Jump to content

DCS

carve_gybe1

By carve_gybe1
in Other Sims and Games

 Share

Recommended Posts

Finkeren

Finkeren

Posted
Posted

Is it me or the muzzle flash of the Fw190 is a bit ridiculous in that video?

 

Are you supposed to see that much of the flash from inside the cockpit?

It's not just that video. I noticed the same in a developer vid with the Kurfürst.

 

On the other hand it seems, that the MG 151/20 Minengeschoß in DCS are powerful enough to satisfy even the most ardent Luftwhiner.

SCG_Space_Ghost

SCG_Space_Ghost

Posted
Posted (edited)

It's not just that video. I noticed the same in a developer vid with the Kurfürst.

 

On the other hand it seems, that the MG 151/20 Minengeschoß in DCS are powerful enough to satisfy even the most ardent Luftwhiner.

 

Satisfy an ardent Luftwhiner? Man, that patronizing term is getting old.

 

Seems a little dismissive of ammunition modeling problems in BOX... Something I can't agree with you on. They're there. They're real. There are people doing the work to gather the data. 12.7mm penetrating an entire aircraft, pilot armor and engine blocks be damned, with the force of 30mm DU rounds isn't right.

Then it seems like they have a personal axe to grind since this has gone from a DCS news thread to a DCS bashing thread.

 

Nothing personal at all. I wish DCS would come further along. It's a nice platform that is plagued by poor project management, feature creep, a lack of concise direction, a lack of execution, etc.

Edited by Space_Ghost
  • Upvote 1
Danziger

Danziger

Posted
Posted

The difference is in the way each company handles this. 777 left RoF probably permanently and used the engine as a base to launch BoX. The 1c attempt at CloD and the original BoM using CloD engine were unfinished and abandoned. BoX has been a steadily improving WIP since 2013. With BoX there is clear policy, leadership and goals with assigned level of priority. DCS seems to be working in small amounts over a vast amount of different projects. I think 777/1CGS has their work far more optimised.

Finkeren

Finkeren

Posted
Posted

The difference is in the way each company handles this. 777 left RoF probably permanently and used the engine as a base to launch BoX. The 1c attempt at CloD and the original BoM using CloD engine were unfinished and abandoned. BoX has been a steadily improving WIP since 2013. With BoX there is clear policy, leadership and goals with assigned level of priority. DCS seems to be working in small amounts over a vast amount of different projects. I think 777/1CGS has their work far more optimised.

Exactly.

Finkeren

Finkeren

Posted
Posted

Satisfy an ardent Luftwhiner? Man, that patronizing term is getting old.

 

Seems a little dismissive of ammunition modeling problems in BOX... Something I can't agree with you on. They're there. They're real. There are people doing the work to gather the data. 12.7mm penetrating an entire aircraft, pilot armor and engine blocks be damned, with the force of 30mm DU rounds isn't right.

I have no horse in the ammo-effectiveness debate, and I'm certainly not dismissing the complaints out of hand. I personally can't tell the big difference between the MG 151/20 and the ShVAK in the sim, but that's not to say it isn't there.

 

On the other hand, you don't need to be an expert to realize, that a Fw 190D sawing the wing off a B-17 with a half-second burst is, shall we say... ...off.

SCG_Space_Ghost

SCG_Space_Ghost

Posted
Posted

-snip-

 

On the other hand, you don't need to be an expert to realize, that a Fw 190D sawing the wing off a B-17 with a half-second burst is, shall we say... ...off.

 

+1

=362nd_FS=Hiromachi

=362nd_FS=Hiromachi

Posted
Posted

Usually 13 mm HE rounds from MG 131 are sufficient enough to completely shutdown engine in my Pony/Spitty, there was a number of times when my wing root was hit and area around was so damaged (either causing generator shutdown or pilot kill or mentioned engine shutdown) that I could seriously question this. On the other hand 12.7 mm Brownings lack most of their effects (not to mention there seems to be [last time I checked files] only a single M20 APIT for four or five pure AP rounds, and not a single M8 API) and one thing I dream about is getting BoS firepower the P-40 has. Damage models and armament details are something that is promised to be addressed in the future but the wait is not a pleasant thing when you struggle every evening on multiplayer.

 

On the other hand ... I've started flying Spitfire recently and it slowly grows on me even though its really a machine that one can struggle with. If K-4 or D-9 knows what is he doing you are completely outclassed and can only await another pass, hoping that bogey will get frustrated and starts turning. But once they do ... 

I had such a nice dance two days ago on Burning Skies when I bounced 109, damaged it heavily (started leaking coolant, lost one horizontal stabilizer and few other things, but as K-4s are privileged to, it made no difference and guy just limped back to airbase) and then found myself surrounded by four more 109s and a 190, of which I shot down two and damaged at least another one. Then I crashed into someone when trying to pull a snapshot. Damn, was it a greatest dancing I had since Pacific Fighters and Ki-43 swirling around those pesky Lightnings. 

 

One thing that bothers me seriously is absence of external fuel tanks. In case of missions involving long flights across the English channel it leaves little to no time for combat and return. External fuel tanks should have been added with the release of Spitfire. 

