Jump to content

wowbagger

Members
  • Posts

    923
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About wowbagger

  • Birthday 04/01/1968

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yes, I know there's lots of opportunities for good campaigns with maps we have and what's incoming. But all of those depend on some 3rd party campaign maker choosing to do so. I just meant that any included default campaigns have to be (according to precedence) set on a free map, which thus far has meant Black Sea north shore. I would totally support the default campaign being in Syria/Sinai/PG, or even waiting to have it released so it could be on Kola. But I guess I'm in a minority on that, and it would never happen. I guess I'm just super tired of the Caucasus, and especially flying aircraft there which would never have been in the area. It makes everything feel so bleh.
  2. Ya, this is one of the most unfortunate things about the DCS business model. The F-14 was kinda doable because it's carrier based. However, I know my ability to suspend disbelief simply isn't good enough to enjoy an F-4 campaign in the Georgian republic. It was the same for the Viggen. I'd actually prefer something in the Marianas ... somehow ... maybe a training campaign ...
  3. Ya, don't really understand the point of this. If it was explicit that switching tech is necessary to get acceptable performance, then that would be a no-brainer. If it's just a question of aesthetics, I think many would say just put all the resources into fixing the performance and leave the tech as is. This business of redoing everything after you're 60-80% of the way through development makes no sense and is a turn off to (some) users. Don't like it with the modules, don't want it with the map.
  4. Not to mention the Mosquito! (which doesn't mostly work)
  5. It does, just not one modeled on a real life aircraft system.
  6. Thank you. I appreciate the changes that you have been making to your campaigns.
  7. This. Good choice. Always go with the one you'd have a poster of on your wall (like Psylocke). But don't forget you can try the others for 2 weeks.
  8. Tried. Like so many things here it went nowhere.
  9. The Huey and the Mi-8 are the best choppery choppers in the game, with the flight model of the Hip just edging out the Bell (in my opinion). The Hind is the least helicoptery chopper - it's more of a Tomcat with a rotor on top. The Blackshark flies itself so it won't teach you much. The Gazelle is extremely light and doesn't quite give the sense of momentum and having to think ahead that the others require. The Apache is actually a pretty good place to start, if you already own it anyway.
  10. The thing is that if the mission designer doesn't set this stuff it will just take the user's preferences. So people who like to play with it all off anyway, will have it off. They don't need the mission to do it for them. Of course if there is a good mission-breaking-for-all reason to turn something off, that's understandable. I get that mission designers have a vision of the way their creations should be played. But at the end of the day it's a product, so customers are going to give feedback about what they like, what they don't like, and what could be improved in their view. And whether they will purchase again. I'm delighted to hear that the external and weapons views are unlocked already! And I totally agree that discussion about this stuff is very valuable. There was recently a question asked about why people aren't buying more DCS campaigns. Reasons were given. Then the reply came back about why those reasons didn't match with how the mission designers want to make missions. Which made me feel ... I don't know. At the end of the day we all want campaign designers to prosper and thrive. I've bought more campaigns than I could possibly play in the next couple of years. But if the campaigns are increasingly not matching with the requirements that life throws at us or one's preferences for what is actually enjoyable... it stops being sustainable. For me the middle ground is making things as open and accessible to as many people as possible. Which means concessions from everyone involved. Don't lock out things just to please a small group of vocal people, when they are perfectly capable of changing that stuff themselves. And on the flip side, players shouldn't whine if there's a mission or two with refueling, or night missions. Maybe no one is perfectly happy, but everyone gets enough to enjoy and the system is sustainable. In any event, congrats on Weasels release!
  11. Ya, I still don't get it. Players can always turn these things off, no override needed. What they can't do is turn them on. It makes no sense to needlessly limit the audience ... but whatever. It's a dead horse at this point.
  12. But where/why to report a bug? It appears as if no one representing Razbam has posted in the MiG-19 Bug Reports forum for about 2.5 years. Which seems ... negligent?
  13. If they have waypoints on both sides of the bridge there is (almost) no problem. But if they are north of the bridge and you tell them to go to a point south of the bridge, they get stuck. Here are two tracks which have nothing else in the mission besides the three-vehicle convoy. Path 1 - they get stuck: Path 2: they drive across the bridge (but the lead vehicle falls through half-way across). path1.trk path2.trk
×
×
  • Create New...