"Buddy Spike" - DCS World Online Events

[Shadow_1stVFW]

give the Mi8 and M2k two very different paintjobs!

 

Also, why restrictions for the A-10C? Let them use the A10 and KA-50 to its full potential.

 

 

Of course they'd need different paint jobs, haha.

 

And the only reason I'd say to take away some of the CBUs is because they are pretty much easy mode. Haha, don't get me wrong, I love them, use them all the time. But you don't need a CBU-97. And as for the GPS guided bombs. SU-25 has a lot of Vikhrs. So I'm all about laser guided bombs and mavericks. But you don't want to give too much ammo to people saying things aren't fair.

 

And I agree the KA-50 should have all its weapons

 

 

You're right, I don't like that too much lol. Taking away Vikhrs from the KA50 would be absurd, for the sole purpose of making Blue feel better. Given the match up between the A10C and SU25, the matchup between the KA50 and Gazelle equals out. The Gazelle has guided missiles, and now from my understanding A2A missiles.

 

 

I personally think no matter what scenario you set for the next round there will be complaints(from both sides of course). I do like some of your suggestions, but leave my beloved KA50 out of it lol.

 

Reaper6

 

I know what you mean man, I agree. Was just a thought. But I don't like it either. Let the sharks be sharks haha.

 

 

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T707A using Tapatalk

[Frostie]

The first idea is to remove the FC3 aircraft outright. With the exception of the SU-25, and I'll explain that in the next point. But I'd say get rid of the FC3 aircraft because they are a huge point of contention. If you don't fly them, then you complain that they are too simple, provide a huge gap in capabilities and are too easy to get started and in the air. You might also feel like they contribute to a "gaming" atmosphere that I believe the guys at Buddy Spike are trying to avoid. If you do fly them, you are likely not too keen on spending the money or time involved in one of the fully simulated modules. While I understand this, I do feel like the benefits outweigh the cost in removing the FC3 airplanes from the server. Which brings me to force shaping and team balancing.

 

 

I'm sorry but your logic and reasoning doesn't make sense to me. You say remove the FC3 aircraft based on what simplicity exactly? The fact they don't have switches to start them up and prep for combat is all I can think of here. If this is so, how does this make it unfair?

The only portion that is unfair is the fact they are superior platforms in A2A combat than anything else.

 

You then say allow Su25 based on fairness which contradicts your reason to omit the others.

 

If for example the F-15 and Su27 were given fully clickable cockpits with systems to switch on at start up you wouldn't have issue with them even though the pilots would be operating them in exactly the same way in combat that they do now.

 

Also your point about those that fly FC3 aircraft don't have interest in full fidelity modules is a terrible generalisation and so far from the truth. People actually like fighters and especially the F-15 and Su27. To label these modules as games is pretty lame, I don't see any difference in application during combat between these and the Mirage.

[LuSi_6]

Than move on, I think the 104 needs more Flankers and Eagle deathmatch

[Shadow_1stVFW]

I'm sorry but your logic and reasoning doesn't make sense to me. You say remove the FC3 aircraft based on what simplicity exactly? The fact they don't have switches to start them up and prep for combat is all I can think of here. If this is so, how does this make it unfair?

The only portion that is unfair is the fact they are superior platforms in A2A combat than anything else.

 

You then say allow Su25 based on fairness which contradicts your reason to omit the others.

 

If for example the F-15 and Su27 were given fully clickable cockpits with systems to switch on at start up you wouldn't have issue with them even though the pilots would be operating them in exactly the same way in combat that they do now.

 

Also your point about those that fly FC3 aircraft don't have interest in full fidelity modules is a terrible generalisation and so far from the truth. People actually like fighters and especially the F-15 and Su27. To label these modules as games is pretty lame, I don't see any difference in application during combat between these and the Mirage.

 

So, I'll speak to the eagle, since I've spent some time in that module. The systems are simplified, such as the radar. One of the most powerful radars in a tactical aircraft can't do something as simple as expand the view to sort cantacts. Requires no time to align the navigation system. Sure, the flight model is done very well, and as I understand it, the rest of the FC3 modules have great flight modules. And that awesome.

