Jump to content

Dragon1-1

Members
  • Posts

    3876
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Dragon1-1

  1. 2 hours ago, shagrat said:

    some majestic peaks with snow covered tops rivaling the Himalaya.

    They aren't rivaling the Himalayas, they are Himalayas. Just not the part people usually think of when they hear the name (that is, the central part where Mount Everest is). The proper name of that part is Hindu Kush Himalayan Region. While slightly less tall, it's no less spectacular, although the best part is on Afghanistan's eastern border. I presume they started with the Western part to ensure they'll have the time they'll need to do those mountains justice (although making Kabul will be quite a task, too).

    This is one map I'm really looking forward to, although like with others, I'll probably end up waiting for actual campaigns for it to show up, since I fly in SP only. 

  2. This is probably related to emergency situations when those restrictions are not fulfilled. If your flaps are broken, or the IFLOLS is, or you're laterally unbalanced for whatever reason, you can still trap, you just have to lose some pounds. It's important on the boat because generally, you'll only dump only so much fuel as to be at max trap when coming into the groove. Nobody is going to be dumping an extra 1000lbs of gas without a good reason. In fact, as a rule of thumb, if you're flying a healthy jet with no issues, your max trap is 34K. That's what I've heard in a video made by an actual Hornet driver. The unrestricted numbers are for when you have to go outside the normal way of doing it.

  3. That's about what you should expect when setting up for a mission there, too. I also expect the same people who say it's a "desert map" to load the Apache up with full shells, 8 Hellfires, rockets and the radar, then attempt a vertical takeoff. Nu-uh, you're not going up today. 🙂 Checking your performance tables is going to be important even for fixed wing, since while their ability to fly is somewhat less affected, the takeoff roll can get long in these conditions.

  4. 3 hours ago, shagrat said:

    Me! Especially if it is Afghanistan...

    FYI, Afghan isn't actually a desert map. 🙂 People are going to be so surprised when they find that out...

    I can also foresee a flood of complaints from those who load their helos like a flying armory, go flying in an Afghan summer and then realize the helo feels like it is stuck to the ground (especially the Hind, which routinely used a runways to take off when flying heavy in the region). Or that they can't set QFE because the dial doesn't go that high. Afghanistan is mountains, people! 

    • Like 1
  5. 3 hours ago, Bigounet said:

    Who wants to buy a desert map after Persian Gulf, Sinai, Nevada and Syria (same for the upcoming Australia)?

    We have enough deserts, that's true. Which is why we're getting Afghanistan. 

    No, it's not a desert. It's an arid mountainous region with some downright gorgeous views. Afghanistan is pretty, although it can also look pretty beige depending on the season. 

  6. Well, we'll be able to shoot the M4, so we could definitely have that once Kiowa comes out. 🙂 I hope they'll make it work well in VR, too.

    Also note, there was the Soviet war in Afghanistan, too. There were bigger actions there, as well. While this map will be modern, the rural parts changed little since then (actually, in many places they changed little since the Brits were there, mentality of the locals included). We'll easily be able to accommodate the Hind, maybe in the future also the Su-25 and other Russian modules. Hill 3234 isn't on the EA map, so no replicating scenes from The 9th Company yet (terrible movie, I know, but there's not much else set in that war), but I assume it'll make it in eventually.

  7. After trap, they should get out of the way ASAP, because as a rule, the landing interval tends to be rather short, you don't foul the deck for an extended period of time unless you have a very good reason (and wanting to park in the dinosaur pen isn't one). IRL, planes are generally landing after the current event has launched, so there should be plenty of space, and no concern about blocking the bow cats. In DCS it might not work that well due to possibility of the carrier being used in unrealistic ways, but generally, AIs should, first of all, not block the landing area.

    • Like 1
  8. That would be great, although ideally we'd have a WWII and a modern variant of the battleships, as they were upgraded a bit for their recommissioning. They were pretty great for short bombardment, though.

  9. We should keep in mind that while it's still near the top of the food chain, the version of the Viper that we have isn't the one that earned its reputation as king of dogfighters. That honor belongs to the F-16A, which was much lighter, and hence turned a lot better, on top of being made in the 70s, when most fighters that can compete with it now didn't yet exist. The situation had changed since then, and while newer Vipers had improved, against newer opponents they really have to work for their kills.

    • Like 1
  10. Honestly, in its current state it would make sense to give everyone the upgraded Kuznetsov, especially since there's a big model overhaul going on and we're hopefully getting rid of the old ones. They already axed the oldest Nimitz model. The idea might have been to add SC features to Kuznetsov eventually, but I don't know if it's still in plans.

