Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by MikeMikeJuliet

  1. Standard DCS day is the same every time you load up the mission editor. +20°C, Standard pressure at sea level, 0 wind. Unless that was changed very recently. Secondly a standard cruise setting would be used throughout the altitude envelope. Otherwise it would not be called a standrad cruise power setting. Climbing high enough will show close to if not exactly the same temperature as ISA in general, so at, say 8-10 kilometers the conditions are close enough for a comparison. Not hard data, no, but sufficient in my mind to spot a power setting difference of 5-10%. We would need to have the IRL cruise speed at said setting to compare though. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  2. Those labels only add a label-dot on top of distant units in a similar manner to the late model enlargement. So you won't be getting any revealing text or anything.
  3. It seems you are not aware of RAZBAMs upcoming Supertucano...
  4. Alright. How fast/effective are you at this if a) after a lengthy fight you are in IFR and unaware of your position, b) there are no waypoints available in the mission for you and c) the F-10 map does not show your position? I am not saying it can't be done, I am saying it is made more difficult by oversimplified systems. In a real aircraft you should always be able to know by looking at your instruments at which point/beacon your navigation suite is pointing towards. This is not the case in the F-15C we have. As you point out one needs to use the F-10 map which is external to the aircraft. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  5. It will take you ages to determine which airfield is which on MP-servers with no waypoints if you lose your way (and F-10 map is unavailable). True, it is possible (and works well in the russian aircraft), but cumbersome, and the landing-mode points to the initial approach fix on the F-15, until you are on it, at which point it will show "ILS". Point is, it is cumbersome and time consuming - when in reality it would be quite simple an straightforward if said features were in place. At the very least I would like to see some actual indicator which landing is which in the F-15 (you already see them in A-10A, and as you pointed out as an index in the russian aircraft) + the ability to set altimeter pressure setting. I always wondered why the altimeter pressure setting is omitted in some FC3 aircraft, but not all... like they just forgot to add it...
  6. And to add to the end: ED (see the original post) stated they will be building an FC4 - regardless of what you seem to want. ED will not remove FC3, so why try to separate them from the rest of the gameplay? If we are getting FC4 anyway I might as well suggest things that make the pack even more usable amongst all the fine DCS modules.
  7. Slow down. Stop. First off, go read my original post. Nowhere did I say anything about tunable radios. Period. You seem to be throwing a fit over simple feature requests that does not require a lot to be implemented. The "beacon mode" I have suggested is merely an extension that would work exactly like the current waypoint system, just that you choose between beacons, not waypoints. Secondly, have you realized that FC3 aircraft are used by a multitude of players. They are the most used aircraft in for example RedFlag Reality, which is the most realistic PVP online event in DCS. In addition to this most FC3 aircraft already have adjustable pressure setting. Even the keys are already in the F-15C and A-10A - no-one just bothered to make them do anything. You seem to suggest that I suggested a paradigm shift to FC-aircraft. This is simply not true. I suggested a small and in my (and at least my group/squadron members) opinion some important additions to expand current systems to accommodate more realistic scenarios. The only new keys required for me suggestions are the two keys to rotate the course knob. All others can be done perfectly with the current keys. I really do not understand your attitude toward this - on the other hand you call for "DCS realism only", but when I call for small additions to make the FC3 aircraft operate more realistically you revert to "FC-aircraft should be kept dumb, don't mix FC and DCS". Fact is, you can't separate them. If we are ever getting a DCS F-15C it would be made on top of the current FC-module. Making FC aircraft able to operate alongside all other aircraft is the key to keeping MP as realistic as possible without excluding those who want to fly FC-aircraft. I am fully aware my suggestions are not 100% realistic systems wise, but they allow for the pilot to operate in the air environment in a realistic fashion. And regarding the F-10 map... using it is not realism. Realism is using the onboard systems, and onboard map and the kneeboard. The need to use the F-10 map just tells me that the FC aircraft are too simple - but by my suggestions, and possible improvements to the kneeboard you would not need the F-10 map other than to plan your flight. And before you say "use filters so the F-10 map doesn't show anything regarded as 'cheating'" - that defeats the point. The F-10 map is useless for FC aircraft if you can't see your position or see your waypoints in there. If you don't have a real GPS/INS map onboard you shouldn't be able to use it via a F-10 map view either. And the aircraft do not need a lot to be usable without the F-10 map. Besides, ED has said that they have different groups of coders for different aircraft. At this point I would imagine tweaking FC3 would be used to introduce new programmers the same way ED has said they do when creating WW2 modules. Have you realised there are quite a lot of aircraft in DCS already? And a lot of 3rd parties making them? Adding 3 freatures to FC3 diverts about as much work away from other modules as having a worker fall ill for a week or two. You won't even know it ever happened. