-
Posts
532 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Stearmandriver
-
Thanks, that's a good starting place. What I'm really after is not only spawning a unit, though, but doing so on demand and then having it come to join with me, instead of flying a preplanned route. Is that possible?
-
Hi, just wondering if anything like this has ever been made, or if anyone could point me towards where to learn how to make it myself? Basically, I'd like to have a menu option to request that a carrier (or air base) launch a tanker that starts heading my way, and then turns back towards home when within, say, a few miles of me. I know tanker position and timing can be controlled via the mission editor, but I've seen a couple times in complex missions where things don't go as planned. The most recent one was a Liberation mission to which I added an S-3 tanker from the boat to orbit about halfway home from my target. Would have worked well... but a couple AI flights decided to plug it before I got there and drained it, and it RTB'd. Barely made it back aboard. I'm aware of the excellent Moose Recovery Tanker script, but I'm imagining more of an on-demand option via the F10 menu that requests the boat or an air base to launch a backup tanker to rendezvous with me, vs just orbiting the boat or base. Anything like that exist? Too complex to be worthwhile? Thanks..
-
[NEED TRACKS] AMRAAMs - This can't be right?
Stearmandriver replied to Stearmandriver's topic in Weapon Bugs
These were AI aircraft. Range was inside 10 miles-ish on them all; I was more focused on Rne than actual miles, sorry. Altitudes varied from 15k to around 5k. I really wish I'd saved the track, but I didn't. Didn't have Tacview logging turned on either. Flew more last night and had more success, using the same tactics against MiG 29s and Flankers. Saw more hits than misses, anyway. So maybe I was just awfully unlucky the last time. It sure seemed anomalous... but my fault for not saving the track. -
[NEED TRACKS] AMRAAMs - This can't be right?
Stearmandriver replied to Stearmandriver's topic in Weapon Bugs
Close, yes, within Rne, and on hot targets. The issue was not the radar losing lock; the aircraft radar maintained STT even after the missiles missed. I don't think it would matter after the missile went active anyway, and if fired inside Rne it seems like they go active immediately. -
Flying the Hornet last night, I fired 5 120Cs, all within Rne, in STT, all with the steering dot centered. Each one went active and tracked... then missed at the very end. 5 in a row. C model 120s. I understand there's been concern about the 120 having previously been over-capable in DCS and that's certainly no fun, but... this current behavior is definitely not how the tactical pilots I know describe the real 120's performance. Is this still a WIP for the missile in general? Is it a Hornet-specific thing? Just really bad luck on my part in that fight?
-
[LATER IN EARLY ACCESS] Flight Model Update?
Stearmandriver replied to Stearmandriver's topic in Wish List
I think this is just a chart of how mach number relates to calibrated airspeed with altitude; it would be the same for any aircraft. I've seen a lot of speculation about the DCS Hornet being too draggy though, so you aren't alone there. I don't personally know how draggy a Hornet should feel, but I kind of like how she flies in general, so I'll stay out of that particular fight ;). The two things I know for sure are wrong are two things that ED has already confirmed they're fixing, and these are what I'm wondering about: 1. The balloon upon flap extension, when the FCS shifts into PA mode and pitches up hard to immediately chase on- speed AOA. That's annoying and destabilizing, but can be compensated for. 2. The fact that ground effect is modeled backwards, so that flying near the ground actually sucks you into the ground. You don't typically fly low enough to notice this, but the glaring exception is during a carrier recovery which should not involve any flare. You'll see the DCS Hornet AOA indications shift to Fast as the nose pitches down almost 5 degrees in the instant before touchdown; this almost invariably leads to the supercarrier grading you as 3ptIW, which is automatically a no-grade or cut pass. I have a suspicion it also contributes to the "eased gun" grade that is so often assigned to a Hornet pass even when there was no throttle reduction - maybe because of a rapid increase in descent rate immediately before touchdown? Not sure, but it seems related somehow. Neither of these things really affects the Hornet's ability to fly a nice 3-wire pass; the reverse ground effect is so transitory that it doesn't really have time to affect the aircraft's flight path... but it completely ruins LSO pass grading right now, on the supercarrier. It happily does not affect the Airboss script or Bankler's recovery trainer. Sure would be nice to have the normal LSO grading work correctly too, though. -
[LATER IN EARLY ACCESS] Flight Model Update?
