Kang
-
Posts
2089 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Kang
-
-
Sometimes you need to vent and share. I'm sorry for your loss and I sincerely hope you have people in your life you can turn to. We are kinda here, but it probably isn't the same.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, [16AGR] CptTrips said:
I believe the difference is that ED is asserting that all the known "GAME BREAKING" bugs have been culled from stable. Not ALL bugs. There are probably bugs in stable that are years or even a decade old.
OB on the other hand may very well have "GAME BREAKING" bugs initially. There is value in separating the two.
If you've ever released large scale software you'd seen that no amount of internal team testing or even closed beta can come close to the exercise software can get in the "wild". Just the sheer variety of hardware and drivers can not be feasibly reproduced internally.
It's also my experience that users are evil.
They can come up with the weirdest use cases you never thought of. Like, "Why would you do that??? OK we'll tighten that down. " 
So, to summarize IMHO,
Open Beta: "We fully expect there might be GAME BREAKING bugs exposed in this cycle. We just don't know what they are yet. Find them, and hopefully we'll fix them quick."
Stable: "We believe all GAME BREAKING bugs have been culled, as far as we currently know. We're not expecting you to find any. Prove us wrong. "
The trade-off to the OB risk is that it might also have bug fixes that players want that haven't migrated to Stable yet.
Choose your poison.
$0.02.
I'm not saying that's wrong, all I'm saying is that there was a long, long, loooong time in which said 'severe bugs' got fixed in situ on the OB after a week or so, whereas the otherwise exact same version got pushed to 'Stable' months later with no further fixes. I know that ED has improved on that a bit since, but at least a majority of the multiplayer community has switched to OB entirely at that time and hasn't seen much reason to go back.
-
Can do, sure. But to be honest, not with all the craft I have that potentially could.
-
7 hours ago, SharpeXB said:
Players treat it as the de facto release version though, so in practice it’s not a “test”. If ED wanted viable multiplayer, the first step would be to eliminate the OB. Now that might not be the best from a testing standpoint but in order for mp to flourish everyone needs to be playing the same version.
That's not wrong at all. I am convinced a lot of it has come from literal years in which the two options were virtually identical, except that 'Stable' was two months or so behind on new content.
-
1
-
-
To add a pet peeve of mine: there are actually different kinds of communities in DCS multiplayer. The fact that 'hardcore milsim' and 'air quake' are the kinds that get most of the attention betrays the fact that others exist as well.
Still, definitely get the sentiment that doing your own missions on your own time is just more convenient sometimes. The only trouble is that - admittedly slightly pending on scenario - the AI sometimes does have rather severe limitations, both as opposition and as ally.
-
1
-
-
I can understand the frustration there, but frankly, I disagree as well.
Sure it would be nice to have an option for such things, but I am quite convinced that the very task of 'detecting improper landing attempt' prior to actual touchdown is a rather complicated task in itself, and even if you manage that magically, what then? You can flash the wave-off lights, which the people that upset you are just as likely to ignore or you can trigger a script that instantly explodes their plane, which - lets face it - might not exactly further your realistic immersion either, even if you don't quite think that it would be overreacting.
At the end of the day, the much more walkable way is to establish rules to your own server which you and/or your admins actually enforce manually. Yes, it might descend into chaos when you aren't there, but frankly, then it might not matter much to you.
On 2/5/2023 at 2:03 AM, Elphaba said:Then fly War Thunder.
How about you do that? See, two can play this silly game. Who made you the pope of flight sims?
-
A little picture I took when I was trying out the FW-190A a little while back. Nice of the friends of the Reich to turn up and fly alongside for a bit, referring to the two-ship Su-27.
-
To be honest, I am not exactly sure about the precise sub-type, but yes, an A-26 would be quite a worthwhile addition, not least for its long service life, making it a viable vehicle to add to plenty of scenarios.
-
Definitely would need an overhaul of some of the old FC2 era naval assets as well as adding several new ones. The thing is that it seems that neither really happens. The 'year of naval focus' is a distant memory that produced one freighter (not complaining, it's very useful, just not a lot) and since then things have been in the 'yea, we are totally adding more ships, but we can't possibly show you until they are perfectly done, which might be in 2084' state that so many things end up in.