  • Upvote 1
Rjel

Rjel

Posted
Posted

Shouldn't the B-17s be in flights of three A/C in a V formation?

Lusekofte

Lusekofte

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hey, I fly DCS 6 day a week and BOS 2 hours on friday, So when I say I am not satisfied with the current state of how the B 17 box looks like. It is not because I like to bash DCS. I think BOS is a cartoonish exaggerated FPS plane game, witch got very good FM and DM, it improves itself every week and are fun to do.

 Despite DCS  glitches and faults I prefer it . My opinion is however, you simply do not make a virtual B 17 without a complex DM. It´survivability is what made it famous. 

Also gunners in boxformation was highly effective forcing fighters to brake off and always attack in deflection. 

I have high hopes this will be fixed, the efficiency of the gunners should not have to be overpowered, only punish those who are careless in their approach

Edited by 216th_LuseKofte
  • Upvote 1
BeastyBaiter

BeastyBaiter

Posted
Posted

Nothing to do with performance, it's simply a LOD Bug. Pretty sure this will be fixed when the map is available for everyone. 

 

 

It isn't a bug, DCS has worked like that from day 1. I pointed it out on the previous page but it isn't new. You can see it occur with any large object in DCS such as ships, large aircraft and bunkers. What seems to be going on is DCS has a hard render range limit that depends exclusively on FoV and has nothing to do with how big the object should appear within that FoV. I think one of my L-39 tutorial videos actually showcases it with some road outposts, though I don't think I pointed it out in the video since that wasn't the purpose.

 

 

Rather, I think that people simply aren't willing to give DCS a free pass, because they know, that this sim struggles with the same challenges of an 8-year old engine, and (arguably) has done a better job of addressing these issues.

 

Still, I think you're right. This thread should primarilly be for discussing news and the good things about DCS (of which there are many), but lately it has been a lot of bashing. Seems like a lot of people have been fairly disappointed with the latest WW2 stuff, so maybe that's the reason. Let's get it back on track and talk about the great stuff.

 

That's a large part of it for me. I look at what has been done with X-plane, RoF/BoS, Fallout/Elder Scrolls, Eve Online and many other old continuously iterated games, and then there is DCS. All have had there issues, but one seems to have a lot more than the others and a much harder time delivering what the developer says they'll deliver. I do like DCS though, I accept its faults and have zero expectation of them ever being fixed. The LoD thing above is never going to change nor will the crap damage modeling. I don't care how many times they promise it will, I have no expectation of them keeping their word. But I've moved beyond that. The game is acceptable for late cold war to present air combat and so that's what I play it for.

 

Back to news, RAZBAM is really moving quick on their Harrier, I'd be shocked if it wasn't released before the end of summer. New video below:

 

Jade_Monkey

Jade_Monkey

Posted
Posted

I would love to see more ground props in IL2 similar to the ones in this weeks update for DCS.

 

They shouldnt be extremely detailed so hopefully they dont take a lot of resources from the main game features.

Gambit21

Gambit21

Posted
Posted (edited)

Then it seems like they have a personal axe to grind since this has gone from a DCS news thread to a DCS bashing thread.

 

With respect, for my part it's simply this..

I paid into it, just $45 (or whatever the Dora cost, cant' remember for sure now) in good faith that they would deliver a theater to fly it in with appropriate aircraft, a decent damage model, physics etc.

Basically, that they would manage their resources efficiently enough to deliver something that made sense within a reasonable time frame.

Well I, along with others have become annoyed for reasons outlined already.

 

I don't bash it for the sake of being negative, I WANT it to succeed, I want them to knock it out of the park...that's good for all of us.

I'd love to take off in a P-51 from England and escort a box of B-17's into France and back.

 

Also, I've supported Wags and company going back to Flanker 2.0 and the Karl days, then Lock On...which disappointed with the stupid canned F-15 landing physics and countless other bugs.

So given the poor planning and allocation of resources, lack of focus on (once again for the 100th time) delivering a cohesive product that makes sense...well it's just venting of frustration and

to some extent, incredulity at how things are progressing over there.

 

I'm annoyed that giving them more $$$ would be phenomenally stupid thing to do (for me personally) because I'd love for it to be a smart thing to do.

 

Oh, and TheSithSpawn's unprofessional, embarrassing behavior didn't help.

Edited by Gambit21
  • Upvote 3
Guest deleted@30725

Guest deleted@30725

Posted
Posted (edited)

17212048_1846336098922393_73782959052602

 

 

17039247_1846336065589063_21300313055353

 

18422337_1341518469268121_78683334460115

13161972_1543019729337011_26661411974767

Edited by deleted@30725
Gambit21

Gambit21

Posted
Posted

Sweet.

Now we just need the Mig 28 and we can play Maverick and Goose.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(yeah I know there's no MiG 28)

DD_Arthur

DD_Arthur

Posted
Posted

Didnt Polychop's Stuka get the...er, chop? :(  

6./ZG26_5tuka

6./ZG26_5tuka

Posted
Posted (edited)

The Stuka has probably been axed. Polyshop were to annouce it's fate at th beginning of this year yet haven't sayed anything which probably means it's dead (can't blame them since they're focussing on helicopter modules exclusively by the looks).