 

My issue being that they are out of place. FC3 is a decent platform by itself, but DCS world is moving away from that. BF is moving away from that. It is very "gamey" to log into a server, throw on some missile and be airborne 4 minutes later. And when you die, here you go doing the same thing in another 4 minutes. It might take me 25-30 minutes to get the A-10 and M-2000C airborne and ready to execute a mission.

 

If you don't agree, that's okay. But in my opinion, BF is not the place for airquake. They've stated they are looking to foster communication and teamwork, and that's not airquake.

 

 

And as for the SU-25, like I said, that recommendation is to maintain a simular capability for both sides.

 

I'm not associated with BS. I'm just a member of the community who chose to voice my opinion.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T707A using Tapatalk

[Frostie]

Than move on, I think the 104 needs more Flankers and Eagle deathmatch

 

It also needs more fish in a barrel ground targets to be destroyed by A-10 and Ka50s. ;)

[LuSi_6]

Let's be serious again, the point is that the eagle simply dominats. More everything and way easier to operate. Same goes to a not so much extend for the Flanker of couse

[Frostie]

So, I'll speak to the eagle, since I've spent some time in that module. The systems are simplified, such as the radar. One of the most powerful radars in a tactical aircraft can't do something as simple as expand the view to sort cantacts. Requires no time to align the navigation system. Sure, the flight model is done very well, and as I understand it, the rest of the FC3 modules have great flight modules. And that awesome.

 

My issue being that they are out of place. FC3 is a decent platform by itself, but DCS world is moving away from that. BF is moving away from that. It is very "gamey" to log into a server, throw on some missile and be airborne 4 minutes later. And when you die, here you go doing the same thing in another 4 minutes. It might take me 25-30 minutes to get the A-10 and M-2000C airborne and ready to execute a mission.

 

If you don't agree, that's okay. But in my opinion, BF is not the place for airquake. They've stated they are looking to foster communication and teamwork, and that's not airquake.

 

 

And as for the SU-25, like I said, that recommendation is to maintain a simular capability for both sides.

 

I'm not associated with BS. I'm just a member of the community who chose to voice my opinion.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T707A using Tapatalk

I know full well you have nothing to do with BS i'm not in the slightest concerned in that regard.

 

So an implementation in an F-16 is proof of implementation on an F-15, where did you get that idea and how does that make anything unfair.

 

If it takes you 20-25 mins to get airbourne in an A-10C it can also take you that long in an F-15 because besides making nonsense needless adjustments and tea what else is there to do you can't do on ingress. Heck have you even heard of aligning mid air, that gets an A-10 airbourne in a couple of minutes, a MiG-21 2-3 mins, Ka50 the same etc.

Edited September 2, 2016 by Frostie

[Frostie]

Let's be serious again, the point is that the eagle simply dominats. More everything and way easier to operate. Same goes to a not so much extend for the Flanker of couse

Way easier than what? If you can operate an A-10, Mirage, Ka50, Gazelle then you can operate it to it capability with ease unless you have no clue what you're doing. I think you're confusing capability with something else and in that respect a Ka50 dominates a Gazelle, a Mirage dominates an A-10, a Huey's AI gunners dominate a Mi-8 etc.

[Shadow_1stVFW]

I know full well you have nothing to do with BS i'm not in the slightest concerned in that regard.

 

So an implentation in an F-16 is proof of implememtation on an F-15, where did you get that idea and how does that make anything unfair.

 

If it takes you 20-25 mins to get airbourne in an A-10C it can also tale ypu that long in an F-15 because besides making nonsense needless adjustments and tea what else is there to do you can't do on ingress. Heck have you evem heard of aligning mid air, that gets an A-10 airbourne in a couple of minutes, a MiG-21 2-3 mins, Ka50 the same etc.

 

Well, nonsense adjustments to you, mission planning to me. To each his own. I spend a lot of time planning a sortie and coordinating to make sure it's successful.

 

And I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to in an F-16. Let's say this, you disagree. That's fine. That's just like, your opinion, man.

 

I don't like the FC3 airplanes, it's simple.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T707A using Tapatalk

[Frostie]

Well, nonsense adjustments to you, mission planning to me. To each his own. I spend a lot of time planning a sortie and coordinating to make sure it's successful.

 

And I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to in an F-16. Let's say this, you disagree. That's fine. That's just like, your opinion, man.

