Cold War 1947 - 1991

[Ian Boys UK]

I think S&D is a great mission and now we know that the key to Jahrom Town is flying in a JTAC so it's not too hard at all.

 

[carss]

On 8/3/2021 at 6:47 PM, rogorogo said:

It is, look at the WIP pictures - any of those it "is" Mk-wise and "could represent" loadout-wise would fit nicely to pad out the earlier Cold War era.

That the full fidelity Mig-29 will be most likely an "A" is also good news (another "pilot's plane" that flies for that era instead of a Sega-Nintendo-clicky-frame).

 

As much as I'm happy about the Mig-29A being made full fidelity, I personally don't see anyone getting excited as in modern servers this thing is beyond superseded by more advanced Bluefor planes although it may play out much better for cold war scenarios but still not exactly fit in any of them. Now if they did make a 29S or any other slightly more advanced version in the Fulcrum family I can certainly see it playing out much better for them. Maybe if they managed to make the 29M it might truly be the best option but then again lets see.

 

EDIT: I also think I saw someone in the Russian forums say (and please don't quote me on this as I'm not entirely sure) they're still deciding on which Fulcrum variant to make but it's most likely an A model

Edited August 6, 2021 by carss

[rossmum]

On 8/4/2021 at 4:09 PM, Gunslinger22 said:

Funnily enough though, all the aircraft you have mention apart from the MiG's will be their late in production and service life variants, so in part we will always get the latest of an aircraft in DCS, rather than what they were in initial production or early in their service lives. The A-6E, A-7E and F-8J which realistically are all out of the Rolling Thunder timeframe, with both the 6E/7E being out of Vietnam completely. So no, we still don't have a realistic complete set of aircraft for any timeframe. Heck even our current F-14A doesn't fit within any coldwar scenario. 

 

For what it's worth, 21bis was the final Soviet production variant. Anything since (other than J-7 and its million permutations) has been an upgraded MF or bis. 23MLA was the penultimate variant, MLD does indeed modernise it further, but not as significant a jump as M/MF -> MLA. There are very, very few aircraft in DCS which represent an 'early' variant or config, except maybe the Fw 190A-8 and the Spit LF IX.

 

A-6E (pre-TRAM, but even post-TRAM would still kinda work), A-7E, and particularly F-8J would all fit in smoothly with our 1972 MiG-21bis or our mid/late 70s MiG-23MLA.

[Alpenwolf]

Server News:

 

Helicopters Tournament 14 is on! Signups are open NOW!

[carss]

On 8/3/2021 at 10:17 PM, rossmum said:

 

It won't, as the A-4 guys have made it clear that they intend to keep it as a free, community-led project without signing anything over to ED or any other official party. IIRC one of the team passed away during development and so the already decided-upon position became basically set in stone to honour their wishes. It's unfortunate for us multiplayer creatures, but it is what it is.

I know that, I'm talking about just an AI asset, so by doing that its not an official module nor is it paid for in any way, it's just an asset that we could all use in various missions, and then there is always the mod to download it which is free

[Enigma89]

This may be an unpopular opinion but I am just going to come out and say  it but having the ability to completely blind a side because EWR can be destroyed really just kills the vibe on the server. If this game had decent spotting it *may* be viable but this game probably has the worst spotting out of all the flight sims on the market. 

 

The only answer to it is to fly lower so you can silhouette planes up against the sky but then that leads to just silly gameplay. People fly higher in Battlefield 2 than they do on this server sometimes. 

 

This server generally has population for a few hours during US East Prime Time and right now red is completely blind while blue has EWR. So the people who were playing before did not defend the EWRs. They were destroyed and now everyone who decides to join are left with an essentially burnt server. 

 

Alpen have you ever considered adding some sort of thing to help complement the EWR system. Maybe what TTE has where it gives you a text readout of a bogey picture (its unique to each player and doesn't jam comms)? If people are cheesing it then the only solution I see is to give each player an all seeing eye. That way there is no benefit from flying low.  It's a shame because sneak attacks are going to be void with this but there are just too many people abusing it. 

 

 

Edited August 9, 2021 by Enigma89

[Alpenwolf]

46 minutes ago, Enigma89 said:

This may be an unpopular opinion but I am just going to come out and say  it but having the ability to completely blind a side because EWR can be destroyed really just kills the vibe on the server. If this game had decent spotting it *may* be viable but this game probably has the worst spotting out of all the flight sims on the market. 

