Jump to content

Tippis

Members
  • Posts

    1845
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Tippis

  1. Has this even been noticed or acknowledged @NineLine or @BIGNEWY? It literally makes remote management useless unless you add custom scripting to delete entire DOM nodes, or break out the dev tools to remove them manually.
  2. He probably means ICLS since those can be used on land as well. To clarify further: ICLS is not just “ILS, but on a carrier” — it's a separate system, with separate transmitters and receivers. A mobile ICLS (and ACLS) is needed to provide precision electronic approach guidance to aircraft who have that system rather than regular ILS hardware onboard (e.g the Hornet), but still want to land on a regular air field. e: And also, yes, obviously — we need all the mobile and semi-permanent (and preferably some permanent) nav aids as placeable, scriptable, and user-defined objects: not just the ones Northstar listed, but regular VOR/DME, ARC-whatever, and even good old ILS. The funny thing is that the basic interfaces are all there, but none of the scripting is really in place and active.
  3. That depends entirely on how and where it is recorded. It is not true that “any action” will replay differently — some may under some circumstances, and the biggest problem isn't actually with recording your actions, but the actions of various AI actors. But even there, it can be circumvented by not using SP tracks.
  4. No. You can't on the one hand suggest that we can draw any generalised conclusions from your poll and then, when that approach doesn't work out for you, turn around and say that, oh no, it was deliberately bad, and especially not then try to turn around again and save the first claim when the second approach also doesn't work that well. You get to choose: either it was deliberately made bad, in which case we can conclude nothing from it, or it was an attempt to do something serious and should be treated as such, in which case we still can't draw any conclusion from it — or at least not the one you want — because of the huge flaws and the spectacularly large margin of error that your preferred conclusion would entail. One of the two. Clustered randomized selection; off-forum; sample size of, oh, 500+; with discrete, mutually exclusive, non-opinionated and judgmental, and preferably dichotomised options; probably 4–5 groups of 10+ branching questions each, dealing with outcomes of different scenarios (if yes -> how much; if not -> at what loss). You know, proper poll stuff.
  5. Then don't presume to draw any conclusions from it. You can't have it both ways.
  6. Tippis

