Zpigman
-
Posts
81 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Zpigman
-
-
21 hours ago, LucShep said:
Yes, and it's a fair point.
Let me be clear, I'll support whatever decision by the devs, regardless of my opinion in the matter.That said...
I think depriving this module of air-to-air missiles is not the best solution. It's of importance for how the module would be used and enjoyed.
It's understood that only modified "F" versions would be able to use the K-13 (R-3/R-3S) but surely it happened at some point (conversions or "upgrades"), air-to-air missiles were not restricted to other versions such as the AS or PM.As someone who wants this module to succeed (in its quality, and its subsequent popularity), I feel a bit concerned it might make curious people look at the DCS MiG-17F module like it's "just a hot-rodded MiG-15 with radar gun-sight, same limited A-A functionality" and dismiss it, which is not fair either to the module or its creators.
Complete and accurate documentation is certainly a usual requirement for the foundation of any DCS modules systems but, sometimes, some liberties should be allowed (and always are somewhere in the creation of any module, but I digress), to make the aircraft believable enough for what it is supposed and expected to do.
Should the early K-13 (R-3 and later R-3S) "Atoll" missile lock and launch systems applied on the MiG-17F, be like an iteration of what's in the F-86 module? (being mostly developed over a reverse engineered AIM-9B) ....or, instead, of what's in the MiG-19P module? I really don't know that far.
My guess is the devs are in the know and have already been well into this but, perhaps the best idea is to dig into the K-13 full story, as it may lead to how it all came down to be, how it was initially used in the MiG-17 models (including the "F"?), also in the forces or conflicts where the aircraft was involved?
Unfortunately that may lead into a rabbit hole of books and documentation (of which I confess having none atm).Some very quick search examples from the interweb may give some pointers for that:
- https://en.missilery.info/missile/r3c
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-13_(missile)
If the Cuban data could be found legally I am sure that there would be some intrest with the devs in creating what is needed for them to utilize them, maybe a slight change that only is implemented when you have missiles attached. I don't know how good that would be though. The 17 we seem to be getting also appears to be heavily suited to air to ground combat than the mig 15.
-
On 7/19/2023 at 2:17 AM, LucShep said:
This is an easy day one buy for me
the Mig-17 is my all-time favorite eastern aircraft.
I was hoping also for the AS version, but just the F version is mighty fine.
I don't think I've seen it listed here but the F was also capable of using the K-13A missiles (reverse engineered copies of the AIM-9B).
Hopefully these will be included as available armament in the module as standard.
One request I'll do right away to the devs is, to please bring status updates to these forums, and/or to the official RSR website.
Facebook is an utter blight and too many won't ever go there.The problem I believe is that the devs don't have access to accurate documentation as to how the k-13 and other missiles were implemented into the aircraft. Examples would be: How was the weapon selected, How long do you have to hold the release button before launch (think mig 19 vs 21), Is there changes to the armament panel or any other panel, etc. Until they can find that documentation I don't think they could add it into DCS even if they wanted to.
-
On 6/4/2023 at 6:40 AM, Bremspropeller said:
Having seen a MiG-17F perform at Tico Airshow 2016 made me think about one of the comments of a Have Drill participant - paraphrasing: "The turning capability of this aircraft has to be seen live, to believe it".
I'm kind of also hoping to see the AS with the R-3S down the line.
Unless someone gets data from the Cubans on their as models, I don't think there is much we can do about it. And it isn't R-3s missiles it is K-13. Wish it was posible but I think they only had access to a lim-5. Would love to know what the as cost and changes affiliated with the missiles was.
-
26 minutes ago, Kalasnkova74 said:
Allowing for the fact it’s a mod, it flies and operates pretty close to what I’ve read about hard wing Phantoms. Note that because it lacks the slats and updated horizontal stabilizers of the F-4E , the F-4C /F-4B mod will turn poorly relative to the F-4E.
