Jump to content

lmp

Members
  • Posts

    1187
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by lmp

  1. Wow, I honestly haven't thought of just doing this in the default.lua, but it makes perfect sense. That's a really nice solution, scoobie!
  2. I would be in favor of having more options for digital brake controls. So perhaps instead of just one key to activate the brakes, separate keys that would engage the brakes quickly or slowly (so you could "tap" it to effectively achieve an intermediate position), or maybe separate keys to hold the brakes at 25%, 50%, 75%, 100% deflection... this way we could choose which control scheme works best with the hardware that we have.
  3. A digital piano has multiple (at least two) switches per key which are closed at different points in the key stroke - this allows the piano to measure the velocity of the key press. The pinky lever in the Warthog as far as I'm aware only has one switch. There is no physical way to detect the strength or velocity of a key press using just one switch. You could try it with the trigger (using both stages), but how reliable that would be would depend on the quality of the switches (amount of switch bounce).
  4. When I had the TWCS throttle, I used one of the rudder paddles for breaks in the a/cs that have a common break lever. Worked like a charm. I don't know if the TDC hat in the Warthog is an analog control? If it is, you could make it work by toggling the "slider" option, setting the dead zone to at least 50% and maybe inverting the axis in DCS settings. This way, half of the physical axis (from neutral to maximum deflection) corresponds to the full range of the in-game axis, if that makes sense. I don't suppose you use the TDC hat for anything in the Mossie so that might be an option for you?
  5. There are options in the game already to dumb down navigation but I think the better approach would be to consider it another fundamental skill to learn. You wrote that you already put in the time and effort to learn take-off, engine management and so on. I presume you're not content with just airstarting straight into a dogfight, you want to learn to fly the thing properly. Navigation is then just as important as those other skills are. Set up some exercises for yourself, learn to choose and identify landmarks, get a pen, notepad and a stopwatch handy, practice some dead reckoning. Don't treat it as an obstacle between taking off and getting to the fight. It can be as much fun as learning all the other things you've already learned.
  6. Very well, I will answer the question posted in the thread as directly as I can. "Would you like to see Tank or other Armor modules created by ED or Third Party Devs?" Not in DCS as it is now, ground combat is too barebones to do them justice. I would also not like ED to focus their development on ground combat as I feel those resources should be spent elsewhere. Well then, for the benefit of others I guess, since you're ignoring me while also replying to me. And being off topic. They didn't. They had a helicopter game (BS) and a fixed wing game (A-10C) and an older fixed wing game (LOMAC/FC) and they merged them all together at one point. Then, if memory serves me right, they added the Mustang into the mix. To this day I remember how we all felt this was a logical direction to go... why are you even asking me to explain why ED does what ED does? I'm not in their heads. As for what's my take on where DCS should go - again, for the benefit of others, cause you clearly don't care - I see two good, non mutually exclusive reasons for DCS to expand into new areas. Either a lot of the existing assets, systems and mechanics can be reused or the new area of simulation will synergize well with the existing ones. A good example of an area where this would be the case could be air defense systems. Not sure there's a market for this, but it would make sense to me. We have good enough maps, targets with decent AI, there are obvious gameplay synergies. Existing gameplay benefits, new gameplay gets a head start with most of the core systems in place. A good example where this would very much not be the case could be, say, subsurface warfare - pretty much nothing gets reused here, everything needs to be built from scratch and there are no interactions with the existing gameplay.
  7. It is on topic, because unless you want the tanks and the planes to synergize, then you're asking for two separate games in one... for the hell of it? Why not build a new game from scratch - it'll be easier!
  8. Sure, 3rd parties can build all the tanks. After ED builds all the systems and the tools needed and probably in the process does a proof of concept module or a couple that is. But yeah, after those tiny little details are resolved, 3rd parties can do the work. And then we will be able to drive around in our perfectly recreated Shermans and deplete health bars of AI ground units that have no concept of tactics beyond dispersing randomly and freezing in place until they are all dead. Because guess what, 3rd parties aren't building core systems for DCS such as damage models and ground AI. They could also, you know, hire additional devs to work on all the stuff that DCS players have asked for for years. That's what I meant by "resources".
  9. Well, it's always a trade-off. Consider everything that would need to be developed to create a ground combat simulation in DCS that would rival dedicated ground sims (making it worthwhile to spend $30-50 on an individual module). Now consider what else could ED accomplish with those resources in all the other areas where DCS needs work. Doing one thing always means not doing something else. But ok. Let's focus on benefitting helicopter and ground attack aircraft players. It's the year of the helicopter after all. What would those players notice and appreciate the most? Better AI, particularly on a platoon and higher level? More realistic communication with and between ground units? Weapon and damage modeling (focused primarily on surface to air and air to surface weaponry, because this is where the interaction happens)? Honestly, from the perspective of a ground attack player, I don't really care about the fidelity of engine modeling of an individual tank, or if its gun mantlet armour thickness is accurate. I do care if the enemy troops react in a realistic and believable way to what I'm doing and if my own troops are talking to me. Since pretty much forever ground units under fire move a few dozen meters in a random direction and freeze, waiting to be killed in subsequent attacks and redfor has no communication with ground troops available to them (while the blufor JTAC is primitive at best). These are the areas that need work first. Tank modules can wait. Let's have a believable ground war when looking at it from my cockpit first.