 

Very disappointing since it also gave hope for more WW2 bombers and ground attack aircraft in DCS.

Edited by 6./ZG26_5tuka
Uufflakke

Uufflakke

Posted
Posted (edited)

The Stuka has probably been axed. Polyshop were to annouce it's fate at th beginning of this year yet haven't sayed anything which probably means it's dead (can't blame them since they're focussing on helicopter modules exclusively by the looks).

 

Very disappointing since it also gave hope for more WW2 bombers and ground attack aircraft in DCS.

 

It is quite confusing what is going on with the Stuka.

 

Brian D. the Stuka Artist left Polychop and he doesn't kow anything about further development of the plane.

http://www.twomoreweeks.net/index.php/stuka-cancellation-in-sight/

 

Oliver Michael also left Polychop and started his own company called Poly-Dynamics.

And he’s proceeding with the development of  the Stuka.

https://www.helisimmer.com/news/new-developer-poly-dynamics-bo-105/

Edited by Uufflakke
Jade_Monkey

Jade_Monkey

Posted
Posted

Weird that they haven't made a single announcement on the fate of the Stuka.

 

Speaking of Polychop, I returned my Gazelle on Steam. Ironically I got my refund but I can still play the Gazelle on DCS  :wacko:

6./ZG26_5tuka

6./ZG26_5tuka

Posted
Posted

 

Our timeline will be, to release the 105 within 2017, and the Stuka somewhere after, but these items should be discussed at another place.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=186785

 

Doesn't particularily raise a lot of hope for me. Whatever the course of the new company it will take long time until we can really start talking about the Stuka.

Guest deleted@30725

Guest deleted@30725

Posted
Posted

DCS third parties seem to be very unpredictable. I don't know the reason, perhaps the time, complexity and money to complete a project can be too much for a small team and for the members to dedicate this much time without knowing whether there will be sufficient returns.

 

Shame about the stuka, I got excited when I saw it. I'm sure a lot of players would have loved a DCS level stuka to enjoy and crack open some Russian tanks.

Feathered_IV

Feathered_IV

Posted
Posted

DCS third parties seem to be very unpredictable. I don't know the reason,

 

It's like a modding community.  Announcing a new project is fun.  But few of the projects ever get released, and fewer still actually get completed.

Sokol1

Sokol1

Posted
Posted

Bah, who care for Stuka's in Normandy 1944 - other than next Call of Duty?  :)

Silver_Dragon

Silver_Dragon

Posted
Posted (edited)

HeatBlur F-14 ACLS test

 

Normandy and Assets pack 2.1 Alpha release May 26.
https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3142452&postcount=88

 

FoggleSim test Normandy WW2


 

RAZBAM AV-8B LHA landind on Normandy

 

L-39 Mist Morning

 

Mig-29 on 2.1
https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3141329&postcount=13969

 

AJS-37 on 2.1

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/posts/718558631665091

Edited by Silver_Dragon
Lusekofte

Lusekofte

Posted
Posted (edited)

By 44 most Stuka pilots was assigned to flightschool for converting to the FW 190, wether they wanted to or not, Even Rudel flew it mostly in the end of the war. In Normandy map I like to have it, but it is not historical and the Hawker Typhoon witch is

 

But I cannot say I am sorry for getting the BO 105 heli. It is a awesome chopper

Edited by 216th_LuseKofte
BeastyBaiter

BeastyBaiter

Posted
Posted

Love it, nice and up to date too.

nirvi

nirvi

Posted
Posted

The Beach

  • Upvote 1
Finkeren

Finkeren

Posted
Posted

Now they just need to make the weather the way it actually was during Operation Overlord.

  • Upvote 1
Sokol1

Sokol1

Posted
Posted (edited)

That a really waste of work... Normandy beaches is thing for FPS games. There's no air battle over Normandy beaches, well that's DCSW: "what if".  :)

Edited by Sokol1
Gambit21

Gambit21

Posted
Posted (edited)

I update the "Roadmap" with some new info.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893

In place of all the yellow "unknown" just change to "unknown/in progress?" and you'll increase the accuracy of that roadmap by several orders of magnitude. :) Edited by Gambit21
Lusekofte

Lusekofte

Posted
Posted

That a really waste of work... Normandy beaches is thing for FPS games. There's no air battle over Normandy beaches, well that's DCSW: "what if".  :)

 

YEs, interesting choice of map, we all agree. What consern me, even though I bought it is the flatness. What I like in DCS is the mountains. And we will not have any in this one

Solty

Solty

Posted
Posted

The largest air battle that never took place :P.

 

Look it's the plane from the future over Normandy attacking ships. :popcorm:

MiloMorai

MiloMorai

Posted
Posted

The Beach

 Where is all the AA fire?

Lusekofte

Lusekofte

Posted
Posted

Personally I do not care if the modules and map does fit or not. I care more for the modules and map itself, that they fit my taste. A Hawker Typhoon , P 38 , B 26, JU 188 , DO 217K would make me forgive any faulty timeline. My imagination can overrun history 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...