Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by firmek

  1. Actually it's quite a poor example. Feature complete usually implies that at all "critical" or "high" importance features are in place. In other words all "must-have" and "should-have" feature are compleated while "could-have" features are still to be done. Using house as an example this would mean that feature complete house is the one ready to move-in, while still some elements are not finished or done at all. In example a fence has to be still build, walkways to be done, even such important thing as an external facade and thermal insulation could be not ready if you're moving in during summer not mentioning that having a nice grass or garden in place at this stage might have not be expected at all. To get to more practical terms however. I have been playing DCS with a brakes through past couple of years. During that time giving a try to Harrier and seeing little to no progress, obvious bugs could lead only to a disappointment. In the past I would not recommend it to anyone, even discounted. The version that we have currently however is another story. For the first time I could recommend it even at a full price. Something that people overlook is a great set of training missions that Harrier has. Yes, the module still has a quirks but I would rather see a glass full and so to say enjoy the house even without a perfect grass outside. There is only one type of software in nothing can't be improved and there are no bugs to be fixed - the one none is using anymore.
  2. P-47D and F-16C added. FOV is set to 100 in the files. Just change the second gCameraViewAngleLimitsvalue in server.lua and run replace for "viewAngle = 100.000000" in snapviews to change it to your preferred one. I was really scratching my head whether I should buy P-47 but I'm really happy I did. It's a great module with a really well done cockpit :thumbup: Edit: Forgot to attach the files :) Server.lua SnapViews.lua
  3. There is obviously nothing wrong in asking for an update. Demanding however from others do give away their work for free should never be considered as a good attitude. Even if they had been generous and had provided a free content in the past.
  4. Carrier is doing roughly 30knots (plane has 55 km/h IAS when stationary on deck). Would you like to share the the headwind component details? With a right (not necessarily always realistic) conditions set in mission editor, many planes will be able to land on a carrier or will behave like a STOL capable. In reality, I'm sure it's possible to find a clips proving it's possible to land on a carrier with any of the planes when looking back into history of DCS and youtube. What does it prove though - except of someone having a good fun in DCS? I would suggest not going into the flight model discussion, especially if aside of personal expectations and general belief there are no facts referenced. Aside of that it's certainly not a "prototype". Contrary, it's actually a really complete module as for an EA release. Obviously it has been just out for the beta so there are things missing or to be improved but at this moment at least in my opinion it's one of the the best (if not the best) looking and sounding module.
  5. Good find. Exactly, it's a problem with the Channel map as the temperature is fixed to 0 and currently it's not possible to change it. 2-3 minutes at 0 deg ambient temp. is a bit short. However, closing cowl flaps and oil shutter seems to work and be modeled as per manual. I have a doubt however if the oil dilution currently works. Anyway, so far I love the P-47 and the job ED did with it. This bird has a lot of character.
  6. :thumbup: Absolutely. He did a great, in-depth videos.
  7. Well, to be honest i think that ED and The Fighter Collection together have enough expertise and references to the real planes. It would be good to have a bit more solid facts than "I have never flown one" but "it doesn't feels right" before asking others to review their work. http://fighter-collection.com/cft/
  8. Great, I have noticed some files posted in that thread. I'll check them out. Though the sound will be always to some extend a subjective thing I would really like ED to have a look on F-18 and A-10C. Those are just too noisy and too loud comparing to other planes. F-18 had always been like that but A-10C IMO had much better sounds in the past.
  9. I like the new cockpit. It's for sure a good starting point though the switches look a bit plastic. Heaving the clean pit it should be possible to create a weathered one. I would love to see the A-10 cockpit becoming closer to the standard of F/A-18 though - which is looking really great. As for the default head position. Is it really such a big problem? If you don't like it, it takes just a moment to change it... Something that wonders me is the sound. Bare with me as I had a really long break flying A-10. I remember the engine sounds had been much more pronounced, especially the signature growl at higher revs. Now it's barely possible to hear the engines due to a really high noise - I guess from the avionics and wind. To an extend it's like in F/A-18A where it just too loud. Was that a recent addition included with new pit or it has been like that since some time? Frankly speaking the really high level of noise in both F/A-18A and A-10C just makes them a pain to fly. I don't care how realistic it is. Heatblur found a really great balance with F-14. I'm not the fan of "hear like in helmet" option as it just muffles the sound. It's only F/A-18 and A-10 which are so loud that this option becomes a must.
