Fairey Gannet
-
Posts
153 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Fairey Gannet
-
-
On 4/24/2023 at 8:33 PM, Napillo said:
One thing I see in the screenshot is you are angled up about 5 degrees, and the radar is pointing at the 0 degrees offset, so it's also pointed up 5 degrees - try switching from SLV to SP and point the radar down at the ground.
Sorry for long waiting, I was away from computer. You are right, screenshot isn't really great. I will do some more when I will be able to, however problem was persistent throughout all sub-modes and antenna positions in A/G mode when in MP.
(I am attaching new screeenshot in edit mode. Plane leveled on autopilot, antenna depressed. Terrain returns do not render in MAP mode on MP server.)
-
I am afraid the bug is back: as of today radar mapping works for me in SP missions (like Free flight on Caucasus), but it doesn't give terrain returns in MP.
-
So, I found my post from similar thread, dating January 19th, with links to Unofficial Roadmap. As of today, I checked and nothing really changed. Section states:
-
F-5E Updates (in progress) (2022+) (PFM/ASM)
- New PBR cockpit
- New external Model
- flight dynamics modelling
- improved wingtip missile aerodynamics
- enhanced modelling effects of payload-to-airframe
- interference on supersonic drag
Also, F-5E seems to be included in model preview for 2.7.8, dated November 19th, 2021.
That's really all I could gather, and I don't think there was much news about it since last year. Unless I managed to miss something, which is totally plausible.
-
F-5E Updates (in progress) (2022+) (PFM/ASM)
-
On 2/19/2022 at 1:19 AM, Swayer said:
What I mean is airforces will fly fighters compared to trainers in a war scenario.
Better range
Better weapons
Better combat systems
It depends on which fighter and trainer im comparing but a fighter jet's whole purpose is to fight
Hey, sorry for not being able to respond. Bit busy lately.
So, let's break this down:
1. What I mean is airforces will fly fighters compared to trainers in a war scenario.
Air Forces will fly an aircraft that can conduct ordered operation compared to aircraft that can't complete said goal. Missions vary, and choice of solving the problem will vary accordingly. Not every mission requires equal measure in tactical performance. Using your higher performance assets can be waste of resources and capability of your deployed force. And those are limited by nature, as in every high-tech enviroment. This applies to both platforms and weapons, by the way - that's why hunting supply trucks with Mavericks or cruise missiles isn't everyday thing. There are simply better uses for those weapons, unless, say, that poor truck is critical enough to be worth of very expensive weapon.
2. Better range; Better weapons; Better combat systems
Very well, "better" - but than what exactly? Your own other platforms or those of your enemy? In the first case it is pointless by definition, because you are not fighting your own fighters, you are cooperating with them. And those of your enemy? In case of light attack you are also not fighting them, so their capabilities are somewhat outside of that comparison as well. Your platform and weapons needs to "be better" than its target. In our case, light attack needs to come on top when striking trucks and convoys, light armour, road blocks and checkpoints, camps, infantry, artillery pieces... If you want to engage those, you still need SAM-free zone and CAP above anyway, so it really doesn't matter that much what are you sending in - light attacks or multiroles with A/G munitions.
Range, weapons or combat systems are just parameters telling you what your choosen platform can do and can't do. That's really it.
3. It depends on which fighter and trainer im comparing but a fighter jet's whole purpose is to fight
Indeed. Fight with what? Fighters main role is to fight enemy attack planes and bombers, and of course other fighters - to establish air superiority and allow safe operations for other assets, be it ground or air ones. Yes, modern jets are multirole, and they are flexible in their missions. But again, it boils down to the task at hand. If you need to smoke firing position that gives trouble to your advancing troops, sending in jet fighter may be a waste of flight hours, engine lifespan, post-flight maintenance, a specialised pilot, money, expensive munitions and so on. May not be even worth sending light attack, if drone will do. And maybe not the fancy one, just loitering munition... Armies tend to solve problems at minimum cost and with maximal effect. Waste not.
I am not writing that all to prove you wrong, because you are not. You are not right either, at the same time. Comparing hard factors alone rarely brings any relevant conclusions, because usually there is much more at play.
-
You use IFF interrogate command for this - it is dual purpose. When on the ground, it controls nose wheel steering, when landing gear is up, it is used to IFF radar contacts.
-
3 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:
They have mentioned the possibility of adding it. I’m sure it takes significant coding and information that is hard to come by. I mean really, how would you launch on a DL target? It requires some HSD cursor to select or some sort of MSI integration between radar and datalink that allows you to select it
Maybe it is simply a function, where you can export DL contacts from the HSD sensor cone to the radar screen, when radar itself is set to silent? I don't know how it works IRL, but it would be an interesting functionality!
-
2 hours ago, Swayer said:
Success rate /combat performance
Well, another trainer, T-37 Tweet is a good example. In light attack/COIN variant known as A-37 Dragonfly. 22 losses out of some 250 delivered to Vietnam, 160k sorties flown. Not really stellar in terms of capabilities, yet it managed to have one of the best survivability ratios.