    Fov settings

    No. A typical monitor at 1:1 FoV would be like looking through a monitor. Because that's what 1:1 FoV is. For the 1:1 FoV to be like looking through a tube, you need to be looking through a tube, and if that is all the visual area your monitor covers, you need to seriously reconsider how you've arranged your furniture. Oh, and each eye has a 120–130° FoV; the two combined clock in at roughly 180°, of which less than half is binocular, and half of that is your actual focus area that you use to see rather than just notice.
  7. That does not follow. People can already give money to ED if they want to. So there's very little opportunity to change that hypothetical loss even if it existed, and you don't know if it does. You also haven't accounted for the cost and loss of income such a move would entail. We really can't, because the poll too poorly constructed, uses too small a sample, and relies entirely on self-selection even among that sample, for it to say anything definitively. You end up with a sample market size with something along the lines of a 300% margin of error.
  8. As a surprise replacement for some static object on an appropriate day, I'd fully approve — even if it was a bit of a low-poly rush job (probably even more then, since that would just make it sillier). The question is which one, since it's a pretty specific size and there aren't many options for what you could replace and not immediately have it break things. The crane for the carrier maybe? As something fully animated and flying and whathaveyou, it would be a bit too over-worked and serious for my taste, and wouldn't be able to appear as a surprise since it would be its own thing that you'd actively have to add to the mission. Too much effort on both sides would just defuse the joke too much.
  9. It's a bit outdated, but something could probably be done using this as a reference: https://www.airgoons.com/w/DCS_Reference/Radio_and_Navigation_Systems
  10. There exists exactly zero evidence to support that stance and an overwhelming amount of evidence to support that the RWR actually functions as an intelligently designed RWR. If those internal doubters have anything to say to try to bolster their case, present it, otherwise it will — entirely correctly — continue to be seen as an inaccurate and bugged implementation. There's an argument to be made that the F-5 has the wrong RWR, but that is something very different. In that case, the proper solution would be to give it the correct and properly functioning RWR, not to keep the wrong and incorrectly modelled one. In a way the same thing goes for this entire IC debacle: is there any actual evidence to support the notion that the supposed problems that this is meant to fix even exist? The simple fact of the matter is that this wholesale banning of much-needed adjustments has broken the game. I hope this was not the intent and that the breakage will be fixed in short order.
  11. Not politically, no, but there are two exceptions: foreign policy and defence.
  12. The problem is that 1) the money doesn't have to come from the asset packs — indeed, doing it that way arguably reduces the money going towards creating assets, and 2) two of the main things that drive cash flow is word-of-mouth recommendations and content. By making asset packs separate modules that fracture the part of the community that is the most into communicating and giving recommendation, the word-of-mouth will always be “nah, don't bother”, which in turn reduces the size of the customer base for people who make content, which reduces the amount of content being made with those assets, which reinforces the “nah, don't bother” word-of-mouth. ED came to understand this dynamic when they reversed their decision to make the Supercarrier client-limited in MP and figured out a different way of letting paying clients use and enjoy the module to separate them from the non-paying ones. The problem is that this doesn't work for assets because… well… they're assets. There is no “use” for them (outside of maybe some CA integration). The best alternative that I've seen being offered is to simply amortise the cost of developing assets over the actual player-used modules: if you make an aircraft from the '80s or '90s, part of the sales price of that module becomes an “asset tax” that goes towards further populating the world surrounding that aircraft with time-appropriate assets.
  13. The last war over UK was in the early 1980s. We're getting a map to cover that. Like with all maps, it will not be possible to realistically recreate that conflict. If you want realism, then none of the modules we have can be used on any of the maps we have, save for a subset of FC3.1 This would be doubly true for an Iraq map. For an Afghanistan map, a tiny handful of modules could be used, but they would have no opposition and it would be no conflict to speak of. So right back at you: if you want that complete lack of opposition, fly FS2020. All conflicts created in DCS are and always will be imaginary — this is a good thing, by the way — and there are plenty of environments in which such conflicts can take place. This includes the no-opposition bombing of mud brick huts, if you're into that. Fighting over undulating hills with temperate forests, or jungles with jagged peaks, or brackish-water archipelagos leading to evergreen forests, or industrialised plains and mountain passes, or any of the myriad of other terrains the planet has to offer — almost all of which have seen conflict take place over them — is no less or more realistic than fighting over yet another mountainous desert with occasional greenery. They'd just be a whole lot more interesting than more of the same sand texture. 1 There is exactly one exception: Normandy, which has a small subset of the right aircraft, a tiny set of decorations, and the right region for the right period for those planes and systems. However, it is also a region and period that saw very little in the way of a proper air war since one side had a 6:1 superiority in sorties, and even larger superiority in aircraft and pilots, and a catastrophically large superiority in pilot training. It's not quite as one-sided as mud-brick-hut bombing, but close.
  14. It's not a bug. It has been folded into the Viggen module and no longer exist as a separate thing.
  15. We really don't. That kind of terrain and those kinds of conflicts are easily covered by the maps we already have. The UK may not be the best option (mainly for reasons of simple size and geometry as previously described), but something else in a similar vein would provide far more, and much needed, variety. The Falklands map offers some promise of relief from the monotony of the mountainous desert map, the half-flat, half-mountainous desert and sea map, and the sparsely green mountain-and-sea desert map. But more diversification can only ever be a good thing at this point.
  16. I'm a glutton for pain and bugs and fancy new things (and also running servers for people with the same proclivities), so for me, there's little other option. That said, my experience is that there's very little benefit to running the stable branch to begin with. It may be “stable”, but commonly not to a degree that separates it from the beta branch in any appreciable way, and the beta branch will have the latest bug fixes, which is often worth more.
