Jump to content

Rick50

Members
  • Posts

    1004
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Rick50

  1. The downside: Miramar and AZ in the same map is way WAY too big for DCS to handle. Today or the near future. The upside: ED has plans to model the entire world globe, eventually. So presumably we all could fly from AZ to Miramar, to Singapore, then on to Jordan! Now, this is not happening in 2022, but rather the basic framework and early testing stage, with implementation to stable release probably being several years away or more. But at least there's a plan, and they are comfortable enough giving us a tiny idea that they are starting to try and do that. For more info check this thread:
  2. The "whole world" also makes it much nicer for people wanting regions that are not represented in combat simulations right now, such as: Small bush wars in Africa and South America, Cold War conflicts historic and imaginary and plausible scenarios WW2 battlefields anywhere they occured, entire campaigns stretching for thousands of miles. Black Cats in the Pacific, Dam Busters at night., sub hunting in the Atlantic.. the possibilities start to look endless! obscure battles in WW1 Middle East in 1960's and 70's Army ground operations, particularly in the context of an ongoing extended 24/7 dynamic campaign, could take on a much greater form, with entire brigades represented along with their logistical tails, originating perhaps right at ports of entry all the way to the frontlines and even behind the lines for SF and airborne shock troops like Soviet Para's and 101st Airborne Division. An airlift command could be set up to help support such campaign moves, unhindered by todays modest size maps. Combined Arms 2.0 might be wildly higher fidellity.
  3. Rick50

    Mirage III info?

    Worms in can, open now! "If" LOL!! Thanks for the update AlphaJuliet!!!
  4. Yes, I'm sure you would. And I'd be interested in some Navy action too. I just know that for every naval oriented simulation gaming title, there are 20 or so combat flight sims and ground combat sims... and of those that did come out, I'm not sure what their sales numbers were really like. I think the Silent Hunter series may have been the bestseller for the genre, and it certainly looked great, and was somewhat aproachable. What I'm not certain of, is just how much complexity would be actually workable for a retail title... so for instance, DCS and it's customers seem to really embrace the full fidellity direction. That's great for single seat aircraft. And it seems to work well for a few seats in the Hind Tomcat and Huey. But the Ticonderoga class of guided-missile cruisers have 30 officers onboard, along with 300 enlisted sailors... some in the engine room, some in the galley... but a lot of those 330 service people would have complex workstations to carry out specific functions, complex functions... I think it's unrealistic to expect a full fidellity realism cruiser, or boomer boat, with all the workstations, in anything less than 8 years of development before it appears as Early Access, at a price wildly above any current DCS module. A full real USN nuke sub module might cost as much as all the current modules and terrains and addons combined, in a couple thousand dollars. And you'd maybe need to crew it with maybe 40-80 other humans in multiplayer just to make it operate as a boat or ship would in real. The flipside would be something more akin to tabletop board wargaming, albeit with computers, or maybe a bit like an "RTS" but with lots more realism and details. Maybe 10 players could cooperate to command a carrier battlegroup, one human playing "ship captain/commander", with access to all the major systems in a somewhat realistic but sort of streamlined functionality so that one person could "do the job of 100 sailors"... a little like a super-complex version of "combined arms"? I dunno, I don't have all the answers! I'm just adding some perspective as to what a Navy expansion might look like!
  5. I think with a global map, the main thing holding back advanced Navy modules, would be projected sales of deeply advanced Navy simulations. Maybe stick with a medium level complexity for the general public, and a super-high fidellity Navy simulations for actual Navies to purchase for actual officer training and tactical / strategic development.
  6. Rick50

    Mirage III info?

    I feel that the Bo-105 will be either the next module released or after the Mig-23, but before the F-15E Strike Beagle. The difficult bit will be doing the coding for the HOT / TOW system, meaning the thermal imaging/optical aiming system, and the missile logic that wire guided ATGM's would need. Been done before, though not by Razbam, but I'm confident they can tackle that, and in not a rediculous amount of time either. The flight dynamics are being done by Nibylot, he of AH-6 Littlebird mod fame. And the model is... well have you seen this expansive piece of 3d artwork?!?! The_Fragger is very talented... I think I accused him of hiding a Bo-105 in his backyard barn recently, which of course he denied! (don't worry, your secret is safe with me!)
  7. Rick50

    Mirage III info?

