Jump to content

Zilch

Members
  • Posts

    413
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Zilch

  1. Hey, all. I was playing through this campaign today and the Assassin's Creed: Syndicate soundtrack, composed by Austin Wintory, came into my shuffle. 10/10. I'm going to use this every time I play missions in this campaign. It's a perfect fit, even if you aren't a fan of the AC series. Just a heads up! Any other playlists? I'd be interested to hear what, if anything, other DCS'ers listen to while hunting the skies.
  2. In case anyone is in love with their keyboard but still wants highly customized binds, I *highly* recommend the Logitech G13. Hell, I'd recommend it to any gamer of any genre. Hell, any PC user. It's really top notch especially at that price point. Pretty handy for every single DCS module.
  3. Just started this campaign after having my sim rig down for four months... The amount of homework done for this campaign is insane. Absolutely top notch stuff, reminds me what brought me to DCS to begin with. Thanks, gents. I finished Mission 1 and can't wait to get to the rest of it. Probably re-fly a few missions because there's a lot going on and it really feels like the first time I was at home in the Spit, doing what it was meant to do. The armed recon mission is a lot of fun, just skimming around hunting things. Good to be back the Spitfire, that's for certain...living in Canada now versus Texas really brings in some authenticity. :)
  4. Thanks! I'll give it a spin and see what flies out. EDIT: It works! Thanks, duders!
  5. Sorry about the necropost... Just got my system back on after about 4 months of being shut off from a move, and I'm getting this same issue. Is there a way to narrow down which parts of the Saved Game folder need to go? I'd like to save my missions, joystick binds (I shudder to think of rebinding HOTAS for every module!) pilot file, and monitor export files (although the latter is probably causing the issue, I expect to redo them later...)
  6. Tried that...seems like when I load the DCS client, it overwrites changes I made to options.lua. Or, I'm completely insane.
  7. Good stuff, I wish I saw this months ago!
  8. My menu GUI was stretching weirdly across my four monitors, so I checked this box and now all my screens go black after a microsecond flash of the big "DCS" logo loading screen. Is there a way to shut this off outside of the client, or perhaps to force the client to go back to 100% graphics default settings without using the client? EDIT: I have Notepad ++ and have options.lua open and ready to edit.
  9. So...I hit "scale GUI" in the menu to try and fix my stretched menu problem. Black screen is all I get now. Is there any way to, outside of the client, force DCS to go back to using one monitor only and shut off this option?
  10. Unfortunately, I read your warning far too late. :( Thanks for the help, I wish I had seen it sooner.
  11. SO, running the command line repair, then the updater, results in this: Running the command line dcs_updater just runs this version of 1.5.6. What's the solution now? Complete reinstall?
  12. Going through install now, I'll let you know. EDIT: Didn't seem to work, it repaired version 1.5...
  13. Same here... EDIT: While I posted this, BigNewy posted a link to the solution using the command line to repair. Attempting this now, we'll see what happens. Thanks, BigNewy.
  14. Did anyone else need to repair after updating? Not only that, but it "updated" me to version 1.5? What the hell is up with this?
  15. "Searching for already downloaded files..." ...for the last 7 minutes? Is that normal?
  16. All that does is launch my client...weird.
  17. Ah! My bad. RTFM next time! Thanks for the help.
  18. Zilch

    72"

    A remarkable weapons platform: :smilewink:
  19. So in Mission 03, I was heading toward the FEBA and received a message that I failed the mission because I went into the Container. I checked my HSI for my course line and waypoint bearing. Both were dead on. Apparently, the planned flight path goes right through Area 51. I'm sure you can adjust this in the Mission Planner, but it would be groovy if the path was shifted northward just a tad. Just an FYI!
  20. Zilch

    72"

    Literally "sea level." ;)
  21. My dad got to meet Mr. Weeks. That guy has more combat aircraft in crates than many air forces are actively flying. Plus a ton of flying warbirds. I like the Duck, which he flew often to our local airshow when I was a kid. Only one I've ever seen.
  22. Zilch

    72"

