Hatman335
最新回复 发布由 Hatman335
-
-
12 hours ago, 352ndOscar said:
CORRECTION:
-
36th Fighter Wing, at Bitburg Air Base, GE
- 22d Fighter Squadron, with 24x F-15C Eagle (BT
- 53d Fighter Squadron, with 24x F-15C Eagle (BT)
- 525th Fighter Squadron, with 24x F-15C Eagle (BT)
-
32nd Fighter Squadron, at Soesterberg AB,
- 32nd Fighter Squadron, with 24x F-15C Eagle (CR)
-
48th Fighter Wing – RAF Lakenheath, UK
- 492d Fighter Squadron, with 24x F-15C Eagle (LN)
- 493d Fighter Squadron, with 24x F-15C Eagle (LN)
- 494th Fighter Squadron, with 24x F-15C Eagle (LN)
168 F-15C authorized…..
Fake news, the 492nd and 494th never got F-15Cs and the 493rd only transitioned to the Eagle after the Cold War ended in 1993.
-
1
-
2
-
36th Fighter Wing, at Bitburg Air Base, GE
-
14 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:
Our LITENING appears to be a mix of II and G4 versions, the latter of which has optical zoom. I think the version in DCS was actually supposed to be a G4, but the docs were incomplete.
Litening G4 came later than M4.2.
-
5 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:
I think the issue might actually by the SAR mode. Two F-14Ds can combine their radars to form a single, enormous antenna, and the range on that is huge. The whole point is to deny everyone (not just HB) the ability to guesstimate real capabilities of the AWG-71.
Have you actually read the response to the FOIA request pertaining the D manual supplement?
-
7 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:
If both are true that would rather imply interceptor. In ground attack F-104(G) is helplessly useless anyway.
They are making a German variant so personally I wouldn't read too much into what the Spanish Air Force did or didn't do.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, TLTeo said:
Consortium still doesn't tell us whether it's an interceptor or fighter bomber jet. My personal uninformed feeling is on the former given that it's a bit more applicable to DCS (e.g. I think it the interceptor jets have some sort of radar boresight acquisition mode), a lot of the fighter bomber functionality (like offset bombing modes) were mainly for nuclear delivery which we don't really have.
Offset bombing mode might be a bit niche, but based on Rolf Stünkel's 10PT interview, doing convetional radar bombing with the aircraft is a tactically valid option. As for whether it's a fighter bomber or interceptor variant, I think the ground speed deviation indicator is implying a fighter bomber variant.
-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, KlarSnow said:
From the developers.
Man, I have no idea how I missed that, I'm blind. Thank you.
-
28 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:
Aerges has a Spanish 3rd Party team, and all your products has based on the Spanish Air Force aircrafts, documents and manuals (C-101 Mirlo, Mirage F-1CE/EE/M Abuela, F-104G/TF-104G "Hacedor de Viudas"), that is the evidence, as the Mirage F-1 module has not builded a France/Iraq/South African, etc version, only as AI.
Just because their previous two aircraft have been based on Spanish models doesn't automatically mean that their next one is also going to be based on a Spanish variant. According to this website: https://www.i-f-s.nl/squadrons-spanish-air-force/ the Spanish F-104s were officially withdrawn from service in 1972. It's a fairly reasonable assumption that a manual dated 1969 with the latest change in 1973 would be applicable here. This is further supported by the fact that on the very cover of the manual, the Spanish Air Force's roundel is being listed and it's clearly said to be a common manual, intended for use by all the European nations that fly the aircraft.
The Spanish were also flying the MAP variant of the G, and this variant is described in the manual. The publication also states that (and I'm paraphrasing here) the actual location of the various elements and switches may be different between nations, but the functions of the controls would be the same. Therefore, it's very reasonable to assume that the MAP variant depicted by this manual would be the one that Spain used, at least in terms of functionality. And yet neither the radar panel nor the radar display is matching that. It also has the ground speed deviation indicator, which is listed to be an ECP 2015 item. Is that something that's applicable to the Spanish G?
This is all well supported speculation, not necessarily concrete evidence, but without having any actual evidence to the contrary (such as Aerges commenting on it, seeing the cockpit of a Spanish 104G, comments by SMEs who were in the Spanish Air Force at the time etc.), it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they are making a German variant.
And your counterargument that Aerges is a Spanish team thus they must be modelling a Spanish variant cannot be supported by any sort of empirical evidence. A Spanish team, with a history of making Spanish aircraft could very easily decide to change their approach with this aircraft for a wide variety of potential reasons.
28 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:Has many factors with the future modules continue builing more and more SASF/FLOAN as the Mirage IIIEE, T-33A, HA-200, SH-3D, MD-500M, CH-9E, AB-204, C-212, CN-235, CN-295 and others.
I have no idea what you are talking about here honestly. Who is making these modules? Why are they relevant to the F-104G by Aerges?
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:
Aerges has buiding a Spanish Air Force F-104G/TF-104G. Dont expect a German/Italian, etc version.
Based on what evidence?
-
1
-
-
As far as I know, Aerges hasn't discussed anything regarding the specific subvariant or expected list of capabilities yet, so I thought it would be interesting to discuss what we can expect based on what we know so far.
