not other aircraft. I'm just showing it's kind of selective. Balance it out with other things. Like better air defenses for red. Or maybe a more modern AI intercept fighter. Don't restrict people on what they can or can not have. Unless you go for a specific time frame. And then use only asset from that time frame. Off-course even then some compromises need to be made. Blue flag right now is pretty amazing. I don't fly it to much, cause i'm waiting till it becomes more developed before i want to totally dive in it.

[Frostie]

"80's" is just a meme to get rid of specific weapons from the game.

 

80s is just a term used for A2A scenarios which follow the same vibe as the original 'MiG29A only' battles run on the 504 server. This was back in the LOMAC days when the biggest stick the 29A could carry was the R-27R, this mission created something different to the norm with some truly enjoyable merges.

[microvax]

I would be okay with this, but thinking about it, it would probably be better to restrict the weapon loadouts on those aircraft where applicable allowing people who only have those aircraft to participate still. For example, no targeting pod for the A-10C (get it as close to the A-10A as possible), no vickers for the 25T (get it as close to the 25 as possible), not much can be done about the Ka-50 since it doesn't have earlier tank missiles it can equip. Maybe just replace it with the Gazelle since red forces fly it too though we'd be excluding those with only that module.

 

The KA50 with gun and unguided rockets is still better by lightyears then the Gazelle. :D For anything hardend use S8KOMs, for any airdefences use the railgun, if you meet tanks thats a bit of a problem, but you can still kill them if you lock the engine bay and get a bit artistic with diving attacks and AP ammo.

 

But there is no tanks on Airfields or FARPs anway, so who cares. :D

 

Would be interesting, also proper SAM systems. But pls not the Tunguskas, their missiles even exceed the advertised specs. :megalol: Manufacturer spec is minimum alt is 15m, still tracks perfectly at 5m at max range )))

[OperatorJack]

The weather seems to be presenting us with a problem. As in the MiG 21 radar does not work at all in inclement weather...

[microvax]

The weather seems to be presenting us with a problem. As in the MiG 21 radar does not work at all in inclement weather...

 

Not at all or considerably worse ?

Does it have a doppler filter ?

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

Oh it does.

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[OperatorJack]

Not at all or considerably worse ?

Does it have a doppler filter ?

 

There is a weather filter mode on it but when I switched it on, it was either having no effect or the weather was too much. I'm just reporting what me and my friends are noticing.

[BSS_Sniper]

Is there a reason why the A10C can only carry 1 AGM-65-H per side now for a total of 2 instead of the 6 in the past? Lat night I was able to carry 6 and this morning, Im down to 2.

 

A10's shouldn't be carrying 6 anyway. The only place you'll see it as the norm is in DCS. I can see 4, but that's at most.

[M0ltar]

A10's shouldn't be carrying 6 anyway. The only place you'll see it as the norm is in DCS. I can see 4, but that's at most.

 

Thats not the point. There are several things about DCS that are not life like. My point is that they were removed with no notice and we can still carry 6 Ds. People like to compare DCS to real life, but it is still far from it. A lot of planes and helis go up much heavier than they should. Just because the A10C doesnt carry them in real life doesnt mean it can't. It can, they just don't for both legistical and flying reasons. Just because you don't see it in real life currently does not mean we should not get it in game.

 

My thought for us not getting the Hs in game is more because they were released in 2007.

Edited July 14, 2016 by M0ltar

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

Well if you want that goto the 104th. Blue Flag is supposed to be somewhat serious with some lax.

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

And ideally in a combat scenario you wouldn't want to be fully weighed down anyways. There aren't that many targets at airbase or farps so 2 a10 can do a lot of damage with some gbu12s and a few mavs

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[M0ltar]

Well if you want that goto the 104th. Blue Flag is supposed to be somewhat serious with some lax.

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

 

And ideally in a combat scenario you wouldn't want to be fully weighed down anyways. There aren't that many targets at airbase or farps so 2 a10 can do a lot of damage with some gbu12s and a few mavs

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

 

Ok if you want to argue the point of legit load outs, then why not ban the 3 racks of AGM Ds and the 3 racks of GBU 12s? Both of those are never used. Also since you want to talk about weight, I fly even when carrying 6 Hs at 40k takeoff weight including fuel. I fly light because I understand that I need to fly light. Yes, I could fly lighter, but that works for me.

 

All Im looking for is for some clarity on why they were removed.

[QuiGon]

There is a weather filter mode on it but when I switched it on, it was either having no effect or the weather was too much. I'm just reporting what me and my friends are noticing.

 

I haven't flown the MiG-21 recently, but last time I checked the weather filter worked fine. If you activate it, the cloud clutter should get less intensive, similar to ground clutter when turning the ground clutter filter on.

[D4n]

Problem with AI F-4, one somehow sneaked up on me WITHOUT me getting radar warning... F-4 doesn't have EOS, right?

[BodyOrgan]

Problem with AI F-4, one somehow sneaked up on me WITHOUT me getting radar warning... F-4 doesn't have EOS, right?

No, but they have perfect 360° vision, so unless they want to use their Aim-7's, then they don't need their radar.

 

As an attack chopper pilot, they are the bane of my existence. I have watched them fly miles away from me while I land, and still they come back and strafe me, because they always know where I am.