Jump to content

pyromaniac4002

Members
  • Posts

    338
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by pyromaniac4002

  1. pyromaniac4002 - F/A-18C I can fly... I'm a pilot.
  2. Just a heads-up, my RIO F99th-Kocrachon won't be able to make it because he's busy cleaning up after the Texas weather situation. F99th-Alphaskoom or someone else may be able to take his place if it isn't a problem.
  3. An 80s F-16 in the USAF wouldn’t have Fox 1 capability anyways, they would be slinging Sidewinders like the original Lightweight Fighter concept. So far as I know only a handful of F-16s in US service got Sparrow capability with the Air Defense Fighter variant for the Air National Guard and I don’t think that even happened until very late 80s or early 90s. All that to say, it’s actually completely reasonable to keep the Fox 3s out even if the Vipers are left with heaters only, they’re only going to be outranged by a couple miles and it’s pretty easy to see and defend a Fox 1 at max range. It’ll be cool to have the dogfighters complimenting the longer range stuff. I think that’s the best way to move forward in light of the problem we’re dealing with.
  4. F99th-pyromaniac4002 F-14B Pilot/F99th-Kocrachon F-14B RIO Looking forward to it!
  5. Yeah that's much closer to what I've got.. Thanks.
  6. I guess this is the right place to post this: Been happening off and on, this was a particularly horrible one and I happened to catch it on a recording.
  7. Considering the indignities of the last month (a national dialog on bidets because everyone panic-bought toilet paper qualifies I think) and the widespread suffering and worry around the world, the delay of Supercarrier is the last thing I'm upset about. The odds are pretty good that this pandemic is represented somewhere in the neighborhood of anyone who might be reading this forum, frankly it's pretty absurd to think the employees at ED could go on unaffected or without distraction to their work when you've got coronavirus screwing so many things up in your own backyard. Anyone playing the "you set the date, not me" card over this needs to get real. A global pandemic is beyond the scope of ED's timeline estimations and if you've been around DCS long enough to be so cynical, you know better than to think that date was set with an abundance of time to fix a nagging bug or two. Very much appreciate the update and the efforts at communication and transparency. I'm as anxious as anybody to get on the TR and thoroughly test the new holdback arms, but while I can't do that today it really does help to see good faith efforts at fixing the DCS development process. Thank you and best wishes to you and the rest of ED, Kate. Hope everyone is healthy and getting by just fine.
  8. Total nonsense. If you want the product but can't handle delays or quality control problems, buy it when it's in the state you find acceptable; buying it and whining about problems does very little to deliver your message to the people who are in a position to address them. If ED has to close up shop because you took responsibility for your end of the transaction, so be it. Otherwise, bottle up the feelings of anguish and disappointment and grow a tumor like the rest of us.
  9. Wasn’t sure if I could make it, but if there’s still room— F99th-pyromaniac4002 - F-14B RIO for F99th-Mataman
  10. Excellent Red Flag Rumble, thank you 104th for hosting as always! And congratulations to you communist Fishbed bastards on the 2-0 win! If I may offer one piece of feedback, I would suggest that Slmod be removed from the equation in the future. To me it seems the design objective regarding who's dead and who gets to come back is based around realism, people who (most regrettably) tally up a teamkill (or teamhit, I believe there was also at least one kick for that) and go on to live with the shame are not dead and completely capable of flying back to recover their aircraft and pilot. But of course Slmod steps in and artificially removes them from the situation, and at least in my situation I was not allowed to come back in afterwards despite my not being in combat at the time I was kicked in the first round. TKs are lame and penalties are a totally reasonable response, but in an event like this I don't think it belongs. It's a penalty two-for-one to the entire team, and it seemed like a pretty decisive factor in the first round contributing to blue's loss. And of course, they're always gonna happen; in my case I was firing a Sidewinder at an enemy, at the time I pressed and held pickle I had solid tone and no friendlies in my field of view, by the time the missile released a friendly flew from under my nose where I couldn't see him (I was in a right hand turn tracking the target) and passed between the target and myself with full afterburners and lured the missile away. I don't think I could have reasonably avoided that outcome, so if we were going for the full-realism angle I think my court of inquiry wouldn't hang me completely out to dry, but Slmod did it anyway and took the whole team along for the ride. EDIT: I should also note that I don't believe there was any discussion of being kicked for TK and disallowed from rejoining during the briefing on the rules, and as it happened it caught a lot of people out. If that's intended behavior, please be sure to mention it in the next briefing. Looking forward to the next one!
  11. Nope. It's not only outside the scope of the module, this Maverick rail for the BRU-55 is not an operational piece of equipment on any military aircraft. It's just a fun idea that Raytheon has offered up, like defense contractors so often do. I'm sure we'll see a DCS: Su-47 module before ED throws this in.
  12. The ATC you should prepare yourself for is the ATC you get currently at land bases and the basic-functionality carriers. That's the state of ATC in the base game. There's no reason to expect better just because another team is developing a paid improvement on ATC among other functions associated with carrier operations. There's a lot of work going in to ED's carrier ops effort, that's why they're charging for it. I could see some very, very slight chance that owning ED's carrier ops module might allow Heatblur to kind of jerry-rig that functionality in to their Forrestal (if ED was super cool and the stars aligned just right), but what's absolutely clear is that we're not going to get anywhere near the level of that functionality for free.
  13. From all the footage I've seen of other, luckier people flying this DCS: F-14 I've already seen many dozens of hours worth of stuff to learn and practice, most of it appearing totally bug-free. She's ready for early access guys.. Please don't get too caught up making a statement against run-of-the-mill early access practices, the base game your module fits in to is itself going to hamstring it one way or another I'm sure. There's more value in getting the F-14 out for the holidays than waiting another month or 3 to put in the last few layers of polish.
