Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

In certain weather conditions the canopy windows and displays can fog or ice over. I wish for the ECS to be modeled. Furthermore the TADS/PNVS can be damaged if started up in low or high temperature conditions improperly. I wish this to be modeled as well.

  • Like 6
Posted

ED's manual will be incomplete, simplified and possibly faulty. How am I supposed to make feature requests and bug reports of things that are based on the real thing only in the third instance (ie. real apache - apache module - manual for the apache module)? I have nothing to compare it to otherwise.

If they're going to skip on things, I could only find out through the real deal.

Besides all that I want to be semi proficient and knowing what's going on by the time they release.

Posted

I want to have a good time with in depth systems modeling and learning how to fly an aircraft as close to the real deal as possible and use real procedures. Isn't that what a simulator is about? If ED is going to skimp out on features that the real bird has then that needs to be fixed. I am making my requests now so they can work on it early. Or I'm making requests about features that were optional for the real apache and could be optional or missing from ED, such as the emergency checklists being displayed. If not in the DTC they wouldn't be there, but I would like them to be.

ED has been taking shortcuts for IFF. I want real IFF, not magic IFF. Even if the protocol itself is classified, you can find out from unclassified sources how it's supposed to work and look, so model that. The JF17 did it just fine although I wouldn't have minded if they called it mode 4 instead of 6 despite not being a "real" mode 4.

If people don't want canopy fogging then they will skip on it. I am saying I want the FULL experience. That includes adverse weather operation and procedures and the consequences if they are not followed properly.

They did promise anti ice, so I assume that includes winter ops procedures, so I will not ask for it unless it's incomplete.

I wonder why you have to argue with me on every turn. I'm not asking for anything impossible or illegal.

  • Like 1
Posted
22 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

I want to have a good time with in depth systems modeling and learning how to fly an aircraft as close to the real deal as possible and use real procedures. Isn't that what a simulator is about? If ED is going to skimp out on features that the real bird has then that needs to be fixed. I am making my requests now so they can work on it early. Or I'm making requests about features that were optional for the real apache and could be optional or missing from ED, such as the emergency checklists being displayed. If not in the DTC they wouldn't be there, but I would like them to be.

ED has been taking shortcuts for IFF. I want real IFF, not magic IFF. Even if the protocol itself is classified, you can find out from unclassified sources how it's supposed to work and look, so model that. The JF17 did it just fine although I wouldn't have minded if they called it mode 4 instead of 6 despite not being a "real" mode 4.

If people don't want canopy fogging then they will skip on it. I am saying I want the FULL experience. That includes adverse weather operation and procedures and the consequences if they are not followed properly.

They did promise anti ice, so I assume that includes winter ops procedures, so I will not ask for it unless it's incomplete.

I wonder why you have to argue with me on every turn. I'm not asking for anything impossible or illegal.

Release for all of us 2021 ... Release for you 2030 👌

  • Thanks 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, MadMaxQcZ said:

Release for all of us 2021 ... Release for you 2030

I am not saying it needs to be right away. Obviously this has lower priority than other things. But I would like to see it included anyhow at some point. There is no reason to be like that.

  • Like 4
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

+1

i do 100% agree, that canopy foging should be a thing – at least somewhere at the end of the early access. definitelly not at start of EA.

it is a thing in the JF17, and i hope it will be one in the F18 and F16 too at some point. it is imho a nice addition to the realism.

  • Like 1
  • 4 weeks later...
Posted
6 minutes ago, stormrider said:

I would like to have realistic splattered insects on the windscreen, rotor blades and tads/pnvs; is that asking too much?

I like this one, make them glare off the sun? 

Posted

No no... what I'd like is the ability for the canopy to fog up, and then using VR hand sensors I can use my fingers to write little messages and draw little pictures in the condensation. Now that's realism.

Before the blades start turning. Obviously. Then my little drawings would disappear. But then the next time I hop in cold and dark... the drawings would come back! REALISM.

  • Like 2

- i7-7700k

- 32GB DDR4 2400Mhz

- GTX 1080 8GB

- Installed on SSD

- TM Warthog

 

DCS Modules - A-10C; M-2000C; AV8B; F/A-18C; Ka-50; FC-3; UH-1H; F-5E; Mi-8; F-14; Persian Gulf; NTTR

Posted
2 hours ago, stormrider said:

Not unless its a rainbow refraction!

Lol

3 hours ago, LooseSeal said:

No no... what I'd like is the ability for the canopy to fog up, and then using VR hand sensors I can use my fingers to write little messages and draw little pictures in the condensation. Now that's realism.

Before the blades start turning. Obviously. Then my little drawings would disappear. But then the next time I hop in cold and dark... the drawings would come back! REALISM.

Tic tac toe with the crew chief? 

Posted

No idea why people are actively against making the sim more realistic. The idea that it would be a factor makes sense (fogging, icing, different ECS modes are definitely something that are relevant to high performance jets) so someone assuming that it would be the same for the Apache makes sense from a logical point of view. Now, SMEs are required to explain why it may not be a factor in reality, but anything that makes the experience closer to the real operation of the aircraft is a welcome addition. If defogging is only an issue during the startup, model that. If the downwash keeps the canopy clean even in bad weather the game should reflect that.

 

Sims exist to replicate the operation of an aircraft as accurately to reality as possible, which is constrained by OPSEC/lack of available data and technical limitations. Not sure why there's this resistance against adding functions to supposedly high fidelity modules that aren't an issue whatsoever. In fact, these mundane and innocent aspects are the ones where the developers can really go in depth modelling interactions, limitations and quirks.

 

On 10/15/2021 at 4:28 AM, kgillers3 said:

a fun for the peeps who want to just have a good time

How can they make it both as realistic as possible while simultaneously making it fun for the ***thunder refugees?

  • Like 2
Posted
1 minute ago, WobblyFlops said:

 

How can they make it both as realistic as possible while simultaneously making it fun for the ***thunder refugees?

I think they are doing it tbh, I’m assuming you meant casual dcs players, and yeah I think if you don’t wanna study you can still teach yourself how to rip things off the rails fly around and have a good time. I mean that’s what I do in most the platforms. 

It’s really up to the individuals if they like it or not or how in-depth. 

Posted
2 hours ago, WobblyFlops said:

No idea why people are actively against making the sim more realistic. The idea that it would be a factor makes sense (fogging, icing, different ECS modes are definitely something that are relevant to high performance jets) so someone assuming that it would be the same for the Apache makes sense from a logical point of view. Now, SMEs are required to explain why it may not be a factor in reality, but anything that makes the experience closer to the real operation of the aircraft is a welcome addition. If defogging is only an issue during the startup, model that. If the downwash keeps the canopy clean even in bad weather the game should reflect that.

 

Sims exist to replicate the operation of an aircraft as accurately to reality as possible, which is constrained by OPSEC/lack of available data and technical limitations. Not sure why there's this resistance against adding functions to supposedly high fidelity modules that aren't an issue whatsoever. In fact, these mundane and innocent aspects are the ones where the developers can really go in depth modelling interactions, limitations and quirks.

 

How can they make it both as realistic as possible while simultaneously making it fun for the ***thunder refugees?

What you talking about mate, I'm totally with you, not only I want a fully simulated defog system, but also, a fully simulated ray traced sun refraction off spattered insects. We are all for it !  I even took a year off so I can enlist to a virtual dcs apache milsim squad and am ready for our meet-ups at the local rpg store so we can brag about our rtfm prowess

  • Like 3

Banned by cunts.

 

apache01.png

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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