I have compiled a set of pictures that compare the showcased in game cockpit with real cockpits, I uploaded this to a separate imgur folder to avoid cluttering the post with so many images:
Before I start the rest of the discussion, I have one very important question/request: can anyone find any pictures of the cockpit of the Spanish variant of the G model? I've looked a lot but I haven't managed to find a single picture or video. With that out of the way, let's look at the pictures and try to figure out which variant it's matching.
I have access to the combined T/F/RF-104 -1 and -34 (dated 1973 and 1975), which cover various countries, including Spain and Germany in a single, combined publication. There are also 4 subvariants that are described in the publications; MAP, consortium and ECP 2015 and 2012 modifications.
The consortium and MAP variants are, as far as I can tell refer to where the actual aircraft have been manufactured, either license built by the European consortium or provided by the US under the military aid program. The differences between these two variants are slight variations of switchology. As for the ECP 2012 and 2015 modifications, those are somewhat more relevant, since these change the functionality of the radar and implement additional capabilities.
ECP 2012 is referred to as the interceptor variant and ECP 2015 as the fighter bomber variant, the former has a B scope and the latter has offset radar bombing capabilities, the ability to set a desired ground speed and get indications for the deviation from that ground speed.
The Aerges cockpit doesn't match either of these variants perfectly (at least as they are described in the manuals I have access to), the radar control panel is different and the radar display also has slight differences. However, it does match available photos and videos of the cockpit of the German F-104G, aside from the fact that the ground speed selector panel may be missing, but the ground speed error indicator is present. (It could also be obscured due to the angles shown in the video.) Since, we do know that the Germans made modifications on their aircraft even into the late 70s, it's feasible that the discrepancy between the manuals and the photos is due to the fact that they were modelling it off of a modified German aircraft.
So the questions that I have is will the aircraft be:
-modelled off of a German variant post 1975?
-equipped with ECM?
-utilizing the M-2 bombing computer, the Lear dual timer or something different entirely?
-able to use the Kormoran missile?
Sources:
https://www.aviaspotter.it/2020-uno-spillone-a-volandia/?lang=en
https://www.916-starfighter.de/F-104_LCC_WorldwideF-104program.pdf
https://www.916-starfighter.de/F-104_MAP_F-104manual_LCC1963.PDF
https://www.916-starfighter.de/EuropeanProduction_FlightInternational_03.1963.PDF
https://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/2191.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkw1N332zDI
T/R/F-104 -1 and -34
Siegfried Wache, Flugzeuge der Bundeswehr
-
2
-
-
On 11/30/2024 at 9:29 AM, Tomas9970 said:
For the UH-60, I believe Matt said that they want to do the UH-60M and are pretty much waiting for data to be declassified instead of making an older version.
There is nothing classified on the UH-60M aside from the usual stuff that doesn't really pertain to DCS like countermeasure performance, etc.
-
1
-
-
UH-60 teaser is what I expect or perhaps the Germany map.
-
5
-
-
If I had to baselessly speculate, I'd expect it around 2027/28 and the A-6 sometime in the next decade.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Kate Perederko's latest comment on the Eurofighter (taken from the Russian language channel of the ED Discord) would indicate that we definitely need to be more patient before expecting any updates. I'll provide a DeepL translation of the screenshot.
QuoteDiscord user: 'It's probably a little early to ask about the Eurofighter.'
Kate Perederko: 'let's just say the developers realized the scope of the project.'
If you put this together with Nick Grey's earlier comment that stated:
Quote'The Typhoon, all I can say is that it's slowed down for a number of reasons, Gero, who's in charge of the program, Gero Finke from True Grit, he works also as a CEO of Adams Simulations. So we're working with him to try an accelerate the program and there's nothing we can say today, but it is a project which will happen, definitely. Just, little bit further out'
From these quotes, I think it's safe to conclude that while the Eurofighter is certainly going to happen, it's probably taking longer than expected (which isn't a surprise if we consider the scope of the project and HB's well known attention to detail and committment to quality) and it may take a long time before we even see any actual updates, let alone the module itself.
-
2
-
-
19 hours ago, Lord Vader said:
Neither are "bugs", one is a possible deviation on the Kalman filter logics and we're testing the data and will update the logics if needed. The other is a feature not yet available in IDM weapons we're working to implement in the near future.
Just to be extra clear, is the error that my test has shown the intended value or not?
-
This issue is not limited to JDAMs, we need to figure out why this apparent discrepancy between the intended and the measured accuracy exists. In fact this mostly affects system deliveries with unguided weapons.
-
1
-
-
I've also done two tests and the offset can definitely reach up the 200~ feet range.
-
1
-
-
Okay, so if I understand everything correctly, that level of drift would be highly unusual and only due to some kind of extreme factor. I assume that normal dynamic flying would not be sufficient to cause that level of error, therefore if all works well, OP should see a better accuracy/lower error value than this.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Lord Vader said:
That was a demonstration over a long period of time
The maximum error in that graph is reached at 2500 seconds, which less than an hour. So in the current implementation is it recommended to have enough straght and level flying time prior to a system delivery so that the solution can be corrected by the filter?
