Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by norman99

  1. I really wish ED would update the SA-5. It’s so frustrating how neutered its performance is due to incorrect equipment options. Honestly, I hope they just head over to the TurboSquid site and purchase the complete SA-5 3D models package available. No need to reinvent the wheel, building everything from scratch, when it’s already been done for them. https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/max-sa-5-battalion-missile/513949 As you can see above, it already includes the Tall King (& compensator) search radar, Odd Pair height finding radar, as well as the IFF interrogator and other additional control/comm/support equipment. we see improvements one day.
  2. It provides 2 additional voice comm channels, via secure datalink. Basically think of it like whatsapp voice chat vs standard cellular voice calls (which are your VHF/UHF radios). In DCS, it’s not functional. Saying that, SRS does simulate MIDS A & B voice comms when in multiplayer. I’m sure others could provide a more in-depth technical description of its operation.
  3. That’s absolutely perfect! Just what I was thinking of. Those alone will be more than enough to build out a nice SA-5 site. I can’t thank you enough.
  4. @PaulToo I’m a big AirBoss fan, but it will not activate the Hornet ACLS. The only way to do this is via the DCS comm system (or the VAIComm work around mentioned above).
  5. So for a 2D/TIR setup, using the DDi/UFC displays should be manageable re performance? And I guess most VR users wouldn't need the displays, so this setup should work for VR too?
  6. At the moment, no. ED has yet to fully implement the BIT page, so some systems never test as operational. IRL, I’m not sure what the correct process would be. I’d imagine there’s no-go equipment, for which the jet is grounded if not operational, and other equipment that is not critical, and BIT failures can be accepted. Probably depends on the mission too, actual combat vs peacetime training etc.
  7. AI/Static is all I want to use it for, unfortunately it seems impossible to find.
  8. I didn’t think SimAppPro was the actual cause, rather the export.lua script that is call and used to monitor different sim states, and that there were some simple fixes to overcome the performance hit this creates?
  9. Not just a UFC, DDIs too! Again, price looks very competitive.
  10. Is the VSN Eurofighter still available for download somewhere? I can't find it anywhere, and need a copy as it's part of a static template I've downloaded.
  11. But you won’t be able to active and use ACLS, as it uses SuperCarrier comms as trigger points.
  12. No worries, I totally understand. I was probably being too literal by saying “never, ever”. My intent was to emphasise that it is rarely done in real life, vs the “jettison on every sortie” mentality that’s prevalent in the DCS world. Also, I’m curious if there’s a different philosophy re drop tanks for the Air Force vs Navy? Limited on ship supplies, shorter ranged aircraft and carrier ops probably place a greater emphasis on preserving drop tanks wherever possible?
  13. 4 years ago, we were given a sneak peak at the ADM-141 TALAD for the Hornet. What is the latest on this addition, can we expect it in the near future? 4 years does seem a long time to develop a single weapon/store…
  14. Sort of, yes. Early model Tomahawks exclusively used terrain contour mapping and imagery comparison systems for their terminal phase. These were extremely accurate, but had many limitations, such as requiring accurate, fixed launch positions. Also, planning for one individual missile would take at least 24 hours, and up to 80 hours if new satellite imagery was needed first. Later model Tomahawks had improved GPS/INS systems, and allowed for re-targeting post launch. DCS doesn’t simulate any of these details, nor does it need to. Cruise missiles like the Tomahawk are primarily included for mission builders to add verity and create realistic scenarios. Having the ability to use the “Attack Group” function wouldn’t change the final outcome, it would just make mission design 100x easier.
  15. I can’t decide whether this continual denial of any issue by ED is due to a complete lack of understanding of the topic at hand, or a quiet, intentional decision to keep this sim “fun” for more casual, dogfight oriented customers. The real sad part is neither option is appropriate for a company the promotes “Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft”. If that truly is the case, than openly admitting when certain things aren’t correct or were misunderstood, should be a completely normal and productive part of the development process. Unfortunately what the customers currently see is a company sticking their head in the sand because they don’t like what they’re being told, and think they know better. This approach just feeds the frustration of all involved, devs and customers alike.
  16. Brilliantly said, I couldn’t agree more.
  17. @CBStu Despite the DCS community’s willingness to do so, in real life tanks are NEVER jettisoned. EVER. They cost money, are limited in supply on the ship, and are integral to the mission capabilities of the Hornet. Also, jettisoning can easily cause unintended damage/casualties on the ground. For all intents and purposes, consider them a fixed part of the aircraft. The only exception to this rule, is if jettisoning them will prevent you from dying. Only then would you jettison tanks to help preform a high G last ditch missile defence manoeuvre. Even in this scenario, you better have solid proof to show the CO/CAG when you return that you would have otherwise died. For some reason, the DCS world considers drop tanks as expendable items, when they are 100% not. Best to leave this line of thinking to the AirQuake servers.
  18. I have an X55. It always took me 3-4 attempts to engage BALT. Added a 10 point dead zone and it worked flawlessly, first time, ever since. It also stopped the plane ‘drifting’ away from wherever I put it. The X55/56s get a bad rap, and are definitely usable for DCS, but they are not ultra precise, no matter how new yours may be. On a related note, trim shouldn’t be touched in flight except for two reasons. Laterally balancing non-symmetrical loads, and when trimming for AOA during landing. Other than that, forget the trim switch exists. (Emergencies aside.)
  19. Definitely looks like the SLAM-ER guidance has been applied to the SLAM. Hopefully this is an honest error and easily fixed.
  20. Honestly, runway strikes aren't really in the F/A-18s mission set. Normally that would be left to the Air Force and B1s or F-15Es if low level is required. (Especially now the Viper no longer carries Durandals and the F-111 is long retired.)
  21. I noticed the same thing. It’s reported here but no response yet. https://forum.dcs.world/topic/300621-ai-wingmen-refuse-to-launch-fox-1-fox-3-missilesactivate-radar/
  22. Completely agree. AI wingmen will now not shoot FOX 3s at all. In the attached trackfile, #4 shoots both AIM-9s then follows a bandit trying to get into guns range, but never uses his AIM-120. (They also completely fail to react to a threat at their 6 o'clock, but that's another issue I guess). This with the radar option in the ME set to "Use For Continuous Search". In one bug, ED has basically completely ruined DCS as single player "Air Combat" simulator. How is a bug like this allowed to happen? ED needs some serious changes to their internal processes, because they are breaking more things than they are fixing at the moment. P.S. The FOX3 in the TacView was my own shot, not AI. A2A AI Bug.trk
  23. Maybe this should be in the mission editor bugs section? Ships capable of land attack (such as US ships with tomahawks) cannot use the "Attack Group" option. Currently in the ME, with this option selected, a land group selected as the target, and everything else set to AUTO, ships do not fire. Weapon selection choice only has "Standard ASM" as an option, so it looks like the tomahawk is unavailable, and hence nothing happens. When changing to "Fire at Point", Cruise Missile becomes a weapons option, and the ships fire as tasked. The problem with "Fire at Point" is it is unsuitable for attacking a group of units, such as a large fixed SAM site like an SA-5. Each individual unit (launcher, radars, command vans, etc) needs to be assigned manually, and the missile quantity's closely controlled or the ships proceed to unload their entire battery on the one spot. "Attack Group" should be available to enable easy targeting of a group with multiple units, again, such as a SAM site. This would alleviate having to target every unit manually, and help control the number of missiles used.
  24. No. Also changing the SR to the SA-2/3/5 P19 Flat Face (still incorrect for this system) increases firing range to ~55nm. Still no where near the ~150nm rage the system should have against a non manoeuvring, large RCS target.
  • Create New...