    You're highlighting a *key* concept that tends to get lost in these debates over what "wins" or is "best." There are so many variables in this subject, such as those you mentioned, that you can't predict outcomes in any meaningful way by comparison of stats, be it T/W ratios, Max weapon range, roll rate, pilot seat height, durability, or any mix of combination thereof. These are very important pieces of a very dynamic, highly variable and high speed split second contest. Would 72" help? Yeah, sure. Would it help more than 200 hours of mindful practice and training? Hell no. It's an untenable statement to say, without qualifying, that "the faster plane wins" or "the longest range shot wins" or "turn rate (instantaneous or sustained) always wins." These traits combined with appropriate tactics and training increase your probability of winning. There are no certainties. Only probabilities. Always remember that in these" who would win in a fight" discussions. Ultimately, you're gonna have to get in there and mix it up. It will be cold comfort to you if and when you're beaten by someone with an "inferior" plane nails you because he trained more in it. Ultimately, it'll be far more time effective to fly more, using mindful practice techniques, than wait for ED to change our planes. "Soon" isn't as soon as this weekend's training session can be. I don't mean to stifle the discussion. I'm sure I'm not the only one learning some cool stuff from it, especially about different versions of the P-51D. There just seems to be debate over something that's objectively true or not (what version was in use and when) or totally subjective due to other complex variables (what it takes to kill a 109K in a Mustang.) I think it's important to keep this stuff framed where it ought to be and maybe uh...not be so harsh at one another. We're all aviation enthusiasts here. I'd rather see us sharing beer than smashing the virtual bottle in one another's faces. :pilotfly:
  23. Zilch

    72"

    First off, sorry about your injury. I hate to hear about that kind of thing happening to anyone. I do want to discuss mass as it relates to energy retention through a medium, however. We understand from Galileo that objects in ideal conditions accelerate at the same rate due to gravity, of course, but this doesn't take into account the shape of the object or the medium it's flying through. In AIR combat, the action of the air is critical. The mere acceleration due to gravity alone isn't nearly sufficient to describe what we're dealing with. If I jump from a plane feet first, I'll fall pretty quickly with gravity pulling on my mass until I hit the ground or terminal velocity. I strapped on a parachute, adding mass, but changing the shape of the projectile through the medium, and my acceleration changes to something more survivable. I'm curious about how this relates to ballistics. Using an Age of Sail comparison, we can examine the standard long guns versus carronades, which had a far more massive projectile. Long guns had longer range, faster projectiles and more accuracy. However, the carronades, with their massive projectiles, were called "smashers" because they would not be halted by the wooden hull and would just walk through them, sending splinters everywhere and just pushing aside any in their way. Long gun shot despite being faster, was reported to be more susceptible to being slowed or stopped by thicker mediums. So, the mass of something through another medium seems relevant. Imagine throwing a light tennis ball through the air. It'll travel a distance, but not as far as a baseball of similar size. I'm guessing that the greater mass helps the baseball retain more energy as it pierces the air it's flying through, pushing aside the particles of air as it displaces them. The air has more success fighting the presence of the less massive object. (For a better experiment, you could compare empty tennis balls to ones stuffed with lead shot thrown at the same angle and speed.) So, I'm guessing here that two planes, controlled for shape, size, drag, and so on, traveling at the same high speed (notice that I specified speed and not total kinetic energy) after a dive or whatnot, one with a lot of fuel in the tank would probably retain its speed longer than another with nearly empty tanks at the same angle of climb and power setting. Yes, gravity is fighting both, but the more massive plane has an advantage against the air itself. Now, once it has lost that energy, it'll obviously have a harder time getting it back. It'll accelerate more slowly than the otherwise identical lighter plane. As this relates to tactics against everyone's favorite "unbeatable" 109K, the concensus of "keep your speed high at all costs" sounds dead-on. Obviously the shapes of the planes are different, but I'd hypothesize that at similar power settings and speeds, the Mustang would retain energy longer into a climb than a 109K. The real challenge now, is to convince the 109K driver to drop his power settings to match yours. :D As for the 7.5% power increase, I'd rather have it than not, but as you say it's not often likely to be too critical except in a few instances where the match is so close that a smidgen of extra power might help put your gunsight on something.
×
×
  • Create New...