Stackup
-
Posts
514 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Stackup
-
-
2 hours ago, BarTzi said:
The attached picture is of an Israeli F-4E during the 73 war.
As you can see, the bombs on the ter are mounted in such a way that allows carrying a heat-seeking missile without using the special weapons adapter. I don't think this was specific to the IAF, or a modification that was made at the time. I was wondering if this was ever considered as a possible loadout option.At one point in development they had it enabled to have a full TER plus both sidewinders with no adapter and presumably that configuration would have been possible under the earlier version. (2023 and Beyond video)
I'd be interested to hear the explanation of the Israeli loadout considering the common explanation is that it's the TER itself, not the bombs, that is actually in the way of the missile fins. Okay, so you can't fire the sidewinders if the TER is on the pylon. However, the TER only blocks the firing of the missile, not the ability to mount the missile. So my argument for this is simple. Jettison drops the TER. So why can't we mount Sidewinders and only be allowed to fire them after the TERs are jettisoned? Just because it wasn't common practice? Pretty sure the MAK-79 mounts for the F-14 weren't commonly used to strap 14 Mk-82s into the tunnel either, but we got that feature anyways because it was possible. So why not this?
-
13 hours ago, jubuttib said:
So you’re expecting them to default to something like “return fire”?
Not sure what you're asking... I expect the AI CH-47F to utilize the doorgunners in the exact same way I expect any AI helicopter to use its doorgunners. If there's an enemy unit nearby, the AI shoots at it, and that is exactly what happens with the Chinook. I don't have any need to program an AI unit to use doorgunners, that's the developers job and they already did it. If I don't want them to shoot, I can just set the ROE to reflect that choice.
Again, I don't own the module, I'm just using it as an AI and the gunners perform identical to the Huey's gunners in that regard. I don't have any clue how the gunners work if you're actually trying to fly the Chinook. I would expect they would work the same way they do in all the other helicopters, but like I said, that is obviously something that has not been added yet given your confusion...
Only thing more I'd like from the Chinook's gunners is to have the ramp gunner added and more options for their weapons, such as the M134 which it doesn't seem likely we'll get.
-
11 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:
That is only if your Mission designer is a believer of strictly historical re-enactment missions ... but on DCS it is very easy to create mission on slightly alternate history, for example I can easily imagine that on 1979 Argentina could have purchased Viggens instead of Super Etendard, which then would have participated on the 1982 Falklands War:
I thought we were talking about the default skins that ship with the module? Of course alternate history is possible in DCS, but you chose to download fictional Argentine liveries and removed all the default Swedish ones from being available for Argentina instead of leaving them default because Argentina wouldn't have used Swedish skins. You aren't disagreeing with me, you're still limiting the skins by country. You still wouldn't want a Swedish skin on a fictional Argentine Viggen, anymore than I would want a US Navy skin avaliable on my Iranian F-14s.
Speaking of China, I can use the H-6J as an example of a dev taking it a step further. The H-6J can only be used by China or CJTF Red. Nobody else. Not Russia, no one. Hard lockout. So, my fictional Soviet Badgers have to be placed under CJTF Red or China in order to be used.
Liveries locked to a country are still all availabe on CJTF teams, that's the point. The country tab is a filter, that's why it's there. Using it to filter liveries as your mod does makes sense to me and that seems to have been the original intention of the country system in the first place.
-
4
-
-
I think some of this might also extend from the aircraft Heatblur has chosen to model. The Viggen and F-14 are both primarily single country aircraft, while the F-4E was significantly more widespread. So country limitations are more obvious and restrictive on the first two than the F-4, when a country that isn't the US or Sweden was chosen. I'm not really sure why that's a problem in the first place though. Why should something like the F-14 ever be placed into a mission where the USA is not its country? Aside from Iran, which doesn't have any default skins in the first place, nobody else has operated it or has skins included. And the Iranian user-made skins were already available for Iran if the player has them installed, so unless the mission maker has locked out livery changing, I'm not seeing a problem.