-
2
-
1
-
-
-
-
As in, find a way of having it use both basket and boom depending on who calls?
-
18 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:
I love how "travel the world" is at 0% at time of this posting lmao.
Not surprising, really. Travelling the world is what we are waiting for on that loading screen.
-
-
Is that all technically part of the livery?
-
I don't see much point in simulating all the 'inner workings' of solely AI units, really. There is no harm at all in using a whole lot of shortcuts that can simulate that perfectly well with much less strain on the computing resources. The trouble isn't that the approach of tabulated flight models was inherently bad, it's more that some AI units just have utterly ridiculous values in those tables.
-
2
-
-
11 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:
@KangDCS World 2.8... you can see perfect the diferences... intent compare the day with the night, and new 3d models near to a level of a pilotable module.
My point exactly, they look amazing but sadly are relegated to being in trailers, where they have been shown off quite a while ago. Anyway, I feel I have spoken my piece.
-
13 hours ago, SkateZilla said:
There's more to replacing the AI Asset in the sim than giving it a pretty new external model.
The Model has to be animated, and Core Systems coded for the new animations.
Not to Mention the systems for the AI,
The S-3, B-52, B-1 aren't going to be simple model swaps, they are in depth AI Assets.Again, I don't want to take away from any of it, but at least parts of it beg the question: the difference is what exactly?
It isn't wrong to do it, but quite frankly I doubt anybody really needs high fidelity flight models for an AI B-52, that quite frankly spends most of its life in a mission going in a straight line. If one was to update an AI asset with improved modeling of flight dynamics, damage model and all the jazz, perhaps it would be a sane idea to take it to one of the assets for which it is a game-breaking issue and has been reported time and time again for years, like... a MiG-15 or so.
-
1
-
-
Personally I think what would enhance the air-naval warfare environment much more would be to update some of the old ship types and add overall more ship types to DCS, ideally with a slightly improved damaging model. Having all of these international carriers would be fun, but before you know it the naval complement in DCS will be all aircraft carriers and submarines.
-
1
-
-
Funnily enough, what these 'new improved models' sadly have in common at this point is that they get announced, then get shown off in a newsletter a while later and then disappear into the nether, it seems. Don't get me wrong, I know it takes a while to do them, but... we went from the Newsletter of 'woah look at this soon-to-be released S-3 Tanker model' to the newsletter of 'Look at this B-52 model update we are now working on'. The FC2-era S-3 has been slated for an update for something like five years now.
I would love to see more updates on how they are coming along and I would certainly love to see them implemented someday, but I surely am not holding my breath at this point.
-
3
-
-
Perhaps best to wait how the CH-47 is going to end up then.
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, markom said:
No ASW would ever be complete without Catalinas! Would love to see those in DCS!
Funnily enough that would probably be most realistic as expectation, considering how that didn't involve any of the newfangled digital undersea magic, but simply watching them dive and dropping a bomb on them.
-
2
-
-
On 5/13/2023 at 1:36 AM, joey45 said:
We are getting the IDS Tonka so it'll be the HARM missile and I believe the EF doesn't use the missile...
I know the Tornado that is in planning is going to be a Luftwaffe IDS, but that doesn't quite disqualify the idea of getting a proper modelling of the ALARM missile reality in DCS (as MR pointed out they are in the sim albeit somewhat lacking). Perhaps one might be persuaded to include such an improved, actually working ALARM missile for use in said Tonka, to stand in for a Gr 1; as far as I know there is no technical reason for it not to work on a German Tornado, just that Germany didn't buy any.
As for the 'nope that would be wrong because no Luftwaffe IDS carried an ALARM operationally' talk, I am not even that sure any IDS ever carried a HARM either - ECR variants routinely do.
-
1
-
-
That's quite an impressive list you compiled.
No engine sound on F10 ingame map. Feels like you left the aircraft...
in Sound Bugs
Posted
Please make it an option, as I prefer it the way it is for practical reasons.