Get_Lo
最新回复 发布由 Get_Lo
-
-
On 8/25/2023 at 3:58 PM, Rudel_chw said:
I wasn't refering just to the F-104, but to all those users that want a souped-up Phantom, Mirage F1, or any other cold war aircraft .. seems like only the latest and greatest will do.
Why do we on the F-104 forum, care about the other forums?
-
On 8/25/2023 at 3:54 PM, Rudel_chw said:
So you say ... meanwhile:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_superiority_fighter
Yes, I know that wikipedia is not a definitve source ... but it certainly beats a single word from an Internet unkkown
Meanwhile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter
Read literally the first sentence, its not that hard. -
4 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:
I don't get why most users only want the latest version of any old aircraft, looks like they don't want anything without an MFD or digital HUD on it. I prefer to have the most used variant, the one with most liveries and operators, as it allows for a wider variety of missions. On the F-104, for me that variant is the G.
What MFD and HUD is there in an S/ASA? Those are mainly weapon system upgrades to include newer missiles
-
4 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:
Actually, they were interceptors, not air superiority fighters like we know them today ... the first true air superiority fighter was the F-15A.
Wrong
-
4
-
-
18 hours ago, MAXsenna said:
I have never seen it having a dedicated keybind in any module, but I could be wrong.
This module would really benefit from being the first to have it. (imo they all should, but none as important as this one)
having it bindable to a single key would be fantastic.-
2
-
-
On 1/15/2023 at 10:41 AM, okopanja said:
If you wish to report something to developers, you will create trk file. From what I have observed they do not waste time to reproduced it unless trk file is provided.
assuming the developers play their own plane, they already have track files of the issue. Its a problem with the missile each and every time you shoot it. im sure theyre already aware of the issue but as its a Weapon its out of their control, most likely needing ED themselves to tweak the stats to make it align with reality. and if the JF-17 is anything to go by, these weapon tweaks for non-ED modules are rare and far between unless its absolutely game breaking.
-
1
-
-
22 hours ago, JG27_Arklight said:
Razbams pre-order is not the release of anything. The F15E will not be flyable on the pre-order day.
I never said it was going to be flyable, I said the pre-order might align with an update or newsletter. But in most likeliness the update will be the last week of Jan. Wed-Fri.
-
1
-
-
ive heard "January update" and that only leaves 1 week left, but if we end up missing that mark im assuming RAZBAM's F15E pre-order on Feb 3rd will be in alignment with an update. but its just speculation. So unironically, 2 weeks I guess?
-
What are the chances anyone can tell me a little about this picture?
Unless im horribly mistaken that is an AGM-130 being loaded onto an F4 and photograph is dated middle of 1990
Ive seen references to the AGM-130 in this 1984 weapon's file but apart from that any information is so scarce! any information will be appreciated.
(Cover page showing it is non-restricted info)-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Whisper said:
And it's a preview, what did you expect ....
it says TUTORIAL in the video title man, its not that hard, its just Spudknocker being Spudknocker, rushing content to beat other CCs at the expense of it being full of fluff and incorrect/absent information.
-
6
-
-
5 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:
So the Magic 2 apparently has LOAL capability?
"New cyrano IVM"
"Low fuel capacity"
"slave the Magic"
and worst of all "MULTIROLE"?!?!?!?!
No INS tutorial what so ever, but instead a 10minute long AAR tutorial.
and audio effects dubbed over to make it sound like a 1910s film.
Good lord someone let me know when Redkite uploads his version of this, I cant go any further.
-
4
-
1
-
-
pretty much what he said, SAMP-400 HDs, fly in at 500 knots as low as comfortable and start dropping as the targets pass under the nose
-
hopped into the F1 after a while not flying it and noticed the pitch axis seems to "see-saw" a bit, especially with the pitch damper on, but even without it. makes doing a smooth pull very very difficult, which was previously not an issue
-
21 minutes ago, exhausted said:
Let's turn the logic around to see if we are following: pushing the F-4E is like announcing a B-17 module for the Channel Map, only to find the developer has settled on the PB-1W and is teasing future plans to add the B-17G at a later date.
Im sorry but that isnt even close to what is happening. F4E and its derivatives are more common and in a wider variety of theaters than the J
-
1
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Schmidtfire said:
Im not sure you are correct. Weapons that concerns ED current (or upcoming modules) are developed by ED.
Or do you actually think ED invests both time and money into developing something like the "Cold War" R530 or Super 530F specifically for the Mirage F1?
Those missiles are not a concern for the Hornet/Viper playerbase, so Im not sure ED spends time developing them. My guess is 3rd party (maybe with input from ED)ED develops all weapons now, regardless if their modules use them. this was a change after Deka's SD-10 annihilated everything that left the ground for a few months.
-
Still seems to be an issue for me
-
Any update on this? the F1 still doesnt meet its schedules in the manual and flying it under 250 knots feels like driving a boat with the anchor deployed. Hard to believe this thing was designed to have "low approach speeds" and a "High lift wing"
Maybe with the EE release we can get an update FM?-
1
-
-
@snocc_silly goose, you're going to make these guys really upset when the F1M comes out lmao
-
4
-
-
3 hours ago, rossmum said:
I would prefer to see all DCS aircraft brought to the same standard (no state change = no launch warning, or lock to be considered the same as a launch warning as is apparently US practice for the S-200's FCR) rather than a module which does things correctly be gamified to give warnings when it shouldn't, to be quite blunt.
agree, I think we should step away from the game-ified RWR behavior and start making steps in the direction of realism. F1 has a good place to start because as is it doesnt give launch warnings, it would be a shame if they added it just to fit the game-y side of DCS. even RAZBAM has expressed interest in making the 530D of the 2000 not give launch warnings (or give launch warnings on lock, not on fire) because the missile is a LOBL missile and the hostile's RWR would have no way of knowing the missile is in the air because the "launch" signals the CWI emit are already emitting before the missile is launched.
S-200 (Sa-5) is another good example you mentioned and im sure there are others I dont even think of.-
5
-
1
-
-
On 9/3/2022 at 11:20 AM, D4n said:
Yep, R530F EM still not giving launch warning... this is just awful guys
R530EM does not use CWI or PDI guidance and guides on 2000hz radar frequency, the same frequency the radar scans on. there should be no launch warning. But there should be a lock warning. S530F is the same way when it arrives except it uses 660hz frequency.
-
5 hours ago, Harlikwin said:
9G still had some tubes, 9H was the first fully solid state navy winder.
9G was the first to incorporate solid state electronics though, no? wasnt that the whole point of the missile over the D aswell as SEAM
-
On 9/7/2022 at 1:09 PM, SUBS17 said:
They all feature SOLID STATE CIRCUITRY in order to function as an Air to Air Missile.
Can you tell me what the AIM-9G was again, last I checked it was the first solid state sidewinder and none before had it, some after it didnt even have it and youre telling me this technology existed before the AIM-9B was even around? can you explain?
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, Tavo89 said:
For example this is the configuration I usually use in the A-10A, 4x Aim-9 and 6x Maverick D.
And this is the configuration of the AV-8B, 2x AIM-9 and 4x Maverick F.
It is true the AV-8BNA systems are very advanced, but its capabilities can be greatly diminished by removing some of the armament, PODS etc, its effect on the mission would be limited.
As for the Aim-9M it is a very good missile, but you can limit the number of missiles you can carry to only two, Alpen knows how to do that. You also have to take into account the enemy fighters, not much an AV-8B can do against a Mig-29, a Mirage F1 or a Mig-21Bis flown by a good pilot.
A-10A is not in the same league as the harrier. harrier is way faster, way better missiles, and way better systems. Ask anyone on the server what they would rather have, 4 AIM-9P or 2 AIM-9M. harrier is cool but its just too good, we tried it when it was worse like I said, and it was still too good.
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, Tavo89 said:
Hi @Alpenwolf, I could see the AV-8BNA in the Two Towns briefing, could you include this bird in some Caucasus mission?.
You can remove armament and other things with the idea of representing the 1983 AV-8B, (Aim-9M 1982).As a point of reference the Mig-29A entered service in 1982-1983, the AV-8B in 1983 and the AV-8BNA in 1987.
Harrier's systems are too good and it would make no sense for an attacker to have by far the best IR missiles on the server
AERGES announces the F-104
在 DCS: F-104
发布于
I did read them. why?