    Well, sure mods don't always get completed... but then neither do full legit "payware" modules. Burnout of the crew, disagreements, cease and desist orders, lack of money to keep production going (computer dies, no money for a replacement), personal family problems like new dependents or medical bills, massive upset in career prospects, suddenly homeless... all these things and more can happen to both "freeware mods" and "professional licenced payware module" projects. Even HUGE game franchises are no guarantee of future success... the fans/players/buyers aren't always happy with a new version, and a major rift can occur between the creators and the users, the "fallout" can be significant... (hint hint hint!) and even cause a surefire successful company to suddenly be plunged into uncertainty of survival. Imagine how much harder it is for a tiny "volunteer" dev team of 2 to 6 people with none of the huge resources of the industry giants...
  8. Rick50

    Mirage III info?

    I see that there are yet more new screens from Razbam's Mirage III, I just wish they'd make it a flyable full fidellity soon, rather than in the distant future! https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/97330-dcs-roadmap-unofficial-no-discussion-here/page/92/
  9. Ok so I'm slightly confused... is the Pico able to use any of the code that has been written for Arduinos for the last many years?!? I used to think it required different programming, maybe a different language, but... I mean, if it can use the same code as all the Arduino projects, with more computing on two cores, for $4 usd... in my area Pro Micros sell for quite a bit more than that. Not sure I'd call it a gamechanger, but certainly a low cost improvement, at least at second glance anyways
  10. Well that sounds very promising!! Think it could take more than 4 years, but who knows, a lot can happen in the next 4 years too. Including a MUCH more powerful "average DCS sim unit" than today... Obviously this would be the ideal instead of being limited to maps of modest size... one could see the Koreas invade each other, defend Norway from a rogue resergent Soviet 2.0, and see a Naval attack force on the west coast of North America... all on the same server at the same time! I do hope though that they think beyond present day maps, and WW2 maps, to include all the decades, as many of these places simply don't look the same as they did in the 1980's or 1960's, what with all that Cold War and dustups in the Middle East... but I would be fine with that all being a later development than a full global map. Such a map would greatly increase the interest in future developments, like long range cargo planes like the C-17, bombers like the B-17, Lancaster and B-52, Backfire and Bone. It would also give a real starting point for an eventual future high fidellity Navy expansion, with ultra long range radars, magnetic anomaly modeling, undersea geographic models, salinity layers for the SONAR model... one could replicate WW2 Navy operations, and also much more modern Naval systems and ops. I'm not saying that everyone's gonna ditch their Falcons and Apaches for SeaHawks to go dip sonar while in a hover for hours on end, but rather that one or several players might take control of an attack sub, or a Ticonderoga, and control it, and maybe also command a whole task force in a more "real time strategy" style of controls. Obviously with a lot of AI routines to help with all the functionality that would be needed. I don't know if a detailed Navy expansion is really in the cards, but changing from tiny maps to all the world's oceans and landmasses, makes such an expansion at least a plausible possibility! https://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/janes-combat-simulations-fleet-command https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/688(I)_Hunter/Killer
  11. Oh, I don't think you or I need to be concerned about the F4U happening, there are other projects that seem possibly stalled or in trouble, but this one is making progress, it's just taking longer than they originally thought! My guess, based on absolutely nothing, is that maybe it's half a year away from the store? that said, getting one for MSFS could also be fun, as you could fly it anywhere in the world, and practice short field landings on remote islands, carriers in that sim aren't to DCS levels of realism or difficulty but there ARE carriers to try out...
  12. Just a thought: Maybe you were TOO CLOSE. If you could tag him with basic rockets... your target was probably half a klick away maybe? AFAIK, these wireguided ATGM types are... well they are not supermaneuverable nor "smart". Missle wise they are kinda the opposite of say a Python 5, I think they have a very narrow engagement arc, so if you are too far off boresight it'll either not get fired by Mr. Petro, or it might well fail to get a solid hit, might even lose aerodynamic control and just "tumble". They also seem to need quite a bit of time to "settle" and go straight to the target, maybe a half second of flight before it properly gets sorted out. That time/distance probably determins the minimum effective fireing range, which closer than, would result in a probable wasted ATGM. It's worth remembering, that whole class of ATGM's were not meant to be super-weapons, but rather "good enough" divided by "cheap as dirt", so you'd have enough to blunt several armored divisions, even with misses, lot's of unit attrition, exhausted gunners on their 3rd day without sleep having trouble remembering what their task was... I would imagine that while using ATGM's on helis has happened in real life and certainly effective, ensuring success probably requires near optimum conditions with experienced gunner who is alert and disciplined to work the problem.
  13. With respect I don't quite agree... I doubt ED has "release windows", say the way Dizney and their MSeeU series does... I think for ED and DCS, once a dev submits their "release" item, they get it evaluated, then beta testers, and if it's good, they give it a greenlight and put it in the store. Bring in that revenue, it's good for ED, good for DCS, good for the dev team looking for a reward for the long days of effort over years of their spare time, good for the enthusiasts who are addicted to new content to crash...uh, I mean fly to victory! But I could be wrong, maybe there is a hardcore marketing schedule that is "hardcoded" into ED's plans?
  14. The claim is probably not USN shootdowns, but rather Iranian Tomcats... at least that's what I'd guess, or it would have been fairly big news when it occured and we'd likely have heard of it and remembered seeing documentation. But an Iraqi shooting down an Iranian in the 1980's ? Not exactly big news outside of the Middle East, back then, I doubt even the global news services of the time would even bother reporting it, and might not have even caught wind that it occured. Assuming of course that the claim is true, and I've no reason to suspect a falsehood on the part of the author. But the original report could possibly be suspect too, sometimes military people in a few countries have... well, have a way of "exagerating" their military adventures... as a survival tactic: claim a small victory and I get to live a longer life... tell the absolute truth that I didn't even see an enemy and didn't fire any missiles... and I might be accused of cowardice, desertion in combat, or just not interested in doing the assigned mission... could end up on the wrong side of a rope, or firing squad... "ok so there I was an I swear it was a Tomcat, and I fired ze missilez, and down went the plane!" "oh? and where did this plane crash?" "Ah, um, well it disintegrated into a firey ball before hitting the water, so uh, nothing to see!" "Convenient comrade pilot!!! We shall give you our highest medal, and a family vacation to a seaside resort in Basra!" "whew, that was a close one!" "Sorry, what do you mean, close one? Do I need to call the Secret Police?!"
  15. Hmm. It's likely just a programming oversight in the DCS system, maybe this thread observation might correct this. Or a limitation in static object not beeing seen by the "virtual" sensor. On the other hand, it might not be a mistake. The skeet's optical targeting might reject stationary aircraft in real life, though I don't know why it might do that, as it would be very useful to use such a weapon on enemy airfields or FARPs and such. It could be simply a limit in data storage capacities to ID targets inside the tiny skeets... Worth looking into, IMO
  16. Then again, maybe "Marketing" knows something we don't:
  17. If Mariannas is struggling on your machine, so will Syria IMO.
  18. So true... but as you point out, that 30% is absolutely HUGE, overwhelming amount of data for home recreation use at this time! But in our lifetimes that will change, and you'll eventually be able to pick out details of your friends' local parks, and the color of their car, anywhere in the world, look through windows to see your father watching the football match on the tele! Just not today or next year in DCS... but in 5 or 10 years, maybe/probably... Maybe a partnership with big-G, or a commercial sattelite company, or a mapping company...
  19. Ok jack, you convinced me! Not that I was against Balkans in the first place, but you made a very convincing case! Nice effort !!
  20. The 4-way hat switch found on many joysticks (but missing on many of the very inexpensive budget sticks) sometimes called a "trim hat". In real aircraft these are most commonly used to adjust trim, but in complex fighters, warplanes, and modern helicopters they will have a lot of hat switches that will also do MANY other functions too, like adjusting radar modes and directions, weapons selections, defensive expendables like chaff and flares, on helis for aiming spotlights, radio modes/channels... but even on those, at least one hat is for trim usually
  21. I think most of the time, the models are not made by the same people that program systems functions, or flight dynamics behaviors. And I think there is generally a lot more people who can make a really good model, than who can do systems or dynamics... so it's not that much surprise to me that models get shown. I think this is why we are seeing more talk from several devs about them making some AI assets... but truth be told, I really want the flyables! These modern flying mainframes must be difficult to program, as when you put out a new release, it sometimes "breaks" a different function that had been working well for months or years, and now the debugging begins... just look at the Hornet for instance!
  22. Not to mention that the IP holder of the actual aircraft (Sikorsky and Boeing) would both have to approve of such a project, and ED itself too. I think it's not especially probable that all three would approve of a module that would be partly realistic, and partly fictional (representing systems that never got developed to completion, or even "set").
×
×
  • Create New...