Jump to content

Fairey Gannet

Members
  • Posts

    149
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Fairey Gannet

  1. 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. 

  2. 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! 

  3. 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.

    • Like 2
  4. 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.

    • Like 5
  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.

  6. 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. 

    • Like 3
  7. 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". 😉

  8. 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.

  9. 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. 🙂

  10. 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.

  11. 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!)

  12. 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. 🙂

     

    • Like 3
  13. 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 Pro

    If 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. 

  14. 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.

    • Like 1
  15. 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. 🙂 

    • Like 2
  16. 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". 

    • Like 1
  17. 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

     

  18. 7 hours ago, Torbernite said:

    In fact I found two updates downloaded in steam but only one changelog. I thought these might be a hotfix and a normal update, but this bug is not fixed yet. It seems that we have to wait for next BIG update.

    I don't think we will have to wait that long - I play Open Beta, and despite today's update, my version didn't chaged at all. I only had notification about stable release. 

  19. 20 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

    Indeed: technology keeps moving forward, and the F-14 set a new bar for DCS.

    Even the Hornet’s cockpit looks outdated compared to today's standards…

    Hah, that is true! Something tells me, though, it wasn't really ready back then. It has been 4 years, well 3,5. If MAC didn't surfaced during that period... Well, MAC trailer video is locked away, I think that speak volumes. Personally though, I am more interested in technical changes (regardless of module), like radar simulation, IFF codes, FM's etc.

  20. I just don't really see much point in debating this topic. IFF is a real thing, though now it is simplistic in representation. It should be high fidelity, IFF is pretty important. When more detailed, code will be another entry on your kneeboard sheet (same way as coords for INS alignment or other variable data), and setting it up is as complicated as setting TACAN. Some servers have "Simple communications" option, adding the same option for an IFF can't be that much of a problem - both mechanics exist as of now. 

    I don't really understand an issue here. DCS strives to replicate reality as close as possible. Yes, there are simplifications, reasons of those may vary from lack of data to hardware constraints, studio manpower or obligations or simply in the works, but not out yet. In that formula, every change that is bringing DCS closer to simulated reality is good, we like it or not. I am against gatekeeping or elitism, it leads nowhere. And on server/mission level there are concessions that can be made for not-so hardcore players. I respect them - after all even "simplified" DCS flying is pretty damn complex anyway.

    Besides, IFF M1, 2 and 3 are listed as "on progress" in DCS: Roadmap thread. Good, that means modules like L-39 will be reworked, as that one, for example, has non-clickable IFF panel.

    • Like 5
  21. On 1/28/2022 at 7:12 PM, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

    ED has MAC underway, which includes the F-5. They can't possibly afford to release a new product with obsolete graphics and a cockpit geometry that's wrong in VR. This has been stated before in previous threads about this topic.

    Also, ED stated themselves they will do exactly that (I believe it was in either the 2020 or 2021 roadmap).

    Yeah, I suspect that many of an older ED modules will be upgraded simultaneously with MAC release, in terms of graphics, models cockpit geometry. I guess that is the reason for lack of visual upgrades since last 5 years - I remember MAC's trailer stating "This autumn!" back in 2018. 😛 Though if those visuals were ready back then, now they need overhaul anyway.

×
×
  • Create New...