Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SparxOne

  1. Oh really ? Strange to say the least to hear from them but only to say that, how should we take it ? As plain as it is, meaning they are alive, of coarse, but without a deal with ED, or they are there and working on something after they've made a deal ? Edit : Just checked the only thread in which they've ever spoken (At least with the account "Battlefield Productions") and thread is locked since March. Where did you read them saying "We are alive ?" ?
  2. So i would guess we're in the same path as Battlefield Production (The ones that proposed to build evrything centered around the ground aspect and CA) ?
  3. Indeed, but like @Silver_Dragonsaid, their profile shows they havn't appeared on the forum since April too, which kinda answers the question, they probably didn't find a deal with ED. Very unfortunate if you ask me, as they were the only ones with a clear will to focus on the ground side of DCS while having interesting ambitions. It would have been awesome to see them update/work on combined arms, as that probably would have made it much faster to bring freshness to it as ED clearly isn't putting any focus on that side of DCS. I guess it's back to square one, hoping ED does it themselves sometime in the following years.
  4. And imagine the part where they'd need to implement all this logic to the AI
  5. Opinions ? Say no more, you've said it already my man. Main point would be the AI to be massively updated/improved, and in all senses, not just the AI aircrafts doing their things, i mean literally the AI from ground units to air units and everything that would make the missions/wars feel much more interesting and challenging tactically. 2nd point if i may The addition of the dynamic campaign, yes yes, we all know it's in the works, but i hope and dream that the AI will somehow be updated/improved by the time this DC comes out to the wide public ! Otherwise i'm scared of how things will happen in said DC Let me ramble a little more here because it's always good to let your heart talk hehe I would love to see DCS evolve in a way that ground warfare becomes a common thing as you're flying, seeing battle groups on the ground moving towards objectives, engaging other battle groups or defensive groups protecting an objective, literally anything that would make the ground way more alive than the ever so static one we've been too used to see throughout 95% of servers, missions etc. Literally whenever i take off, the only thing that needs attention from my part is of coarse ennemy planes that roam their navigations charts or are tasked to engage you (But are usually no more than a Turkey shoot). But the moment you wanna do some A2G, it's really just a matter of finding those static units shown on the map, at your steerpoints or whatever and doing passes on them with whatever weapon you have, it gets really boring after a while, to the point that i tend to stop flying because i'm not finding it fun/immersive/challenging anymore. I want something dynamic from ground to air ! Yes the dynamic campaign should answer that, i just hope it will meet the expectations and solve the massive replayability problem i've had over the years. Would the AI solve or at least help in all i've said ? Hopeflly yes as it would allow AI units to be way more unpredictable, way more tactically smart and just way more interesting all around.
  6. This x100 ! The AI options in this poll were the first 2 i clicked. If i were to be given 2 options and only one be chosen. 1 : Complete AI overhaul 2 : Complete performance overhaul/upgrade I'd go for 1 without a second thought. The performance is clearly manageable for the vast majority of players from what Bignewy said after they implemented the new clouds, he said 85% of people didn't notice any significant performance downgrade. Yes this was more aimed around the new clouds, but nonetheless, unless you are playing in VR which is very demanding, it's easy to stay above 40-50 FPS. On the other hand, the AI just clearly isn't ready to accomodate the future dynamic campaign, and keep in mind that this dynamic campaign is normally scheduled for this year in external Beta. Even if it wasn't for the dynamic campaign, literally anyone could tell us a time where the AI simply sucked in an SP mission, MP server etc, so even if people arn't looking forward to that DC, well they'd still be very happy to see the AI do much better in everything else they do. I'm eagerly waiting for the DC and hoping it will rise DCS to another level of fun and immersion, bringing much more replayability most of all ! But how would that DC be fully enjoyable if the AI doesn't feel any good ?