-
22 minutes ago, Lord Vader said:
If you consult our white paper, you can see that the Kalman filter output error can get to about 15m.
I could be reading this wrong, but it seems to me that picture 4 on page 6 shows that a blended INS+GPS solution in a reasonable time period (say within an hour of flight time) could still have up to 60 meters of error. If that is the case, then OP's findings with approximately 200 feet of drift may be intended?
-
Just now, Lord Vader said:
Hi, according to the publicly available documentation the CEP for the GBU-31/38 JDAM is 5 meters. We have modelled this accordingly in DCS.
Thank you for the answer, but let me please clarify, since this wasn't what I was trying to ask. I'm asking about the CEP (or error value, or inaccuracy) in the navigation solution when using GPS.
Assuming you place a steerpoint at a given location, you have a good GPS solution, you don't do any fixes or updates, you don't introduce any system deltas and just fly, there how close is it intended to remain to the selected location? What level of offset or inaccuracy should you observe when using GPS and what factors influence this in DCS?
Thank you in advance for the response.
-
Before we're getting seriously sidetracked with JDAMs and car GPS and whatnot, we should establish a baseline. What is the intended CEP for a GPS solution in the F-16 module? Is the ~200 feet offset that OP is seeing intentional? @Lord Vader Can you please clarify?
-
29 minutes ago, felixx75 said:
After all, why apply for a refund now and not when it is clear what the future holds?
We don't know if there's ever going to be a point where it's clear what the future holds. It's entirely possible that we'll be stuck with the current state of the module for years, since international legal proceedings can easily take that much time. Why wait and risk getting stuck with a highly unfinished module if they are currently offering at least store credit refunds (as far as I know that's still the case)? What if they change their minds and they stop offering even that much? Unless you're one of the lucky few who picked it up during the pricing error, there really is no loss here. You get a refund, buy a different module and then if it ever seems like someone is going to actually finish the module, you can just buy it again.
-
1
-
-
Just a random list off the top of my head, limited to S4+ aside from the SWP, focusing on relevant features that's usually in the scope of DCS.
1.) UFC, TSD and nav functions are heavily unfinished. You don't have ToT, UFC look ahead point calculations on DATA 2, the mission navigator is WIP, you have no way to update the MN/INS using the target pod, the HUD or a flyover method, you have no way or need to update the system altitude and the TSD functions are basically all missing. You would have the ability to cue various sensors from the map, place avoidance points representing various threats, have a turn radius calculations show up depending on your ground speed and bank angle, a LOS tool and terrain shading for terrain masking and so on.
2.) The HUD is missing various features, like the small pipper, the range circle, dud, frag and MRA cues, the ability to directly activate the laser with the HUD in command, PSL steering on the HUD.
3.) Manual HAT and the missing ranging sources aren't implemented.
4.) Automatic landing guidance isn't implemented.
5.) Upgraded RWS tracks aren't implemented.
6.) No ICS, some missing TEWS symbology.
7.) JDAM fuze settings, untarget function, TOO function and patterns are all missing.
8.) Emergency fuel transfer and cyclic transfer logic isn't added yet either.
9.) No MAN FF/RET bombing modes.
10.) No BITs or BIT page.
11.) Missing cruise data on the engine page.
12.) Missing OWS matrix page and integration.
13.) Missing wind model page.
14.) Missing manual level and gain control for the target pod, missing AA mode.
-
5
-
3
-
-
7 hours ago, MicroShket said:
It doesn't matter anything in case of computer game. You still can learn the module and fly it. Even without DAFCS.
Yeah, I don't disagree. But considering how that's not really the normal way of flying the aircraft, I'd say that in this instance, sitting out the early access until the fundamental flight control system is added is a very understandable thing to do. It's not just a random weapon that's missing, or a sensor or a radar mode. It's also not just some minor differences in the FM that will change. The Chinook is essentially a totally different aircraft depending on whether or not you have DAFCS active or not. And since it's a video game, I can guarantee you that the vast, vast majority of people who will operate this aircraft in game once the DAFCS is fully implemented, will just use it with the system being turned on.
2 hours ago, LuseKofte said:It is delayed, it is not complete and no matter how anyone feel about these facts it do not matter. It is what it is
That's not really what the point of my message was. The problem I had was people thinking that missing out on the initial release is a bad idea since you will rob yourself of the experience of 'mastering' the module. But how are you going to master the module if you don't even have the basic flight controls that you're going to be using once they are available?
7 hours ago, MAXsenna said:I smell a challenge!
I don't think you understand what the point here is.
MiG-29 -Customer Feedback
在 DCS: MiG-29A Fulcrum
发布于
That's not what he said, his comments were about the late 80s, where this is absolutely true. And the E is worse at BFM than the C or the Mig-29. But in any case that doesn't really matter, since before the end of the Cold War, the number of F-15s in Europe was lower than many people think. The Mig-29 very realistically could have gone against F-4Es, F-4Fs, F-16As and yeah a handful of F-15Cs, but that wasn't the primary air superiority fighter of NATO in Europe when it comes to raw numbers.