Jump to content

Kang

Members
  • Posts

    1745
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kang

  1. Would just like to point out that I'd appreciate if any update on these considerations, as in whether or not it is an option and which of the issues raised during this thread are part of the negotiation, if any, could be put into a proper announcement. Too many important things in DCS get lost because they are only announced somewhere within a 50 page thread that, lets face it, nobody is going to read from the start anymore.
  2. This may sound stupid, but: does the mission actually have waypoints for your F-16?
  3. What the OP meant, and he has a point, is that in some modules the seat height adjustment switch only moves the camera up and down, not the seat visibly in the cockpit.
  4. It does that in some modules, I'm sure.
  5. Guess it's just generally hard for an automated system to distinguish why somebody flew into terrain.
  6. It were wonderful days when things like that worked. Nowadays putting anything on an oil rig is tricky already. P.S.: Naval focus and all
  7. Alright... You stressed that you have a crucial need for this. Fair enough. I simply cannot see any necessity at all.
  8. Just feeling like this is slightly relevant here.
  9. While I do like the C-119, I'd personally say it would be better to go with the AC-47 instead. It is after all a rather similar plane, but as you said yourself the AC-47 is the much more renowned one, saw action in different countries and would effectively give us a C-47 for other purposes as well, which touches on scenarios from WW2 to fairly recent. I would like an (A)C-119 probably, but the (A)C-47 just seems to be the more obvious choice if going that route.
  10. Funnily enough this has been a major problem a while back (plus the player couldn't quite use them either), but it got fixed after quite a lot of complaining, at least for a while. Apparently it's back. P.S.: Last time around the issue was that the AI would only 'tap' the trigger and never hold it for some reason. Doesn't matter for the M60s, but since the M134D have to spin up a short moment, they never got any lead on target from them.
  11. The 'cancel' refers to the log-in process, I reckon. Realising you don't have an account you can cancel and just go to the non-activated version. The real oversight here is that there is no 'quit' option.
  12. There are a few instant action missions. The 'usual' freeflight ones and a strike mission.
  13. I like the idea of having a module dedicated to the more complex SAM operations, really. But quite frankly, I am also concerned about more and more of the core functions becoming strewn out across modules.
  14. Back in my day we didn't have a voting system. We had to keep track of whose opinions we valued and who we considered a complete moron all by ourselves!
  15. Lets face it, now that the F-16 introduced super-fluffy™ technology to DCS...
  16. Oh no, it does not. I've looked at that thread and am sure it's a different thing. The menus do work, it's just when they 'flip open', they take a moment, then appear 'halfway' and finally completely. It doesn't take a second, really, but it's irksome and quite noticable. It could be just me, but even then I wonder why that of all things should be trouble. I mean, it's a little menu that looks straight out of Windows 95 and somehow it stutters...
  17. It seems that today's OB patch has changed the looks of the rearm/refuel window, to be a bit more transparent and generally darker. Stylistic taste aside, trying it for the first time now I found that when selecting a pylon and/or an ordnance category there is a delay for the list to appear. Personally I find that rather irritating. Anybody else having that issue?
  18. Well, provided that such user-defined 3D target points were to be implemented, they might come with a 'target radius' like artillery fire does, I guess. Is there such a thing as AA barrage with the units from the WW2 asset pack?
  19. And here I thought the F-101 had been famous for that one. Hardly more than a novelty item anyways, I'd say.
  20. What's the point? Yes, that's how many files there are. Campaigns may basically be a string of mission files, but for every campaign there are a few extra files to be considered, like a singular campaign definition file, campaign splash image and the like.
  21. Guess that means the Epic Games Store is doing great still.
  22. As a matter of fact the supercarrier module addresses this issue in a very coy manner, as one can place deck crew anyway. The caveat is they are only visible to people who own the supercarrier. In other words: +1 Please, ED, give us one or two general civilians and, at long last, also a place-able pilot entity! The latter does have all necessary animations already, the former could pretty much share them.
  23. If you want to get in that kind of vein, I would prefer something like personal nose-art that can be used with applicable planes. That would probably be easier to implement as well, as it could work in a manner akin to bord numbers, whereas a helmet would need to scale to a variety of pilot models.
×
×
  • Create New...