Fairey Gannet
-
Posts
153 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Fairey Gannet
-
-
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Even the Hornet’s cockpit looks outdated compared to today's standards…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.
-
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.
-
5
-
-
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.
-
I had similar issue, MP, Caucasus. After flipping battery - no power. It happened some 3 or 4 times, and I can't remember exact loadouts, but I am sure some of them were A/A and some A/G. However, I just walked around that by connecting ground power - that solved the issue. I can't be really sure, though, if my problem wasn't on server's side.
-
11 hours ago, YoYo said:
February and THIS, nearest Friday will be very ok I suppose
!
That would be really nice!
-
Thank you, kind sir! For me every DCS plane is partially a pretext to dive into original documents, doctrine and history of technology.
-
2
-
-
On 2/17/2021 at 12:47 PM, some1 said:
I have a Polish MiG-19 manual
Do you have it in digitalised version, perhaps? And if so, I hope it would not be a problem to ask, how perhaps I could obtain it?
I would gladly have that one in my MiG-19 source library.
-
F-13 would be a nice bird to have, but it would be hard to fully enjoy it - it is short range, good weather only, no radar beyond rangefinding, cannon with 60 rounds and so on. PFM on the other hand would be tricky without an internal gun. I mean gunpod is there with 200 rounds, but there is a price to pay in drag. That being said, I would love to have earlier 21, with its all quirks and limitations, whatever the version. Personally, the earlier, the better.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Blackjack_UK said:
I'd agree...but can we trust someone named after an aeroplane that didn't fly - it was so ugly that the ground repelled it?
(It was bloody effective, despite that, and gloriously eccentric in the way only a British invention could be)
You can, trust me. If I would, say, introduced myself as Hawker Hunter, Supermarine Attacker or good old Spit, you could think, "Ah yes, tasteful bast...", and in post-Greek fashion we connect truth and beauty on cognitive level. See, that would be a horrible deception, as I also would be Gannet - a cry of children. Mothers covering eyes. Icecream falling on sidewalk. Irish passing the bar. "The horror! The horror!"
Back to the topic, regarding HOTAS this time - I myself used T.One for a long time, and it is viable to fly planes like Viggen, Mirage of Jeff with it. You will be light on buttons, but there are ways around it. I am thinking about moving up to T1600 now, but I fly over 3 years now - I think I got my value out of this piece. If you can go for T1600 from the start, by all means, go for it, it good value to quality ratio. I started personally with T-One, because I was reluctant to spend large amount of money up-front. Now I have some experience, so I know what I would like to improve, what functions I use and where I find my HOTAS lacking. Instead of buying more expensive one, I opted to buy cheap rudder pedals, that turned out to be better choice for me. I would say both are good starting kits, though if you want to fly helos, I would strongly suggest buying rudder pedals. They can be even steering wheel ones, if you will buy an adapter - driving helo with twisting grip is not very fun.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, AeriaGloria said:
I don’t think WMD-7 is G limited in any way. One patch when jammer broke I had fun using it to lock onto people at 20nm, turn my radar off, notch them and see exactly when they fire a missile. It was a lot of fun and didn’t limit maneuverability
Though I forget about rockets….
I was thinking about rockets in this case, I forgot to clarify that. But either way, 2.8 G should not break anything.
-
4 hours ago, Littlefloor said:
I am in a similar dilemma; at the moment it seems a bit too expensive top models until I master all the charms of the DCS world, so I think maybe the MiG-21 or Mirage 2000, as some serious start.
Hello!
Mirage 2000C is a fine module, a very fun to fly and to operate. It requires some attention in use, but it is solid early 4th generation plane - easy to use, moderate to master, hard not to fall in love with. If you want something similar, but more modern, I would say go for JF-17. Yes, it is very modern, but I would say it is even easier and more intuitive to learn, even with more capability and weapons to master. I love MiG-21, and that plane will teach you much, but I would not recommend it as a starter. Both planes are good starting options, and with both you will have a blast.
-
1
-
-
Hello,
Same problem here, after some shots with BRM-1, rockets just stopped to hit the designated targets. I used target marked with point track, laser set to auto, so it would not overheat, max. G recorded was 2.8 (I tried not to over-G stores). Launch parameters met. After few passes hits stopped.
-
2 hours ago, YSIAD_RIP said:
Well Said! I would like to add: DCS Module-Whisperer!