  14. The wandering Shkval is an issue no doubt, but air-to-air kills with Vikhrs are the way to go if the subject is whether or not a dedicated missile needs to be added. For starters they're awesome, some of the most satisfying air-to-air kills you can get in DCS; but for the Shkval issue, they're also highly effective. For my money, the Ka-50 really isn't missing out on anything in terms of air-to-air capability. I feel throwing some EZ-mode Iglas on it is not only a misrepresentation of how they're equipped in real life, being a niche weapon integrated in to an even more niche helicopter which itself was adopted in few numbers, but it detracts from the spirit of the helicopter as an A-G hunter-killer and the experience of such. Taking off even one of those 6-pack Vikhr pylons to replace it with an air-to-air missile is taking away a sizeable portion of the Ka-50's soul. Everything is centered around that Shkval display and the Vikhrs guided to target on it, surely the less Vikhrs equipped equates to "less Ka-50" in some measure. I hope the wandering Shkval is remedied soon, but it's not a good reason to abandon otherwise-effective, multipurpose Vikhrs for another boring A-A heatseeker.
  15. :bye_2: I heard there was some sort of head count going on, suggesting that because there were only so many people vocalizing their distress over the state of DCS the problem wasn't so bad, something like that.. Add my name to the list please. Over the years I've been playing it, multiplayer in DCS has ranged from occasionally frustrating to continuous, unrelenting misery. I'm sad to say I'd estimate we've spent most of our time somewhere in the bottom 2/3rds of that scale. If it weren't for the fact that the subject matter of DCS is a lifelong passion of mine (as it is for so many others here), based purely on the performance issues I'm sure I wouldn't have stuck with it half as long as I have. It's my sincere hope that ED focus the appropriate resources they need to make the improvements we desperately need in a reasonable amount of time. Solidifying the base game may not immediately bring cash in and help keep the lights on, but it's the most important job ED has if DCS is to thrive in the future. I look forward to seeing what the newsletter offers on multiplayer developments. Forgive me, I'm not familiar with any "designed by Zhukov TM" multiplayer missions, but I've tried my hand with building a number of them by now and I'm in daily contact with a lot of people who build a lot more and a lot better than I do. We're not the weak link in the chain. If anything, the community is the strongest link ED has at their disposal. It's fairly outrageous how much time and effort I've personally seen spent exploring the limits of what DCS will support and fixing what issues we're able to. We do a very good job of making things work with a very limited degree of control over what's actually going wrong inside DCS. Very few software developers can say they benefit from similar generosity. But since you know better and you're apparently contented to live in a 16 player, minor asset presence DCS: World, maybe you're done with the :chair:? We're just expressing our experiences and wishes that they might be improved. Was your objective to push for less stability in multiplayer and no dedicated server?
  16. Yeah, I'm in exactly the same position. If they're totally limiting it to only being things that were already in DCS and things I already paid to get in full modules, they might need to offer a very compelling price point for me to consider buying it. I definitely don't object to paying something for it because there is some degree of new development work still. But I don't object to the idea outright, like they're not allowed to re-use things that were made for other modules I already own.. That's just being thrifty and no matter how much the nutjobs like us who already sunk several hundred dollars in to the products might kick and scream about it, it's very sound thinking when you're concerned with how to help keep the lights on at ED & Co.
  17. You're saying you paid for DCS: M2000C and MiG-21Bis, or what's your point? You got the modules you paid for same as anyone else. I paid for M2000C and MiG-21Bis. But we didn't buy our copies of those modules and the right to dictate how the materials involved in those modules might be used to create other products in the future. Whatever you bought previously, if you don't want a simplified avionics model Mirage no one is forcing you to pay for it now. Who are you to say someone else couldn't appreciate it? Completely besides the point. None of this is to say ED and its partners are absolved for neglecting to support their products with the fixes that are necessary and proper. They have an established track record and it's been clearly demonstrated that no matter what they're doing with new developments we can expect roughly the same level of support or incremental improvement at best. I'm just as upset with bugs or poor performance as anybody but I've seen enough to know it frankly doesn't matter what new material they're working on, and I don't see any reasonable likelihood that it's going to change any time soon. FC4, like any new addition to the DCS lineup, is something that has to be judged on its own merit. To say they shouldn't do anything until they fix all the broken stuff is a total non-starter.
  18. No problem whatsoever with taking existing modules and turning them in to FC-level aircraft so long as they aren't going to inherently perform "better" than the full realism counterpart. Money makes the DCS: World go 'round and this is a good quick & easy way to capitalize on existing time and money investments ED & its partners have already made. More money in the DCS: Coffers --> more resources for DCS: World --> more and better development of the product. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Everyone lives to fly another day. Compared to some of the other things people have gotten out the pitchforks for, this is even more harmless being that there is comparatively very little new work involved in bringing this to market. It's very hard to see where anyone is getting hurt here.
  19. F-14D would be fantastic and I'm optimistic that it would be done in the long run. As more of these modern full DCS level modules come out it's only going to become easier to do it as more and better infrastructure in weapons and avionics are built in to the base game. Once the Hornet is polished up and we've got an F-16, and maybe even that Strike Eagle that's been floating around "on the list" for years, it sure seems to make more sense that Heatblur rolls out a Super Tomcat than not. Either way, we've got multiple years worth of engaging flight sim material just in the upcoming 18 and 14. I think we'll manage in the meantime.
×
×
  • Create New...