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  8. Why limit that to FC3 aircraft? IRL pilots don't typically create routes or waypoints in the cockpit - they make them on a computer and load onto the cartridge that goes into the aircraft. Option to create and edit is there in case you need it, not for everyday flight planning. I want to see such a feature in general, not just for FC3... Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  9. While I agree with the sentiment of not making game'y additions to the aircraft, I do feel that such a way would be the most practical. I believe this because I do not see ED adding clickable features to FC3 aircraft. In addition if we take the F-15, the only way to know which TACAN would be selected for example is to animate a TACAN channel selector. While realistic, you would then have to have the MFD pages created to be able to know which airfield's approach mode is selected to match... this quickly snowballs into a lot of work needed to be done to the modules. My approach, while not 100% realistic, would require minimal effort (increasing likelyhood of us actually getting said features). After all we already have waypoint information on the HUD, so having the ability to show APP mode airfield identifier/name (like in the A-10A) and in the aforementioned beacon mode the TACAN channel would not be intrusive nor immersion breaking. In fact HUD symbology and information displayed there changes in aircraft through their lifespan as improvements are made. So the F-15C HUD we have now is not the only F-15C HUD there is/could be. I am not suggesting that we go wildly out there, not at all. But the data block is already there so... In the end ED's main focus rightly is and should be in other things instead of FC-aircraft, so I am approaching the subject from a minimal effort, maximal gain perspective. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  10. In actuality there would only be two additional buttons, since all FC3 aircraft already have next and previous waypoint buttons (that could also be used for the beacon mode), the new Nav submode could simply be switched to by the same "1" key, and all FC3 aircraft already have a "increase altimeter pressure setting" and "decrease altimeter pressure setting" (which are just not used in A-10A and F-15C for some reason). So only "turn course knob clockwise" and "turn course knob counterclockwise" would need to be added. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  11. Hello. Regarding this post: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3465510&postcount=1 Now that there is an FC4-pack in the horizon, I would like to propose improvements to the existing system. In my experience (and in the experience of my flight group) FC3 aircrafts' systems modeling have in particular two shortcomings that really hamper the usefulness of FC3 aircraft. In particular the Navigation systems of all the aircraft are simplified so much that instead of making gameplay easier it actually makes gameplay more difficult. I propose the following: Add TACAN (western aircraft) and RSBN (or VORDME, eastern aircraft) mode to the NAV master mode. To keep this simple, regard the beacons in the same way as waypoints. So in stead of tuning in a correct frequency, only have the ability to cycle through the beacons with "next" and "previous" keys. This would add a ton to the navigation capabilities of the aircraft by reducing the need to have waypoints on every usable airfield, or to try to circumvent this by using landing-modes to determine an airfield. In addition to this, add the ability to change the course to the beacons. This could remain as it is for waypoints - after all, it is simpler for new users to have the correct course always visible to any waypoint. By adding such a feature to the aforementioned beacon-mode players would be able to navigate any landscape with the ease that you can with the real aircraft without the need to pre-design routes in the Mission Editor with waypoints. Most FC3 aircraft have, but not all, the ability to see which waypoint, airfield etc is selected. This is particularly annoying with the F-15C, where you need to determine toward which airfield you are heading by looking at distances and bearings only - such a design desicion really emphasizes the use of F-10 map, which is no in my opinion realistic at all. Even if it was not exactly like in the real aircraft, I would dearly want to see the airfield name on the F-15C HUD. This is one of those things that is way too difficult to use due to the systems "simplicity". Finally - all FC aircraft must have a player-controllable pressure setting for the altimeter. Some aircraft have this feature, others don't and I do not see why. If one wants to fly anything more realistic with dynamic weather (and thus changing pressure), or use, say QNH and STD, then a controllable pressure setting is a must. These features would add a lot of gameplay value without the need to design the actual systems and without the need to make the aircraft too complex for beginners. I do hope these suggestion bring about conversation and possibly even support. Eagle Dynamics - please consider my suggestions. These would add a lot of value to the already very convenient Module-pack. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  12. It works on other modules, but not with the MiG-21 for me.
