Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by MikeMikeJuliet

  1. I'm somewhat perplexed what the point of posting all one's controllers in here are... Wags asked for primary controllers, meaning joysticks (quite apparent from the poll alternatives) and many post their setup even if it does not differ from the options available. No need to post every thingamajig that's plugged to your PC. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  2. The dual-license system is just two separate keys bought simultainously. Both keys contain the full module = both keys can run either seat. Essentially it is just a faster and cheaper way to buy two separate keys, because the aircraft is designed with multiplayer in mind. The RIO seat is not a separate entity. It is the same exact module that contains both cockpits. What this means is that you need two accounts, one for each module and two PC:s capable of running DCS. So if you were planning on running the RIO seat as an iPad APP or on a potato-laptop then you've understood incorrectly. The F-14 will work in the same way as the L-39 and Yak-52. The RIO workstation will not be a separate tag-along external app. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  3. Hi, Ever flown with a player acting as Fighter Controller or Air Traffic Controller? Ever looked at airfield charts from the kneeboard, switched to the appropriate frequency and used SRS / Universe Radio with said player? Then you know how annoying it is that you need to deal with the AI ATC since there no way to deactivate it. You can set "player comms only" in FC3-aircraft, but not in full fidelity planes since, I guess, you can just change to another frequency... But what is the point in having a frequency for the airfield + an actual player on that frequency if it is all overridden by the AI? At present we need to come up with separate frequencies for human interactions and AI interactions. It is not a big issue, but an annoyance nontheless. I regard this as a mid-low importance request. TL;DR: allow for all aircraft to change the AI comms mode the same way as with FC3-aircraft. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  4. I agree. There is nothing unrealistic in being able to use "say again". True you might not have the capacity to ask or listen in the most intense moments, but I find those extremely rare - a fighter pilot is expected to be able to communicate with his/her wingmen and the fighter controller. Now weither you have time to look and press the appropriate fuction keys on your keyboard and then read the subtitles is another matter entirely, but that is the problem of having to communicate via a comm-menu insted of actual speach...
  5. From what I've understood is that trees are in fact slightly upscaled in size to have proper coverage while keeping tree count slightly lower. I can't confirm this but it has been discussed at length at least within my squadron's VR users. This may contribute to the perception that something is off. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  6. ... and it would be of great utility to be able to control lights, tacan and other systems of the carrier via Combined Arms... then you can just say "inbound" to your fellow player and you're all set. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  7. Yea it can't be changed with normal gameplay options. But don't worry, there is an easy rule to remember: Just double it. Specifically: 2m/s * 3,6 = 7,2km/h 7,2km/h / 1,852 = 3,8876...kt So, to get the approximate kt from m/s, just double it. 2m/s = roughly 4kt. if you want to be a bit more exact just remove "a bit" form the value you just got and you are close enough to get the idea. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  8. I posted a report on this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=201583 I flew the A-10C. On the same flight I tried Senaki ILS and Kutaisi ILS. Since I didn't get them to work I flew to Batumi where I know I've gotten the ILS to work previously and it did this time as well. All cockpit switches in the same position in all approaches (except frequency obviously) and as said, Batumi worked completely as expected so I can confirm this is no user error. Requesting a fix for this. No point in having ILS frequencies on the plates if they are unusable. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  9. Today tested this and I can confirm. ILS does NOT work on Senaki or Kutaisi on the A-10C. I did a control by flying to Batumi on the same flight and ILS there works flawlessly - All cockpit switches exactly the same except of course I changed the frequency (naturally) and course. So this is not a user error. So the A-10C ILS in not broken, it is the ILS:s themselves. Game version latest OpenBeta at the time of posting ( 4NOV2018 ) I will report this in the Maps section of the forums as well. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  10. Not a priority at this stage but sure I agree... It really kills your mood when trying to strafe for a unit in the woods and it doesn't get a scratch because a tree withstood all your rockets. I wonder how feasible this would be in regards to game performance... Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  11. Call it necroing, but Phil Style made a good video about the visibility problem with changing screen resolutions which clearly shows that higher screen resolutions make spotting much more difficult due to the target pixel-rendering. So the higher your resolution, the smaller the target can get making it harder to spot when far away. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  12. Hi. I'm not commenting on the carrier stuff - I'm no expert in those. About runway numbering: Consider the runway number to be the runway's name. It is not supposed to be exact. If you have multiple parallel runways they will be marked for example 24L, 24C, 24R (Left, Center, Right). Secondly, runway names are derived by rounding from the magnetic heading at the time of measurement. Magnetic heading changes all the time, and the rate depends on where you are on earth. So if a runway was named 15 years ago it the magnetic heading may in fact have changed so much that the heading may not round up to the same numbers. To obtain the proper magnetic heading for a given runway pilots in real life refer to the appropriate aerodrome charts that give the exact magnetic heading for that time period (changes, say once in 1-3 years). The problem with DCS is that the runway numbers are derived from real life airfields, but the headings are derived from DCS true north by magnetic declination. The problem arises from the fact that DCS true north does not resemble actual true north, but is in fact grid north (so at every single point on the map "true" north points exactly straight up on the map in stead of the actual geometric north pole). So when you derive the magnetic heading from this the headings differ from the real life counterparts. Since the runways are named after real life runways there will be disparity typically near the edges of each DCS map. I hope this helps. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  13. If you try with a buddy try the following: launch immediately after reaching Rne, have your friend do a 180, nothing else, and measure the missiles speed when (or if) it reaches the target. If the speed is not sufficient to hit (or at least it wouldn't be able to stand any additional maneuvers) the Rne indicator gives optimistic calculations. I agree that the Rne does not mean you couldn't evade the missile - but that is not the point. Within Rne you should not be able to bleed the missiles energy beyond a certain amount (this amount may be defined differently by different missile manufacturers). Within Rne you might still evade the hit, but beyond Rne you can actually deny the shot ever reaching you. That said launching within Rne doesn't yet mean a high pk shot - E.g. shooting within Rne only means your target will have to do extra work to succesfully defend, but will still quite likely survive. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  14. Having all the aircraft visible at the start would also make the airfields more lively - no more empty aprons/ramps. But the problem then is: if you die airborne and respawn, how is this handled? the aircraft would respawn at that point just like before... I would prefer a spawn mechanic that would show a tug etc. bring the respawning aircraft from hangar to the ramp, but that would seriously slow down respawn times. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  15. While I do understand why so many people would like to have the HARM or the A/G radar as a priority I still feel confused about the result: anyone can see on these forums that systems that are left half finished get a lot of criticism on their way, but still people would rather leave the F/A-18's Air-to-air suite half done until some heavy Air-to-ground systems/weapons are implemented? I would much rather ED finished the whole air-to-air suite, link 16 included before fully focusing on the air-to-ground -side of the aircraft. That way we would have a complete F-18 and not a half done F/A-18. I am especially baffled about the low status of additional radar modes - TWS is an instrumental radar mode to effectively employ the Hornet! I do not know how far ED is in completing the A/G radar, but if it is still a-ways away from completion and the poll would be taken as is for a developement roadmap then I fear we will be stuck with a half baked fighter for a long time. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  16. So are you saying CSAR / marine rescue flying does not interest anyone? In that it is quite important to see what you are going for... Equally important would be the synchronization of ejected player's movement in MP. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  17. Al Minhad has a wrong placard text on one of it's holding points. Holding points to the runway from left to right at the moment are: A, B, C, D, E, E and G. There should be a Foxtrot there, but instead there are two Echo's. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  18. Ciribob, I would like to ask is there anything going on with regards to improvements to the audio crackling with multiple inbound radio traffic... I know this was a pain earlier, but it seems it still raises it's head more than enough now. So if you have two radios and simultanious traffic on both radios the transmissions degrade to unreadable regardless of whether or not the audio comes to the same ear or not. If you need samples, let me know and we will try to arrange some for you with a friend of mine. For the longest time this has been the single greatest bugbear of the software and is holding it back quite a lot in my opinion. Any idea what causes it, since I believe it has been "reduced"/"fixed" now a number of times, but our flying group very much experiences it every time we fly. Thanks for the great piece of software and support to it! I really hope this can eventually be solved. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  19. The physical limitations of any cockpit are a big part in operating them, so I would consider this to be a cheat if it were possible. Even if it were possible I doubt it would go through the integrity check.
  20. Penalize it in score (just like blue-on-blue) or some other way and people will avoid shooting/crashing into parachuted pilots.
  21. Alright, stop with the morality talk. First off. Videogames have not being shown to increase violence. Secondly, there are plenty of completely sane people playing games like Doom etc. Thirdly: You can already kill the pilots. Right into the cockpit. Ever realised that you can either lose your aircraft and eject, or either die instantly from the hit or afterwards? So killing the pilot is ok but killing the pilot is not ok (from a technical, NOT moral standpoint)? Fourthly, adding collidable ejected pilot's would give an actual reason to avoid them. And if you add a major score penalty to killing parachuting pilot's then players will avoid doing so - an inherent reason for actually caring about flying into things. And besides - if this is about not doing something that shouldn't be done in real life - then which is better: getting numbed about the fact that you can run over any number of parachutes with no effect, or actually having an effect when doing it? Just ponder on that a minute. Problem solved and a new emergent behaviour in fighter-pilots avoiding a killed Il-76's parachutists. It's raining men.
  22. These kinds of things take a ton of time to get working properly. I recommend concentrating on other things and then be surprised when it arrives. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  23. DCS is never "complete". But it is true people have given interest to DCS with aerobatics and GA in mind now especially with the Yak. But while I'm okay with adding more civilians into the mix A) others aren't (which is fine) and B) to support general aviation DCS would need to focus on it for a while. Now I don't think we are in a situation where the change of focus is a good idea since DCS has been lacking in the combat department (which is one of the series' main points). I'm talking about game- and system mechanics... ATC, AI logic, damage model, missile performance, weather, systems for a human controlled air traffic, proper IFF and civilian transponders... And making big sweeping changes overnight will break a lot of things very quickly. We just got the 2.5 which is still in developement technically (and many of those developements are on the list I just laid out). ED is adressing some of the communitiess long time bugbears like the AA and SA missiles. I would let them advance at their own pace now that the pace has gotten up to speed. We see good changes monthly. I have no doubt that the Yak will in the end open doors and a way forward to a less isolated simulation environment along with the upcoming CE2 (even though there have been lot's of vocal critics). How long that way we end up I don't think anyone knows yet. Patience.
  24. Also take into consideration that most photographs of actual HUDs have distorted colors. The human eye does not see the HUD in the same colors as a typical camera does. Most HUDs are infact very clear to the human eye.
  25. Now that you mention it, that's right! I completely forgot about that. And so recently too... My guess is they will improve CA with that first though.
  • Create New...