 

The only answer to it is to fly lower so you can silhouette planes up against the sky but then that leads to just silly gameplay. People fly higher in Battlefield 2 than they do on this server sometimes. 

 

This server generally has population for a few hours during US East Prime Time and right now red is completely blind while blue has EWR. So the people who were playing before did not defend the EWRs. They were destroyed and now everyone who decides to join are left with an essentially burnt server. 

 

Alpen have you ever considered adding some sort of thing to help complement the EWR system. Maybe what TTE has where it gives you a text readout of a bogey picture (its unique to each player and doesn't jam comms)? If people are cheesing it then the only solution I see is to give each player an all seeing eye. That way there is no benefit from flying low.  It's a shame because sneak attacks are going to be void with this but there are just too many people abusing it. 

 

 

 

 

I was on the server just now and left for the Mission Editor for exactly that reason! Operation Phone Booth is very old, and although I did rework some things in it, in time small issues here and there show up; Like the EWR.

 

In some mission a replacement EWR spawns after a certain a mount of time (minutes only) so the problem there is minimal. I just noticed that operation Phone Booth doesn't have that, so I just added it. Besides, Mi-8's and UH-1's can always deploy EWR's, but you don't always have someone flying them.

 

The TTE thing would ruin things a bit as you said it yourself.

 

Players always fly low on the server. Maybe when the MiG-23 arrives and flies mainly at higher altitudes than the rest (I know, I will), F-5's will be forced to fly higher a bit to counter that. I even fly the MiG-21 at altitudes between 3000 and 5000 m sometimes, hoping for some F-5 to take the bait and tastes some R3R missiles. It's always up to the players and what they do with their modules. Check this out: I once took the Ka-50 in the mission Two Towns (now removed from the mission - Mi-24P' added instead) and flew at 3000+ m, while being partially obscured by the clouds. It was fun hunting tanks from up above! I even made it back to the FARP with lots of kills, despite all the bandit callouts from players and the GCI throughout the whole time I was up there. It was like I was doing my own thing while listening to stressed out pilots dogfighting the enemy nonstop

 

Try and have it your own way rather than having the game (or players actually) push you around its (their) way. Doesn't work all the time, but quite enough.

[Enigma89]

2 hours ago, Alpenwolf said:

 

I was on the server just now and left for the Mission Editor for exactly that reason! Operation Phone Booth is very old, and although I did rework some things in it, in time small issues here and there show up; Like the EWR.

 

In some mission a replacement EWR spawns after a certain a mount of time (minutes only) so the problem there is minimal. I just noticed that operation Phone Booth doesn't have that, so I just added it. Besides, Mi-8's and UH-1's can always deploy EWR's, but you don't always have someone flying them.

 

The TTE thing would ruin things a bit as you said it yourself.

 

Players always fly low on the server. Maybe when the MiG-23 arrives and flies mainly at higher altitudes than the rest (I know, I will), F-5's will be forced to fly higher a bit to counter that. I even fly the MiG-21 at altitudes between 3000 and 5000 m sometimes, hoping for some F-5 to take the bait and tastes some R3R missiles. It's always up to the players and what they do with their modules. Check this out: I once took the Ka-50 in the mission Two Towns (now removed from the mission - Mi-24P' added instead) and flew at 3000+ m, while being partially obscured by the clouds. It was fun hunting tanks from up above! I even made it back to the FARP with lots of kills, despite all the bandit callouts from players and the GCI throughout the whole time I was up there. It was like I was doing my own thing while listening to stressed out pilots dogfighting the enemy nonstop

 

Try and have it your own way rather than having the game (or players actually) push you around its (their) way. Doesn't work all the time, but quite enough.

Thanks for adding it. I personally also fly around 3-5k to try to bait some people up higher but most of the time I end up having to go lower, just one of those things about having to have two to tango. 

 

Thanks again for changing the mission.

