Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Dragon1-1

  • Birthday 11/24/1994

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I do like to use the autopilot when flying around. Mostly ALT HOLD, sometimes with STRG HOLD when I want the jet to fly itself, but the Viper doesn't need those too badly. I turn it off if I'm expecting trouble, though, never use AP in a combat area.
  2. Would be nice if AI could use MIDS voice. It'd be possible to boot the flight off to it and have two radios for other stuff.
  3. AFAIK, this is only for the D, and the uncage button is used to blow off the protective lens cap. TV-guided Mavs don't have it.
  4. Loved it. Sure, many things were unrealistic. Not all of them did. The gameplan was actually pretty sound for once. The TGP can't look that far back, but surprisingly enough, a modern Paveway III (which is what they used) can remember the laser's coordinates once dropped and use GPS to make up for its lack, almost like an LJDAM. Having one aircraft lase and the other drop is quite sound, too (and a good idea when you're pressed for time). Dropping PIIIs ballistically could work, if you can mash MFD buttons quickly enough to switch delivery modes while going down the slide. They still don't know what a hard deck is and a "rocks kill" means Anything that goes below hard deck is dead in a real exercise, it's not just a safety role, but a stand-in for actual ground. They still don't get that HUDs are typically monochrome. SAM scenes were pure Hollywood fantasy (not only did they use flares against a radar SAM, but the SAMs crash into the flares?). The Hornet can't do a Cobra, but it can come pretty damn close, unlike an F-14 (especially if you pull the paddle, like Mav's crew seems to be fond of doing). The Su-57 probably can do the tricks shown here. I wouldn't use asymmetric thrust in the F-14 to maneuver, but I did trap with a dead engine once. Why they aim their bombs with the FPM is anyone's guess, probably because their CCIP pipper was strangely missing (let me guess, to be patched in two or three weeks?). Hind with dual miniguns was just weird, it's cool enough with one. Weirdest thing that bugged me? TLAMs. IRL (and in DCS), these are slooooow. You launch, the op is a go, and then the fleet shoots the Tomahawks and you circle around the holding point waiting for them to get near the target so that you can push and catch up with them. Nothing capable of decent Mach numbers is gonna see them zip by like they did in the movie. Also, paddle abuse galore. IMO, having Betty whine "Flight controls!, Flight controls!" every time they pulled more than 7.5G would've been a real treat to simmers and real Hornet drivers. Unless it doesn't do that anymore in the Superbug, of course. Taxiway takeoffs... aren't unknown in DCS, either. Overall, I liked the movie. It was pretty fun, and the SFX were awesome. Could've used more realistic dogfights, now that we have better cameras and CGI to fill in the blanks. I actually like the "3D speed chess at 500kts" style of real dogfights. Growling Sidewinder videos are plenty entertaining, even if his opponents aren't quite up to his skill level (when he went up against a real pilot he got his clock cleaned, but it was really something to watch). That said, unlike the first part, I noticed they didn't actually dogfight that much. That's realistic, too, most kills here (both in training and for real) were more or less by surprise. The strikers weren't there to mess with the fighters, and for most part they didn't. Although, the backup should've probably been launched earlier, to give Su-57 something to think about other than the strikers. If they launched the whole crew, the Su-57s would've had to deal with a lot of Superbugs at once, and that's long odds even for 5th generation jets.
  5. Block 40 did have TFR, indeed, you can see the "ADV" pushbutton in our Block 52 and the flyup override switch, which are for the TFR-coupled autopilot. I don't know whether the Block 52 could be outfitted such, but it's no longer done. TFR is part of the navpod, so unless the software doesn't support it, whenever you get FLIR, you get TFR (unless you're using the export version with TFR taken out). The Tomcat, got the LANTIRN TGP just to be able to drop LGBs. The Tomcat's version was actually somewhat improved, and had to be modified to function well on its own, as opposed to working in tandem with the navpod. It's not the same pod as the Vipers and Mudhens were using.