-
2
-
-
March, April, May even, it does not matter. Team said they are shipping full-feature module, so worst case scenario we will get 339A month(s) later, but it won't be stuck in EA hell for next X years. It will be a nice change of pace to pay full price and get full content.
I am not thinking DCS here only, gaming in general seems to have that problem.
-
5
-
-
5 hours ago, Hiromachi said:
I agree with that although its sometimes simple a matter of latest being most documented one. Its easier to find materials for most recent version that was in service few years before rather than to a version that was in use 30-40 years before. Poland for example had very brief history with MiG-21F-13 and aircraft after few years was phased out in favor of newly acquired PFs, and in large numbers PFMs and Ms. And based on this I can tell you that its not hard to find documentation for variants such as M or bis, but it poses real problem when you try to find manuals for F-13
I always for more unique aircraft. But I'm generally weird and I like things like F4D Skyray, F-86K Sabre Dog, F-104. So I personally would look for a lesser known version of MiG-21, unique in something. F-13 is popular but in many ways still unique, however it would not be at the top of my list of MiG-21 variants
Yes, I left out documentation availability matter on purpouse here, as it is a limiting factor for every module during creation.
I love unique an quirky airplanes too, as name suggests. Problem is, we don't have many modules, so if you will introduce something like that into DCS, it not only will not be unique anymore, but it will become new benchmark and (most likely) sole type representation. I guess more crazy modules could be introduced when we have basics covered - but then we both will be long dead!
Besides, 21bis is actually pretty interesting case in that regard, choosing late variant doesn't really hurt. I would like to see some earlier iterations, though, no matter what the type, really. Can be 1st or 2nd 21 generation, something to represent enormous lifespan of the aircraft.
-
15 hours ago, Hiromachi said:
I still don't understand why F-13 is so popular
I meanit looks great. Probably best looking 21 with its sleek silhouette but it's capabilities leave a lot to be desired.
Well, it was first variant produced in large numbers, exported and licensed. When comparing to other DCS modules - sure, it is basic. Instead compare it to what was used in 1960, when F-13 was introduced. In that context it is more clear why F-13 made its mark in aviation history. To be perfectly honest, F-13, while less capable, was probably more on par with its counterparts in 1960, that the most advanced 21bis in 1972.
On more personal and subjective note - I don't like "latest variant" policy. More or most developed plane of the family doesn't have to be always most representative or impactful for the type. And examples are many in DCS.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, CarloVecchi said:
How did you managed to sneak in such sexy content without a ban?
-
1 hour ago, Bozon said:
It is not a WWII plane - it is a cold war Korea/nam plane, which will see usage on the cold war servers. TBF/M is pure WWII, so no real era overlap.
Truth be told, there is an overlap - TBF/M was retired in 1954 while Skyraider was introduced in 1946. TBM's used in Korea were, as far as I know, part of Marine Corps (HQ Squadrons 22 and 33) and COD operations. Not sure how Marines used them though, and that wasn't numerous presence. My guess is TBM was good enough for Korean War in terms of performance, but its niche shrinked and it wasn't representative type anymore. Anyway, I am not stating you are in the wrong, just bringing a curiosity.
Besides - yes, we need "Spad".
-
Yup, same issue as with IFF cover, it just goes through the texture.
-
1
-
-
Yes, that seems fair. There are paid upgrades after all, and 21 shows its age here and there. Since it would be more than simple fresh coat of paint, I think it would be dishonest to expect that amount work to be done without any compensation.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, J20Stronk said:
Did you flip the Zeroizer Switch to OFF before you repaired?
If not, you wiped WMMC from the plane, making it unusable.
In my case - in fact I think I did! But that was long time ago, I can't really be 100% sure But, like I said, only thing that I can say, is in fact I did experienced that issue. Be it a bug or my incompetence - I can't say.
-
4 hours ago, deathcharge8 said:
I've supposedly landed too hard on one of my landing and I had to repair the the bird. Once I repaired it, I got everything started back up and I tried to connect to the datalink master mode but to no avail. I've tried to connect to the net using CLINK on the right mfd but it wont connect. I've resetted the radio control handover at the bottom left side but I'm still not able to connect. Is there any way to connect to datalink after repairing the plane or do I have to respawn everytime?
I can also confirm, I encountered that issue once. I am not sure, if it was a bug or I messed up something, really. Maybe I didn't do something properly, and fault was entirely on me? I had Jeff like a week or so, so this is plausible.
-
5 hours ago, Swayer said:
In most cases better performance !
What performance do you have in mind?
Performance as in parameters of the airframe or overall combat performance and success rate? Also, performance (as in parameters) don't matching between the airframes isn't actually a bad thing.
-
26 minutes ago, Swayer said:
A fighter is always better than a trainer , bring on the Fiat G91 !
That is debatable.
Can you elaborate? I am curious! (No malicious intent here!)
-
14 minutes ago, 6S.Duke said:
Also MB-339A saw an actual war (see Falklands).
Yes, I know.
I said it rather in the context, that for me more representative quality than, say, modern glass cockpit, is service history, combat record or width of use.