  17. Usually yes, at least the latest and greatest ones. It's hard to give a rule of thumb, but stable has at times lagged behind open beta by as much as half a year, so anything that wasn't in the beta at that point is not in stable. Conversely, on the day that a new stable version is released, it is almost always brought in line with the current beta version so both will commonly have the same capability. Even then, though. some of the “earlier-than-normal” access modules will occasionally still be held back because they are just not ready for prime time yet. I'm sure there's some list out there that specifies what is in (and not) the respective stable and beta branches in a clear manner so you don't have to dig through and compare months of patch notes to figure it out yourself, but I unfortunately don't know of one myself. You'll sometimes see it mentioned directly on the store page for a given module that it requires some specific version, and that version is only available on the beta branch at that moment.
  18. First of all, by “final version”, do you mean installing the latest stable branch or do you just mean updating the latest build, period? Second, the easiest way of doing either is to get the DCS Updater GUI, which lets you pick branch and build fairly easily. The GUI itself is at times a bit clunky, but it is still a massive improvement over having to do it via the command line. If you still want to do it manually, the full instruction of the updater functions and parameters can be found here. Just note that doing it that way means you have to research exactly which build number is the latest one for the branch (beta or stable) you want to run. In practice, you can pick the wrong one without issue but that will, obviously, give you the wrong version. As a general rule, doing this will not have any effect on your modules or missions, short of if you go back to a stable release that does not yet support one of the modules you have installed. If you have any mods installed in the base directory (and you really shouldn't — there are better places for that in most cases), those will be “repaired” (read: wiped) in the process like with any update. Apply whatever mod management tools and methods you'd usually employ for any regular update.
  19. Quite. The new weather system makes for more reasons to actually venture into those engagement zones, but even then, that presumes that the weather system is used at all (clear skies is still a far too common default) and that threats — and possibly even targets — are not precisely known beforehand (the amount of information displayed by default unless you go out of your way to hide it is… excessive). It really is more of an ecosystem of issues, where if you use every tool in the toolbox and put a ton of effort in, you can eke out some kind of threatening(ish) environment(esque), but you are constantly fighting against the basic design of the game to make that happen. If that were reversed, or at least skewed more towards some half-way option between the two, they'd probably be more useful and more used.
  20. You realise, of course, that the training features is the very reason why DCS exists to begin with, right? That that's why modules (and yes, they are indeed modules) like the A-10 and M2k are used in actual training: because those features exist. That the big-paying, future-proofing customer base — training institutions contracting out work to use DCS as a teaching tool — come to DCS because this particular simulator has tools that allow for the creation of training scenarios. I know that you are proudly ignorant and break out in rashes and hives at the mere thought of learning something or doing research, but even you should know this. This is just painfully confused. What do you think “features” are?! What do you think it is that sells the modules? You previously went on this whole useless tangent about how most players are SP only. Have you considered what this means for what players actually do in the game? When there aren't other players around to generate the dynamics of the world you're flying in, what do you think the source is for the single-player's entertainment? Yes they do. They're called “campaigns”, which rely on features being used by the modules. You know, that thing that your much-vaunted majority of SP-only customers rely on to have a game to play. The modules alone are meaningless without the content. The features you are so confused by are what makes that content possible. They also get paid for features — those being created to support some fancy new module and give it any reason to exist. Not “necessarily”, no. The correct word is “automatically” or possibly “inherently”.
  21. More specifically, it doesn't do that because it has no backseat — it's just a (largely inaccurate and incomplete) decoration on the 3D model. The TF-51 is meant to be a trainer aircraft, but its DCS incarnation doesn't work like that because it's missing even the most basic thing a trainer needs: a place for the training instructor to sit (and, of course, the functionality to let him sit there, hence this entire thread). Sure, it's free, and sure you can use it to train with, but that's exactly as true for the Su-25T, and that obviously doesn't make the Frog a training aircraft for much the same reason. If “you can train yourself” was a valid qualifier, then the Spitfire is also a training aircraft module, and as anyone who has tried it will tell you, it is not a good learning environment. Welcome to sharpeville. Your opinion is noted and discarded as irrelevant to the topic at hand. The mods have explained this to you already.
  22. Well, there's the obvious one… Every image I've seen of the actual TF-51 also has that, except for the DCS one, which only has a passenger/observation seat. Dual-control trainers were a thing back then in much the same way (and for the same reasons) as now.
  23. …and? By that logic, nothing can ever be made for DCS. So that's a completely vapid observation. The point is, no matter how much you aren't interested and wish it were otherwise, these modules exist. They sell enough to keep being made. There is no cost except opportunity cost and that holds true for everything so, again, that's not a sensible argument against doing it for WWII as well.
  24. So in other words, it makes all the sense in the world to add this kind of simulation because that would actually make the game more realistic. I know that consistency is not your strong suit but you're offering a really confusing stance here, where you will constantly shift and contradict your argumentation to ensure that things other people enjoy, and especially things that would be helpful to new players and in any kind of teaching scenario, never sees the light of day. I've asked it before, and I must ask it again: what do you have against realism and new players? It really isn't since DCS already provides multiple means to convey that. You should know this already.
  25. You honestly believe that they don't simulate two-seat aircraft using two-seat simulators? In spite of being shown that they have two-seat simulators for two-seat aircraft? Well, you do you — after all, what else can you do. Not indefinitely. Only until someone offers a good and relevant counter-argument or manages to actually prove their point. But if you'd like to get back on the topic of the thread, that would be swell regardless.
×
×
  • Create New...