This could have easily been fixed if mission designers would use the CJTF countries exclusively in their design if they want to allow full user customization as has been mentioned. If we look at future modules still in the pipeline, the Eurofighter is used by multiple countries while the A-6E was exclusively US. Removing the limitation might be easier for some, but it is highly annoying for others. The MiG-21 is also an example of no country filters and an extremely long list of liveries which is arguably more annoying to me than the F-4's list.
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, jubuttib said:
How do we actually use them tho? I couldn't find the mappings for setting up the AI rules of engagement or burst lengths like with other helicopters. Are they player only or something?
No, they are definitely not just player only. I don't currently own the Chinook, I was using it as an AI to drop troops into a hostile LZ and the gunners shot back quite a bit. Which is a significant improvement over the AI CH-47D which only has door gunners as decoration, they don't actually do anything.
I would bet that the mappings you are referring to just like the tail gunner and DAFCS among other things will be included "later in early access" tm.
-
Seems to be only door gunners for now. Would've thought they would include the ramp gunner too.
-
1 hour ago, LorenLuke said:
https://steamdb.info/app/223750/history/?changeid=24716978
Seems the last push update was 9 hours ago to the 'beta2' (I assume it's an internal build) branch. There seems to be no activity on the branches labeled 'openbeta' or 'public' since July 22nd.Looks like they forgot about us when they shut off the lights and went home. No weekend DCS for me, I guess.
The launcher even shows the new update and links the patch notes, but no way to install it for steam.
I appreciate the surprise patch day instead of telling us days in advance and then delaying, but it just feels like another rush job since Steam got left out.
-
11 hours ago, SkateZilla said:
The AI Doesn't have those limitations, so the AI can have them, along with AGM-65, AIM-9s on the outboards, etc.
At present, my plan is to have:
- F-5C Skoshi Tiger (AI ONLY) *Adds the Bullpups, restricts the AIM-9s to earlier models, adds tank and AAR Skoshi Left Side Probe.
- F-5E Export Tiger (AI ONLY) *Adds AGM-65E Singles to IN/OUT Board Stations, a few other items, and AAR Export Right Side Probe
- F-5E Modded Tiger (PLYER AIRCRAFT) * Adds the Wingtip FuelTanks, Antennae and AAR Probes etc. *(All Cosmetic)*,
- F-5E FC Modded Tiger (PLAYER AIRCRAFT) * Adds the Wingtip FuelTanks, Antennae and AAR Probes etc to the FC. *(All Cosmetic)*
That way there's no modding of the core F-5E Files.
There's also the issue where I have to integrate new new Aircraft Property, to switch the AAR Coordinates between left/right.
Right now I have F-5E Export and F-5C Skoshi flyable to test things, but will change before I release, as the F-5C external model has clipping issues w/ the cockpit, and until I fully script the addon systems, the extra weapons will not work, *(AGMs, AIMs on Outboard, AAR Fuel Transfer, WingTip Fuel Transfer, etc).Awesome stuff!
But again, why the navy mavericks and laser guided at that? I know only the AI can use them, but shouldn't they at least be the right model since we have them? The F-5E should be using the TV guided AGM-65A and B models which are now available in DCS because of the F-4E, same as the bullpups.
-
2 hours ago, Xtorris said:
I gave you a play-by-play of what happened in two identical encounters, which has only one variable. Yet, I am more or less being called incompetent or a liar. That's one way to lose a customer.
Wow. All Zabuzard did was ask for a track file which are insanely easy to save and upload(save track button on the mission results screen). The track file shows what is actually going on under the hood, your play by play, no matter how detailed you think it is, will never be able to show any of that.
-
5
-
-
On 8/2/2024 at 7:09 PM, SkateZilla said:
Why the navy F model mavericks? Shouldn't it be using A, B, or D like the F-4E since those are the early air force models?
On 8/4/2024 at 5:43 AM, SkateZilla said:I haven't tested the bullpups
I slapped bullpups on the A-4 by editing a custom loadout. Dunno if you've tested them on the F-5 yet, but when I fired them, every one went full pitch up as default since there was no guidance input. Was still able to hit stuff by firing closer to the target since there seems to be a gap between launch and guidance. A-4 guys have said guided weapons don't work without SDK access, so idk if it's possible to get control. Maybe the F-5 would be different since it's more integrated into the game?
Keep it up, looking forward to downloading it!