Edited August 10, 2021 by Enigma89

[Zachrix]

This video's footage was filmed today on Phone Booth with no EWR, you'd be surprised how much you could see

[rogorogo]

vor 7 Stunden schrieb Alpenwolf:

 

I was on the server just now and left for the Mission Editor for exactly that reason! Operation Phone Booth is very old, and although I did rework some things in it, in time small issues here and there show up; 

 

bug report (again only potential bug): PHONE BOOTH

I was on Phone Booth either mid or late-stage yesterday (or rather.. today) around Midnight/0000 Zulu/GMT .
At this point the RED FARP did not offer FUEL with the "sorry, we do not have this item in stock" textline if a Crocodile managed to return or tried to add fuel on spawning.
REARMING on a turnaround was started with the usual "copy" message and finished with the "Rearming complete" textmessage but the actual screen showed random pylons empty (but weapons fired and were present only on the pylons not shown as emtpy.
While I would judge the latter as a module bug (thus disregard) I do not know if the fuel-situation on the FARP was intendend (has run out, got destroyed, no ressupply by Hip aso aso) or a bug, but since it was mentioned that the mission file needed attention elsewhere, I thought I should maybe just make aware of this.

For the bug - trackfile (did not check if it was desynced or not):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1O0Nmf7QD8XAuCpLTh9aLrnQSZl9lmH1z/view?usp=sharing

Question (entirely unrelated):
Are some missions at some point intended to make use of the transport capability (for something like a Manpad Squad, AT or anything feasible, fidelic, sensible for the mission context) at some point (when available, when working, in near future, far future, does not matter, just in general).
This is just a question out of interest, fully aware that the not even the slingload properly works on the module yet, and internal transports have not yet any inner or outer rendering model (which are planned according to Eagle) or the inner render model of the compartment/benches (already present on the outer render model.

[Alpenwolf]

7 hours ago, Zachrix said:

This video's footage was filmed today on Phone Booth with no EWR, you'd be surprised how much you could see

 

Good flying! And I though I'm the only MiG-21 who takes to the sky in a merge rather than a turn Good to see others do that too. Because that's how it's supposed to be in the MiG-21!

 

... just like the Dora.

 

2 hours ago, rogorogo said:

bug report (again only potential bug): PHONE BOOTH

I was on Phone Booth either mid or late-stage yesterday (or rather.. today) around Midnight/0000 Zulu/GMT .
At this point the RED FARP did not offer FUEL with the "sorry, we do not have this item in stock" textline if a Crocodile managed to return or tried to add fuel on spawning.
REARMING on a turnaround was started with the usual "copy" message and finished with the "Rearming complete" textmessage but the actual screen showed random pylons empty (but weapons fired and were present only on the pylons not shown as emtpy.
While I would judge the latter as a module bug (thus disregard) I do not know if the fuel-situation on the FARP was intendend (has run out, got destroyed, no ressupply by Hip aso aso) or a bug, but since it was mentioned that the mission file needed attention elsewhere, I thought I should maybe just make aware of this.

For the bug - trackfile (did not check if it was desynced or not):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1O0Nmf7QD8XAuCpLTh9aLrnQSZl9lmH1z/view?usp=sharing

Question (entirely unrelated):
Are some missions at some point intended to make use of the transport capability (for something like a Manpad Squad, AT or anything feasible, fidelic, sensible for the mission context) at some point (when available, when working, in near future, far future, does not matter, just in general).
This is just a question out of interest, fully aware that the not even the slingload properly works on the module yet, and internal transports have not yet any inner or outer rendering model (which are planned according to Eagle) or the inner render model of the compartment/benches (already present on the outer render model.

 

I've never ever had any issues with the fuel in any mission in all the years. Must be on your side, mate.

 

Sometimes the rearming doesn't work, but only if the FARP structures and trucks are destroyed.

 

I'd love nothing more than having Mi-8's, UH-1's and also Mi-24's and SA342's transport nothing but infantries (EWR's and ammo trucks might still be the exception). The problem is, infantries in DCS are way too rubbish to have them completing any task. We'll have to wait.

[rossmum]

I thought going straight up at the merge was a natural 21 pilot instinct

[rogorogo]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Alpenwolf:

I've never ever had any issues with the fuel in any mission in all the years. Must be on your side, mate.

 

good to know - it is an EA-module.. by Eagle themselves.. so Zen is required and present. 
So for the occasional and potential glancer-in-passing:
WORKAROUND: if refuel bug manifests -> return, land, repair, role to spectators, select role, respawn

Transporting, yep, thank you for the info, all good. But even later, DCS is what is this, so any transport capability is an addition to help the on-mission involvement of everyone.

