Jump to content

jojojung

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    204

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by jojojung

  1. jojojung
    For me VRP and VIP worked quite well without TGP at the moment and are very usefull for pup up attacks.
  2. jojojung
    If you take it seriosly the Hornet does overperforming at the moment in DCS. Just take a look at multiple posts here in the forum with a lot of statistics, tests and charts. For the hornet it doesnt make a difference if you take two AIM120 or just one per pylon as posted before. No word from you about this term of overperforming. I know you only look at the viper in your posts of overperforming. Your right in some terms of overspeed but thats mostly because of the canopy melting not because the Viper cant do the speed. Just look at "Semper Viper" with "Dont stretch the limits". There are adviseries for the pilots not to push to hard in terms of speed at sealevel, because the canopy will gets broken not because the Viper cant do it. Hope ED can model a more advanced damage model for all the planes out there including the Viper and the Hornet.
  3. jojojung
    For the hornet the drag bug is even worst. There is even no drag difference for single and double racks Aim120 at all. https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/263462-no-drag-difference-between-a-single-rack-and-a-double-rack-aim-120/?tab=comments#comment-4581382
  4. jojojung
    Its only frustrating at the moment to be a viper guy. The discision to model a USNG Blk 50 from 2007 was totaly wrong because its less capable in many ways then international version of the Blk. 50 f.e. HAF. Lot of systems are canceled. Realism is a big thing on the viper but not on other ED modules. HARMs are removed from station 4 and 6 because there was only testing on these stations not operational (and not wired). I can understand that! But is Walleye II operational in a 2005 conflict? Of course not! Is it implemented to the ED Hornet? Of course! EDs policies are inconsitent at all and that makes it very unfair!
  5. jojojung
    I hope the reason they dosnt make it as public as needed with the canceled Sniper Pod is because they hope to get the information they need and can implement the sniper pod in the game. @BIGNEWY has said to me that they really try to get more information but at the moment it is canceled because they dont have this data available. We have no other choise then to rely on the devs that they do the best they can not only for the hornet and others but also on the viper!
  6. jojojung
    Maybe ED think about it! @Wags just said that the AGM 154C was removed from the planned systems in terms of realism issues (as always). But thats OK! Clear communication! Sniper Pod was removed silently to reduce the cry out from the community. By the way: Is there a list of all the systems which were pronounced at release and then canceled as time goes by? Must be a few now. No good times for the Viper pilots! Still waiting to get the hornet fixed to realism issues (Laser Codes, magic TOO/HAS Sensor for the Harm, MAV aligment not necessary, no drag difference between single rack and double rack AMRAAMs...)
  7. jojojung
    The sad thing in terms of transparency and good communications is that the sniper pod was removed more or less silently from the planned features list in July 2020 without a clear communication of this and in the newsletter from 14. Aug. 2020 it was still listed. Maybe thats because the Sniper Pod was one of the most desired features in the community poll. I think the cry out would be much, much greater if the hole community realise that the Sniper Pod was canceled but most people like me still thought that it is still planned because the Newsletter from Aug. 2020 is ne newest official statement to that issue. I would realy like to see if they try as close as they can get with the available open source data to realise the Sniper Pod in the game, as they did many other compromises to other systems which are not 100% accurate but implemented in DCS in the past.
  8. jojojung
    I asked @BIGNEWY per PM and he confirmed it, that it is canceled for the moment because of less unclassified data. I'm very disapointed too and hope that they get the information they needed... The Viper community deserves it!
  9. jojojung
    And I wish a little more detailed answer instead of "less information" from him. The Viper got so many canceled systems, the hornet gets it all. In the Viper it is all canceled because of classified information or realism issues for the DCS modeled Block 50 USNG from 2007. For the hornet and maybe for the atflir too there are even more less information available. And realism doesnt have the most Important effect to some systems (magic TOO/HAS Sensor for the Harm, laser code changeable inflight, no MAV alignment at all, etc.) For me it seems that it hits the Viper more often then other ED modules like the Hornet. The chancled Sniper Pod is only the next step in this big disappointment. Sorry that I have to say that!
  10. jojojung
    I think you will get enough data to implement it in DCS. We have the avionics and you get a rough view of the capabilities from Open source available sheets and videos. Maybe its not 100% accurate because of classified data but is the burning time and range of the aim120 100% accurate in DCS? I think its not because of classified information. But of course the aim120 is modeled in the game. DCS itself an any simulated system can not be 100% accurate, thats part of the deal. It is always a compromise. So in my point of view try it as close as you can and go for it. With this mindsetting you will get enough data for the Sniper pod, I think.
  11. jojojung