Chuck /tʃʌk/ - also possibly known as Chook, Chak or Tshak. Origin of the name is unclear, usually translated as "Gift of the gods" or "Celestial Father". Identified as sky deity or sky father figure, similar to Proto-Indo-European Dyeus, Iranian Asman or Thracian Sabazios. His associated animal is an owl (See: Athena). Earliest known inscriptions regarding Chuck as atmospheric deity date back to Early Warbird Period, and are consistent through Jet Age up to late 4th Generation (See: 4++ Generation). The known titles compose of: Ascended Tutor, Shepherd of Virtual Pilots, Wing-Giver, Qual-Bestower, Module-Whisperer*, He-Who-Feeds-With-Knowledge, God-King of Flight and Skymaster (list incomplete, citation needed). Worshippers are known to perform orans pose over compilation of holy scriptures, collectively known as "Chuck's Guides" (can be translated also as "Chuck's Wisdom" or "Celestial Tacan") and exclaim short prayer ("Thank heavens for Chuck!") as a form of praise and gratitude (See: "Mudspike ritual"). Letters DCS are probably acronym composed of (D)yeus (C)huck (S)en, meaning "Old Sky-God Chuck" (citation needed).
Myths of Chuck consistently portray him as benevolent figure, that saw peoples desire for flight - and their sadness originating in lack of skill, knowledge and understanding (See: Icarus). Chuck, understanding that passion (See: Prometheus) composed set of scriptures, not only bestowing knowledge to people, but thorough understanding of principles of flight and ways of practical application (See: Otto Lilienthal, Wright Brothers). Those following the way of Chuck value camaraderie, sharing knowledge and experience, regardless of race, sex, gender, cultural or ethnical background. Chuck's ties to the golden age of the Franco-Belgian comic are unclear (See: Mirage, Uderzo).
*YSIAD_RIP, https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/113608-chucks-dcs-tutorial-library/page/41/#comment-4886033, 2022
-
2
-
-
I will be just happy to buy Macchi and F1. MiG-23 is on bucket list, but I dont think it will roll out anytime soon - if I am wrong, that will be welcomed suprise. It would be really cool to see some core engine upgrades, but I am cautious to rise my hopes up.
-
I think at this point we can call Chuck Ascended Tutor, Shepherd of Virtual Pilots, Wing-Giver, Qual-Bestower, and start a cult, rites, sacrifices and ritual burials included. Thank you, kind sir.
-
6
-
-
Hello!
Before you will make your purchase, I would suggest trial periods for modules that you find interesting - it is a great deal and helps you make an educated choice.
As for FC3 modules, I would highly recommend checking out them in contrast to high fidelity ones. For me, high fidelity modules were easier to learn. Sure, much more complicated. But I am better with remembering switches, procedures and cockpit layouts than keybinds. So check what you find easier to both study and enjoy. As for mastering one plane and then moving on - yes, for a start I think that can be easier. Later on the differences will be less pronounced for you, even if your planes will differ vastly in parameters and role. But truth be told, you can fly a bunch of planes and still be good with them. Again, for me it was easier to rotate 2-3 modules, learn differences between their handling and operation. Depends on person, I guess. Luckily, you can try all approaches and take the best one for you.
Tip: take-off, navigation, landing - rain, shine or dead of night. Weapons can wait.
-
On 1/30/2022 at 3:35 PM, -Rudel- said:
Great. Could you perhaps sell technicolour upgrade somewhere down the line?
-
2 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:
I’d prefer a Zero instead of yet another allied aircraft … hope ED will do it while there still is a flyable example:
Well, Zero is must have to actually use any allied planes in Pacific anyway.
My guess is Corsair is being developed without counterpart, because it was used in Korea, so for now it can find some use out of the box. Any follow-up on Far East WWII will need for at least Zero. And ton and a half of AI assets.
-
19 minutes ago, Bozon said:
Exactly. The Hellcat was a perfect balance between performance, carrier capability, cost, and ease of production. Really, a master-piece of a well rounded design.
Vought on the other hand tended to suffer a classic case of "best is the enemy of good". You can see that in both F4U Corsair and F-8 Crusader - Vought produced top notch fighters, except that they were supposed to be carrier fighters and not land based fighters. Both were not great around the boat which led to a large number of accidents, low servicibility, and the F4U was not even cleared for carriers before most of the war was over and they didn't matter any more.
Grumman on the other hand designed the Hellcat with "just enough" performance - because once you have a fighter that dominates the skies, an even better fighter makes little difference. What does makes a difference during a war is producing a lot of these fighters and fast! The Hellcat cost was almost half as much as a Corsair. Grumman were producing them at a rate of about 300 a month on average. At times they achieved double that rate - this means enough planes to equip a full new squadron every 2 days, or less! The performance concessions made the Hellcat A LOT better around the boat, and a lot more reliable than the Corsair.
The result of the above was that although the F4U started flying long before the Hellcat (from land bases), by the time the Corair had its issues ironed out and made carrier capable, the US Navy was already full of Hellcats that completely won the dominance in the skies. Being the best is not enough - you have to be there when the battle happens! and hence the huge differene in the kill counts in favor of the Hellcat, inspite of being "inferior" in performance to the Corsair. As a land-based fighter the Corsair beats the Hellcat and is a good contender to the top of the WWII list, except that this was not the requirement.