Correct, but the overall flight performance will be a much larger help in terms of learning manuvering and aircraft handling. The jump to the slats should feel more like jumping from the 14A to the 14B in terms of understanding. The radar will also be different, and I don't think it has an AI back seater so that won't be as polished. I think in terms of learning habits that will kill you, you could do worse. Like I said though I need to actually fly it to see, earlier renditions had lots of problems.
-
VSN just updated their Phantom II B/C mod to include a cockpit, if your looking for building points of references during fights, haven't flown it out yet but am eager to try it later today.
-
Legendary.
-
1
-
-
She is talking about blades that are technically under the air intake. This was done, because the air intake wasn't attached to the skin of the aircraft to correct bounded (I believe that is the term) air from entering the engine. The problem is when taking a barricade, the thin straps would go between the two parts of the aircraft ripping the intake off and 100% destroying the aircraft. The solution is the blades that you find meant to cut the barricade and maintain the structure of the aircraft.
-
2
-
2
-
-
9 minutes ago, Manhorne said:
I know that museum has no Phantom on Display .But there is an F-4D (airfram # 64-0972) on a pedestal at that airport for the ND ANG unit there 119th. Wing. They did fly Phantoms from 1977 to 1990 as part of Air Defense Command.(That is the paint scheme the phantom in the pic is in)....
Correct, Like I said it was there for a special event in 2010. Not sure where it went after that, I may be able to ask some extended family who live in the area. and you are correct, it is the Happy Hooligans 119th ANG regiment. Sadly they no longer fly fighters, but times change. I need to do more research into where the current plane is, I was too young to know what an airframe number was at the time.
-
1 hour ago, Czechnology said:
What museum?
Can't remember/don't know where it is currently but last I saw it was at Fargo's air museum (special event ergo why I don't know where it currently is), it was a William Tell competition aircraft. As of 2010 it was still flyable, once again not sure if it still is, I live 800ish miles away.
Bellow is not the actual aircraft but an example of how it is painted.
-
I want an F-4D simply because my family has a history with that aircraft including one with their name on it in a museum.
-
5 hours ago, grant977 said:
Use voice technology to make it Robin Olds back from the fighter pilots paradise…
Let the man relax in paradise...
-
Personally want to see an air-start/power cart hooked up and disconnected with the appropriate commands. I want to see the scramble bomb started engines. Icing and fogging would be cool to see what with new modules developing that, engine modeling is the biggest one for me. We will most likely see the later version first and would love to see their beat-up texturing job that heatblur is known for in these old aircraft. The RIO/WISO/GIB is big too and how the radar system is modeled from a user's perspective. I also want to see the rwr be of the classic phantom type that would have been you hearing the prf frequencies surrounding you. IFF would be cool, but I also love the British phantom way of sticking a big tank scope out the side of the aircraft to visually id targets. I think what is going to make or break the module is the community itself and how it adopts the module.
-
4
-
-
12 minutes ago, upyr1 said:
The odds of me buying multiple modules of the same aircraft depend on the aircraft, price and what is included.
Exactly, I think that it is not a bad idea and certainly better than not getting anything from a buyer's perspective. I know a lot of people want certain versions of planes that their homes use, and this may be a way to get the ones they want. Nothing would be set in stone, but it could very well be cheap vs expensive for if they have to mess with the flight model at all for a version or if it is a new cockpit with slightly different controls.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:
You would, but I wonder how many DCS users actually would do the same .. I enjoy variants when they are for free, like the C-101EB and CC .. but I'd rather spend my money on completely new aircrafts instead of spending it on a variant of an aircraft I already have.
It depends on what you do with it. I tend to be the person using outdated aircraft and having fun running around trying to kill modern aircraft. Even in the group of people I play with they all perfer newer aircraft, that I can't gamble on a notch and recommit to beat. Having the ability to cary a modern missile is nice so I can at least close a gap. The feel of the old jets flight characteristics is what I like. I don't know what other people think about these now. This was just to get people thinking of it and am glad that people are even responding to the topic.
