Jump to content

Mad_Shell

Members
  • Posts

    95
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mad_Shell

  1. Hi @NineLine ! I just checked the .lua file and nothing has changed since 2018? Like, only the Patriot has a variable coefficient depending on the distance between the mssile and the target, no other SAM has it. It has been abandonned like that?
  2. Bump! I can confirm that many of its missiles crash when targetting low altitude aircraft.
  3. In my experience this is simply not true, and there is absolutely no difference between terrain masking and tree masking. AI won't react at all if there is foliage between you and them, and if they spot you but you hide behind trees, the AI will revert to its normal state after a few moments.
  4. yeah imo the problem is that in your example the helo is on the ground, so only the trunks hide it, and you need lots of them between the helo and the bradley to cut the LOS. pretty sure that if you make the helo hover at foliage level it won't be spotted. Edit: did some tests, Bradley 20 meters east of a forest, low level flying helicopter coming toward it from the west, the Bradley didn't spot the helo until it was just above it. Foliage do block AI LOS (tested with radar, trees block it too)
  5. mmmh, in my experience trees block AI los. I believe it may be explained by 2 things: 1) you gave the task "attack unit" to the Bradley, and in this case the AI is omniscient about the unit it has to attack, and always knows exactly where it is 2) the helo is on the ground, so it's atually not masked by the foliage
  6. Thx for the answer Chizh. Is the plan to bring this new fragmentation system when the new damage model is applied to modern units, or that will be for later?
  7. Bump! As Tippis wrote, there are various coefficients applied, but I still don't see why for some HE fragmentation warheads expl_mass is the total mass of the warhead, while for others it's just the mass of explosives in the warhead. Would be great if an ED dev could confirm it's working (or not) as intended.
  8. @BIGNEWY I did some tests, and the SA-19 missile also eats T-55 and T-72 front armor for breakfast. I believe it has more to do with an incorrect calculation of HE damage against armor in general, because MBTs HE shells also work really good against others MBTs, better so than AP ones, which it shouldn't...
  9. I totally agree. The Apache will be a fantastic addition, but like for all helicopters, the core game needs serious improvements for it to be enjoyable in the long run. The ground AI is non existent: they don't take cover, don't hide, don't do barrage fire, the "dispersion under fire" is ridiculous. All they do is fire and die. The tanks don't do pop up attacks, there are tons of essential ground units lacking (infantry ATGM post, machine gun nest, trenchs...), etc... Currently for all the air to ground, it's more Digital Shooting Range Simulator. I really hope that changes with the dynamic campaign, as I don't see how it could work without vastly improved AI. Edit: ground units don't use any counter measure too: no smoke or evading maneuver when lased for example
  10. Currently it is impossible to make a ground unit use reverse gear. It's especially limiting when trying to make realistic tank behaviour, since they use it a lot for masking/unmasking
  11. Since ED is beginning to implement some form of jamming for radar, and plans to also add it for upcoming communications system, I think it would be great to also add GPS jamming. It is well known that in a medium to high intensity conflict GPS jamming would be widely used, to disturb enemy navigation, but also GPS guided munitions. Of course, just like any jamming tech most data must be classified, but just like the basic jamming effects already implemented in DCS, a GPS jamming based on guesstimates will always be better than nothing :)
  12. Wanted to make a mission with Blackhawks firing their guns during a commando drop-off, and... it's not possible?!? Please ED, we need it, really ^^'
  13. Nineline on Hoggit about upcoming mission editor improvements: "Some cool little things, like shapes for trigger zones coming, drawing tools are not quite ready, but should be coming soon, following 2.7." link: https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/mdqm2n/dcs_mi24p_hind_preorder_video/gsbhqge?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
  14. I agree, imo a lot could be done to help users to understand modules, the mission editor, the units/weapons.... Better access to DCS and modules manuals, with an updated encyclopedia would be a great step in the right direction!
  15. And bumping! Yup the CIWS dispersion and rounds speed are very wrong in DCS currently...
  16. BN said he saw little to no performance change, and he's using VR. He has a pretty beefy system though
  17. ED staff said that the impact on performance is pretty minimal, and by looking into the lua files I think that the new clouds will come with 4 settings: low, medium, high or ultra quality
  18. Bump! Seeing under the NVGs in VR would be a real QoL improvement, and I guess easy to implement
  19. AI (be it planes or helos) will always launch flares to defend against any IR missile, except when it's a Mistral. AI never, ever drops flares (I tried all the flares utilization options in the mission editor, without success). bug_AI_no_flares_Mistral.trk
  20. The newest clues suggest that we're in fact getting a more recent Apache: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/97330-dcs-roadmap-unofficial-no-discussion-here/?do=findComment&comment=4585956 That explains why we get MPNVS and MTADS
  21. What is worrying me is that ED staff seems to totally ignore the few threads pointing out that issue...
  22. Hi @NineLine @BIGNEWY As LucShep mentionned in one of his comments, several threads are pointing out the lack of optimization for textures, wasting large amounts of VRAM: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/243199-suggestion-to-ed-and-3rd-parties-devs-size-and-formats-of-dds https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/248043-32-bit-normal-maps/ In none of those threads there are any ED staff reply. Is this problem aknowledged by ED? Is it intended? Is it looked upon?
×
×
  • Create New...