  7. Clearly a period i would not fancy at all unfortunately. If i could hope for a certain period, it'd probably be one made around the 90's, somewhat close enough to use our current 16 on it. 2000's period could potentially be fun too but i have no idea if that would simply be possible without loads of work on multiple levels. That doesn't really answer my question. Deka making exclusively Chinese assets is one thing, but a third party dev focusing on creating multiple asset packs if that was the intent and or creating a somewhat international asset pack is another, especially if that third party is like i said full time working ONLY on the ground side of DCS. Seems like no one knows if they are still around and/or validated by ED. This is the thread they created (The third party talking about focusing on assets and enhancement of Combined Arms) if you wern't aware of it already : Battlefield Productions
  8. Talking about assets packs and maps. Maps are slowly being made, whether by ED themselves or third parties, i don't feel like it is an area clearly needing priority works, Syria is an awesome map, whether being the third with a majority of sand, i still feel it was a great choice to bring it and even more with the addition of Cyprus ! The map matches very well with most aircraft that we have and not counting the ones in the works. Mariana as much as not the most interesting one still is counted as a map on which certain scenarios could be made but limited in my opinion. Falklands is in the works and could potentially come out late this year or i'd guess sometime next year ? If there was one map i'd wish to get, it would be the whole of North + South Korea. I know that area is already used in another F-16 sim, but i'd love to see it detailed as good as Syria is for exemple and of coarse on DCS (Not counting how much i'd love to use our future dynamic campaign on it). A lot of our current assets (Planes and vehicles) would actually blend in pretty good on a Korean map. Anyhow, Ugra media seems to be focused on maps, and now that Syria is/should be finished, i would hope that they are already working on another new one to be just as good as Syria ?!? Point here is that, we already have "plenty" of great maps to use for different conflicts so no need to have priority on this matter. The assets, this is where i need to know, we heard a third party wanted to get into the business with ED and create only asset packs and maybe in the future go into making somewhat full fidelity vehicles !?! Where have these guys disappeared ? Havn't had news from them for long enough that i can't remember when was the last time they were talked about on the forum. I was really happy to know some third party devs were ready to join us and somewhat "take care" of the ground side of DCS, yet here we are, feeling like this great idea has not been validated. Same with the third party that talked about making an IADS module, awesome idea that again the majority of the community was happy to adopt, yet once again, i have not seen any news from them for very long and feel like it simply did not validate somewhere. ED is doing some minor work on ground stuff, mostly updating textures as it is, but i was really counting on that third party team who came in proposing to build asset packs and clearly speed up the process on everything ground related. I'm just hoping we'll see DCS evolve more into something with massive replayability and depth as a simulator. I do love the study level sim they've made, but i've seen myself loose interest coming on regurlarly because of too many details missing around the focus of study level planes we fly.
  9. To me that is something everyone should keep in mind for a few years at least. I've seen it too many times the people wanting infantry in DCS. Infantry as much as it sounds cool to have them playable will certainly not be as fun and well established in a world and maps like the ones we have here in DCS. ED i'm almost certain has no ressources, money and time to invest in creating a properly fleshed out infantry gameplay in the world we currently have (They arn't even doing it for the already existing CA, as in develop it further, make it even better). I feel like it's just unrealistic to think ED will bring us some infantry gameplay anytime before a good 10 years time, and even with that, i'd be willing to bet it would still be short (Take into account a FF aircraft takes them as we've seen with the F-18/16/A-10, several years to complete, add to that all the other work they have on the side, Dynamic campaign engine, Vulcan, new Weather, AI, etc etc), infantry and anything ground related clearly isn't their focus, and that's nothing new to anyone who's been playing DCS for years. Yes the dream of some is there, and i can understand it, wouldn't it be insane to have infantry, vehicle, sea and air warfare all simulated in one world all together fighting in conjuction ? Of coarse it would. But back to reality, the priority in my opinion would be first of all to spend a bit of time and ressources upgrading what we currently have, CA as a whole. So many interesting remarks have been made, interesting ideas that sound feasible in terms of addition to CA, let them start there already before dreaming of infantry. I'd be so happy as a start to see them further develop the ground warfare and allow interesting usage of the ground vehicles in conjuction with all the boys flying above, just those 2 playing along side would already be such a fun element to DCS world ! I need to come back to something i said somewhere in this thread already, seeing how the tank gameplay from IL2 looks and feels like on their side, why not let ED start towards something similar ? No need for them to go fully indepth with tanks inside modeling, 100% proper physics etc, but something less arcady from what we have with the added improvement of some RTS element to all of the ground warfare would already be awesome. Literally just doing something to CA to give players an incentive of playing it when let's say they get shot down after a 30 minutes flight, or heck, just an incentive for anyone actually just enjoying ground warfare for a change of flying. I'd be very much willing once in a while after a session of flying to grab a vehicle of choice and go about joining the fight on the ground with other players, or even AI's if they were actually made to attack objectives and just have a purpose different from the always static ones we see throughout the majority of servers. And saying "once in a while" is putting it soft as i'm sure i'd be spending quite some time doing all that if it were made interesting enough, fun, immersive to a minimum and just easily accessible in terms of gameplay.
