Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
okay i know what is difficult,
this is to adjust the duration and the pitch with the actual movement.
tricky
Probably not difficult, but there are several things we can’t fix/enhance becasue we don’t have someone really aware of sound system (which is, BTW, crappy).
I still have a bunch of new RWR sound set that I can’t implement because RWR tone are only played for a VERY short period of time in non-loop routine.The nozzle effect is not only about adding it in soundtalbe, but as you know, making it working on some specific nozzle range and only with PW engines.
-
Sound related , but radio wise , would be a cool thing adding the radio simulation noise even for ATC, AWACS , TANKERs , etc.
-
Sound related , but radio wise , would be a cool thing adding the radio simulation noise even for ATC, AWACS , TANKERs , etc.
The DAy we will have an AUSSIE ATC, believe me you will beg to remove any noise !!!
/me runs & hides
-
ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
The ability of some SAMs and naval CIWS to intercept incoming stand-off missiles.
-
I read the whole thread.
whatever you guys think
happy friday night
-
The DAy we will have an AUSSIE ATC, believe me you will beg to remove any noise !!!
/me runs & hides
Ill have you know our ACOs are perfectly understandable!
-
Any day now…. its coming I can feel it.
-
-
Ill have you know our ACOs are perfectly understandable!
To you… :roll: Had an Australian instructor during my CCC course, and the first bits of phraseology he taught us were “Say again”, “Speak slower” and “Words twice”.
-
One thing I’d still really like to see would be a much more hands-off campaign (with the ability to micro-manage left in for those who want it). As someone with no interest in managing the campaign, it’d be great if I could just let the AI run the war, trusting it not to generate stupid suicide missions and throw away my airplanes. It would also be nice if the default flight plans were optimized a little better, especially vertically. Right now they have a lot of up and down silliness.
It would be amazing to me if I could just jump into the campaign, be given a mission that has reasonable goals and a decent chance of success, and fly it. For those of you familiar with it, think of the dynamic campaign system in IL-2. It gives you a mission, you fly it, come back, and it gives you another. You just play the part of fighter pilot and that’s it.
-
One thing I’d still really like to see would be a much more hands-off campaign (with the ability to micro-manage left in for those who want it). As someone with no interest in managing the campaign, it’d be great if I could just let the AI run the war, trusting it not to generate stupid suicide missions and throw away my airplanes. It would also be nice if the default flight plans were optimized a little better, especially vertically. Right now they have a lot of up and down silliness.
It would be amazing to me if I could just jump into the campaign, be given a mission that has reasonable goals and a decent chance of success, and fly it. For those of you familiar with it, think of the dynamic campaign system in IL-2. It gives you a mission, you fly it, come back, and it gives you another. You just play the part of fighter pilot and that’s it.
If it’s any consolation, just remember that the enemy AI commander is fragging equally suicidal missions, so it all evens out
-
A common comment from people in the DCS community is that BMS 4.33.x is mixing several MLU-tapes and Block 50/52 modifications into a Block 50/52 that actually doesn’t exist.
Is that actually true? If that is true, I wouldn’t object if 4.34 reverts back to a different “purity” standard, even if it means not having access to certain features if that particular block model / MLU-tape model doesn’t support these systems?
-
This is the case, and its also the case that 4.33 was an improvement over 4.32 in this area (due to the Avionics Configurator). Hopefully, 4.34 will continue to improve this.
-
Probably problem here is that there are too many variants of Viper? Looks like even newest variant have many variations.
-
Well viper is like windows or linux. Too many flavors… each with unique setups, different hw different sw different peripherals different chasis… different drivers, different procedures, different color themes…
There must be hundreds (if not thousands ) of different setups, with their different subsystems differentiation.
BMS holds the most plural of whats there available if im not mistaken?
How many does prepar3 has?Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T818A using Tapatalk
Blk are 9 or 10, we have ABCD, and the group factors keep going on…
-
I believe even within a single block, you have minor tape differences between nations, and then even if you look at a single nation, it depends what tape the aircraft is up to…
Documentation will be for a given tape, but then another feature was coded based on how it worked on the SME’s aircraft of a different nation with a different tape… lots of ways to have things not match exactly.
-
Raptor did mention something along the lines of even the F-16s of the same block sitting on the flight line are not the same regarding software versions etc.
Don’t know how ED can do an exact replica of an aircraft unless they are given access to one that hasn’t been upgraded in years. Would seem more likely they will be given information based on what they are allowed to release under contract. I don’t know how they could avoid having different systems and simplified where appropriate.
They have only specified it will be a USAF Block 50 CJ with CCIP capability.
-
There must be hundreds (if not thousands) of different setups, with their different subsystems differentiation.
The world’s most prolific fighter,
40 years plus,
still in production,
28 countries, 2 new on the long final,
more than 4500 aircrafts,
140 different configurations,
12 upgrade programs,
source code access released to Israel and Turkey,
7 major software tape updates up to now, new released after 2; years, end-user(s) can purchase as needed,
So with exception of Israel & Turkey, adding their local systems and weapons on top of the purchased tape, all other C/D-variant users are within tapes 3 to 6. Easily recognizable based on (mostly) the weapons purchased by the user, requiring specific tape base to operateDon’t know how ED can do an exact replica of an aircraft unless they are given access to one that hasn’t been upgraded in years. Would seem more likely they will be given information based on what they are allowed to release under contract. I don’t know how they could avoid having different systems and simplified where appropriate.
They have only specified it will be a USAF Block 50 CJ with CCIP capability.
Spot-on.
There have been some time ago some Russian ebay sellers selling CJ/CG manuals, don’t know though how these can be officially used.
-
source code access released to … Turkey…
wait what? What are they going to use source code for??
-
wait what? What are they going to use source code for??
develop their own avionics, in-house