    Yes indeed, always the same thing with the viper systems! Pronounced something to come like the sniper pod. And then cancel it because less available data...!!! Sorry that I have to say that: ED, thats a shame in my opinion. And a punch in the viper community face again! There are more or less the same data available like for the atflir pod for the hornet. This was done like always for the hornet! There is another sim out there which modeled the Sniper Pod quite well, with real F-16 pilots in there dev-team! So ED has only to look at this and the capabilities of the sniper pod and more or less copy paste it. But ED said there are not enough data available, sorry but thats bullshit! I think i worked out like this: ED: "Wait, another pod for the viper? But we have to do the Apache and the hind. I have an idea: So we say we dont have the information, the viper community will understand that as always!" As it can be read out, I'm a little bit angry about yet another canceled system!
  12. jojojung
    I think thats only possible with creating a steerpoint at the target
  13. jojojung
    Yes, please make a seperate thread about that TWS feature to get the right attention and get it fixed by the ED Viper Team!
  14. jojojung
    Same here
  15. jojojung
    I think there is a drag bug in the F18 FCS at the moment. Maybe related to my reportings in this thread: But ED is investigating this since feb. with no answer yet
  16. jojojung
    Like I said, i was researching for another topic and fall over this issue.
  17. jojojung
    I think thats too much speculation. When many planes does testing on this it would not be done to only want to know if the viper can carry this missiles for transport use only. I think they tested the operational usage for sure. Why they didnt make it to the actuel piectime certified loadouts I dont know either. Maybe because its simply not nessecarry in piecetime. Maybe for security reasons, I dont know. I only want to show that it was done with quite some planes of the block 50. But I will let you know when I get more information, OK? Above in this topic guys said that it was 100% never done without any proof and influenced this poll, so I dicided to do some research. But now its closed allready!
  18. jojojung
    I cant say what the result of this testing was. I dont know them but the autor says that "normaly two HARMS" indicating that there are special cases for 4 HARMS but thats my interpretation. To resolve this I have send an E-Mail to the Website and hope to contact the autor Lt. Carl Krittenden. But there was so much written in this topic here about, never a single time on the block 50 etc. and this is the proof that the HARMS on 4 and 6 worked. If they were put into service I can not say but I will try to find it out!
  19. jojojung
    Then took off the walleye II because when your f18c of about 2005 was in service the Walleye was not in service for the hornet for years!
  20. jojojung
    This is the proof, that they tested it! On the website: f-16.net you find an discription of the Block 50 USAF. And Lt. Carl Krittenden can be quoted form this artikel: "Two HARM missiles are normally carried on a typical SEAD mission, however, 4-missiles loads are currently being test-flown at Eglin AFB." In the following context of this artikel you can clearly see, that this test were done a log time before 2007. The artikel itself is a very old one. I already had contacted the website and the autor. Ehlin AFB was not a test site like Area 51 or was a testsite for manufactors only. No it was a regular AFB and they tested it multiple times with normal block 50 USAF planes. Thats the exact proof of concept we all are searching for. LINK: https://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article9.html
  21. jojojung
    Yeah I know. Kind of confusing! In german wikipedia it is said that two stations can be loaded with 2x Tripple Racks = 6 and on the onther to stations a TER with two gbu-12 only = 4. Total GBU-12 = 10. Would be the same loadout type like with the CBU-97 at the moment in DCS.
  22. jojojung
    No i german it is said, that 3 on each TER and in total (= total payload GBU-12 incl. other stations) 10
  23. jojojung
    Agreed! Youre right back to this particulare topic. Probably only an impression that realism issues for the viper are immedeately discussed while realism issues for other planes are still accepted since years and nobody cares about. I fly the hornet fairly oftem am I like it very much. But its systems must be treated the same scaptical way that the viper does.
  24. jojojung
    Youre right and I understand that. But how to explain then the laser code change in flight with GBU-12 and the magic HARM seeker f.e. in the Hornet or the not nessecarelly boresight MAV in the A10? No community polls for this realism errors since years. Realisim is not a one way direction for only a few modules while other modules dont get fixed in therms of realism. So to follow your words you cant play the Hornet and the A10 at the moment because of many simplified sytems right? I personally find it difficult when the killer argument "realism and real simulation" is only used in a one way direction. Either this is a principal for all modules or for none.
  25. jojojung
    Here are 2 track files that shows that there is no real drag difference between a single rack and a double rack AIM 120c. Can someone confirm this bug? Both tests are tested under the exact same conditions. I just set up the same standart mission in the editor on Persian Golf map. Startet at 20.000 ft with 300kn, flight duration about 3 minutes. I have 10% fuel load and unlimeted fuel acitated for the testing on both flights. Payload is: Flight 1: 4 single rack AIM120 and the rest clean; Flight 2: 4 double rack AIM 120 and the rest clean. As soon i get controll I go to full burner and put on the Autopilot (BALT and ATTH). There are maybe some small difference because the press of the AP doesnt get exactly the same millisecond. With time stamps i get the following outcomes: Singe Rack: 1 min = 462 kn, 1:30 min = 472kn, 2 min = 476kn, 3 min = 480kn Double Rack: 1 min = 459 kn, 1:30 min = 470kn, 2 min = 475kn, 3 min = 479kn Top Speed and acceleration does not really change because of single or double racks. This is really unrealistic, isnt it? Or did I miss something? F18 RACK Speed Test 20000 FOUR DOUBLE Racks.trk F18 RACK Speed Test 20000 FOUR SINGLE Racks.trk
×
×
  • Create New...