Jump to content

dcs of distractions


naturestrike

Recommended Posts

I am not too shabby with mirage either, but it does not mean they are on the same level.

 

Its very fun to go low and fast on the mirage and shoot people down when they are not expecting, and shoot down almost everyone in close dogfights but you can do that in the F-5 too. I am not saying the mirage is at the same level of the F-5 either by the way.

 

The gazelle is very efficient if the TA is not at 2 hours flight-time distance and has fewer than 3 targets lol.

 

There will be many more aircraft in DCS such as the F14, F18, Viggen etc.

 

Multiplayer will come down to mission builders and some imagination using the assets in said mission. I would like to see proper missions setup with online briefings, little or a lot of strategy going on for both sides. SEAD, HAVCAP, CAS. Not sure if this would be possible? Perhaps the mission resets every 2 hours. You can only respawn so many times? Or have so much resources? This would possibly take some setting up and not sure how automated you could do it or would even be popular for Multiplayer.

 

Perhaps have the gazelles and Ka-50s close in to the front and make it important the CAP tries to protects them while they take out the convoy of trucks / the resources for the red team etc. The BARCAP will also have to protect the ships from the Viggen too!


Edited by David OC

i7-7700K OC @ 5Ghz | ASUS IX Hero MB | ASUS GTX 1080 Ti STRIX | 32GB Corsair 3000Mhz | Corsair H100i V2 Radiator | Samsung 960 EVO M.2 NVMe 500G SSD | Samsung 850 EVO 500G SSD | Corsair HX850i Platinum 850W | Oculus Rift | ASUS PG278Q 27-inch, 2560 x 1440, G-SYNC, 144Hz, 1ms | VKB Gunfighter Pro

Chuck's DCS Tutorial Library

Download PDF Tutorial guides to help get up to speed with aircraft quickly and also great for taking a good look at the aircraft available for DCS before purchasing. Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mirage while fun is no match for the other FC3 planes.

*snip* but the only one that gets anything done is the Ka-50.

 

You're doing something wrong then, several guys on the Open Conflict server and I have manged to be extremely effective both with the Mirage against FC3 aircraft and in the Huey, Mi-8, and Gazelle against ground (and air with th Mistral Gazelle).

"Though I fly through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil. For I am 80,000 feet and climbing." -9th SRW Det. 1 Wing Ops, Kadena AFB, Okinawa, Japan

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

i5-4460, 16GB of RAM, MSi GTX 970 Twin Frozr V, ASRock H97M Anniversary, 2x 1TB HDD, Fractal design Core 1100, Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog, CH Pro Pedals, Corsair Vengeance K70, Razer Abyssus mouse, BenQ 1080P monitor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not too shabby with mirage either, but it does not mean they are on the same level.

 

Its very fun to go low and fast on the mirage and shoot people down when they are not expecting, and shoot down almost everyone in close dogfights but you can do that in the F-5 too. I am not saying the mirage is at the same level of the F-5 either by the way.

 

The gazelle is very efficient if the TA is not at 2 hours flight-time distance and has fewer than 3 targets lol.

 

I fly at FL250 and have most of my kills in BVR with the 530. See, it's your point of view, in my point of view the mirage is better than the Su-27/F-15 because it's full fidelity.

 

Please do not say it's a reality as it is different for everyone. :) I respect your point of view and I can even understand it, but I do not agree with it.

 

BTW the Sa342L have 250 rounds and 8 rockets (I think) so it can easily take out more than 3 targets. ;)

 

Edit : From the post above, it all comes down on how you fly your modules, a MIG-21 can be VERY efficient with the number, the good support and the tactic. If you fly the aircraft the way they should be IRL they can become almost as efficient as more advanced aircraft. And above all some people like to fly less advanced aircraft, if it were not the case why would peoples even take off in the 21 when there are M-2000/Su-27/F-15 in the sky ?


Edited by myHelljumper

Helljumper - M2000C Guru

 

Helljumper's Youtube

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK3rTjezLUxPbWHvJJ3W2fA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem of being the jack of all trades is this i guess.

 

DCS World as a framework is great, but as it is, you get an environment to fly great airframes. The problem comes when you try to get all the pieces and create a war scenario, it's when the flaws show. It's natural, there is not a huge studio behind, things are complex and take time, and eventually would get improved. It's ok. I also think that having to develop the ww2 kickstarter has drawn a lot of resources from ED that are making everything else be delayed. So we have to deal with that.

 

Maybe priorities aren't right or hype/expectations are poorly managed in regard with modules or what can be expected in the future. Dynamic Campaign was the very first thing demanded because it's super obvious and how it gives an immense life to Falcon since before the BMS era. It's obviously a pretty complex thing that won't be done in two days, but it should be there. It isn't a minor thing.

 

The work done with the engine of the game on 1.5 and 2.0 is amazing and can't be praised enough, it really brought DCS to modern hardware and showed that simulators can have decent graphics and fps performance.

