JF-17 Thunder Discussions - Page 91 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-02-2019, 10:59 AM   #901
falcon_120
Senior Member
 
falcon_120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Barcelona,Spain
Posts: 1,249
Default

I would love to use the BRM-1 in the game. Obviously if there is a suspicion based on evidence of similar weapons etc that it cannot take out a MBT in one shot (or only under a certain angle) then please nerf accordingly and simulate that if possible, maybe requiring 2/3 rockets or so.

I think we already have that for the GAU-8 where impacts in the front of the tanks are almost useless and you need to target the top or rear right?
falcon_120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 11:36 AM   #902
Silver_Dragon
DCS Ground Crew
 
Silver_Dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,004
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zergburger View Post
Please do not remove something you have worked so hard to make just because of a small minority of whiny players. If people don't like it, they can just not use it. Simple.
If it needs to be tweaked, I have total confidence that you and your team will make the appropriate changes.
Just so you know, the majority of the community think the BRM-1 is an AWESOME addition to DCS in its current state; it would be a shame to have it removed or artificially nerfed in an attempt to satisfy perpetual crybabies.
ED or Deka dont need "remove" nothing, but that can be change with ED implement realistic damage models and armour phisics on vehicles on a future. If ED simulate properly them, can be see more dificult shut down tanks and other armour targets. A example, now some vehicles has "inmune" to 5.56, 7.62 and 12.5 mm rounds.
__________________
More news to the front
Wishlist: ED / 3rd Party Campaings
My Rig: Intel I-5 750 2.67Ghz / Packard Bell FMP55 / 16 GB DDR3 RAM / GTX-1080 8 GB RAM / HD 1Tb/2Tb / Warthog / 2 MDF / TFPR

DCS: Roadmap (unofficial):https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893
DCS: List of Vacant models: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.p...91#post4076891
21Squad DCS: World News: https://www.facebook.com/21Squad-219508958071000/
Silver_Dragon Youtube
Silver_Dragon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 12:31 PM   #903
Terrorban
Member
 
Terrorban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 260
Default

Why are people trying to hold the proper simulation back just because the other modules are underdeveloped in that sector? Why not go to your favourite module devs and tell them to improve their product since the competition is moving forward?


Why are they coming to Deka and telling them to tone down on the simulation because they say it is not realistic enough without providing and sources or document evidence?


I thought Deka wanted to sell this module. Removing features to please people who are probably not even going to buy the jet is not going to gain them any good reputation.


I also do not like how these devs are so easily convinced by a few guys on the forum enough to force them to remove features while so many are still asking to keep it.

I seriously went from being really excited about the module to if I should even bother getting it because deka might be spooked into removing even more functions and features down the line. It is unecessary headache I can avoid by not getting this module if they are so easily manipulated.
Terrorban is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 01:18 PM   #904
falcon_120
Senior Member
 
falcon_120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Barcelona,Spain
Posts: 1,249
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terrorban View Post
Why are people trying to hold the proper simulation back just because the other modules are underdeveloped in that sector? Why not go to your favourite module devs and tell them to improve their product since the competition is moving forward?

I dont think anyone here wants to hold a proper simulation, I think a great majority here are all about simulation. On the contrary some people are raising a concern regarding if the effectivenes of the BRM1 againt a specific type of vehicle, in this case a MBT, is actually a proper simulation. That is the question. I dont know the answer TBH.

Regarding DCS I think the most clever approach would be to, 1-keep the rockets, 2-gather as much public information as possible regarding its operational use and manufacturer claims, 3-Adjust as necessary.
falcon_120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 01:39 PM   #905
Terrorban
Member
 
Terrorban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by falcon_120 View Post
On the contrary some people are raising a concern regarding if the effectivenes of the BRM1 againt a specific type of vehicle, in this case a MBT, is actually a proper simulation. That is the question. I dont know the answer TBH.

I completely understand that point. My real concern is that MBT damage is not properly done in this game. While other developers have also made sure that rockets do not kill MBT easily, that resulted in rockets becoming usless against pretty much all the other units as well.

My main concern is that Deka seem to be providing the rockets that can actually be used in missions but some people want it nerfed because they kill MBTs as well. I dont think the effectiveness of rockets against other units should be compromised just to cater for one vehicle type that ED should have fixed.


