rogonaut Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rooster328 Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 I totally agree that DCS needs to work on realistic spotting and getting away from labels Couple months ago I read they were working on light glimmer, etc to increase spotting but it’s still very difficult and unrealistic. I don’t play WW2 despite having the planes because of this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdstrike Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 problem is they say they are working on the spotting system now for years already...with no improvement whatsoever. they released that so called model enlargement, which was a really poor attempt imo and therefore they took it out of the sim again. i wish they actually would go the traditional route, and just make smart scaling like former ww2 sims used very successfully. if not going too extreme, it can give very plausible results, and everybody would be happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
golani79 Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 problem is they say they are working on the spotting system now for years already...with no improvement whatsoever. they released that so called model enlargement, which was a really poor attempt imo and therefore they took it out of the sim again. i wish they actually would go the traditional route, and just make smart scaling like former ww2 sims used very successfully. if not going too extreme, it can give very plausible results, and everybody would be happy.+1 I also think smart scaling could work Just fine if implemented accordingly. But there were also postings from the community stating they were against it. And I also think ED has said at some point that they don't want to implement smart scaling .. >> DCS liveries by golani79 << Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DefaultFace Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 be careful guys, theyll ban you if you say its taking too long now too... :music_whistling: 9./JG27 "If you can't hit anything, it's because you suck. If you get shot down, it's because you suck. You and me, we know we suck, and that makes it ok." - Worst person in all of DCS "In the end, which will never come, we will all be satisifed... we must fight them on forum, we will fight them on reddit..." - Dunravin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronJockel Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 As the Spitfire speed thing is quite well known by now, is restricting bomb usage on in an option? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdstrike Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 As the Spitfire speed thing is quite well known by now, is restricting bomb usage on in an option? 1 2 3...just counting how long it takes until the angry mob comes at u with pitchforks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eekz Posted October 24, 2018 Author Share Posted October 24, 2018 (edited) As the Spitfire speed thing is quite well known by now, is restricting bomb usage on in an option? Yes, an option. I thought about it, but I prefer not to. Many problems exist in different elements of the game. For example bad damage modelling for certain ground units and planes, lack of certain ground units types, lod issues, speed issue of the Spitfire, some API issues, clouds sync issue... etc. On many of them workarounds are possible, some of them can be solved by removing problematic functionality. But, if those problems will be 'worked around' they won't bother anybody. So if it's game blocker, like Spitfire DM+netcode issue in the past which kicked all player out of the server, then this blocker should be removed. But it the issue is not a blocker to gameplay, I would rather leave it be for 3 reasons: 1. Save time that would be needed to implement workarounds and track them (which one has been fixed, which one hasn't been fixed) 2. To support discussion on those issues in the community as I believe it good for developers to have a community that informs them on the issues and what's important 3. In the end those things should be fixed by developers, but not got around by the players. It is the correct approach if you want to increase quality. Everything said is just my personal opinion on this matter... Edited October 24, 2018 by eekz Куплю B-17, можно B-24. B-29 не предлагать! Burning Skies =Burning Skies= @ Facebook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronJockel Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 Yes, an option. I thought about it, but I prefer not to. Many problems exist in different elements of the game. For example bad damage modelling for certain ground units and planes, lack of certain ground units types, lod issues, speed issue of the Spitfire, some API issues, clouds sync issue... etc. On many of them workarounds are possible, some of them can be solved by removing problematic functionality. But, if those problems will be 'worked around' they won't bother anybody. So if it's game blocker, like Spitfire DM+netcode issue in the past which kicked all player out of the server, then this blocker should be removed. But it the issue is not a blocker to gameplay, I would rather leave it be for 3 reasons: 1. Save time that would be needed to implement workarounds and track them (which one has been fixed, which one hasn't been fixed) 2. To support discussion on those issues in the community as I believe it good for developers to have a community that informs them on the issues and what's important 3. In the end those things should be fixed by developers, but not got around by the players. It is the correct approach if you want to increase quality. Everything said is just my personal opinion on this matter... I understand and agree with your reasoning. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyggOlle Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 (edited) Using preset radio channels As a beginner in multiplayer and Burning skies, I wonder how to communicate through the preset radio channels. In my case it's a Spitfire stationed at Beny-sur-mer. I have tried all the channel buttons, trying to reach ATC and Ground crew, thinking one of them was set in mission editor to Beny-sur-mer 118.65, but no success. Please help:). Edited October 25, 2018 by SnyggOlle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saburo_cz Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 I think that on BS server radio frequencies are not pre-set, so you can not communicate with tower.. F-15E | F-14A/B P-51D | P-47D | Mosquito FB Mk VI |Spitfire | Fw 190D | Fw 190A | Bf 109K | WWII Assets Pack Normandy 2 | The Channel | Sinai | Syria | PG | NTTR | South Atlantic F/A-18 | F-86 | F-16C | A-10C | FC-3 | CA | SC | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyggOlle Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 I think that on BS server radio frequencies are not pre-set, so you can not communicate with tower.. Thanks! I guess ground crew should work then, for repairs, fuel and ammo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saburo_cz Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 (edited) Yes, through radio menu (key #) and Fx keys, i think. Edited October 25, 2018 by saburo_cz F-15E | F-14A/B P-51D | P-47D | Mosquito FB Mk VI |Spitfire | Fw 190D | Fw 190A | Bf 109K | WWII Assets Pack Normandy 2 | The Channel | Sinai | Syria | PG | NTTR | South Atlantic F/A-18 | F-86 | F-16C | A-10C | FC-3 | CA | SC | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyggOlle Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 Works fine! Thanks again!:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eekz Posted November 2, 2018 Author Share Posted November 2, 2018 http://burning-skies.com/en/articles/126/details.html Куплю B-17, можно B-24. B-29 не предлагать! Burning Skies =Burning Skies= @ Facebook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skliff13 Posted November 3, 2018 Share Posted November 3, 2018 (edited) So if it's game blocker, like Spitfire DM+netcode issue in the past which kicked all player out of the server, then this blocker should be removed. But it the issue is not a blocker to gameplay, I would rather leave it be for 3 reasons: ... 3. In the end those things should be fixed by developers, but not got around by the players. It is the correct approach if you want to increase quality. Agree. Though, lot of time has passed already and the bug is still here. Probably, just letting things be as they are instead of working around didn't work in this case. With this regard, I'd propose to remove Spitfires from the server to even more increase players' and developers' interest about the issue. :music_whistling: Edited November 3, 2018 by skliff13 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eekz Posted November 3, 2018 Author Share Posted November 3, 2018 Probably, just letting things be as they are instead of working around didn't work in this case. Tbh, it's not letting things be as they are. On my party I did everything I reasonably could do to inform developers on the Spitfire speed issue. Куплю B-17, можно B-24. B-29 не предлагать! Burning Skies =Burning Skies= @ Facebook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saburo_cz Posted November 3, 2018 Share Posted November 3, 2018 I'd propose to remove Spitfires from the server to even more increase players' and developers' interest about the issue. :music_whistling: It is hard penalty for that and is not necessary. Remove bombs from base is enough to solve this issue. If you remove only underwings 250lbs, Spitfire' "boost" will remain but not so excessive. Will be slower than Dora. Or you can take away every external stores for Spitfire and "return" game to prior to their introduction. F-15E | F-14A/B P-51D | P-47D | Mosquito FB Mk VI |Spitfire | Fw 190D | Fw 190A | Bf 109K | WWII Assets Pack Normandy 2 | The Channel | Sinai | Syria | PG | NTTR | South Atlantic F/A-18 | F-86 | F-16C | A-10C | FC-3 | CA | SC | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skliff13 Posted November 3, 2018 Share Posted November 3, 2018 Tbh, it's not letting things be as they are. On my party I did everything I reasonably could do to inform developers on the Spitfire speed issue. I suppose they know the issue but consider it not very important :noexpression: [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eekz Posted November 3, 2018 Author Share Posted November 3, 2018 While preparing some nice November updates, I think a week of old-school burning skies won't hurt :) Normandy1994_Anticipation is now live. Limited time offer, hurry :) Куплю B-17, можно B-24. B-29 не предлагать! Burning Skies =Burning Skies= @ Facebook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skliff13 Posted November 6, 2018 Share Posted November 6, 2018 Dev's say that the Spitfire fix will come with the next update Это уже исправлено. Фикс будет у вас со следующим апдейтом. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eekz Posted November 8, 2018 Author Share Posted November 8, 2018 Update with the Spitfire fix is already installed on the server. Enjoy! Куплю B-17, можно B-24. B-29 не предлагать! Burning Skies =Burning Skies= @ Facebook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saburo_cz Posted November 8, 2018 Share Posted November 8, 2018 Hi, allied "Friedly target warnings" on chanel 4 reports Russian P-51 as a enemy. Every time i flew above our (allied) targets with P-51 (rus. from Krymsk) i received message about enemy plane above ground target where i was flying. I am sure, i was there alone. Map : Normandy1994_Anticipation Can someone confirm it, check it? F-15E | F-14A/B P-51D | P-47D | Mosquito FB Mk VI |Spitfire | Fw 190D | Fw 190A | Bf 109K | WWII Assets Pack Normandy 2 | The Channel | Sinai | Syria | PG | NTTR | South Atlantic F/A-18 | F-86 | F-16C | A-10C | FC-3 | CA | SC | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reflected Posted November 8, 2018 Share Posted November 8, 2018 I can confirm. Also, in the Spit I can hear the German warnings. Did I miss something or the 109s don’t have MW50? Facebook Instagram YouTube Discord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deyneko Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 (edited) Due to a lot of bugs in DCS and visibility questions which is critical for WWII era, Virtual Pilots Group stops its SRS support for Burning Skies server. We decided to switch WWII topic to another sim and hope that DCS will fix important bugs and visiability soon. We can teach how to run and set SRS server if it needed - please let us know. Thanks all for flights! Edited November 12, 2018 by deyneko We are Virtual Pilots, a growing International Squad of pilots, we fly Allies in WWII and Red Force in Korea and Modern combat. We are recruiting like minded people of all Nationalities and skill levels. Visit our website: VIRTUAL-PILOTS.COM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts