llOPPOTATOll Posted December 13, 2021 Posted December 13, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, Snappy said: This has already been discussed here: In my personal opinion ED should stay away from fantasy implementations. There are already so many "fantasy implementations" in DCS. An approximation wouldnt be unusual. IFF, HTS, ECM, Link 16 are examples of so called "Fantasy Implementations." I think BFT would be a great addition to the AH-64 Edited December 13, 2021 by llOPPOTATOll
M1Combat Posted December 14, 2021 Posted December 14, 2021 I mean.. keep in mind that it's SUPER possible that the license specifically states "Don't add the SA page because it's sensitive info"... If that's the case it doesn't matter what ED may or may not be capable of or willing to do... they can't do it. 1 Nvidia RTX3080 (HP Reverb), AMD 3800x Asus Prime X570P, 64GB G-Skill RipJaw 3600 Saitek X-65F and Fanatec Club-Sport Pedals (Using VJoy and Gremlin to remap Throttle and Clutch into a Rudder axis)
AlphaOneSix Posted December 14, 2021 Posted December 14, 2021 36 minutes ago, M1Combat said: I mean.. keep in mind that it's SUPER possible that the license specifically states "Don't add the SA page because it's sensitive info"... Well, Wags *did* say that right in the video... "due to sensitivity" 2
M1Combat Posted December 14, 2021 Posted December 14, 2021 (edited) Well... he said due to sensitivity... not why and how that came about or why it's a thing in this specific case. I was just trying to expand and point out that it's quite possible they've been specifically forbidden by the licensee to have an SA page. I'm just trying to make that point because earlier some people said things like "Yeah it's sensitive but ED could just do it in a way that isn't sensitive" and some said crap like "Sounds like ED is just being lazy"... I'm just trying to point out that we don't know... that maybe the license specifically says "Don't do that". It LIKELY says that IMO... but we don't know exactly. Edited December 14, 2021 by M1Combat Nvidia RTX3080 (HP Reverb), AMD 3800x Asus Prime X570P, 64GB G-Skill RipJaw 3600 Saitek X-65F and Fanatec Club-Sport Pedals (Using VJoy and Gremlin to remap Throttle and Clutch into a Rudder axis)
Scaley Posted December 16, 2021 Posted December 16, 2021 On 12/14/2021 at 9:49 PM, M1Combat said: Well... he said due to sensitivity... not why and how that came about or why it's a thing in this specific case. I was just trying to expand and point out that it's quite possible they've been specifically forbidden by the licensee to have an SA page. I'm just trying to make that point because earlier some people said things like "Yeah it's sensitive but ED could just do it in a way that isn't sensitive" and some said crap like "Sounds like ED is just being lazy"... I'm just trying to point out that we don't know... that maybe the license specifically says "Don't do that". It LIKELY says that IMO... but we don't know exactly. This is both a good point, and an opportunity for Ed to be a bit more open which might be useful. If this were the case, and ED actually said "we can't do this because we specifically aren't allowed" then it would cut down a good deal of the discussion and would let the community managers get back to other, more useful work! Even better, if there was a persistent list for each aircraft of "stuff we simply aren't allowed to implement" then that would be extremely useful! 1 476th vFighter Group Main Page -- YouTube -- Discord Scaley AV YouTube - More videos from the 476th
M1Combat Posted December 16, 2021 Posted December 16, 2021 (edited) Look... Ed's lack of saying those things specifically isn't the problem. The problem is that some people, when they hear things like "we won't do that due to sensitivity issues" they translate that into "We decided we're too lazy and we don't want to"... so they b**** and moan trying to get their favorite pet feature of the sensitive area developed using something that "functions" like the real thing but "works" differently... like that's any less sensitive... Instead of that... people should just hear "we won't do that due to sensitivity issues" and put some actual realistic thought and reflection into the subject and at least translate it into "We can't do that because we were probably told not to... and because we agreed to that we actually get to make this sensitive aircraft at all". Edited December 16, 2021 by M1Combat 4 Nvidia RTX3080 (HP Reverb), AMD 3800x Asus Prime X570P, 64GB G-Skill RipJaw 3600 Saitek X-65F and Fanatec Club-Sport Pedals (Using VJoy and Gremlin to remap Throttle and Clutch into a Rudder axis)
durka-durka Posted March 7, 2023 Posted March 7, 2023 Looking at the map and enemy/friendly units, they don't seem to move. Is that always going to be the case, or am I looking at it wrong? Thanks. 492nd Squadron CO (F-15E): JTF-111 - Discord Link
Tholozor Posted March 7, 2023 Posted March 7, 2023 BFT is not planned. REAPER 51 | Tholozor VFA-136 (c.2007): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3305981/ Arleigh Burke Destroyer Pack (2020): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3313752/
durka-durka Posted March 7, 2023 Posted March 7, 2023 39 minutes ago, Tholozor said: BFT is not planned. Okay. The icons on the maps that give us intelligence on the locations of enemy targets and friendlies. Do they move, are they planned to move/update locations, or is it working as intended? 492nd Squadron CO (F-15E): JTF-111 - Discord Link
Tholozor Posted March 7, 2023 Posted March 7, 2023 AFAIK Control Measures do not move dynamically, but can be sent/received between 64s over their internal network. REAPER 51 | Tholozor VFA-136 (c.2007): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3305981/ Arleigh Burke Destroyer Pack (2020): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3313752/
NeedzWD40 Posted March 7, 2023 Posted March 7, 2023 36 minutes ago, durka-durka said: Okay. The icons on the maps that give us intelligence on the locations of enemy targets and friendlies. Do they move, are they planned to move/update locations, or is it working as intended? Yes, working as intended. The control measures are static points that are currently auto-populated based upon the current position of the group(s) at helicopter startup. The only way to move them would be to delete the measure and recreate it at a new position manually.
