Jump to content

Hatefury

Members
  • Posts

    117
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hatefury

  1. To be fair not all modules come with a campaign e.g. F-5E, F-86, MIG-15, Harrier. The Hornet's small campaign was put together when the module was still in very early access. Some modules do come with campaigns, of varying standards that is true. With that said there are literally hundreds of player missions that you can try and at least one major 3rd party campaign on the way that I'm aware of.
  2. Hatefury

    F-15E UFC poll

    Literally the first post on this thread, Suite 4+
  3. Hatefury

    F-15E UFC poll

    Jester was made specifically for the F-14 as a RIO is required to operate that jet. It would not be as simple as dragging and dropping one from the other a complete rework would be required, not to mention you would need to credit HB for that work. All radar operation, tpod operation etc can be done from the front, so its not needed and could be done entirely by yourself in a single player mission.
  4. Hatefury

    F-15E UFC poll

    Same air to air loadout as the 15C. RB have said you will be able to operate with 2 people in the aircraft. There will be no AI WSO as its technically not needed.
  5. Yeah I just ran into that doing the constant peg 3rd gen instant action mission all the missile didn't work.
  6. Myself and a few others are also getting no servers on the list currently. I haven't found the source of the issue yet but I wouldn't be surprised if part of the issue is ED's server is getting hammered.
  7. They are probably ok with it otherwise it wouldn't have got this far. SMEs are involved in the development of most (possibly all) of the modules.
  8. Check out page 158 of the manual for how to create mark points.
  9. Not really as Scotland is part of the UK. There is a reason though RB have called it South Atlantic though as calling it the Falklands or Malvinas is likely to spark a large political argument they don't overly need/want. (Also probably what this thread is at risk of becoming anyway). I wouldn't expect to see another map until this one has been flashed out. SHAR and Pucara have been confirmed as being worked on and we've seen some base images for the SHAR (very long way off for both). I'm not sure if it would be worth RB doing a GR3 as well, but a Mirage 3 seemed to be very much on the cards a couple of years ago but seems to have disappeared off the planned list. Hopefully we'll get more information over all of this over the coming year.
  10. Off the top of my head. F-5, A-10A, heuy, MI-8 Viggen. MIG-21, MIG19, MIG15, F-86 and a couple of the WW2 birds I'd have to double check.
  11. Occasionally a 3rd gen scenario is run on Caucasus.
  12. I would say it's very safe to assume that the FRS1 and AV8B are very different aircraft.
  13. It got paused at the end so I'm a little unsure. Was the location of the 120 being interpreted and fed back or was it just showing the 120 on the highest threat ring? So basically does the pod tell us where fox 3 missiles are?
  14. I think the best solution (as ever) would be to offer choice. A lot (but far from all) of big multiplayer servers avoid having same aircraft on both sides at which point spoofing the IFF wouldn't be an issue. The other thing to bear in mind with this is the only aircraft it would impact would be the JF-17 itself, for every other aircraft it would have no impact so a friendly F-14 / 18 / 2000 etc would see you as friendly no matter what, similarly enemy aircraft, that are not JF-17s would not be spoofed by you either. It would be nice for ED to update IFF at a base level, part of me hopes that this is done once they get into more detail of the IFF systems (not just mode 4 that we effectively use, sort of, currently). Well done though for leading the way on this, I hope you can work with ED in the future to help further this across the sim.
  15. Well the first one is out. Looking good. I guess the hype train is now fully fuelled and leaving the station.
  16. As others have pointed out popular modules are spread out in order to maintain balance on PvP servers as 25vs2 in most circumstances isn't very fun for anyone (there are a few really good pilots I know who would probably disagree and would quite happilly be the 2 but its not the normal case and if they end up shooting down most of the 25 that isn't overly a good feeling for them either). This isn't exactly a new thing either M2000C has regularly gone onto opfor teams despite being French. The Viggen is also on opfor on some servers. As we get more western 4th and 4.5th gen fighters you can bet they'll get spread out between the sides in order to maintin balance on these servers. Often this balance is Asymetric too and both sides do have to try work to their strengths. Server operators will adapt and change their scenarios according to how they feel is best for the environment they want to create. If we were getting some equivalent cababilty and popular Easternblock aircraft (which we won't any time soon) there would be less of this required, however I suspect even if we had full fidelity Fulcrums and Flankers many of the western jets would remain more popular and some cross over may still be percieved as needed dependent on what the server owner wants to do.