  13. A long time coming... one annoying thing less in DCS to worry about.
  14. Fair enough I guess. Many of us have been very exited by the brief 2-seat capability. Too bad.
  15. Thanks for clarifying. I dearly hope it has not been ruled out completely. The point of the whole aircraft is, as a trainer, training. At this point even a rudimentary "dummy cockpit" rear-seat ride capability would be very beneficial. What I am wondering is: if the systems will see a complete recode, why not make it multicrew-compatible from the get-go? You do you, but I believe a lot of people lose interest in the module if one can't use it for it's primary purpose - regardless of how the aircraft was envisioned to work in DCS at it's inception. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  16. ... or did I do it on purpose..? Hmm :smilewink:
  17. True. Then again I am on mobile... I hate touchscreen keyboards :D
  18. I am certain everyone would eventually buy such a module. I mean that would really be worth the money given it worked up to it's potential. Though I spoke about the division of the community, namely for beginners, there is in fact the counterpoint that new players coming to see if DCS is what they are looking for probably can't appreciate dynamic content due to their skill level. This is of course based on the assumption that said new consumers would be new to combat flights sims in general. Reflecting DCS to the apparent difficulty to create any sort of dynamic system to flight sims I am curious to see what ED will come up with. My educated guess is that it will not be anything particular that we think of. If they can find a cost effective solution for dynamic gameplay content then I don't see a problem of just adding such a system to the base game with no additional charges. For multiplayer such content would be "easy". Recreate the AAA/SAM AI to provide for a challenge. Add the ability to chain missions in multiplayer with branching outcomes (akin to the singleplayer campaign score system). Make aircraft persistent on the map (e.g. if you land somewhere else than you started from, said aircraft's spawn would move with the aircraft) to allow for long term projection of force. And finally allow for players to see and alter their flight plan in-game (the effect would, naturally, transfer to the aircraft only on shutdown on an airfield). After all of the above players have enough tools to self-generate dynamic content in a meaningful manner. For singleplayer such a system would require way more work to provide for a "mission commander" AI for both coalitions to create dynamic points of interest, objectives and targets of opportunity... and then there would have to be something along the lines of dynamic logistics behind it all for campaigns and what have you... And in the end - my description is just a way to implement such a system... there must be countless others all with their advantages and disadvantages. I guess the greatest hurdle would be the AI to drive it all... and missions don't run particularly well with a multitude of AI's, be they on an operational level or a single unit. A difficult equation. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  19. Having a dynamic campaign "engine" or "tools" (whatever name you prefer) behind a paywall, let alone a high paywall, has some issues regarding community, multiplayer servers and new players. To actually use said system would require it to be owned by all who use it in a server. Because most people in the DCS community would arguably want more dynamic gameplay over anything else I see the most interesting servers using this system. What this entails is another module in the way of properly enjoying your modules This is no problem for us already fully invested, but from the perspective of a new consumer this is horrible practice. I know of a few guys in our group that came to see if DCS would interest them. If the abovementioned was true then that would practically force them to buy the "dynamic gameplay module" to fly the missions that would ultimately be the ultimate catch... So such a business model would basically gate away the most important content behind a paywall , splitting most of the community from the beginners somewhat. I don't think it is the same thing as flyable modules, since none of those are required to play so long as a mission has the Su-25T in it. Problem of course is that the system has to be sustainable through developement which either means it is made "on the side", or actually focused on and paid directly as a module... I am unsure which is the correct way to approach this, but I would be hesitant just saying everyone would be willing to pay for content that is in many ways the missing core of a campaign system. Then again ED has given us an enourmous amount of content for free already. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  20. I guess it could be used as a sort of stand-in trainer if you want a busy airfield... Then again there have been a number of strange aircraft and weapon loads especially in from the WWI to the early years of WWII... so I guess the Yak could fill such a role in a pinch... it does look somewhat WWII-ish I guess. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  21. You did notice the emoji in the end of the first paragraph? I do believe you are getting riled up for no reason. I do not see anything offensive or condecending in PMan's post. Text is a damn difficult way to communicqt, because meanings linked into the text by verbal and non-verbal means that are just no there in a forum post. You project your own feelings on the post and see it in such a light, not in the light that the message was meant to be understood. Comparing to PMan's previous language I have no reason to believe that his message here was in any way meant to offend anyone. Unfortunately I feel nowadays people just get offended by anything. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  22. I'm not sure if the game actually benefitted from the original idea, or if it would just cause massive confusion among newer users... That said I would want to see a similar feature when flying campaigns and "dynamic" multiplayer sessions, where not every aircraft always gets shot down. Say, combine a limited aircraft count to structural fatigue overtime and significant repair times for damaged airframes... That would certainly be for those wishing for "the long haul" of combat ops. War of attrition and whathaveyou. Naturally this would have to be optional and I am not sure if I would want to see that many moving parts but I am intrigued about the concept. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  23. I guess most people haven't even found said observatory, or knows where it actually should be. So there is literally nothing for anyone else to add to your post. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  • Create New...