Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

18 Good

About Pudu

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

216 profile views
  1. I started using it last week. At first it felt like 'hmmm... this feels kind of strange, but not mind blowing' ...🤔 But then I suddenly realized how much easier and precise flying had instantly become. Everything feels intuitive and natural. Love it. (That said, I got it up and running on the same day I reinstalled IL-2 1946 +VP Modpack, and I haven't tried it in BoX or DCS yet because I have been having too much fun landing on carriers in the Pacific. )
  2. Mine felt fully loose out of the box.
  3. It's about paying more coders vs paying more modelers. Edit, because LukeFF is confused: The developers don't have unlimited resources - they have to choose priorities. Modern flight sims (and to some extent racing sims) have prioritized graphic improvements over things like AI behaviour - because, I presume, this is financially the most viable option. Graphics have improved exponentially over the last 25 years, while AI, campaigns, and numbers of units simply have not - in some case they have regressed. GPUs are more powerful now, but so are CPUs. It's a choice they make because, I guess, they are giving us what most of us want.
  4. Ya, have all the targets you want. But even dive bombing to the deck, the level of detail is already beyond anything you can appreciate at the resolutions we play at and the speed everything happens. It has nothing to do with ground vs air. Simply how much effort goes into details that are never really appreciated/needed. Isn't it better to have lots and lots and lots of ground units, that behave realistically, for you to pound than to have every rivet accurately modeled on a couple of tanks? Anyway, that's how I feel.
  5. I actually prefer if flight sims spend far less time and resources developing graphically intricate ground units. I know they make the game look fabulous in trailers and screenshots, but in game it's a bit pointless considering we usually see these things from a long way off and going past at speed. It is similar to Battlefield games which develop highly realistic soldier models, and you never see more than a blurred movement before you are pulling the trigger and ducking for cover. It is wasted on me, at least. I'd much rather the resources be spent on developing realistic behaviour, instead of well weathered textures.
  6. Pudu

    DCS news

    Yes, I've read talk about it, but haven't found any details on an actual commitment of this for the Viggen. Would be brilliant if it happens.
  7. Pudu

    DCS news

    I think the 14B will come with a Georgian campaign at launch, with the 14A plus a Gulf campaign to follow later on. I'm looking forward to hearing about the Viggen main campaign details soon too.
  8. Pudu

    Dynamic Career?

    This is still the big question for me. I haven't been able to get a good image in my mind what TC missions/campaigns might be like - my single tank trundling along by itself shooting at whatever it comes across, or part of a larger operation - one of many trying to achieve a goal. If the main focus is going to be online multiplayer stuff, I'm afraid that leaves me out.
  9. Pudu

    Conf.ini best settings

    Awesome, thanks much! Yes, I didn't mean that I wanted it for the hardware parts, just the additional entries. Thanks again, much appreciated.
  10. Does anyone have a conf.ini that they recommend using with fairly capable rig these days? I just reinstalled this old beauty, but the conf file is missing some of the options that have been added more recently. Also, I pretty much only want to do a couple of Pacific campaigns that I never got around to finishing. I have installed the VP mod - is this the best option, in your opinion, or would b.a.t. be better? Thanks for any insight.
  11. The map makers can spend their time making towering volcanoes, limestone formations and vast flat plains, and populate it all with the appropriate flora. Then we flood the whole thing with 642 million cubic km of salt water. Tank Crew becomes Sub Crew™⚓. 🏄‍♂️ But if PTO's not going to happen ... Korea will definitely need a map or two.
  12. I wonder if there was any trepidation about putting a DCS Korea, with it's associated mishmash of unrelated units up against the BMS coherent theatre and industry leading campaign. DCS has, what, three time appropriate vehicles for the Korean War (not counting generic trucks)? I would bet that Normandy was done to try to maintain some market share against BoX (CloD was the only proper western European competition at the time?). But done badly in my opinion - Asset Pack? 🙄 Their biggest problem for making theatres of operation is that the aircraft are spread out across the last 80 years, and the ground vehicles all belong in modern eastern Europe. But BoX doesn't have this limitation. It tries to recreate all aspects of the operations it covers. I'm glad DCS didn't do Korea because if it turned out like NTTR, it would have been a missed opportunity. And I'm sure ED probably feels the same way. I'm unconvinced that the Korean War isn't marketable - especially compared to such areas as modern day Georgia and Nevada. BoKP (Korean Peninsula) or BoH (Hanbando) would be the Korea Air War that I covet. Plus, if we have carrier operations for BoP, Korea becomes a natural evolution of that. (Or vice versa, if BoP isn't immediately doable.)
  13. My impression is that many on here, including the developers, want the PTO next. However if lack of info prevents that, Korea would be a great runner up. That's my preference in any event.
  14. And there is really nothing to do with those two aircraft in DCS, and no place to fly them that feels remotely sensible. I think BoX's way of doing things would be a perfect fit for the conflict in 50's Korea.