Stearmandriver replied to Stearmandriver's topic in Wish List
Kind of odd that this got moved to the "wish list" section, isn't it? It doesn't have anything to do with me making a request for a feature... it's about a fix for a significant bug in the basic aerodynamics modeling of the Hornet, that ED themselves officially announced was coming several updates ago. I'm just wondering why it hasn't yet materialized, and when we might see it? It affects the LSO grading on the supercarrier in a pretty significant way. -
[LATER IN EARLY ACCESS] Flight Model Update?
Stearmandriver replied to Stearmandriver's topic in Wish List
Huh, several questions asked after this one have been addressed by an ED rep... did this one fall through the cracks? I'll bump it... -
Hello, ED stated a while ago now that the Hornet FM update would be coming hopefully in the next update. There have been at least a few updates to the open beta since then, and the Hornet still has the backwards ground effect bug. Is there an updated timeline on when to expect a fixed flight model?
-
Huh, his answer is odd, considering I've never seen my wingman move on a carrier deck until I do? Now other flights, yes... you'd better be as fast as the auto start sequence it starting cold or that strike flight you're supposed to be escorting will leave you in a heartbeat!
-
How to get rescue helo to stay with carrier?
Stearmandriver replied to rayrayblues's topic in DCS: Supercarrier
My only guess is that it had something to do with unit naming. The unit names don't have to match the model; you can name a unit anything you want. I'll bet if you just change your ship to the Lincoln in the ME and don't change any names at all, it'll still work. Give that a try if you want. If that DOESN'T work, then you're right, there's something weird going on. -
Ground effect is still reversed for the Hornet though; it sucks your nose down instead of reducing your descent rate... so this must be something else?
-
How to get rescue helo to stay with carrier?
Stearmandriver replied to rayrayblues's topic in DCS: Supercarrier
Just to double check, did you spawn the helo on the deck in the mission editor, and check the "late activation" box? -
The continuing qual sims we do at work often include air-start scenarios, in the interest of time. Sometimes we start on the runway, sometimes at the gate.. all depends on the goal of the session. It's not as if one session is "realer" than another, or that it's arcade. You understand there's still MASSIVE parts of a flight that you aren't performing on a desktop sim, right? This is, being honest, a game. You certainly aren't getting the real experience of planning and flying a mission. I'm not belittling anyone or arguing that you shouldn't do cold starts .. I'm merely suggesting you might extend those same courtesies to others... especially when ALL OF US are just playing a game, not actually flying anything. ;)
-
But it's just as easy for you to use the ME to change your flight to a cold start, right? The autostart sequence still eats up time for those that would rather start hot. It's obviously fine that we disagree on this, but if I'm understanding correctly, you're griping about folks that are putting time and effort into building freeware campaigns? It seems like a modicum of gratitude might not be out of line there, but lacking that, I'm not sure complaining is the way to encourage folks to make more freeware for our enjoyment. Now if you're talking about payware campaigns then I'd say you have more of a point; it's reasonable to expect a few simple options if you're paying for something.
-
I have to say, it makes me chuckle to see people cop this attitude of superiority about cold vs hot starts. Putting aside the fact that this is just a video game and it doesn't make sense to even have an opinion about how someone else plays it... think about the basic premise: supposedly, dumb noobs don't have the skills to perform a cold start, and only experienced make-believe fighter pilots can do it. ... Except, performing a cold start is literally the easiest thing one could do with one of these aircraft. It's nothing but flipping a series of switches in the correct order. In every jet I've ever flown, that was where training started, because any idiot could do that ;). Because it's the easiest, it's also the least interesting task to perform in the game, so why would you fault people for wanting to save a few minutes by skipping to more challenging stuff? This attitude has never made sense to me in the sim world...