  10. The problem is, a tank module at this point would make very little sense unless ED greatly expanded the ground combat aspects of DCS. We would need new maps, AI capabilities, weapon and damage modeling... the list goes on. So the argument that it would occupy ED resources is valid, regardless of who made the actual tanks. And even if ED went to all this trouble, how much would the air combat and ground combat players actually interact once the novelty wore off? In the end tanks are just targets for attack aircraft with very limited abilities to fight back. IMHO the class of ground units that would make far more sense in DCS are (both modern and WW2 era) air defense units. The limitations of ground combat simulation in DCS would be largely irrelevant and they would by design interact with the existing modules and playerbase.
  11. I'm sure if ED gave backers the option to take the Mossie instead of the 262 most would consider it a nice gesture. OTOH if they forced the backers to take the Mossie and abandoned the 262, yeah, there would be riots :). Also, at this point probably a lot of the backers who stuck with the game already have the Mossie.
  12. @peirof There is a few things that are challenging about AAR and I don't think you've told us which part exactly you are struggling with? The first challenge is connecting. Can you hit the basket reliably? That's the first thing to work on. If it takes you 10 tries to plug it in, then when you do manage it, your stress level goes up (you don't want to waste your chance) and that makes everything else massively harder. If you're having issues here, I encourage you to focus on just this part. Don't bother with trying to fill up the tanks until you can nail the connection 8 or 9 times out of 10. The trick here is sight picture. There are a lot of ways build it, people line up the canopy frame or hud with different parts of the tanker, basket or hose... I would recommend watching some YT videos of people doing it well and making up your own method. Then keep trying until you're good at it (just connecting). One step at a time. The second big challenge is staying connected, which comes down to precision flying. The tip many people give is that "there is no perfect stick and throttle position", "you need to be constantly correcting" and that is true but it took me a while to actually understand what it meant. The trick is to stop looking for that perfect stick and throttle setting. Killing any unwanted drift quickly is more important than being super precise about it. Let's say your plane is slowly starting to drift to the right. If you give it 1% of left stick, hold it, look if it fixed the problem, give it 1% more left stick, hold it, look again... you'll always be behind the aircraft. Instead of doing that yank the stick 10% (or 7%, or 12%, pinpoint precision isn't what you should be after here) to the left, then almost immediately back to the initial position. You want to kill the drift now. The aircraft can't get away from you. Your corrections should be short but deliberate. The aircraft will probably start drifting somewhere else almost immediately but that's ok, as long as you can stop it quickly. Once you get this down, this method works for AAR, landing taildraggers, hovering helos, any kind of precision flying really.
  13. Sweet, and it's even a P, like ours.
  14. According to RedKite, there may be an issue with the manual drift corrections being incorrectly applied between the two map scales: Maybe this is what you're running into? You could retry your experiment without applying any manual drift corrections (and/or any scale switching?) and see if the drift at different altitudes is still so different.
  15. The radios are very similar to the ones used on the Mi-8. This is something we've seen in I believe all the Russian/Soviet aircraft in DCS. The OFF/ANT/COMP/LOOP switch selects the operating mode of the ARK-15 ADF. Comp stands for compass and is the normal operating mode. ANT and LOOP enable the sense or loop antenna only and are used for testing the set or tuning to a beacon frequency (you might get a clearer signal if only the sense antenna is receiving). Besides this switch, the ARK-15 panel contains frequency inputs for the two channels, a channel selector, a VOICE/CW switch (CW would enable the BFO, leave this in VOICE in DCS), a LOOP button for testing the loop antenna in the LOOP operating mode and a control button. This last one is new and I believe it allows for switching who has control of the ADF set (the pilot-commander or pilot-operator) - but I haven't tested it. The ARK-15 drives the "1" needle on the HSI. To listen to the ARK-15, move the rotary selector on the intercom panel (below the ARK-15 panel) to the ARK-15M position. In addition to that, we also have the very same R-863 radio that we had on the Mi-8, though there is no manual frequency input - only preprogrammed channels available. This is your main radio for talking with your wingmen and ATC. Controls for it are between the ARK-15 and landing gear panels. Big red knob for picking channels, AM/FM switch, and three switches above the channel selector for enabling squelch, enabling guard frequency monitoring (if this set has this feature, the one in the Mi-8 didn't) and I forgot what the third one is. Probably a switch to listen to the ADF simultaneously - didn't work in the Mi-8, probably won't in the Hind. There's the R-828 set, which we already had in the previous two Russian/Soviet helicopters. Panel for it is all the way back on the left side. It's used for talking to ground units primarily, FM only, VHF. You can look it up either in the Ka-50 or the Mi-8 manuals. The tooltips I believe use it's codename ("Eucalyptus") rather than the R-828 designation. There's the YaDRO set, panel to the left of the ARK-15 panel, controls identical to the ones in the Mi-8 - look it up in the manual. This is your long range, HF set. There is the ARK-U2 set, which is another radio direction finder that can be driven by either the R-828 set or the R-852 emergency radio. It's panel is below the R-828, it needs to be enabled and then the radio source needs to be chosen with the three position switch. I don't know if the middle position does anything. The R-852 radio is a VHF/AM set with four preset channels: 1 - 114.116 MHz 2 - 114.333 MHz 3 - 114.583 MHz 4 - 121.5 MHz The controls for it are way down, below the intercom panel. There's a channel selector and a volume knob. I encourage you to read not just Chuck's guides, but the Mi-8 manual. That's where I got most of the information above. The only thing I had to look up was the R-852 frequency list, because the Mi-8 has a slightly different set. Chuck's guides, as great as they are, only give you a very surface level knowledge of the module and if that's all you depend on, you'll never know your aircraft well.