  10. I have to say here that this is indeed one aspect i hope to never loose if CA came to be upgraded/developped further, that is to not loose the ability to manually control units and literally go about driving them, manually shooting and just being in full control of it. The RTS side should be further developped of coarse as it would be impossible for anyone trying to do a full scale assault to do it manually with each and every unit. But i stay on my initial point, manually controlling a unit remains a must and allows a clear added benefit to the whole CA. Nothing like manually controlling an SA-15 or Tanguska and ambushing incoming aircrafts, or even manually driving a tank to attack an airbase, the possibilities are endless.
  11. Just finished reading through the entire thread (Started yesterday night but went to bed halfway through, i therefore don't remember each and every detail everyone said, mind me ) Anyway, CA has been since the day i bought it a very special module, i feel like it is very much a hidden jewel that has such a potential to unleash if it was further developped. If i may use a metaphore here, CA is like an unpolished diamond waiting for it to get polished and have its value increased with it. Ever since my purchase of CA and knowing a Dynamic campaign would someday be available, i've always wondered if/how ED has planned to integrate CA in relation with the Dynamic campaign. From what i understand, the Dynamic campaign will be mostly based around AI's trying to complete objectives and the players participating in that effort. This points out to me that any AI unit on the map either static/defensive or on the move towards an objective could/should be controllable by anyone owning CA right ? Therefore allowing the player to not only participate in the effort from the air, but also if he wishes, from the ground while controlling as first person a tank, artillery, APC, you name it, or controlling groups of units more so into a Command and Conquer style RTS way. That type of possibility is something that does not require any additional work appart from the creation of said dynamic campaign, CA as it is right now would already allow anyone at any moment to choose a commander role and select any available unit on the map and do what he wishes with that unit, whether it would be to completely de route it from its original path/objective or simply manually controlling it all the way to the objective with the rest of the AI handled force (or alone, players choice anyway), it simply could be done, and that to me would allow so much more to the whole experience of a dynamic campaign thanks to CA. Another aspect that comes to my mind is how will the Dynamic campaign handle assets and their availability ? It was said the dynamic campaign will have economical aspects (Production, Logistics, Use and transfer of ressources). Does that mean any side (Nation) during the dynamic campaign will have a certain amount of each asset/weapon/whatever ? And unless said asset/weapon/whatever is somehow replenished, you will only have the ones remaining alive/available in warehouses ? An exemple to make sure this is clear : You start the dynamic campaign and your only airfield available has 4 16s, 4 18s and 2 A10s (Not gonna take into account ammo and ground assets in this exemple even though it would work the same). As the war goes on, you loose 2 * 16s, 1 * 18. (You are now left with 2 * 16s, 3 * 18s and 2 * A10s) Until your nation is able to somehow replenish those 2 16s and only 18, you will have to fight for the remainder of the campaign with the remaining 2 16s, 3 18s and 2 A10s. This is where i wanted to end up, considering any major war is usually mostly fought with ground units and usually has more ground assets in action than actual air assets, if you were to loose all flyable aircraft/owned modules in a particular dynamic campaign, but your nation still had plenty of ground assets and you owned CA, would you be able to continue the campaign just using CA ? Until any of your owned module planes are available again ? Wouldn't this add a whole lot more importance to CA ? Or at least give it much more interest/insentive to use it efficiently ? Very much agree with this aspect, one that i've seen represented in IL2 already, i was quite surprised at how well the whole tank crew player side of the game looked fun and engaging in a game that's purely focused on WWII aerial warfare ! Might not be perfect of coarse, but clearly good enough to make it very fun and immersive for players willing to use it rather than flying. Hopefully it ain't a problem posting videos representing well what i'm talking about : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTrku4zDIQw&t=9s&ab_channel=Wolfpack345 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G390RVcQIEY&ab_channel=b0wie1 Look at the detailed interior of those Tigers ? Although not clickable, still very immersive IMO. Again, fully agree with this. Although missing the infantry actually being useful and attacking/defending, once again i wanna point you to the 2 videos i posted above, imagine adding said infantry with the tank gameplay seen in those videos ? How awesome would it be ? Now how awesome would all that be in DCS:CA ? I wish........