  10. Guys, but you can adjust the default position to your liking - if you don't like it. Also I would suggest to get rid of the old settings just in case by erasing the snapviews settings for A-10C. Other option is to pause the head-tracking and hitting Num-5 and then RAlt-Num-0 to save the new defaults.
  11. We're really getting of the topic and you're making me look more negative then my attitude in reality is. However, just to call the things as they're, when something that was not intended gets released especially if it's half baked it's should be clear for anyone having had any connection with software development that it's a result of a poor change management process. In simple words, it's a mayor f!@kup. Even if it happened it should had been rolled back with a following update. Beta or not, it doesn't have anything to do with it. It just shows the level of involvement. So, sorry but I'm really not going to adhere my expectations when I see there are a basic quality and internal process issues. Anyway, let's hope for a better. With the latest addition of JDAM's I'll most certainly get the Harrier out from the hangar for some flight hours.
  12. Sorry but now you're manipulating the facts. No one has said that JDAMS are the fist patch since 2 years. Secondly, we're mainly talking about the poor progress on Harrier - now you're trying to get the fact that there had been updates to MiG-19 which has nothing to do with Harrier. As far the Harrier is concerned, facts speak for themselves. Just go to the change log: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=204693. Up until yesterday, the last patch for Harrier was communicated in August - that's almost 5 months where there had been nothing new. If you study the updates more in details just most of them are fixes, not any new major functionality. Last but not least, compare the Harrier change log to let's say the change log of F/A-18 or frankly speaking any other module in early access - this should make it really clear that there is something wrong and it's not an ea issue but just a pure fact that Harrier barely gets any attention.
  13. A bug is a bug bug but what does it tell about the quality of the release process to "accidentally" release something that wasn't intended as it's not complete. More over, leave it in such state for a few months - just so that people notice something new and spend time playing with it just to their frustration find out its just not complete and not working and is such a WIP that never should have been released (even considering ea standards) to begin with. I'm really trying to be pragmatic and wish a good luck to Razbam as they did manage to get a comprehensive update for M-2000C just recently. Let's be realistic however, if you consider the progress for Harrier slow and steady, comparing to other modules (also in early access), if it just gets a bit slower we'll start to see the lines of code disappearing.
  14. C'mon... you make it really look like people are ungrateful while in reality I would say that the community is quite patient and restrained considering how bad the situation with Harrier is. We're talking about a module released 2 years ago and then after a few months of initial progress left pretty much without any substantial investment or support. Speaking of JDAMS's - those had been released already a few months back and since then left in such buggy state that it wasn't even possible to get them out of the plane. Be pragmatic, it's great that we got this update and for sure it's welcome but it's merely a first step in a long journey for Razbam to get things on the right track for Harier.
  15. Honestly, I would really prefer to wait longer but have the module released in a good shape. I really hope for both RAZBAM and virtual pilots that MiG-23 will be a new quality.
  16. I'll guess we'll have to find out. I hope not in a way that some day we'll here about a "DCS for mobiles" - I mean "do you guys not have phones..."
  17. Absolutely :thumbup: Here you're too polite. I would suggest the OP to try invest, lets say 5000 working hours in creating a product which then he would like to sell, having to explain on the way to those claiming it's "silly" he wants to charge for it, how big of a trolls they are.
  18. Both versions are separate installs and don't share resources. You can run both in parallel (which does make little sense in my opinion) by installing beta next to stable or change stable to beta. Just search on the forum, it's an easy process. And frankly speaking, there is little reason to use stable version in DCS. You mostly get only the drawbacks of getting everything, new modules and even patches late for pretty much no value added - I can't really recall something in beta being heavily broken while working in stable.