I would not say though that MB-339A has to be "easy". Doing everything proper and textbook is actually hard and challenge in itself. Besides, I really wouldn't call MB-339A dissapointing choice - you have data and first hand experience to bring it to the sim at very high quality and realism. Bugs, lack of realism or neglection in adressing issues - this is dissapointment. I don't think this is the case here.
-
3
-
-
8 minutes ago, LordOrion said:
Daresay who bought L-39 and/or C-101 whould be happy to buy MB-339CD too...
I whould buy it for sure.
Inviato dal mio iPad utilizzando Tapatalk ProIf the team would go an extra mile (well, many miles) to do this variant, I would buy it, as a gesture of support rather than out of need. While glass cockpit is nice, but you can fly with steam gauges just as good - other than that, it is just 30 planes upgrade. Capabilities, from what I gathered, are similar. I don't think it is worth the effort. If we speculate about similar planes though, MB326 - long production and service life, saw an actual conflict and was operated by multiple countries.
-
1 hour ago, lmp said:
Frankly, I don't see how that improves the realism of the simulation. It looks like added complexity for complexity's sake. I think this should be handled like it would be in the real world - with a good deconfliction plan, rules of engagement, other sensors, proper communication and a dose of common sense. It would make the air war so much more tactical and interesting. This would work for proper MP missions and we could always have some sort of cheat (like the current "magical" system) that can be enabled in the mission settings by public server owners.
You either pinged wrong guy, or wrong part of the post, as @Frederf is an author of an idea, so I think he can elaborate better than me.
All I can say, I said before - whatever the solution will be, probably there will have to be a way, at mission/server level, to allow realistic IFF for different airframes to cooperate.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:
Personally, I would like one of these 2 options:
- Make one of the SRZO codes compatible with the side specific M4 A key and another for the side specific M4 B key, and have the assignments be user definable. So say you have a REDFOR MiG-21bis, and make it so SRZO code 3 causes a friendly response to the RED M4 A key and make say 7 cause a friendly response to the RED M4 B key. This should be able to be set via the mission editor.
- Allow for a custom transponder system (like the current voice chat, which allows us to add custom radios), and have that tied to the in-cockpit power switch, zeroize/self-destruct switches. Code and mode selection being done via a GUI.
Yeah, something like that seems reasonable! Anyway, in whatever direction it will go, for sure there will be a solution, otherwise using some planes together would be problematic or simply impossible.
-
2
-
4 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:
Exactly.
Fairly sure the IFF system the L-39 uses is the Kremniy-2 system (SRO-2), whch has 12 codes to select from (same as the MiG-21bis at least, just a different interface).
But what would be good is the ability to add custom IFF transponders for aircraft, in exactly the same fashion as radios on voice chat.
Well, if IFF modes are in the works, I suppose there can be some settings for non-uniformed systems to still be usable. Most planes were not designed to operate together, as sometimes we can see on servers, but there still has to be way to let them do that - otherwise some modules would be totally useless just because their IFF systems can't talk to each other. I mean L-39 to MiG-19 and 21 - no problem. But same L-39 to F-16? Two different system architectures. And that would actually be an excluding factor, if you couldn't use your expensive module with your friends. Not some "IFF too detailed" moaning. I think though, if coalition code will be set on server/in mission, it will also be put in aircraft with preset codes - preset radio channels without manual tuning are a thing for some airplanes. And that is just one line in kneeboard "IFF channel - THAT".
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, Aries101 said:
Hello.
I recently started to fly on server where only thing on map you can ssee is map itself (whatever that mode is called lol) and suddenly IFF started to be important. Now in 90% of the time I am only jeff out there. my usual way is to put M6 on * for transmit and recive part, but that did not help with identification of any plane (or maybe I missed it). On one ocasion i did tried with code but that worked only when other jeff did came code as me .So my question is, arw there any way to setup IFF in jeff so it actualy works or it is just usless clicking on startup. Good and acurate video guide would also be helpfull if you can link some.
Thank you
F5 for Training, Compared to Mirage or L-39
in DCS: F-5E Tiger II
Posted · Edited by Fairey Gannet
Typo.
The training missions for F-5 seem a little bit more basic compared to both L-39 and Mirage 2000C, but they are competent overall, and you will get to know the plane pretty well. They lack voiceovers, if you consider that as a factor. Now, in regards to training, Mirage's campaign offers a lot in terms of practical application of what you learned. L-39 has a very competent campaign, Kursant, that ties to airmanship training as well, though you have to buy it separately.
I would say this - all basic training missions will cover all you need to know to operate your choosen plane. If you want more training scenarios, Mirage and L-39 will have an advantage over F-5, but I wouldn't say this is very telling: Mirage is more complex airframe, so you have a bit more to interact with, L-39 also has some systems F-5 lacks, mainly radionavigation systems. C-101EB/CC is very similar to Albatros in that regard, I would say - simple plane with lots to do, but also good training missions.
No module you mentioned will let you down in terms of learning it, question would rather boil down to what airframe you would like to invest your time and money into?