-
Oh if only. Not sure how much attack the CH-47F will really have with only three gunners. The ACH-47A on the other hand...
-
1
-
-
On 7/27/2024 at 2:24 AM, dandan said:
Can HS create a new super carrier DLC? A fully functional ship that meets F4 and F14 standards. I want some supercarriers from 1965 to 1991, where people can move freely on the aviation deck and hangar deck. I really like the super aircraft carriers from the peak of the Cold War, even if the DLC is expensive, I would still buy them. This is my dream, I hope it can come true
ED probably wouldn't allow 3rd party devs to do a separate super carrier module since they already have one and it might take away sales depending on what was offered. We've seen that the feature can be turned on and off with the free CVN-74 being updated to have deck crew for those with the super carrier module. For those who don't own it, the deck crew is turned off. So for any free carrier added to the base game, it would be possible for ED to add deck crew to them. With the Stennis it was simple because it's identical to the super carrier exclusive ships. The Forrestal will be more work as it doesn't have the same deck layout and the same goes for any future carriers, like the straight deck Essex class coming from Mag3 with the F4U Corsair, which would also need new crew models as well to fit the time period.
It would be cool to see the Midway class, Kitty Hawk class, and USS Enterprise represented in DCS as well, although it's unclear how that would happen. Heatblur still has the Saratoga, Ranger, and Independence to finish, and their roadmap states the Ranger and Independence, require "larger reworks and relegated to the distant future." So don't expect anything anytime soon.
-
2
-
-
14 hours ago, Zabuzard said:
There are no plans for the earlier RWR, no. Afaik, historically, that would even be pre-DSCG (but don't quote me on that).
Darn, although I must say I would rather see a naval F-4 and the rest of your roadmap, the F-14A early and A-6E for instance, before a third F-4E variant since we're already getting DSCG and DMAS.
14 hours ago, Zabuzard said:The newer RWR can technically be installed in the housing of the older RWR, as the screen and knob both support the new interface and are compatible.
We didn't intend to have this confusion though, it is classified as bug in the 3D model which will eventually be addressed.Got it. So it would kind of work, but you're eventually gonna change the housing to be more accurate to the ALR-46.
-
1
-
-
Bump
At least in the meantime custom payloads can be altered to get most of the proper weapons onto the S-3. It'll even fire them and hit the target. One other thing that I think should be adjusted is that the CAS role should be added to further complement how the Vikings used the AGM-65 in combat and the fact that the Ground Attack role does not allow for the "attack group/unit" task.
LANTIRN and AGM-65E
AN/AWW-13 and AGM-84H
AGM-84D
-
2
-
-
On 7/25/2024 at 3:33 PM, Cat107 said:
I would also recommend taking a look at this chapter of the manual: https://f4.manuals.heatblur.se/systems/defensive_systems/radar_warning_receiver.html
So, is there a possibility we eventually get an earlier analog strobe RWR for the F-4E? Both in the manual and in game, the RWR housing is for the APR-36. Are there plans to give us a proper ALR-46 housing instead of an APR-36 housing with ALR-46 innards? Or is the housing the same for both RWRs and the only difference is the internal systems and that's why this wasn't ever corrected? Only difference from the manual I can tell is that the AN/APR-36(V) text was removed for the in game model. Would be nice to get an earlier RWR as an option for the F-4 given the work being done for the F-14A's ALR-45.
The manual:
In game:
-
Finally nearing art completion on the AI? That's great news! Here's hoping this allows the S-3 to take a break from being the only carrier based tanker.
-
1
-
-
The most well known prop aircraft in Vietnam I can think of would be the Skyraider. Although I wouldn't say no to any of the other suggestions, the E-2C especially, and I'll add the B-26K Counter Invader as another option to continue the twin engine aircraft speculation trend. Looking forward to whatever it is.
-
6
-
-
On 7/7/2024 at 9:31 PM, Rick50 said:
Maybe an early AC-130 of that era?
I raise you the AC-47
-
4
-
-
On 6/25/2024 at 6:59 AM, JeffVader said:
Can you estimate the release Date?