  17. Starting up the plane and getting it to runway slightly behind Uzi 2-1 isn't hard. If it took 15 minutes for him to start taxiing it would be a little odd to me. The AI waiting for the player is probably better than the player waiting for the AI in this case. I've completed the campaign now and one of the things that I thought I was playing through is I'm fighting the F-18 4 times and in no way is this a DACT. I'd be tempted to change 1 pair of the F-18s to a pair of Pakistani JF-17s once it becomes available to use or maybe a pair of F-14Bs now. This can also be said of the F-15 version of the campaign where you fight 3x 15C at the start and then 2 F15E and then 2x15C near the end(although if you change the first mission to be like the start of the 18 campaign this reduces the problem somewhat, and it could be argued fighting the 15E is dissimilar, sort of). Pre-set radio channels would definitely be a good thing. Whether or not you'd want to make use of the radio ladder for a campaign such as this is questionable and would involve having to make all new recordings for ground, tower and approach which I don't think would be needed here. There are a few other attention to detail things I've noticed. When Uzi 2-1 is flying the F-18 when you fence in his fuel state is 12.0. There is no way that a Hornet with a single bag is still at 12.0. The 10.0 call on the fence out call could be possible as there is nothing to say he's not hit a tanker whilst we've been doing our thing. These calls would be fine for the F-15, I don't think its very accurate for the 16 either. This isn't in anyway shape of form game breaking and its probably me being a bit picky. I mentioned previously about perhaps having blue arriving back at Nellis for those of us not exiting when we're told we can would be a neat touch. Like I said when I completed the F-15 version of this campaign you notice EDs quirky flight model for the AI less than when you get behind the targets compared to in the F-5E and they start looping like they have infinite energy. They still have this behaviour but like the 15 its easy enough to deal with. I appreciate this being an ED problem and not something that can be sorted by campaign creators. Overall its a fun little campaign and I'm looking forward to seeing something more from you guys.
  18. I would try running a repair on DCS. If that doesn't work I'd try reinstalling the campaign I'm 11 missions in with no issues so far.
  19. I don't think there has been any official announcement and we're unlikely to hear anything until the JF-17 is out and out of early access.
  20. Just did the initial opening engagements. I can see what some of the changes have done to make the scripting better, this is good. Similar to the F-15 the Hornet will get around some of EDs odd AI flight behaviours. I appreciate you as a campaign designer can't do much about that. I don't know how much extra effort this would be (especially as there is no actual requirement to land) but perhaps seeing blue return back to Nellis as well would be a nice touch (I'd have to check the actual flight times along each corridor to see if that's vaguely realistic though). The fuel fence in and fence out calls are also very unlikely (impossible) for a single bagged Hornet. As others have mentioned this is essentially a reskin of an existing campaign.For the price campaigns are I don't have a problem with that, but it may be a consideration for others. I am happy to support the campaign makers as DCS is a niche market and obviously a lot of work has gone into them. I didn't bother dropping the tank before engaging, that's just me being slightly lazy, and I'm surprised the track file lasted though all the engagements (it didn't last until landing). Thankfully it did so here on some screenshots. I enjoyed the campaign on the previous two aircraft so those who have it will know what to expect.
  21. They do regularly on here and on their discord.
  22. To be fair March's update video came out on 1st April. And it sounds like there is a lot they want to put in this video. They may also want to get certain things done before discussing where they are at.
  23. I'm a little surprised that this has been moved to the wish list section. Still from a online and especially PvP point of view it seems odd that the aim is to have pretty much all the AA radar functionality working at launch but then not have any sort of IFF. I know that the relative size of the online community is smaller than the single player one, but from a multiplayer point of view I feel some sort of IFF at launch is needed. Hornets without IFF resulted in a lot of friendly fire, even with the cheat IFF that was put in there was still friendly fire as it was a bit buggy. And yes I respect friendly fire is the fault of the person firing the weapon, it doesn't really help you when you get killed on the receiving end of it.
  24. I think upgraded GR1s could self designate using the TIALD pod which would mean they can carry the TGP and drop laser guided bombs.
×
×
  • Create New...