  12. I'm a little confused, which poll is all this coming from ? The poll that was made earlier this year ? Or one recent that i missed ? Thanks
  13. One thing i have to add here that irritated me was the initial Sniper XR targetting pod that was initially written on that list too, than months later, if not a year after release, it was edited and removed because "We don't have documents for it" (But never told to us until very recently), why put it on the list in the first place than if you never even did the research to be sure you'd be able to model it down the line ? (I know, there is a thread about it on the forum already, but this was a good time to remind people about what i consider shady methods/moves)
  14. Yes, and i think you might have forgotten the totally valid operational F18 loadout also known as the "One man Navy" where they go out with 10 Amrams and 2 9Xs. Clearly something you see around the world as totally operationnally valid !
  15. I'm feeling the exact same thing on my end. I've tried many different settings, curves, trimmer option, mix of different settings + different curves, AP channels on and off, nothing does it. The only way i was able to feel stable and precise at takeoff, hover and low speed was by enabling the control helper (Noob option) in the special settings tab. That was literally the greatest thing, but the big downpart to using that is how it makes the chopper feel kinda arcadish in its flight model and restrains you from using full deflections in the axis', you're for example unable to do a full roll in any ways. In a way i was happy gaining on the smoothness and stability at takeoff, hover and low speed, but didn't really like downgrade of the full axis usage, inability to do hard manoeuvers basically. So yeah, great to hear that some people with extreme precision hardware are having no issue what so ever, but it seems that a lot of people not owning those expensive dedicated hardware are having big difficulties getting the chopper to fly precise and stable at those 3 different flight stages. I'm still hoping for a way to get it improved, after all the tweaking i've done, i don't see how else i could fix it all. When i have the motivation i'll try and do a complete overview of my options, tracks showing the flights etc. But until then, hopefully something is found/changed that can help all the ones in the same situation.
  16. Fair enough, but i don't see the reason for removing the post if the thread was locked anyways after my post, it's like as if i didn't have the right to expose my feelings of certain precise aspects (I was also replying to some other user), kind of a shame after all to not be allowed that. Don't take it the wrong way, but deleting posts like mine kinda feels like a way of censorship because i exposed some reality. I know i'm repeating myself here, but if it wasn't the case, the post would have been left and thread simply locked. I have nothing against you precisely, but forgiving is one thing, loosing faith and trust is another, and towards ED as a whole, i've taken a big hit on both unfortunately. Getting posts deleted doesn't help.
  17. Hey @NineLine, why would you delete my post in the process of locking that thread in the F-16 section (Worth it on sale??? or wait another 6 months) ? Was it too harsh for ED ?
  18. Don't call me daft because you're feeling too entitled to get your absolute wanted answer here on the forums when the answer would literally be the same as the one i got on steam that i passed forward on here (Which by the way was on the official DCS newsletter section of steam) ! Jojojung even proved it by sending a PM and receiving the same damned answer here on the Official Forum ! As you're saying it yourself and seem to strangely understand it for that matter, this thread has 50+ answers and none from an ED employee ! They don't seem to want to respond directly here while havin given the answer twice already. What more do you need ? Nick to call you personnaly or something ? Just like Furiz, unless your personnal agenda isn't filled, you'll be having a fit until you get your candy. Whether they stealthily removed it or don't want to talk about it, matter won't change, Bignewy decided to give an answer via steam and via a PM here on the Official Forum, that seems to be all you'll get until they decide to change, which for some reason won't seem to happen soon since they've left this thread going for 50+ responses without their official response. Now please go ahead and unleash yourself on me, have the last words on this matter, i can't be f***ed to respond anymore.
  19. And from my experience you seem to be a very hard defender of the "nerf the viper" team, damn what is it that makes you so obsessed with it ? The viper is no where near its final stages, we get it that you absolutely want it nerfed as fast as possible, get over it, it's probably gonna happen when they actually wanna start dealing with such things, they probably have other things in mind to work on first. When ever i see you talking about the viper, it's about how much it overperforms and should be nerfed, go and take a break from it and fly the 18, the great Hornet that for some reason you don't have the same will to bash in terms of overperformance, cos like people say, abusing the paddle on it and flying that thing all the way to 9G constantly regardless of what should happen in reality because well, this is DCS, who cares, strangely you don't seem so obsessed on that side of the problem... The 18 that also doesn't model overstress with stores or airframe, the 18 that's almost unbeatable as a dogfighter when it doesn't even hold that title IRL, the 18 that has reached its final stage of development but all those things get brushed under the carpet... Damn, if only you were so hard on that plane i could understand, as it's reached its final stage of dev and should have these issues sorted ! But no, here you are, repeating it day after day how much the viper who's still very hard in its dev process should not be allowed to overperform compared to others !