Please no. No more estimates. The last estimate they gave was that the A-6 AI would be releasing summer 2023. We don't need any more estimates that will inevitably be proven wrong due to various circumstances. It'll get here when it gets here (hopefully sooner rather than later...) and due to the nature of how DCS works, any date they say now is practically guaranteed to not happen.
I would however agree that we need a status update or at least some new screenshots. The F-4E is out, surely they have time for A-6 news now.
-
On 2/1/2024 at 2:59 AM, Northstar98 said:
Here, I'm more concerned with getting the current AI S-3B's weapons corrected, fortunately all the weapons DCS supports are already present in-game, just not on the S-3B.
Well, they finally added AIM-9Js to the F-5E, so hopefully stuff like this will get corrected. Preferrably sooner rather than later and definitely before the elusive "HD units pack" or whatever that turns out to be is released. Although having said that, the CBU-52s have had the wrong textures since 2016 on the F-5E and despite now also appearing on the HB F-4E, which got a lot of new weapons and retextures for older ones, it still hasn't been fixed. Stuff like this that should be simple fixes that would take maybe an hour at the most to fix instead get ignored or forgotten.
-
2
-
-
On 5/31/2024 at 4:00 AM, Viking 1-1 said:
Yes the context action is the only really new feature. The rest feels like a step back, to be honest
The brand new UI? Personally, I think the best addition was being able to click on the Jester wheel instead of having to use my headtracking or a keybinding. Another new feature is that the code is there so you can program Jester and more easily add things such as different voicelines. There's plenty of new stuff added that isn't as noticeable if all you care about is the basic functions in the cockpit. Not sure how all that is a "step back", although it definitely isn't the huge leap forward you may have been expecting. I personally find Jester to be as useful in the F-4 as he is in the Tomcat in terms of functionality (apart from the targeting pod of course) except it seems easier to interact with the system and the added context voicelines and "talking" with Jester make him seem more like part of the crew.
Jester didn't know how to use the Lantirn at first either and the Pave Spike has way less functionality, relying heavily on the WSO knowing what to do and being able to actually maintain position on the target as there is no tracking fucntion in the pod, it only has a limited stabilization feature.
Jester 2.0 as I understand it refers not just to the Jester that's in the cockpit with you, but the entire software framework of Jester that allows it to be swapped between jets like the F-14, F-4, and upcoming A-6 without complete rewrites of the code for each plane. There's lots of backend stuff that we'll never see when flying with Jester.
-
5
-
-
On 5/26/2024 at 3:05 PM, 303_Kermit said:
Bulls...t. A7E Debut was 1965 North Vietnam. USN and USMC.
Uh, what? Bremspropeller has already answered this better, A-7E debut in Vietnam was 1970. We are in fact getting a late A-7E, not the early one from Vietnam as stated by FlyingIron themselves in their Discord FAQ. You could argue there is little difference, HARM capability being the big one, but the subject as I was responding to it was a list of aircraft claimed to be from the Vietnam War. We are not getting a Vietnam War A-7E. Same story with the F-14A. The first cruise of the F-14A was in Vietnam. Our current F-14A and the "early" version Heatblur is still making did not fly in Vietnam. You can use it for that and I will too, but historical facts matter when making a list for a war and then saying some don't fit because they are the wrong version and others do when those others are the wrong version too.
On 5/26/2024 at 3:05 PM, 303_Kermit said:F-4E - Our version has modern Avionics, but very early engine. Saying that it's not Vietnam Era is true, but it's also true that F-4E from Vietnam wasn't much better fighter.
Where did I say it was a better fighter? I didn't, I said our version didn't participate in Vietnam which is a fact you also acknowledged.
On 5/26/2024 at 3:05 PM, 303_Kermit said:F-104G - Improved A2G won't make the difference since payloads may be blocked in editor. A2A basically the same.
The F-104C in Vietnam had a refueling probe, the G does not. Bigger difference than just payloads. Again, I was never saying any of these aircraft could/should not be used as subsitutes for variants we don't have(in fact I was saying they should be used as subsitutes and that I would use them as such). But they are not from the Vietnam War.
On 5/26/2024 at 3:05 PM, 303_Kermit said:A-6E - same story. one may block advanced payloads. Without it it's a little difference.