-
22 hours ago, upyr1 said:
Heatblur made the F-14A GR-95 free as part of their F-14 module as well as at least two Phantoms, the Eurofighter Typhon.
Correct, the variant pricing you and I are talking about is basically there to offset the costs of additional development. Granted my example wasn't the best. I posted this to at least get some thoughts on it out there. I would totally buy both the old and modernized versions of aircrft for use.
-
13 hours ago, upyr1 said:
I have been suggesting what I called variant pricing. The basic problem with variants of existing modules is the risk you will get diminishing returns. So the idea was to encourage developers to develop and price variants based on how much the code overlaps.
Correct, it also depends on how much code can be re-used from other projects. An example was if ed made the f-4f they can reuse the code for the f-18 radar that the latter model F received. It is a game of balances, but it may open the way to streamline module coding so that if you don't want x version you can just have the versions you want, hopefully taking up less disk space. I can definitely understand the risk of diminishing returns, so you would have to be careful of what versions you want to do.
-
1 minute ago, Rudel_chw said:
Actually, that only determines the raw development cost … to be able to determine the price, the developer would have to estimate how many licenses would be sold … only then you can begin to have an idea of what the price would be (as it still a profit has to be added to the raw cost). I’m not sure how many users would want a Lancer enough to purchase it, for example I own the current MiG-21 bis, but I have no interest on a Lancer.The lancer was just used as an example of what could be done. The f-4f and other 120 slinging sub variants would also be examples. The idea is the framework itself where a separate sub data pack could be sold that allows for the main development staff to focus on the main branch aircraft then the smaller aircraft they can have smaller teams work on if needed or sub out work to other people. Think a-10c and a-10c tank killer.
-
I was looking at the Heatblur f-4 forum and found an idea I really like in terms of potential function. In talking about the ability for the Phantom to carry aim-120s there was discussion over what was more important to 3rd party developers, and what they need to focus on more. It was during this that the f-16 Sufa mod was brought up an an idea took root.
What if there is an ability to have 3rd party developers create add on dlc that can be bought independently of a full module (price to be determined by how much needs changed/added). An example perfect for this would be the MiG-21 bis already in game where people have been wanting a Lancer versions for years. What this would do is add a data pack containing the additional or rewritten code allowing for a separate purchase of an upgraded Lancer if you already have the bis.
I am not sure how the coding would have to be done for this level of modularity, but it lets companies create highly requested sub variants without having to massively change the entire module that the aircraft are based on. One of these packs (again for the Lancer as example) might have different weapon data allowing it to use more modern missiles, a new 3d cockpit to match what is modern, and finally some new skins specific to the new version. The idea is to make it have a cost to the end user so that they can get specific to what they want and the developers can do the main important aircraft that bring them the big money.
Please let me know your thoughts on this idea below.
-
11 hours ago, ustio said:
IMO we are almost reaching the limit on the type of modern aircraft they can make and most of the well known 3rd gen aircraft are already taken by 3rd party dev so sooner or later they have to go for add on Variants(even Razbam are going to do this with their Harrier and M2000).
Regarding to SUFA i think it would sell well if they sell as an add on type DLC instead of seperate module simply because, it's a 2 seat F-16, more weapons(having 360 python missile would be fun), it can fill a stand in role for Turkish, Greece, UAE F-16.
Now Mr.Finke from truegrit was an F-4F ICE pilot that can Carried amraam before he fly the typhoon. So if its going for amraam F-4 its going to be that and i would believe it would sell well and i would love it too
However with that being said, if we take a step back and look at HB development, we still have yet to get AI draken, AI A-6 which was already teased, and 2 tomcats variant on top of the typhoon they are making. So i doubt we'll be seeing any other variant other than E and navy one
This Idea is actually really cool and a good way to open up the game to more aircraft types. having a cheaper dlc that adds some specialized or slightly different version of an aircraft to the sim. I honestly wouldn't mind if this becomes a thing where you could down the line buy an f-4f or terminator for 20-25 USD and run those in game.
I can agree though that Heatblur has other more pressing things on their plate than making these micro changes dlc.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Raviar said:
The project failed on both launching HAWK missile and R-27
Didn't they manage to down one aircraft with the modified HAWK missiles though? Pretty sure it was a French aircraft (can't remember which one), had to use multiple missiles because at least one was a dud and never tracked anything.
-
On 5/22/2022 at 6:13 AM, Redwing_204 said:
Could you post a tacview showing a 60 nm kill with the phoenix fired at angels 25? That's not at all my current experience with those missiles. At angels 30 or higher, and flying at better than Mach 1, I'm seeing the kill range closer to 35 nm. Below about angels 28, the phoenix seems to bleed speed very quickly from what I've seen. I'd be grateful if you'd post a tacview so that I can see your 60 nm kills with the phoenix fired at altitudes below angels 30 in particular (but frankly any kill at 60 nm with the phoenix right now would be interesting to see).
Sadly, I don't have any tacviews of that as I don't use tacview. The shot at around 25 had me pitching up quite a bit and at time of launch about (started launch sequence at 60nm) 55nm. The target was an Ace level Mig-29, that upon pit-bull of missile went into a hard (his left) righthand notch and ended up outlasting the missiles battery just barely. The 2nd missile I fired at 45-50nm (don't remember which) was able to reach out and hit him, hovering around mach 1. Keep in mind this is all single player A.I testing with the Aim-54 mk47.
-
I have done some simple shooting in the 14, and have noticed that the 54As are doing much better in guidance. I was firing at ranges of 55-60nm at angels 25-30, shooting at targets above and below. What I have seen is that I am able to reach out to the targets no problem, even at lower altitude, and that I haven't been having any of the guidance issues I have had in the past. Is this from new from the latest update or something else?
-
On 2/2/2022 at 11:09 AM, WhiteRabbit said:
Welcome to the club, Mike. I fly almost exclusively as a RIO and it's a totally different flight sim experience from anything else I've done.
I've built a few custom button boxes/enclosures, and I have the excellent CAP input panel from TekCreations on Etsy. I highly recommend it.
I have an armament panel that includes Next Launch, Phoenix Active/Sparrow PD, Launch, and tank/weapons jettison, as well as some AWG-9 functions from the left side of the DDD (MLC, Target Size, Aspect). It's something I'd like to put up for sale but haven't gotten around to it.
My armament panel up top, TekCreations CAP panel on the bottom:
I also have a center console with mode and DDD range buttons and a warthog stick + HCU selection buttons (DDD, TID, RDR, ICS), and it has a built in monitor for a TID/DDD repeater. That one needs some refinement before I could sell a version of it.
Here's the center console mounted on a folding cockpit frame (made to fit in a 22" wide closet!) with the TekCreations panel. The pit is interesting to fly in - from the numbers I have it's close to the dimensions of a real Tomcat cockpit and it's very tight:
TID and DDD in action, with the CAP panel all lit up:
Karon, that setup really is sick, and I love your site! I've got your kneeboard pages printed and inserted into a real kneeboard I strap to my leg. Very dorky but surprisingly helpful.
Man I can wish, used to do only f14 RIO for a long time; nowadays I am being pushed into pilot, but I want that center console and armaments button box so bad. That frame you have is also awesome and something I need to look into making too. And now with the f-4 coming out I want to build an f-4 based simpit because I will probably never fly anything but that and an f16 again.
-
On 1/27/2022 at 8:43 PM, streakeagle said:
Check out the laser scan of an RF-4: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II - 3D model by Raiz (@RaizVR) [65e172a] (sketchfab.com)
Don't have the software, but I may be able to get some measurements of the parts and then use a British site for the f4j's panels and size them correctly.
DCS MiG-17 Interview on Enigma - Know What to Expect
in DCS: MiG-17F
Posted
I think in the video what we are seeing is him pulling back on the stick. I believe he was going too fast and the nose coming off the ground was from him pulling back. The initial touchdown had no real bounce, but the rollout after did.