  20. Literally the same thing he answered on steam... But feeling better about it now that somebody else PMed him on the forum and comes back with the same answer...
  21. Hahaha, nice read, thanks bud
  22. Going for guns on any SPAA unit or AAA unit is pretty much suicide if you ask me, unless you're 200% sure of wrecking the target in the very few split seconds exposing yourself, with the omniscient situational awareness of the ground AI, by the time you pop over your cover and start aligning your sight, he's most definitely already looking at you preparing for your pop up, it will very much be a matter of 2-3 seconds max before bullets start going through your windshield. Even if you were to shoot guns from long range, there is no way you are outranging him with your guns, so either way, if you can shoot him, he can too, and i'm willing to bet 3/4 of the time he'll have landed a critical burst by the time you line him up and actually get a hit. I've thought about the Ataka, but unless Petro gets better at even longer ranges than what he is right now, than i'm still waiting to see how that will play out
  23. I've explained my issue in another thread about the difficulty i'm experiencing trying to shoot ATGMs at AAAs with great range (Gepard for example) or attacking any type of armored vehicle that will instantly shoot at you with laser precise aim the moment you get inside their maximum attack range. The issue is ridiculous as you become very vulnerable throughout these processes. This is the range of the Gepard + Detecting range, on the calculator is the range of the Gepard in meters of coarse, to compare that to the max range of the Shturm missiles So we have the Shturm with its max range of 5500 meters, that gives us 1500 meters to work with when doing a run on a Gepard if you want to remain totally safe of coarse. You have to eyeball and acquire target before entering that 1500 meters zone (Good luck doing that without unit markers or preplanned intel of the exact location) than hope Petro actually hits the target before entering the 4000 meters radius or it's back to square one for a run and one less missile to put to good use (If you survived entering that engagement ring). If you take into account the speed at which you would usually fly, which i'd say is probably around 250Km/h for a missile run, that gives you 21.5 seconds to use before entering the Gepards shooting range -> (Shooting missile and guiding it to target, considering Petro had properly acquired target + you being stable enough the moment you enter that 1500m zone). Calculation i've made to find the 21.5 seconds : 250km/h = 250.000m/h -> 250.000/60 = 4166m/minutes -> 4166/60 = 69.5m/seconds -> 1500meters/69.5 = 21.5 seconds. That was a scenario in its best case, most of the time you have to take into account tree lines blocking line of sight from certains angles (therefore forced to come from a certain angle otherwise missile hits trees), height you shouldn't go over as to stay safe from other longer range SAM threats, portions of the circle around that target you can't use because overlaping with other anti air engagement zones, the lack of any precise distance measuring tool to allow you or Petro to shoot the second you enter the 1500m mark, the fact that we are humans and simply have to remove probably 3-4 seconds to those 21.5 because of human brain lag or whatever you wanna call it haha, etc. You're basically left with no more than 20 seconds at best inside that safe 1500 meters zone. As much as Petro is really cool to use, his aim i would guess from my own experience is probably a good 50% hit rate at long shooting ranges, which isn't much i feel like. I'm not gonna go too deep concerning the rocket attack runs on Tanks, APCs, IFVs, point is that they will almost always start engaging you with MGs/HMGs before you're even in range for the rocket trigger point while trying to keep the spread of those rockets to a minimum otherwise pretty much useless. Therefore, if once again you wanna keep yourself entirely safe, you'd have to engage them with ATGMs and have a greater margin this time luckily. But therefore being a No Go for the rockets. So basically this is my little Hind experience so far when it comes to using the Shturm. To me it all boils down to the fact that i personnaly feel the Hind is close to a turkey shoot when engaging AAAs or anything with decent anti-air capability. There is a lot of very defensive flying to do if you wanna go against those ! And i'd much rather use something like a Ka-50 or future Apache who have the hover and shoot capacity, allowing for much ease on all of the above. Doing rocket runs on defensless convoys, buildings, troops or simply anything without proper anti-air capability ? Yeah Hind is super fun and cool to use for sure !
  • Create New...