Jump to content

Burning Bridges

Members
  • Content Count

    309
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Burning Bridges

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Me too. I come back every 3 months and see nothing new. Releasing a sound pack should take no more than 3 weeks, if you really want to.
  2. This announcement is boring. What do I know .. some tiny area that I can generate with Ortho4XP in one afternoon.
  3. I haven't bought the Mig-19 yet, so I am in a comfortable position. I was initially set to buy it but not yet convinced. Is it true that this is using the default external sounds (the three Su-25 files) like the Mig-21? Or does it have its own external sounds like for example the Mig-15?
  4. interesting video What was the particular reason to use P-47s on carriers? Was there anything they could do that the Hellcat/Corsair could not?
  5. Ok let me have a guess too: Manchuria Would at least perfectly fit the I-16 (Kalkhin Gol is close enough), the other requirements too (Soviet China tensions Mig 19 21 etc and many modern conflicts too)
  6. I think ED is not going to change this in the near future. The sales are probably extremely satisfactory and a few dissatisfied people don't matter. I consider this plane a wonderful "what-if" and have enough other planes with proper forward vision.
  7. Me too. Though this must be funny to many people (always forcing Focke Wulf pilots to put up without usuable front view in computer sims), it makes me not want to own this plane, as much as I like it. There are cheaper ways to look through a green filter that is 1/3 obstructed by a brown bar.
  8. LOL, if the front bar became transparent like that it would make a lot of people very happy.
  9. I said useless to me, not in general. Other people may be perfectly happy with what they see when they look forward.
  10. Of course anything suggested concerning windscreen refraction should not be a mandatory feature. But I don't think anyone would complain if an option was in the settings, "simulate windscreen refraction" with proper warning "not realistic but can give a more realistic field of view to a lot of people". Whatever you can say how unrealistic this is, the current solution is completely unsatisfying. You look at the most important part of the cockpit for a pilot and can see nothing but brown because of the 3d model. There was a shot in the German debunking video where an entire house disappea
  11. The interior 3d model is not the same as the exterior. And you can't look at both at the same time.
  12. Why not have an option to remove the bar like the gunsight in the L-39? It's only a few bits of the 3d model that make the 45 degree bar and could be replaced with a version that is closer to 90 degrees and doesn't obstruct the view. Even if it seems to irritates some people but the background is sales. By now many people will have decided not to buy the Anton in this form because it would frustrate them too much to look at the bar. It's like buying a new LCD monitor where the lower 5cm are covered with a brown sticker "computers cannot simulate refraction yet".
  13. A funny is that I got back into the game through Steam. I had been out of it for 10 years (though I played LOMAC and Flaming Cliffs in the early 2000s I could never fly over populated areas without fps breakdown). 2 years ago I saw the free version on Steam and was immediately hooked. In general I think the free Steam version is a great way to attract new players. I often recommend DCS to younger gamers that I meet online in various games on Steam. They are often very interested in military hardware of this type. The great obstacle is that Steam players are too young and therefore
  14. same engine or not, the Su-25 in DCS is ancient and supplying new modules with nothing but these 3 hairdrier sounds is a bit of a joke. Doesn't this sound go back to Lockon Modern aircraft 15 years ago?
×
×
  • Create New...