FalcoGer Posted March 14, 2023 Posted March 14, 2023 The control measures are generated when you enter the aircraft and are points in the control measure point database. They can't move. BFT is a thing in the Apache and would show up and be configured in the SA (Situational Awareness) submenu of the TSD. There is currently a bug where the CPG and PLT are generating those points separately from each other, causing desync when units move, you move or units die before the copilot joins. This will create different points, moved points or a different point order. So if you can, make sure the copilot is in the slot and has pressed fly before pressing fly yourself so you both spawn in at the sameish time.
durka-durka Posted March 15, 2023 Posted March 15, 2023 14 hours ago, FalcoGer said: The control measures are generated when you enter the aircraft and are points in the control measure point database. They can't move. BFT is a thing in the Apache and would show up and be configured in the SA (Situational Awareness) submenu of the TSD, but it will not be implemented for unknown reasons. There is currently a bug where the CPG and PLT are generating those points separately from each other, causing desync when units move, you move or units die before the copilot joins. This will create different points, moved points or a different point order. So if you can, make sure the copilot is in the slot and has pressed fly before pressing fly yourself so you both spawn in at the sameish time. Got it, thanks! So, for the time being, and possibly always, treat the markers on the map as non-updated intelligence, especially concerning enemy positions. I wish there was a way to "refresh" the map. I've been in a Liberation server where the mission ended, we fly back to base to refuel, and try to head off to the next one, but there's no map icon for the spawned enemy. That seems like a good compromise. But I know extremely little about the SA page and BFT. 492nd Squadron CO (F-15E): JTF-111 - Discord Link
FalcoGer Posted March 15, 2023 Posted March 15, 2023 They might update when reloading the DTC after a rearm when that is eventually implemented. But who knows.
RokoG1911 Posted May 8, 2023 Posted May 8, 2023 So Polychop confirmed that 58 is getting JVMF, so why apache wouldnt get it? It would be awesome to use JVMF for pink team stuff, 58 + 64. JVMF is applicable to our version and it isn't classified or anything. 1
Yuto Posted September 15, 2023 Posted September 15, 2023 Recently been doing some research around some of the Devs of DCS and found out that Polychop the OH-58D Dev is planning to make the JVMF as an option to be used by the Kiowa Warrior, Id like to know if ED plans on ever bringing the JVMF on board on the AH-64D as now they plan to make the US Army CH-47F which also uses the JVMF and with maybe plans of a future UH-60L/M we could see JVMF for that too. I think it would be a good idea to have JVMF added for the Apache for the KW and Chinook as it would be the perfect way to message the helicopters in such an environment like DCS. Again these plans could be added to the end of the Apaches development plan as I understand a lot of things are being worked on right now with the Apache. Regards, Yuto
ED Team Raptor9 Posted September 15, 2023 ED Team Posted September 15, 2023 As already announced, JVMF/TI will not be implemented in the DCS: AH-64D. Afterburners are for wussies...hang around the battlefield and dodge tracers like a man. DCS Rotor-Head
ED Team NineLine Posted September 15, 2023 ED Team Posted September 15, 2023 3 hours ago, Yuto said: Recently been doing some research around some of the Devs of DCS and found out that Polychop the OH-58D Dev is planning to make the JVMF as an option to be used by the Kiowa Warrior, Id like to know if ED plans on ever bringing the JVMF on board on the AH-64D as now they plan to make the US Army CH-47F which also uses the JVMF and with maybe plans of a future UH-60L/M we could see JVMF for that too. Please do not open repeat threads about this stuff, the answer has been given, its not planned, it doesn't matter if its implemented in other aircraft because the implementation is most likely different in each aircraft, and without the proper docs or worse permissions to legally know the implementation in the AH-64 or any other aircraft means it wont be done. Asking repeatedly will not change anyone mind or make it look like many people want it. Please respect the process if a feature comes available to do, we will do it and you guys will be the first to know. 1 Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**
TEDUCK Posted September 28, 2023 Posted September 28, 2023 Later in the early access we are getting datalink feature. What about adding ability to call for artillery fire support through a datalink? This is a real feature on AH-64D Block II that we have in a sim. That would make role of artillery in DCS much more important, especially when there are no CA players on a server.
ED Team Raptor9 Posted September 28, 2023 ED Team Posted September 28, 2023 Hello @TEDUCK and welcome to the forums. The only type of datalink that is planned is exclusive to AH-64D's and is not compatible with artillery units. Please reference this thread which has already been confirmed as not planned. Afterburners are for wussies...hang around the battlefield and dodge tracers like a man. DCS Rotor-Head
TEDUCK Posted September 28, 2023 Posted September 28, 2023 So are we getting only LONGBOW protocol support (without ATHS/TACFIRE and FIRE SUPPORT) protocols?
Recommended Posts