 

The AI of ground units needs to be worked out, specially when we will have (soonTM) ARMs. Tracking radars shouldn't be radiating all the time until you get within weapons engagement range and such. Some sort of ECM/ECCM for the radar sites would be expected but this falls within opsec stuff so it's natural that it's not implemented.

 

As the time passes and you get different units that you can field together you can see more realistic scenarios with different roles and players filling them. Combined Arms really needs a revamp to improve the GCI/JTAC role and make it meaningful and rewarding. Hopefully when we have more "full sims" able of filling the different roles, the need of FC3 aircraft will be lower and better multiplayer options might appear.

 

However, the sim needs more life. You face an empty editor most of the times, or whatever the mission builder decided to include. But we should have life around us. Random military units around us, more life down there on the cities. Get X-Plane and do an VFR around, you will see lots of cars on the roads, etc. Better weather effects, small ATC improvements such as ATIS would be great as well. The ability to have players as controllers in either AWACS or ATC without resorting to 3rd party software, too.

 

The more modules we have, the better we can put together a somewhat realistic war scenario. Also, i believe that the upcoming maps will work wonders in this regard.

DCS Discord community - https://discord.gg/U8aqzVT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand that balancing WWII thru modern eras work wise must be hard. I don't have any problem with the way ED is handling that.

My beef is the delay of 2.5 because when the Nevada map came out I wanted to wait so that I wouldn't have 2 installs. They said the merger was the priority so I thought firsthalf of 2016.

Then they said more features will come and it will be here by the end of the year. I could live with that. But now we only can guess when it will be out and it looks like I'm going to miss out on Normandy too for a while... :cry:

But it is what it is....

 

IMO they should have merged the old map into the new version and replaced it when the new caucuses was ready. Seems like the framework is hinged on the bells and whistles and not the other way around.... but ED probably has the full story...


Edited by The Black Swan

GeForce GTX 970, i5 4690K 3.5 GHz, 8 GB ram, Win 10, 1080p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I think most of the anger comes from how little we know about the development cycle.

 

The best way to learn about the development cycle is to try to develop a module yourself.

 

If you don't quit, I can gaurantee you'll become WAY more understanding of the difficulties various teams face.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best way to learn about the development cycle is to try to develop a module yourself.

 

If you don't quit, I can gaurantee you'll become WAY more understanding of the difficulties various teams face.

 

Just try to learn about development cycle for any bigger software project. As a really quick rule of thumb, ask anyone without any inexperience about the his take on the effort - the real one will be at least 10 times as that. Ask a developer - he'll give you some number - ask PM what he thinks about it - he'll multiply that number by 2 or 3.

And just to relax a bit: what's the standard number that every developer will give when being asked how much of his task he has completed - most of the cases the answer will be 90% ;)

F/A-18, F-16, F-14, M-2000C, A-10C, AV-8B, AJS-37 Viggen, F-5E-3, F-86F, MiG-21bis, MiG-15bis, L-39 Albatros, C-101 Aviojet, P-51D, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, Bf 109 4-K, UH-1H, Mi-8, Ka-50, NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf... and not enough time to fully enjoy it all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do agree about trainers, as I don't see a point to have a dual-seat where both virtual pilots needs an license to fly.... While other is sitting - other is flying.

The trainer's should be so trainee seat is free and trainer seat is licensed and you need a trainer to sit in aircraft to get in a free trainee seat.

 

But I do get the trainer idea for business, so you can let military and private air schools to run a virtual trainer before letting student to sit in real one... So just to guide systems and train some basics things before going to real thing.

 

But otherwise, trainers are IMHO as well out of scope as I can train by virtually crashing as many times I need.

 

And I would put focus more on the terrain and AI and ground units functions to get radars and such working even believed manner instead as now.

 

For me the trainers are great for virtual acrobatics teams or others who love those exact aircrafts.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Wow never realized how much of a mess this was.. they duped 2500 people! $150,000!!! I think ED should not have gotten involved. This was between the backers and creators, right? The backers should take full responsibility for their decision to fund this project, even if it fails like it did. And like so many other kickstartes that turned out to not be legitimate. Why was this to be any different?

 

I hope you can undersatnd how horribly shady this all looks now.

 

LOL seriously EVERYONE watch this video... he better be out of a job or "flipping burgers" like he said. What an absolute joke.

 

Just watch the second video, it perfectly sums this all up. There's nothing more that can be added after that


Edited by naturestrike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

What's done is done, ED came through for us all which is the important thing

 

best source of info here

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2114972&postcount=1

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ED know from experience to only give info about the closest to release projects, if they give to much to early and there are delays some members of the community don't handle it well, either way ED can not win, so best to stick to what is working for them.

 

 

 

+100!!! God yes! I have seen some pretty messy situations on these very forums from this.

ED is 100% right in how they handle their PR 99% of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...