  6. I think he meant whether SAM sites might start shooting each other's missiles down, which is a different question. Using a SAM site as artillery seems like a waste, but I suppose it could be done if it really had to. Another reason not to put SAMs close enough together that they can take out each other's missiles.
  7. IRL, you typically don't have big SAMs on both sides with overlapping WEZ like that. This would put both sites within the other side's artillery range, negating the need for SEAD/DEAD against that particular site. Just flatten it with an artillery strike. Air missions against enemy air defenses are risky, and if another way is available that involves less risk, such as artillery fire mission or a special forces raid, it would be the preferred solution.
  8. Elevation, though, should be known whenever coordinates are known. That's what maps are for. There's no excuse for having this messed up.
  9. In DCS not sure, IRL they'd certainly show up as contacts, and might entice a fighter looking for an easy kill to go after them and waste missiles. However, they do not act like an air to air threat would, so a fighter pilot could notice they aren't reacting to what he's doing and get suspicious. If VID is required, then getting an enemy fighter to waste time by getting VID on a dinky TALD would certainly be a possibility. However, if they find the launcher and lock onto it, TALDs wouldn't do anything.
  10. Also, the game mode isn't "training mode". In fact, it's very bad for actually learning the aircraft. Just jump into "sim" mode right away, the Viper is really easy to fly in reality.
  11. There's the F-15C, which a lot of people want really badly, the MiG-29 and Su-27, which are famous for their maneuverability and are interesting in that they're Russian. There's the Su-25, which FC3 owners already know. There's the Super Hornet, which had been recently boosted to cult status similar to the F-14. But yeah, big fixed wing sellers of the modern era are running out. I've been wondering myself what ED's next move will be, because don't seem to like to touch more obscure airframes. Yes, people had, obviously, bought the Viggen. It's not a big seller, though. A quick glance at SteamDB shows it at position 2798 in top sellers, despite being out for a while. Viper is 859 and Tomcat is 946. I love the Viggen, but most never heard of it. Even the F-5 sells a little better.
  12. Their sales numbers actually prove it. The original argument was that F-4 isn't gonna be a big earner like modern jets such as the F-16. MiG-21 was even quoted earlier in the thread in having, over its much longer lifetime, fewer sales than the Viper. Granted, there are quality issues with it (and with Sabrejet, too), but Viggen doesn't have that excuse, and yet it isn't exactly the most bought module, despite being made by HB and of top quality. Again, it wasn't about "properly appreciating a module". It was about buying it. It's not immediately obvious that modern US fighter design, and the air combat doctrine, basically started with the F-4. Those who know a thing or two about air combat, and its history, will be lining up to buy it, but it'll be a much harder sell to anyone else.
  13. In other words, stuff read by people already heavily enough into combat airplanes to invest in literature on the subject? Thanks for proving my point. Which, I shall remind you, was that people below that level wouldn't know what makes the Phantom so notable, unlike the Viper or the F-14.
  14. No, you control them from the DLC thumb wheel. Flap lever stays up.
  15. You're overestimating the impact of its service in other countries, most of which was spent in the shadow of more capable aircraft. Sure, it's got fans, but not quite as many as other aircraft. You're one yourself, which colors your view quite a bit. Israel is small and has a unique way of doing thing, and in Germany it was reduced to Wild Weasel role after newer designs showed up. For most part, the US view dominates, and the Phantom was long eclipsed by newer designs. You need to get quite deep into these things to find that out. And yes, F-4 drivers did, in fact, create the modern energy-maneuverability theory and most of the modern energy tactics repertoire, which was particularly important in the Phantom, as just trying to pull your nose after the MiGs didn't quite work. In the USAF, continuity of dogfight training was lost, and this resulted in having to effectively reinvent air combat training. The "popular knowledge", however, is that the F-4 was a troubled design that later got patched up. It isn't that famous as a naval bird, either. The first thing about it that most people think of is the USAF F-4D in Vietnam-era camo. The other exploits of the Phantom are significantly more obscure.
  • Create New...