 

I don't like the FC3 airplanes, it's simple.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T707A using Tapatalk

 

I gathered you don't like them.

 

F-15 APG-63 doesn't have what you claim it does.

 

Mission planning can be done in any aircraft but a Mirage can take off in 1 minute also, it's not the platform but the actual pilot that makes these decisions. And with that I think you're wrongly trying to put people in separate categories of Eliteness because some differ to you by liking FC3 aircraft as well as everything else DCS.

[Shadow_1stVFW]

I gathered you don't like them.

 

F-15 APG-63 doesn't have what you claim it does.

 

Mission planning can be done in any aircraft but a Mirage can take off in 1 minute also, it's not the platform but the actual pilot that makes these decisions. And with that I think you're wrongly trying to put people in separate categories of Eliteness because some differ to you by liking FC3 aircraft as well as everything else DCS.

 

It has nothing to do with "eliteness". I think you've missed the entire point of what I've been saying. My suggestions were actually based on the implimentation of the Blue Flag server. I'm actually more concerned about capability more than anything else. The driving force behind that train of thought was from Greg's post about the plans for round 9. Leaving the F-15 and F-5 against the rest of the fighters. The issue I take with that is if we go with that, red will possess multiple aircraft with high off boresight targeting and weapons.

 

If you go back and read my post, my point was to equalize the field and provide an environment for the most modules to be used. That's what I'm saying. I also spend the time to justify those decisions. So take it or leave it. But no, I don't think less of anyone for what DCS module they like, or fly. So please don't suggest that.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T707A using Tapatalk

[*Rage*]

Or we could just leave it to the Buddyspike team to sort out:)

[Reaper6]

Or we could just leave it to the Buddyspike team to sort out:)

 

+1 for that!

(Edit: But seriously... Leave my KA50 alone lol)

 

Reaper6

[uke]

Or we could just leave it to the Buddyspike team to sort out:)

 

Of course, but in the meantime, I think it's also interesting to read respectful and well-argued comments from the community. I'm not sure I'd agree with everything in it, but :thumbup: for Shadow's post.

[Frostie]

It has nothing to do with "eliteness". I think you've missed the entire point of what I've been saying. My suggestions were actually based on the implimentation of the Blue Flag server. I'm actually more concerned about capability more than anything else. The driving force behind that train of thought was from Greg's post about the plans for round 9. Leaving the F-15 and F-5 against the rest of the fighters. The issue I take with that is if we go with that, red will possess multiple aircraft with high off boresight targeting and weapons.

 

If you go back and read my post, my point was to equalize the field and provide an environment for the most modules to be used. That's what I'm saying. I also spend the time to justify those decisions. So take it or leave it. But no, I don't think less of anyone for what DCS module they like, or fly. So please don't suggest that.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T707A using Tapatalk

 

But you say you've flown every round since round 2, if that is the case then surely you realise that every round has a different flavour this being one of them. If F-15 pilots feel outmatched because of off bore shots then so be it, this will be a great learning curve for them don't you think. I'm sure it is no more of a challenge going against ARH missiles with only SARH.

 

Dropping modules is not an answer to round 9, maybe a later round out of interest would be good but somehow I get the impression you want them out period.

[M0ltar]

Or we could just leave it to the Buddyspike team to sort out:)

 

I don't know. Im enjoying watching this unfold. :argue:

 

But, in all seriousness, I think we need to let the Buddyspike teak work out the air frames that are allowed in.

[RPY Variable]

People actually like fighters and especially the F-15 and Su27. To label these modules as games is pretty lame, I don't see any difference in application during combat between these and the Mirage.

 

Lame is to label them in the simulation category.

[gregzagk]

Of course, but in the meantime, I think it's also interesting to read respectful and well-argued comments from the community. I'm not sure I'd agree with everything in it, but :thumbup: for Shadow's post.

 

Must resist... Must not respond with the famous meme... Must...

 

 

Sorry couldn't resist finally :D

No worries guys we enjoy reading too when it's constructive feedback/ideas and not flaming in the threads.

 

Greg

[Frostie]

Lame is to label them in the simulation category.

 

I'd have to question if you even know what a simulation is.

