Jump to content

CaptJodan

Members
  • Content Count

    181
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About CaptJodan

  • Rank
    Member
  1. I was curious about this as well. I went ahead and fired a good 40 or so rockets at a single tank, and did 0 damage. Indeed, these are not anti-tank weapons, but in real life would a host of rockets do no appreciable damage to a tank? That's a legitimate question, not trying to be "gotcha" about it. I went into this knowing APKWS wouldn't be great for tanks, definitely not the weapon of choice to take on a tank with. And if you fire at the frontal armor and the rocket hits at a shallow angle, I don't think it would do much of anything. But I thought with side or back hits, it might s
  2. Out of curiosity, was this day? Night? Dusk/Dawn? Were you looking at a recently destroyed target that was burning?
  3. Not a woman, but I'm in full support the idea of more voices/models/skins of various nations and voices when applicable (IE, when we can see the pilot's face/skin/contours).
  4. Color me wrong about the action. Thanks Wags. I know it won't be popular, but I appreciate you looking into it and revisiting it.
  5. I think we in large part agree here. The only caveat is where I draw the line, I suppose, and I imagine everyone draws their line a bit differently (including ED). We saw the picture of the 4 HARMs on a test jet. But that only proves you can fly with 4 HARMs strapped on. No idea if you can actually fire them off the jet. So my personal line in the sand would be if you could just stick 2 HARMs on the jet and go to war with minimal/no modification required, then I'm onboard. If the plumbing/software isn't there to support it, then no. You know, in this purely academic discussion.
  6. I do think that either way this goes, it'll probably stay as is. Just as despite all the salt thrown around for the triple racks around here didn't change that they're including it, I don't think we'll see 4 HARMs for this edge case included. I'm sure it's more complicated than just adding two missiles. They'd have additional coding for how the system works. All for a edge case/never operationally used feature. ED made its decision, and I think they'll stick with it. I just hope moving forward there would be consistency in how this is applied, because it seems confusing to me on firs
  7. The reason cited by BIGNEWY is: So the obvious questions are: Does the F-16 manual say the LAU-88s are a valid loadout? Does the A-10C manual say the LAU-88s are valid for the A-10C (are mavs on triple racks not also in danger of damaging the aircraft?) And so on for all these edge cases. Personally, I am a fan of the LAU-88 decision they made. I have the option. And I hope there will be options for mission givers to disable it. I'd be a fan of the 4 HARMs option as well IF the two stations we're talking about is capable/wired to fire them effectively. If the stations d
  8. Awesome work. Thanks for the work and the sharing. :thumbup:
  9. This is where he lost me as well, though it wasn't the only red flag, it was the largest. To compare ED to CR and Star Citizen is laughable. Both come out with new patches that can tend to break things, but the breaks are far, far more severe in SC. SC has infinitely more resources than ED does as well, and I always get a chuckle when people complain about the high price for modules in DCS when they could be facing those SC prices for less actual systems and flight dynamics fidelity (as someone who backed more than any sane person should before finally stopping myself). He would have been
  10. I can confirm this bug. The Horizontal bar never seems to come up giving us a very deadly glide slope.
  11. I could certainly understand the need for something like a Zero before the P-38 (to have some foes), but this aircraft should probably be near the top of the WWII development list. It would certainly round out the top 3 late war US land-based aircraft used during the conflict. A childhood favorite of mine, to be sure.
  12. A longtime DCS flyer who has every module, I can say that the F-14 just doesn't stay long in the virtual hanger for me (thank goodness I don't have to sim flight maintenance costs). Almost a year on, and I still find HB's F-14 to be my favorite module. It's not just about the plane (though it probably has something to do with it), it's about the attention to detail and the "feel" that HB put into the module that makes it so great. I've always loved the F-16 as a favorite aircraft, but sadly it has to slip to second-ish place when up against the Cat. I still find moments of awe on what a go
  13. I've had crashes at various stages of flight, from just loading up a mission from the editor to the JF, to starting the plane, all the way to being in mission. Usually included with many air and ground units. I also crashed several times from the AO server where obviously no missiles are flying. As others have reported, sometimes I get a crash log to send to ED, other times nothing. The crashes were non-existent to very few in the first couple days of play, but got progressively worse as time went on until finally the JF crashed in 80% of the missions I ran on or offline. I did a
  14. Agreed. And I think we all would prefer equally realistic. I'd strongly prefer Deka not have to dumb down their missiles from realistic values to conform to ED's dumbed down missiles, but rather ED to step up and make their missiles as accurate as possible.
×
×
  • Create New...