Edited August 10, 2021 by rogorogo
can I not have the weirdest typos - just for once...

[Alpenwolf]

18 minutes ago, rogorogo said:

good to know - it is an EA-module.. by Eagle themselves.. so Zen is required and present. 
So for the occasional and potential glancer-in-passing:
WORKAROUND: if refule bug manifests -> return, land, repair, role to spectators, select role, respawn

Transporting, yep, thank you for the info, all good. But even later, DCS is what is this, so any transport capability is an addition to help the on-mission involvement of everyone.

 

... and Mi-8's and UH-1's are quite often the decisive factor in winning a mission. They transport vital assets constantly.

[Tavo89]

Hi, I'm new around here, greetings Enigma89 and Zachrix, I follow you on youtube .

 

How can I connect to this server?. 

 

 

Edited August 11, 2021 by Tavo89

[rossmum]

You'll need to be on Open Beta, then just search for "cold war" in the server browser. It should pop up as "Cold War 1947-1991", then you can just click to join.

[Tavo89]

28 minutes ago, rossmum said:

You'll need to be on Open Beta, then just search for "cold war" in the server browser. It should pop up as "Cold War 1947-1991", then you can just click to join.

 

thanks @rossmum 

[=475FG= Dawger]

@AlpenwolfAny chance of getting rid of the haze in Fight Island? It is a really horrible reddish orange Martian haze in VR.

 

[Alpenwolf]

9 hours ago, Tavo89 said:

Hi, I'm new around here, greetings Enigma89 and Zachrix, I follow you on youtube .

 

How can I connect to this server?. 

 

 

 

 

Welcome, mate!

 

Just like rossmum told you. Also, if you check out the main post of this thread, you'll find all the data you need.

Make sure you get SRS, please, as it is vital on the server.

 

Happy hunting!

 

8 hours ago, pmiceli said:

@AlpenwolfAny chance of getting rid of the haze in Fight Island? It is a really horrible reddish orange Martian haze in VR.

 

 

Yeah, why not.

[reichenwald]

Will the F1 only be available for bluefor? It could also make sense as a redfor airframe in some scenarios 

[Alpenwolf]

23 minutes ago, reichenwald said:

Will the F1 only be available for bluefor? It could also make sense as a redfor airframe in some scenarios 

 

The MiG-23 is going to be Red. With the F-1 going Red as well, Blue would be completely outnumbered and helpless. Can't cause such an imbalance. Will probably go Red in some limited editions though, such as operation Tiberias and operation Allied Assault.

[reichenwald]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Alpenwolf:

 

The MiG-23 is going to be Red. With the F-1 going Red as well, Blue would be completely outnumbered and helpless. Can't cause such an imbalance. Will probably go Red in some limited editions though, such as operation Tiberias and operation Allied Assault.

If both Flogger and Mirage are available this makes sense of course. I was thinking more of a situation where we have the F1 but not the 23 (which sadly seems likely). 
 

Although a big problem with having the same airframe on both sides would probably be iff

[Alpenwolf]

Question:

 

Any difference between the RN-24 and RN-28 nuke bombs? I hardly notice any difference.

[Zachrix]

27 minutes ago, Alpenwolf said:

Question:

 

Any difference between the RN-24 and RN-28 nuke bombs? I hardly notice any difference.

One is a lot smaller warhead than the other (28 is I think 10x smaller than 24) as in 28 is one Kiloton and 24 is 10 Kiloton explosive. Definitely add the 28 because the 24 will most definitely kill the man dropping it.

 

 

Also Alpen can we take out the damn clouds on Two Towns? I've had enough and more time staring at these and pretending them to be beautiful. Oh and update server for the patch

Edited August 11, 2021 by Zachrix

[Alpenwolf]

19 minutes ago, Zachrix said:

One is a lot smaller warhead than the other (28 is I think 10x smaller than 24) as in 28 is one Kiloton and 24 is 10 Kiloton explosive. Definitely add the 28 because the 24 will most definitely kill the man dropping it.

 

 

Also Alpen can we take out the damn clouds on Two Towns? I've had enough and more time staring at these and pretending them to be beautiful. Oh and update server for the patch

 

 

Oh! Didn't notice the patch!

 

I'll remove the clouds.