I would say the TRAM turret at least is a big difference, especially externally. But the fact that it is little difference is completely irrelevant because again, the A-6E never served in the Vietnam War! I'm sorry you don't like historical facts, but they are true whether you like them or not.
Again, none of this means they can't be used to substitute, but from a historical standpoint they are in fact innacurate and whining to me about historical facts won't change that. I'm really not sure what all the fuss is about, we have all the facts. We know what aircraft and which versions fought in the Vietnam War as well as the variants we are getting for DCS. There's no argument to be made here, either the version we are getting in DCS served in the Vietnam War and deserved an unmarked spot on that list or it doesn't and should be noted accordingly.
Here's the corrected list of known DCS modules either released or in development which could be used in a Vietnam War scenario since people seem to forget this started about the historical inaccuracies of a list...
- A-1H (Crosstail Studios)
- *A-6E (Heatblur)
- *A-7E (FlyingIron Simulation)
- *F-4E (Heatblur) (Naval version in the future)
- F-8J (Magnitude 3)
- F-100D (Grinnelli Designs)
- *F-104G (Aerges)
- Mig-17F (Red Star Simulation)
- *UH-1H (ED)
- *F-5E (ED)
- *F-14A (Heatblur)
- *MiG-19P (Razbam)
- MiG-19S (Razbam in the future)
- *MiG-21bis (Magnitude-3)
*Version being developed/present in DCS did not participate in the Vietnam War, but can be used to substitute as necessary in DCS.
There, that wasn't so hard. 9/14 aircraft being historically incorrect is a big difference from the 3/14 that were noted in the original list. If you're gonna call out 3, there is absolutely no reason to not call out the other 6. Having set the record straight yet again and provided a corrected list for real world historical accuracy, I'm done. You can argue about DCS use case with someone else, that wasn't why I entered this conversation, and I've already stated I use everything at my disposal in DCS up to and including mods to attempt some form of Vietnam in DCS. DCS is a sandbox, use it however you like, I don't care. A list of aircraft trying to be historically accurate to a specific war, is not a sandbox for people to just say whatever they want in. It can have correct entries or it can have incorrect entries, and it should not be a travesty to point out incorrect entries, in order to make the list more accurate and to inform those who are less familiar with the subject of the list.
-
2
-
The CBU-52B still has the same incorrect textures it has had since 2016 when it released with the F-5E. It still has a fully mirror gloss texture in which you can see the reflections of the clouds, trees, surrounding airplanes etc. It also still says "CBU-24H/B" on the side when it clearly is not that. The blue stripes on the front denote it as a training bomb. This again is incorrect and the stripe should be yellow to indicate a live weapon. The dashed rectangle could also be black instead of yellow depending on which pictures you look at.
Here are some examples of what it should look like instead. Smiley faces and messages to the enemy are optional of course
Here's an example of the lettering on the side.
And as a bonus, here's what my custom fix for it looks like. It's not the greatest and I expect a proper professional rework to fix this as I just made a band-aid because I got tired of looking at them on the F-5. Here's my bug report from the F-5 for extra info plus the download and explanation for my retexture if anyone wants it while we wait for an official fix for this long-standing problem.
-
2
-
-
When using the SUU-23 gunpods on the F-4E, they work as expected, spinning and firing when you pull the trigger and then stop firing and come to a stop when you release the trigger. However, when the gunpods run out of ammo, they keep spinning. I tried turning the pylons off, master arm off, pulling the trigger again, and they still kept spinning at full RPM.
.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=4a6b3a566b7ee4879d03de2e8473eb8ac230d3861d29243d368b65f193daa26f&ipo=images)
Request: additional bomb ter configurations
in DCS: F-4E Phantom
Posted · Edited by Stackup
So how do you counter the fact we can jettison the TER? It's not in the way if it's no longer there and you should be jettisoning your heavy stores before you enter a dogfight anyways.
Edit: At the risk of removing this loadout option from the F-4, the missile fins also do not appear to clear the single LAU-3 pod either and they look really close to the LAU-68 as well. Is this just an oversight that wasn't as obvious as the bomb mounts on the TER? Or is there some extremely small gap that allows the missiles to be fired without jettisoning the rocket pod?