Grumman by the way fell for the same trap with the F8 Bearcat - its was too good, too late, too complicated, lacked the Hellcat's perfect balance, and at the time it was available didn't really answer any need. Cool plane though.
I would not say that myself better. Thank you. This leads to my favourite Pacific theatre fighter - the Wildcat. It was there since beginning, carried USN through toughest fights and was good match for an enemy. When F6F's and F4U's arrived, it wasn't phased out, in fact it was updated with FM-2 variant, and formed backbone of escort carriers flight decks. And that says something. Not to mention foolproof design, that went out of production alongside with more capable F6F. I guess enemy didn't really introduced that many new designs and in serious numbers, so F4F's could stick around.
As for Bearcat - it was new direction for Grumman, high quality and expensive plane. That idea with explosives to shear off wingtips was a bit too much though on the weight saving front.
-
18 hours ago, Cab said:
Granted. But I already used "long" for the body.
How about, "prominent" nose?
I am afraid "prominent" doesn't reflect magnitutude of situation here.
What we have is a weaponized anteater-grade snout. How about "looming"?
Back to the topic - I always liked F6F a bit more over Corsair, I am not sure why, though. From an engineering standpoint, Hellcats production was an interesting process, where demand for high quality, high volume and low price were mixed together - and with success.
-
Interesting question. I would say, that regardless of age and tech level, information would be the most essential power. That is one of few shared qualities between modern 5th gen fighter, chariot dating back to the Battle of Kadesh and the battery of 75 mm Schneiders. Every branch has its role to fill, and the nature of operation will affect dominant strategy of using them. Rarely you can use them interchangeably - cruise missile won't make artillery obsolete, as well as air power won't cancel out navy nor armour. There were ideas stressing various aspects of military more than others, Douhet can serve as an example of failure here. I guess military branches are tools, and (modern) battlefield is complex problem to solve and fix. Sure, depending on problem you will use this or that more, but it is not a reason to throw away the rest. Next puzzle to solve will probably need something else. Regardless, you probably want to know stuff, so I would lean to information.
-
2 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:
I consider damage modeling and structural failure modeling to be inextricably tied together.
Well, I hope they would be inextricably tied together.
Damage to the structure should influence its structural failures.
They don't seem to work that way right now at the moment. Again, maybe someday.
I also recall the warbirds receiving the new and " improved " damage modeling.
Disappointing so far, to say the least.
I hope the warbirds are still being worked on 'cause they are certainly not finished WRT damage modeling.
I would love to fly DCS warbirds again PvP.
I don't own any props in DCS, just Cold War vacuum cleaners, so I can't speak about DM model from my experience, sadly. And I don't know much about DM modeling, like you said though - damage model probably is tied with structural. That makes sense. All I could really gather is what I posted. If I can speculate, combining all of that, I would come to the following conclusion: F-5 will be reworked, including PBR, textures and model. Those probably will be tied to mentioned damage model to the jets - it makes sense to do 3D work with new ways of falling apart in mind. Since DM model will affect AI airplanes as well, new AI FM will have to incorporate that. Besides that, F-5 cockpit is still looking decent, but fresh coat of paint won't hurt. I didn't stumbled upon anything else regarding F-5. In one interview with Waggs, he stated, that F-5 is one of their favourites and there is intention to revisit it at some point. Will those changes be considered "revisiting", or perhaps some more serious upgrades, like radar/RWR will be included - remains to be seen.
-
5 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:
I sincerely hope you are right.
However, the damage modeling in DCS warbirds is godawful bad.
Not the structural failure modeling.
I never really encountered any issues along those lines in the warbirds.
Other aspects are game-breaking bad.
The 475th is, historically, a WWII Fighter Group both in reality and virtually.
We gave up on DCS warbirds because of the damage modeling issues.
I would love to believe everything about DCS damage modeling is a work in progress and someday soon it will all be corrected to something resembling reality.
Ever hopeful.
Yes, I didn't said precisely if it will be damage model or structural failure modeling, but that is because I don't know that. I only remember, that in some interview upgrade to DM was mentioned - first for warbirds and then for hairdryers. And it is on Silver Dragon's roadmap as "on progress", some time by now in fact. As for interview - I can misremember, and if I said something not true to facts - no ill will here, just plain stupid.
But I think I got it right - damage model for WW2 was released with 2.5.6 version in 2020, now jets are being worked on.
-
9 minutes ago, Sir Gus said:
With the release of SU-30 MOD we saw the new Astra missiles in action and they are superb.
Since the real Mirage 2000 will get the Astra missiles in the near future,will we also get them in DCS,
for our Mirages in the future?
And,any news for a -5 Mirage version?
Thank you for reading.
I don't think that India is using C variant - H, TH upgraded to -5 Mk.2, for sure. I don't know if Mirage 2000C could even be upgraded to work with such a missile.
-
1
-
[FIXED] JF-17 Laser Problem
in Fixed Bugs
Posted
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.