Guest ThomasDWeiss Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Of course bigger explosions with lot's of dust are a must. It would be nice to see a big cloud of dust and dirt instead of the explosion flames. Just a flash then dust and dirt. How about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S77th-GOYA Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to S77th-GOYA again." ...whatever that means. Wait a second... aren't you the guy who said rep was stupid?? -SK One of them, yes. Popularity contest, and so on. I just wondered if you were distributing rep to folks that didn't say they wanted this idea implemented. I'd rather that the F-15 navigation worked well and the radar didn't stop scanning for no apparent reason and IFF was implemented. I can see the use for this idea, but except for bridges, targets can be added to the map rather than using existing structures and simply be left out of the next mission if destroyed. It's just a matter of priorities. Mine lie elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester_159th Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Understanderble really. Since I don't personally fly the F-15 I haven't been effected by any of the issues that have been raised about it. Really though ideas like this and bug fixes should be considered seperately. The chances are ideas like this will only make it into 1.2 at the earliest (and more probably LOMAC's successor). I fully agree that major issues should be given priority. But that doesn't nescessarilly mean that creative innovations should have to stop. Surely small improvements and bug fixes can be considered at the same time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S77th-GOYA Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 IMO, bug fixes shouldn't be "considered". They should be attended to before anything new is added. Including IFF for the 15 which isn't so much a bug as an omission. The first thing I would like to see added as far as mission building is a trigger system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwingKid Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 I just wondered if you were distributing rep to folks that didn't say they wanted this idea implemented. Bash away. :) It's just a matter of priorities. Mine lie elsewhere. No worries. My priority is my dynamic campaign, for which I need this feature. Avionics bugs are not preventing me from getting it done - this is. -SK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S77th-GOYA Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Bash away. :) No worries. My priority is my dynamic campaign, for which I need this feature. Avionics bugs are not preventing me from getting it done - this is. -SK Feel free to call me a crybaby Eagle driver, too. ;) How is the AI holding up in you DC? Also, would a trigger system help you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwingKid Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 How is the AI holding up in you DC? Also, would a trigger system help you? AI is manageable for now. A trigger system would be nice, but that's icing on the cake. Both of these (together with Eagle avionics) are areas we know already have the developer's attention - and are seemingly a lot of work. On the other hand I never heard them acknowledge the idea of having destroyed buildings in single missions - and yet, the feature's already been there in the scripted campaigns for the past 7 years. Just out of our reach! -SK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts