Jump to content

firmek

Members
  • Posts

    1369
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by firmek

  1. Falcon dynamic campaign engine was something really unique, adding a lot of replay-ability to the sim. Just recently ED announced to work on their own DC engine for DCS. We'll probably not going to see it in 2019. If done correctly however (which we shouldn't have any doubt ED will manage to do) it can really bring DCS to another level of content availability. I'm not able to find a reference but I remember reading somewhere that building the dynamic campaign engine was such an ambitious task that it almost brought Microprose to a bankruptcy. So, lets keep our fingers crossed and wish ED a good luck! Its simply because DCS hasn't been designed this way. It's hard to explain but the way how mission editor works makes a mission to be focused on a single task. It allows to micro manage every single details of a single mission allowing to create a detailed engagement scenario. Creating multiple sequential missions allows to create a campaign. Every of those single missions have their briefing which can be really detailed - though their is no briefing room for players to gather and prepare in MP. What happens on most MP servers is that a single mission is used to represent a whole campaign/conflict. That is why it ends up to be an environment with flights spawning in/de-spawning without specific briefings, tasks and flight plans. The issue is generally two-fold - first is that, DCS lacks a good features to promote people getting together and organizing them self. On top of that the mission engine doesn't seem to be used by mission designers as per its design. I think you got a correct point. Most of the servers just run a generic missions and unfortunately there are many generic, air quake like servers. Quite often with the same air frames available on both sides. Just with blue and red team starting each from one, two airfields in close vicinity and an constantly going air fight on the way between them. Look for servers that have a mission rotation and more granular, task oriented missions. I think Cold War server is a good example to consider. The issue is that no matter how interesting SP mission you design, flying own missions is not that great as it takes out all of the element of surprise. There are some ways to randomize the mission but still it's not the same as flying a mission designed by someone else. On top of that, again due to the way how DCS missions and campaign work there is generally a lack of feeling of that our performance actually matters in a grand scale and that our results are transferred to another mission (for instance having to re-attack a target if we failed in the first mission). On the other hand what DCS missions do really great is that they allow to setup a really detailed scenarios and even allow to create an interesting narration. DCS focuses on micro-managing the missions while DC engine requires a macro management approach. Think however that most of the DLC campaigns with their added great story telling wouldn't be possible in rather generic dynamic campaign approach.
  2. Actually maybe we should listen the a voice of women if it's an issue for them or not... Having a bunch of guys screaming in the name of "diversity" that a women pilot models are needed seems to much like a social justice warriors exaggerating a problem which may not be such a big issue. Just to be clear. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a women pilot modeled. But is it a priority? Also, if done it should be done in historically accurate way. Everything ED needs is it's own SJW's pushing DCS into EA/DICE understanding of business and marketing...
  3. It's everyone decision if they want to get an module during it's Early Access. Taking to extreme your example, we would still be waiting for M2K release as some of the features are not completed yet.... Instead, thanks to EA we could enjoy the module for quite a long time already. Another perspective is that EA allows the devs to collect a valuable feedback. I guess no-one at HB nor most of of us want to wait another 2 years till the release. Anyway, regardless of the EA concept discussed so many times already on the forum and for which everyone can take its own decision if to participate or not and wait for a release version of a module, I don't really see a point and honestly speaking I see it unfair to bringing issues from some other devs to another devs forum - in this case Heatblurs.
  4. I watched the track. First, you're trying to take off with 2 MiG-29's just over your head but I guess that's not the reason why you can't leave the runway :) As for the reason... just go and read about Lokomotiv Yaroslavl Yak-42 crash. Long story short hit Right Control + Enter to see the status of input controls and everything will become obvious. Stick axis seem to be fine, throttle also but you're making a run still keeping brakes not fully released. I guess you're resting your feet on the pedals. At least it kind of looks like this. Might be it's not an issue for other planes as they have enough thrust to overcome the brakes power - especially if you're using AB during TO which A-10 obviously doesn't have.
  5. Forget doing it in MP though.... I'm quite sure HARM will become the No. 1 banned missile on the MP servers, knocking 120C and ET's right off the pedestal.
  6. Just pre-ordered... and after reading the OP from this thread I kind of feel bad I waited so long. Amazing job and great customer oriented attitude from Heatblur :thumbup:
  7. Basically any server should support it as its nothing more than a client configuration. The only reason for the "mod" not working are the mission creator view settings stored in the mission file. This can be any mission - a multiplier one run on a server or a single player like even a training. As it's a mission related setting it's not possible to create a list of servers. Quite often a server mission rotation will contain a clean missions and another where the user view settings are overwritten from the mission (with stored creator view settings). The only way to solve the issue is to contact the server admin and let him know about the problem as for the most part he'll not notice the difference (it's his view settings stored in the mission). I think the reason why the user settings are stored in a mission is linked to one of the options - can't remember its name but it's something related to enforcing same view settings over all missions. IMO ED should consider removing this option. Have a look on the "Troubleshooting missions" section: http://en.wiki.eagle.ru/wiki/Snap_views I used to run this procedure to fix the training missions on my PC.
  8. Putting a lot of attention into damage model for an aerobatic planes sounds almost like another troll from the devs :)
  9. You should really be running open beta then...
  10. Static planes are much more performance friendly than the uncontrolled ones. This is even true when the units are not directly in a line of sight. Large ammount of AI uncontrolled units will reduce the FPS and eventually with a high number of planes introduce a stutter. As a general rule use static units whenever possible especially if the units dont have to take active actions during the mission.
  11. The SOP link in first post has been broken since almost forever.
  12. As far I read about the history of the region the reality is exactly opposite. Since the operation Desert Shield in 1990 there is generally always at least one carrier group deployed to the Gulf with maximum five carriers deployed during Desert Storm in 1991. Think that under current, peace time conditions they have a different role than during a full blown conflict like WW2. One of the main reason of tensions between Iran and US with its allies is the constant presence of foreign Navies in the Gulf, leading to many close encounter accidents between ships/patrol boats from both sides. Many time the dispute is related to trans-passing to Iran territorial waters. Which "topology" is by the way one of the key puzzles of the region geo-politics and which for instance explain why islands like Abu-Musa or Tunb's are so important. Just from the mission building perspective, some high level ideas: - Al Dhafra would be the main airforce base for Blue team, focused on fighters. Thre are also quite a few AWACS and I think tankers on the google maps satellite pictures. - Al Minhad AB is hosting CAS, strike, transport and air refueling squadrons. - Conflict starting point could be a skirmish between US Navy and Iranian speed boats going out of control. If I understand correctly it's really difficult to pass into the Gulf through the strait without crossing into Iranian territorial waters. - Iran rather than using air-force or ships would use the coastal batteries and missiles to attack the US navy - with quite a good chance for a success as the Gulf is a small area. I liked the comparison to a "shooting gallery" from the article linked below. - Another idea could be a pre-emptive strike in response to Iran building up forces in the Abu Musa or Tunb islands. - There could be some collateral damage as the region is extremely crowded with a ship traffic. - Oman could declare neutrality and deny flying over its territory. As for the Al Dhafra and Al Minhad, especially the first one and the region arround it is well protected by the Patriot and Hawk sites. Especially the Hawk sites could change their positions - should it be needed. Here is quite an interesting article about the carrier groups in the Gulf https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/05/02/what-if-the-us-stopped-sending-aircraft-carriers-to-the-arabian-gulf/ Edit: I attached a template mission that I was working on. It shows the SAM sites location as also the squadrons - based on the generally available information. Just delete the "client" flights in order to get more or less a clean template. Template Persian Gulf 2K 20180629.miz
  13. C'mon, thats not fair. I finished the Oilfield campaign not so long time ago :) Being serious, good luck with the feature :thumbup:
  14. Hawk (though I don't know in which shape is it) and C-101. Besides there is no reason to not have L-39 also on the Blue side.
  15. Well the good news is that we know Kiowa is on the road-map for DCS. The bad news is that we don't know who and what's most important by when it'll be done. We had also witnessed on numerous occasions that the priorities as also the plans as for which dev which make which module get changed. Like the recent news of F-4 being pushed back behind F-16. The modules licence is also not fixed in stone like the MiG-23 which RAZBAM was asked to put on hold just to get it back after a year or so. Lets see. Hopefully Kiowa will get some priority.
  16. Just ask him which plane he likes in reality and start with it but DO NOT take any of FC planes. Take a full fidelity module where its possible to do some basics of radio navigation, ILS. My vote would be L-39 and the Kursant campaign but this campaign is actually quite tough.
  17. As far as I understand it doesn't really mean anything for FC3 users. You keep it and can fly the planes you have. That's all. If you wan't to play some of the new simplified planes you'll have to get the MAC but as there are already many planes in that package that FC3 owners already have, ED will offer MAC to them at a discounted price. Edit: seems the question got deleted in the mean time.
  18. I think we're over complicating it. It seems to be just the FC4 - aka FC3 plus a few new planes - aka DCS arcade mode, packaged in new branding "MAC" for a marketing purpose.
  19. I think its this one: http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA321294&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
  20. +1. It seems that two last cases (3 and 4) result in a situation that the pilot is trying to communicate with an hostile airfield ATC. Not even a neutral one, simply owned by the opposite coalition.
  21. If you're in a business - and it should be obvious that as soon as you start taking someones money it's a business, you should consider yourself not only as a specialist (developer) but a manager and a business man, responsible for taking your business seriously and managing the customer expectations and satisfaction. I'm not really happy and don't feel satisfied with saying that but in case of MiG-21 a results of a lot of good work like the recent cockpit overhaul is lost because of something really small, not worth insisting on like aligning the canopy glass with the rest of the DCS modules. Something as a side note but interesting to consider is how hard is it to get and maintain customer loyalty and how valuable such customers are as that will actively promote the product. Contrary consider how easy it is to create detractors which not only are not satisfied them self but actively spread around their dissatisfaction. How likely is it that you would recommend our company/product/service to a friend or colleague? The scoring for this answer is most often based on a 0 to 10 scale. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Promoter
  22. I'm running 100Hz GSync and can easily tell it does make a difference in DCS. TrackIR is just much more smooth, crisp and responsive and fore-mostly much more precise in 80-100 FPS range then it is at 40-60 FPS. I can generally feel the difference when on ground with 40 FPS and when flying high or or looking into the sky with 90+ FPS. As for the VSync - DCS is the only community where I find it being advised. I played FPS for a long time with a group of friends and turning the VSync off was a pretty much a first advice being given to anyone. Not even because of trying to be competitive but just being able to stand a chance. Just look at the video below. I think it really makes obvious how big the cost of VSync is. Doesn't it really matter for DCS? Again consider the TrackIR response lag or maneuvering in a precise flight regime like air refueling or even landing. Anyway, its a private choice but I don't see much of a logic behind improving a bit the picture quality with a cost of ruining the way how hardware is being interfaced with and experienced. Everyone complains about the DCS "net code" and network lag. I wonder how many of those folks fly with the VSync on.
  23. Absolutely stable FPS is generally not possible. Eventually the FPS will drop below the 60 FPS cap, which in case of VSYNC enabled will reduce the FPS by half, to 30 FPS. Besides the fact that card is underused and instead of potentially doing 53 FPS it does 30, this transition quite often is accompanied with a noticeable stutter. Another great "advantage" of VSYNC is that it creates a horrific input lag. Maybe DCS isn't a crazy fast paced FPS like game but just because the of the TrackIR, the input lag really matters. Want to have this "sea sickness" feeling of TIR connected to your PC with a rubber band - just set the VSYNC to on. Variable FPS is no issue when using a monitor with adaptive sync. If you think about it, the whole whole concept behind the VSYNC is flown to begin with. It's kind of like solving a problem by trying to fight the symptom not the root cause. You can't solve a hardware problem with a software. Anyway, the good thing is that since few years already the adaptive sync capable monitors are publicly available. While obviously being more pricey a monitor with an adaptive sync is really a only true solution to the screen tearing problem.
  24. Exactly. Games are generally programmed to utilize the GPU fully, running as many frames per second as it possibly can. The graphics options quality level will affect how much frames per second GPU is able to render. The only way to have GPU working below its full capacity is to free resources from it (which again game by default is trying to fully utilize): 1. Have a CPU or other hardware that is bottle-necking the GPU - which is obviously not a good thing 2. Enforce a maximum rendered FPS level, setting it bellow the FPS achieved by the GPU. This will introduce idle time to GPU. It can be done directly by editing DCS options or indirectly by enabling VSYNC. By default DCS caps the frames to 200 if I'm correct. Little to no reason in my opinion to touch this setting and as for VSYNC - you'll be doing yourself a good favor not wasting your time considering and enabling it. Really, "those aren't the droids you're looking for". Finally, why running a low settings on 1080 Ti? This doesn't seem to make too much sense.
  25. Yes, thank you for the tip. I know about it but it's better that the problem is resolved in the source package. Thus just letting know Baltic that there is a mission which needs fixing. Congratulations!. The final effect is really great. Looking forward for remaining missions.
×
×
  • Create New...