  16. I found it pretty accurate providing: a) you're over flat terrain, b) you're in range, the amber light is on, c) the rocket type is actually compatible with the gunsight's automatic mode - the S-13 and S-24 aren't. I also shot pretty much exclusively in unsynchronized mode, which works great in no wind against non moving targets. Synchronized mode is supposed to account for those factors but you then need to track the target for a bit before firing.
  17. Currently when switching scales the whole changing out the card and realigning the cursor is done automatically. This makes the DISS map feel like a modern GPS rather than what it is. I don't think this is DCS level fidelity, we need something better :).
  18. Did you hold down the cage buttons for a moment rather than just pressing them?
  19. It's actually the same track we had in the Mi-8 since the beginning of time.
  20. I haven't had this happen to me and I don't know the intricacies of the autopilot system yet, but here's an idea for the troubleshooters: Maybe the heading autopilot is messing up your trim? Do you have rudder trim enabled in the Special options? Can you trim it out? Does the problem persist if you fly without the heading autopilot channel? Are the pedals in the cockpit actually deflected all the way to the right as they should be?
  21. Happened twice to me. The Mi-24 seems to pick up a lot of speed in an even shallow dive and doesn't tell you about it like the Mi-8 does.
  22. I'd be in favour of having the option, but in its current state, I don't really care for it. As for the map, I hope it's implemented with realistic limitations such as having to realign the indicator manually after switching to a different map and not having an unlimited supply of maps covering the entire game world available to you at all times. And custom images, we need custom images, those will be amazing for campaigns.
  23. The problem with an AI that is too autonomous in the tactics department and thinks on a too high level is that you sacrifice a lot of flexibility and control down low. It's nice to have to simulated command structure, but that command structure won't work for all military forces across all the periods we have in DCS. It's nice to have a "If a tree falls in a forest...." simulation outside of the player bubble, but what if you want that BTR to sit on that particular street corner for the player to destroy. It's nice to be able to plop a US battalion and a Soviet regiment on the map and have them duke it out, but sometimes you want your ground units to perform some very specific, repeatable actions to give the player a curated experience. In the end this is what DCS focuses on - the pilot's experience. Never mind the fact that whatever ED could come up with would be janky and flawed simply because of how complex this system would have to be. I think any kind of "command AI" along with "outside the bubble" simulation, unit spawning and despawning should be a new layer on top of the simple waypoints and routines that can be disabled. And the waypoints and routines should be expanded and streamlined to support both the high level command AI and better custom mission design. Dynamic and autonomous isn't always better than linear and curated - especially in a training scenario.
  24. I don't think we can realistically expect the AI to be able to behave intelligently beyond some very basic things. Go prone, turn front of tank towards enemy - yes. Communicate your contact to the rest of the platoon and talk them onto it with a realistic delay and degree of accuracy - no. That's way too much work for not enough difference to anybody but maybe CA players. The Hind is a big, loud helicopter flying against a sky background. They'll all see us before we see them anyway. Same goes for fragmentation damage. Sure, it's nice to have, but will doing a bit more damage (and unreliably) to unarmored targets be such a game changer? I think not. IMHO the low hanging fruit would be to refine and clean up some of the tools we already have. I can "suppress" a unit or force it to "retreat" with the use of zones, triggers, go to waypoint and ROEs, but it's a huge pain in the rear. If we had branching, conditional waypoints, reliable ways to measure suppression, awareness of enemy, etc., we could easily create complex game plans for large numbers of units without being script wizards. We could easily make the AI units feel a lot less dumb and a lot more human. I would argue the same is true for your changes. There's no way to go from the current health bar damage model to anything even close to realistic in "maybe one day of work". Same goes for spotting. Sure, you can make the AI ignore what's not within the few degrees of FOV of the periscope, but then you need the units to realistically scan their surroundings and coordinate that scanning at least within a platoon... see how quickly that grew? All that is at least weeks of coding and weeks of research, data entry and testing for each of the great many units in the game.
×
×
  • Create New...