From what I noticed is that people are concerned about these rockets being overpowered in multiplayer, but if you look at those missions, they have the units clumped in one area with no real strategy or purpose so it's just SU-33 or A-10 just bomb spamming them.


For majority of people who design and play single player missions, these rockets can be really effective against realistic scenarios where there are more medium to light armor present than a clump of MBTs.

My biggest concern is how loopback is replying to these people with weird answers where sometimes it is oh we removed them, then we didnt remove them but if people ask we will remove them and then they were not even suppose to be in there, it was a coding error.

Sounds more to me like they are planning to removing them for sure.
Terrorban is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 01:48 PM   #906
Russian_Santa
Junior Member
 
Russian_Santa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 15
Default

На Русском:
Скажите пожалуйста. Неужели у самолета действительно такое низкое качество текстур кабины ?
Или это просто из за того, что кабина еще не была показана в полном качестве (я не нашел никаких видео)?
Или версия релиза будет такой же крутой, как у f-18 или f-14 ?
То, что мы видим сейчас, хуже, чем Су-25 три года назад.
То, что мы сейчас видим на предрелизном видео-пиксель с рыбий глаз !

On English:
Tell me, please. Does the plane really have such a low quality of interior textures ?
Or is it just that the cabin hasn't been shown in good quality yet (I haven't found any videos)?
Or will the release version be as cool as the f-18 or f-14 ?
What we see now is worse than the su-25 three years ago.
What we now see on the pre-release video-a pixel with a fish eye !

在中国:
请告诉我 这架飞机真的有这么低质量的内部纹理??
或者只是机舱还没有显示质量好(我还没有找到任何视频)?
或者发布版本会像f-18或f-14一样酷??
我们现在看到的比三年前的苏25更糟糕。
我们现在看到的预发布视频是一个鱼眼像素!
__________________
If You Can Dream It, You Can Do It.
Russian_Santa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 01:53 PM   #907
LJQCN101
3rd Party Developer
 
LJQCN101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 330
Default

Despite what's been said, this issue is taken care of by the missile team. It's AP head would pack some punch against light/medium armor but that's it. I don't see anything got removed.
__________________
EFM / FCS developer, Deka Ironwork Simulations.
LJQCN101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 01:57 PM   #908
GGTharos
Veteran
 
GGTharos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 30,327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LJQCN101 View Post
Despite what's been said, this issue is taken care of by the missile team. It's AP head would pack some punch against light/medium armor but that's it. I don't see anything got removed.

Thanks, good deal.
__________________

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump
I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
GGTharos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 02:06 PM   #909
L0op8ack
3rd Party Developer
 
L0op8ack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: the Forbidden City
Posts: 329
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LJQCN101 View Post
Despite what's been said, this issue is taken care of by the missile team. It's AP head would pack some punch against light/medium armor but that's it. I don't see anything got removed.

My idea is providing HE version and AP version(with reasonable AP effect).
Leave the choice to players and server admins.


It will please most of guys here.

L0op8ack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 02:11 PM   #910
Shimmergloom667
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Bochum, Germany
Posts: 567
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian_Santa View Post
Tell me, please. Does the plane really have such a low quality of interior textures ?
Or is it just that the cabin hasn't been shown in good quality yet (I haven't found any videos)?
Or will the release version be as cool as the f-18 or f-14 ?
What we see now is worse than the su-25 three years ago.
What we now see on the pre-release video-a pixel with a fish eye !
The 3D artist was in hospital for several months. They decided to finish the exterior model first, the cockpit is still WIP and will be improved (soon) after release.
__________________
i7 - 9700K | 32 GB DDR4 3200 | RTX 2080 | VKB Gunfighter Mk II /w MCG Pro | X56 Throttle | TrackIR 5 | VKB Mk. IV

AJS-37 | A/V-8B | A-10C | F-14A/B | F-16C | F-18C | F-86F | FC3 | JF-17 | Ka-50 | Mi-8 | MiG-15bis | MiG-19 | MiG-21bis | M2000-C | P-51D | UH-1H
Shimmergloom667 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:26 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.