  11. First of all, we need to ask what are the rings in the real Viper based on. If they're hardwired in the jet, then they should be set to the same values they're hardwired to IRL. More likely, the threat ring sizes are estimates either handed down from up high or entered by the pilots themselves into the DTC. Since any given SAM's WEZ is a complex shape, the rings are basically arbitrary zones just serving to give the pilots a rough idea of what kind of range bracket they should expect from a given system. The only question is, how does one actually enter this info IRL.

  12. 14 minutes ago, Cab said:

    More accurately, it was originally designed for fleet air defense for the U.S. Navy.

    I was thinking about USAF variants (and the context in which they were meant to be used), but as far as the original design for the Phantom goes, it was actually a fighter-bomber for the USN, which then got repurposed into a fleet defense interceptor... and back into a fighter-bomber in the end. This is why it has such a prodigious number of hardpoints, dedicated interceptors at the time usually had only four at most. Usually this sort of back and forth would produce a fighter that was good at nothing, but somehow, they made one of the few aircraft which really were good at everything, at least by the standards of the time.

    • Like 1
  13. 1 hour ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

    DCS will differ considerably from F-4E real world tactics.

    Not really. DCS tactics will approximate what the F-4 was supposed to use IRL. Remember that it was originally designed to fight a Soviet invasion of Europe. As such, IFF would not have been an issue and Sparrows would have been maintained in temperate conditions with normal checkups after shipping. The Phantoms would be facing Soviet fighters equipped with their own Fox 1s, meaning that closing in for VID would be suicidal. As such, these tactics is what they practiced in exercises, and would have been used in a Cold War gone hot scenario.

    Now, Vietnam saw the F-4 used in ways that it was never intended for. For one, the Fox 1 threat didn't exist at all. Also, the skies were saturated with friendly aircraft, and due to how air operations were planned, with carrier fighters coming from the east and USAF from the west, point of origin criteria were not particularly helpful (in Europe, anything taking off from the east was likely Russian). For that reason, VID requirements were established, and Sparrow ran into envelope concerns. Not helping was Vietnam's harsh jungle environment, which did a number on the missiles in a way that Europe didn't.

    Most of our maps are not in the jungle, nor are they set up in a way that invalidates point of origin criteria for IFF purposes. They are, however, equipped with Fox 1 capable redfor fighters. This means the first set of tactics is going to be in use.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  14. First of all, look up Fox 1 tactics. Flying high and fast does work, although you don't want to go higher than your opponent, so first of all, just go fast. Which is exactly what Phantom does really well (although hard wing ones are best at it). The F-pole maneuver is quite effective, but be prepared to merge with the opponent, because in Fox 1 era, getting a kill in BVR was far from assured, and the fight would naturally close quite quickly. Also, keep in mind you get just four Sparrows (and that's two more than most opponents), meaning there's not much room for multiple passes. MAR is still a thing, and so is banzai/skate decision point, but banzai is going to happen more often, giving you a neutral merge into BFM (either that, or one of you decides to blow through and RTB).

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  15. A flying I-pad with a lot of electronics and very little guns. Nah, I'll pass, give me an F-4E any day. 🙂 The F-35B is interesting because VTOL, but otherwise not really all that great. There'd be no comparable assets for it. 

    I think the early F-18E/F is the furthest forward in time that DCS should attempt to go (and that's only because of Top Gun 2 and that ancient Superbug sim that I'm rather fond of). Anything beyond that is too much of a flying computer IMO. The real fun is in Cold War era heater+gun dogfights, anyway.

    • Like 4
  16. This is realistic, both the switching to WPN page and locking onto random crap on the ground. While the contrast lock mechanism could perhaps be improved, in general it's rather easy to lock onto anything except your intended target. It was bad enough with EO seekers so that the term "tactical bush" came about to describe the missile deciding that a nearby bush looks more like a tank than the actual tank does. IR Mavs weren't completely free from that, either, but at least they'd track what you locked onto, for most part.

  17. 4 hours ago, razo+r said:

    Brown-ish smoke, likely oil

    White smoke should be fuel

    Blue-ish smoke is water/coolant I believe

    Actually, it's the other way around. White smoke is water (actually steam escaping and then condensing), while fuel is a blue-ish spray. Black is either an oil leak or a fire. If it's thin it's oil, if it's thick, it's probably a fire (in most cases you'll see the flames, at least in DCS).

    • Like 1
  18. I don't think it would double, after all, the end goal is the same: launch an aircraft from the boat. Russian procedures would require additional code, but not coding a whole different system from scratch. In fact, I don't think it functions much differently from SC, although I'm pretty sure it looks different. The biggest change would be the comms for landing.

    There are other priorities, but if they can get permission to make a Su-33, then this should be put on agenda IMO.

    • Like 1
  19. Vulkan shouldn't actually appear different, or at least not initially. They just used a bit different postprocessing and perhaps a few FX that didn't make it into an update yet. Vulkan is all behind the scenes.

×
×
  • Create New...