 

Deriding FC is a typical response to being shot down by one because it's easier to blame FC than ones own incompetence. The sort of complaint of 'if that F-15 pilot had a clickable pit he wouldn't be able to kill me so easy'. This has been disproven as many good FC pilots seemlessly transfer to Mig-21, Mirage and F-5 with the same effect. This is because being proficient in a fighter is not down to how well you remember start up procedures but how well you apply yourself in combat.

 

Procedures to activate systems and start up aircraft are a case of once learned hardly ever forgotten, they are not skills that are perishable by neglect the only limit here is memory.

 

FC aircraft are well simulated in combat, some features maybe missing but these are features that only complement what already exists ie. makes them better and easier to use. Some light examples, the A-10C can create bomb profiles where as the A-10A is restricted to simple CCIP and CCRP with only guess work to help you battle the wind. With Mavericks there is no force correlate and you don't get to steady your gun aim before firing, Ka50 gets a working datalink in mp Su27 doesn't but should etc.This is what seperates full fidelity from FC in combat, it is the full fidelity aircraft which make it easier not the otherway around, in the case of combat fairness everything else is irrelevant.

 

If the F-15 and Flanker were full fidelity then MiG-21s, Mirages et al would be facing a much tougher prospect, as it is now they're getting an easy ride.

[Tello]

I hope internal testing is going well ! Could someone plz tell me how I can extract the mission so I can practice some Froggy/A-10C on my own server/Singleplayer.

[Coxy_99]

Flying an F-15 to a 27 and a mirage plus a mig-21 is all the same ill tell you why you dont clicky click in cockpit you map the clicky clicks to your stick so evidently guess what mirage mig-21 and f-5 all of a sudden become the same as FC3 lol its all mapped to your hotas, Would you still all moan if the f-15 and su-27 became clicky click also? Isnt the A-10C clicky click to? But hell no one is moaning about the SU-25T lol BTW you also map the A10C to a hotas this all FC3 stuff is nonsense, Get good at PVP, Getting killed by a 27 29 or 15 is the lack of your SA ;)

 

 

Edit: What the hell you going to do when the F-18 gets released, Infact you can chuck the F-14 into all this flaming to :)

Edited September 3, 2016 by Coxy_99

[xcom]

In all seriousness, thank you all for the feedback.

We do read it, we do take it under consideration for next rounds.

 

It's our request though, that we keep our behaviors and respect to one another and accept the different views raised. There will always be disputes or disagreements, but please try to do it with constructive replies :)

 

As to removing FC3 modules from Blue Flag.

It's an option we discussed previously and might put up, as we explore many different variants, this is an option as all others.

We try to bring you different setup variants, with different interest each time.

I think we have succeeded with bringing controversial, challenging and interesting setups.

 

Round 9 is around the corner, get ready :)

[Coxy_99]

In all seriousness, thank you all for the feedback.

We do read it, we do take it under consideration for next rounds.

 

It's our request though, that we keep our behaviors and respect to one another and accept the different views raised. There will always be disputes or disagreements, but please try to do it with constructive replies :)

 

As to removing FC3 modules from Blue Flag.

It's an option we discussed previously and might put up, as we explore many different variants, this is an option as all others.

We try to bring you different setup variants, with different interest each time.

I think we have succeeded with bringing controversial, challenging and interesting setups.

 

Round 9 is around the corner, get ready :)

 

Can understand taking FC3 for different Era's, Would be nice to see a mig-15 F-86 style tho :thumbup:

[Pikey]

BF needs it's own forum in here so we can have posts moved to chit chat or wish lists like it's parent forum. Wish lists and peoples different ideas of what they might enjoy are important, but the subsequent chit chat really derails a lot of the time. Opinions are divided. For a niche game you wouldnt believe how many people want different things out of DCS. The people posting here are the tip of the iceberg in Blue Flag, there are so many unspoken for casual fliers that wouldn't take their time to post here, let alone the different vocal ones. The only thing you are 100% guaranteeed to find in this thread is someone to disagree with you. GG.

[OperatorJack]

Would be nice to see a mig-15 F-86 style tho :thumbup:

 

I agree with this. Or a pseudo Vietnam era one with F-5, F-86 and Hueys facing off against MiG 21, MiG 15 and Mi-8