Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

279 Excellent

About Noodle

  • Rank

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

206 profile views
  1. All due respect, since you're reasonable and respectable developers, but as a user I feel compelled to state my point of view which is: I'm not interested in reading any more bellyaching from third party developers about their business woes. It is not my problem, guys. Does Avsim have a private 3PD forum where you guys can go to commiserate with each other? Interaction between users and devs is good, and the dev's perspective is often appreciated. But I am not your audience for whatever this is. I say that with no malice whatsoever.
  2. I think this is all pretty much just common sense isn't it? If you're shooting pictures (or screenshots) of scenery, then panoramic shots make sense. But if you have an object in the foreground, like an airplane, then things get wonky. My interpretation of this thread is that people are dissatisfied with the weird visual effects in some of the marketing shots. My opinion is that these effects result from using FOV to control framing vice moving the camera and tweaking FOV for a desired effect. Some of the marketing shots and clips have been remarkably well composed, with more of a "telephoto" effect of a distant camera with a narrow FOV. Some of the TBM shots were like this.
  3. I'm suggesting the way to make screenshots look jacked up--as in the OP's complaint--is to zoom out when the camera is too close to the airplane. It's been like this in every game ever, and I assume it's just how camera systems work in games. I see the same word not allowed in DCS screenshots: warped/distorted airplanes and fisheye backgrounds. People should stop using FOV as a substitute for camera position.
  4. None of you have noticed that if you keep the camera still and simply zoom out, the image becomes distorted? I hate when people take screenshots like that. The fix is simple: physically move the camera back away from the airplane instead of using negative zoom. It's a technique problem, not a simulator problem.
  5. Haha! I mean, you're obviously not to be taken seriously. Clever trolling though.
  6. Shrug. You're obviously coming in here looking to stir the pot. Don't feign surprise when people give you the reaction you're seeking.
  7. Frankly, I think it's great! It's awfully nice to be able to have candid discussions, share feelings and opinions, and air grievances without the tyranny of overzealous moderation shutting people down at every turn. Locking and deleting every thread or post with which someone finds some perceived slight is only effective at giving the APPEARANCE of harmony. But it does nothing to abate underlying resentment and animosity. You know what eventually solves those feelings? Communication. Sometimes loud and feverish communication. I haven't seen many ad hominem attacks, and what little friction there's been has fizzled naturally since conversations have been allowed to run their course. I've never understood the scramble to shutdown contentious debate at the height of passions. It just leaves people feeling angry and "cancelled". I think the moderation, at least in this sub forum, has been just about perfect; only stepping in when absolutely necessary and leading by example.
  8. You not seeing the need for something is irrelevant. DCS is a nice aircraft systems simulator, but is a very limited flight simulator. Military aviation deserves to be represented as much as any other segment.
  9. Because I want to fly across the whole world, undertaking the full spectrum of military capabilities: global airlift; tactical airlift; air refueling of fighters across the ocean (called CORONETs); flying fighters to and from their home bases for training and proficiency; and being able to take my (hopefully) fully functioning combat aircraft to any theater or target on Earth. I can tell you that a significant number of DCS users are interested in MSFS just for the flying. If Microsoft were to make a new version of Combat Flight Simulator, Eagle Dynamics would go out of business. It's not realistic to fight a war in a 250nm x 250nm container. We send B-2s and B-52s on 40-hour combat missions halfway around the Earth and back, to cite one example.
  10. You guys like splitting hairs. Not many airplanes have a service ceiling above FL650, but many airplanes are perfectly capable of getting up there--and much higher--for short periods of time. A cursory internet search would prove this to be true. Most supersonic jets can accelerate to their limiting mach number at high-altitude before initiating a zoom climb to very high altitudes. The reason I brought it up is not to discuss the difference between service ceiling, combat ceiling, or absolute ceiling. Nor to advance the idea that the practice is safe or smart when performed by those other than test pilots (and even then, it's not really "safe"). I mentioned it because there are many aircraft capable of seeing much higher than 65,000 on the altimeter. Here are the results of a 0.69 second Google search on the topic: F-4 and F-15: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19760053940 F-4: https://theaviationgeekclub.com/project-top-flight-how-the-mighty-phantom-ii-set-a-new-absolute-altitude-record/ F-104: https://www.i-f-s.nl/f-104-records/ MiG-21: https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/tag/mikoyangurevitch-e-66-mig-21/ MiG-25: https://theaviationgeekclub.com/remembering-absolute-altitude-record-set-fedotov-mig-25-40-years-ago/ Et cetera, et cetera... Most supersonic airplanes can accelerate to near their limiting Mach at high altitude, then pull up to a nominal climb profile that will take them well higher than their combat ceiling.
  11. Shrug. Just trying to give you open source examples of the demonstrated performance of older jets. MiG-25, MiG-31, F-22, Su-57, all are capable of impressive feats, but you're not going to get a Raptor HUD tape, so... My point is that it would be a shame if my F-15A, still trucking along at 1.4 Mach on a parabolic trajectory suddenly ran into an invisible glass ceiling. We can talk about aero vs reaction control, but I just dont want the airplane to hit a barrier.
  12. They can't stay there, but they'll get there. There's a story in Code One magazine about just how high an F-16 went once. There's HUD tape of a Venezuelan F-16 attempting an intercept against a U-2. The F-104, F-105, and F-4 could all easily zoom to those altitudes. The F-15A, although stripped down for the purpose, went from brake release to 98,000+ feet in 3 minutes. It's not as uncommon as one might think.
  13. U-2, SR-71, most fighters built since the late1950s when zoom climbing for a high-altitude intercept, and modern fighters without much effort at all. Other airplanes routinely get pretty close, like the WB-57, RQ-4, and a few others.
  14. It's possible he's not referring to a hard limit at 65,000, but rather acknowledging the tropopause, above which the stratosphere is far more stable and homogeneous. Hard to tell given the translation. While understandable, it would be disappointing if the maximum altitude in the sim was limited to 65,000 feet.
  • Create New...