-
Funny you say that... I think last night was the first time I refueled the Hornet behind the 135 MPRS with wake turb on (I hadn't previously realized it was off). Hardly saw a difference; felt a slight rolling moment, easily corrected. No problem plugging or staying connected. I'd already developed the habit of approaching the basket from below though, so I guess that's why. You can definitely stay out of most of the wake if you do that.
-
I came to DCS several months ago after flying the Superbug for quite a while on the old MS sim, with a crappy 5 year old $50 Thrustmaster HOTAS (I don't even remember the model). I was able to AAR after a couple practice session, but it was a chore. When I upgraded to a Warthog stick and throttle, I was astonished at how much easier this task got. What I realized after switching back and forth a few times was that the cheap old HOTAS had an unpredictable dead zone in all axes. EG, you could make a stick deflection - say to the left - and experience a 1/16in dead zone... then recenter the stick and deflect it to the left again, and experience maybe a 1/8in dead zone. Different every time, so any task that requires fine control movements was a challenge. With the Warthog (using zero curves or deadzone in the settings), it feels very natural. I'm not saying I plug on the first try *every* time, but when I don't I can tell it's my fault lol. I'm coming from years of RW formation and jet flying experience (though never both at the same time) so I'm sure I was leaning on that a lot to accomplish refueling at all, with the old stick. It's not fair to say that the solution to AAR refueling challenges is as simple as spending more money... but I'd say there is a baseline level of predictable precision in your control system that is, if strictly not required, certainly a massive help.
-
One of the best ideas I've read on here... I know what I'm gonna do this weekend!
-
landing area lights are very dim in PG
Stearmandriver replied to tifafan's topic in DCS: Supercarrier
You've gotta transition to visual cues at some point right around 3/4 of a mile. Up until recently, I had the same problem with the LA lights being almost invisible, but just tonight I noticed they're now nice and bright at 2nm (which seems to jibe with videos of real life night passes). This was on the PG map; I assumed something changed in the last couple weeks updates. Not in the Raven campaign though, but a Liberation 2.0 mission. -
[CORRECT AS IS] Litening Offset Purpose?
Stearmandriver replied to GrEaSeLiTeNiN's topic in DCS: F/A-18C
I'm trying to understand... don't these two statements contradict each other? The way I read this, you're saying the spot being lased is always the center of the pod FOV, but then saying this also works with the 65E, which is laser guided and so will always impact the lased target? -
Yup. VRS moved to this approach years ago and it works well. The time spent on Wags making a video on new features could just be spent updating a live wiki type of manual instead, and we'd have a comprehensive manual instead of content scattered all over YouTube and multiple cheat-sheat type guides by 3rd parties (which I am very grateful for btw, considering the state of official docs).
-
[ALREADY REPORTED]Refueling probe light too powerful
Stearmandriver replied to Jalava's topic in Bugs and Problems
I made a bunch of my own test missions when I switched to DCS, and when refueling the Hornet at night from the S-3, I always had a probe light if I did a cold start (and actually I started cold but used the auto-start to save time and it still worked). Light was intermittent if I did a hot start. Haven't tried since the update, but the probe light was always asininely bright for me. -
F-14 Night Can't See The Carrier Well at All
Stearmandriver replied to Rdash007's topic in DCS: Supercarrier
When I do a case 3 approach at night in clear weather, I can't see the boat (except the long range lineup system laser) until at about 2nm. I've never flown around a real carrier at night, but I've spent plenty of time flying real aircraft over oceans, and I certainly wouldn't expect to see a ship 10nm away unless it was lit up in a big way. It's DARK out there. Every photo or video I've seen of a carrier at night makes it look like they don't run flight ops while lit up like a xmas tree... which makes sense. The ICLS is intended to get you to the start, in good position, and works great. Fly the needles to 3/4nm and you'll see the boat plenty well enough to transition to the ball.