  19. I kind of agree with above... and I actually enjoy the trainers, especially L-39. And I do enjoy them a lot. The thing however is that there are probably more priority modules that the whole DCS would benefit from. Just to explain, like the JF-17. Not everyone will buy it but even those that wont will enjoy a benefit of having a red adversary in DCS, even "only" if it makes for a target that someone else if flying.
  20. The reality will be that at some point ED may be forced to go into subscription model. How many hot-selling modules that everyone wants to get are there left to be developed? The list is only getting shorter and shorter. Currently the modules get the most of development time. C'mon, after so many years there is not even a B-29 for the MiG-15 to shoot at. Yes the core is free but DCS is for the most part an exceptional plane simulator but it lacks behind in the overall air warfare environment simulation. It's like having a most detailed F1 car simulator with a few race tracks but without a F1 season. ED should consider starting to charge a subscription for the core game (maybe include FC3 and F-5 in it) and keep additional fees for all other modules. This should bring more attention to the core of the game, including so much needed AI units. As much as I hate subscriptions myself I would like the DCS to keep growing. I remember a time where a software was bought on a CD (or even a floppy). You bought it - you owned it. You could lent it to a friend or sell it. I was like with a pair of jeens. Now we came to a model when one does not own the trousers but only a right to ware them. Lenting or selling them is not possible at best if not illegal. Also a shop owner has a right at any moment to spy on your apartment. The subscription model is that we have to pay every year for being able to ware the trousers. It's just a bigger rip-off, just making customers to get less and own less for their hard paid money. The best part is that the marketing guys are able to convince pople it's acctually better for them. It is what it is but saying it's good for the customers is a bunch of !@#$%. It's just to take more $ and keep the steady flow of cash. Nevertheless just don't make a marketing bs. Be honest that a new model is needed to keep maintaining the development and growth and people will support it - like they support the so much controversial early access mode.
  21. firmek

    Hurts my Soul

    Honestly. Razbam did a really good job on the M-2000C updates. As for the Harrier, it's more or less in abandon-ware state since over a year. It's not about buying an ea module. It just about that there is no progress since after the initial few months after the launch. Even according to official change-log there hasn't been a single update for Harrier since 4 months. This module is dead way long before it got finished. I'm not buying any of their modules anymore. MiG-19 was the first module I didn't get since a long time when I had been pre-ordering almost every single module on day one. History so far shows there is a good chance MiG-23 will end up in the same miserable state. MiG-19 was to be a new quality on the launch, not an ea anymore. We all know how it ended. Just in case this does not become obvious. DCS is not where it had been a couple of years ago. Now there are way more modules then normal, working people with kids and families have time to fly. Sorry, but with this attitude towards not really a customers but supporters that gave a credit of trust buying into EA products that are now left without a support, the future does look rather very grim for Razbam.
  22. It's strangely quiet on the map topics. I would expect that at least Syria (and even Afghanistan) maps should be shaping quite good by now already.
  23. Much needed and appreciated :thumbup:
  24. The fact is that such system already exists. I didn't really play with it too much myself to be honest but DCS has a warehouse system where a limited number of supplies can be defined and made available for load-outs. In other words it's possible to define a limited number of AMRAAM's and let the team to just run out of them. What's even more interesting is that the resources can be attached to a specific warehouse building visible on the map which then can be attacked and destroyed by enemy. As I understand there are also different means to get them resupplied. Why this system is not exploited by mission creators I have no clue. On the other hand with all those custom scripts running on every single server DCS experience becomes only more confusing and less immersive. Right now aside of reading the briefing and understanding mission objectives it's becoming equally or even more important to learn how to use all the different scripts put into the comms menu as well to learn how to extract some critical information from them (like not allowed load-outs).
  25. Don't take it too negative but since when BF has anything to do with realism.... More like this... its just a pure gaming-balancing thing.
  • Create New...