Jump to content

upyr1

Members
  • Posts

    3664
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Posts posted by upyr1

  1. 15 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

    Could be. WWII vintage photos, including air recon imagery and press articles, are relatively plentiful. I doubt Germany in 1960s was mapped and imaged nearly as thoroughly as Normandy was. 

    Early Cold War jets could fight on a Korea map, which should be sufficiently documented (because again, wartime photos). I'm just not seeing 1960s Germany being made, especially since we actually have very little of Korean War era hardware, particularly cutting edge stuff. Korean War itself would be easier, because aside from early jets, very little post-WWII tech was used.

    The Korean war ened in 1953, so I don't see why the lack of Korean era assets would be that big of a problem for the 1960s map. For the 1960s map I would focus on fleshing out Vietnam era asset so 1965-75 given what we have currently in DCS and lined up module-wise  this would be slightly harder than the 1980s assets.  As for the early cold war map (1940s/50s) the first place to start IMHO would be the late World War II Soviet assets then on to post war equipment for both sides. 

    • Like 1
  2. 2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

    The problem with other variants is that this area changed massively during Cold War, and especially between WWII and Cold War. As this was expected to be the primary front of WWIII, updating hardware and infrastructure on it was a priority.

    This is exactly why I want diffent variants of the Map, it was expected to be the primary front during World War III during the cold war and we have a nice line up of cold war planes.

    First we have the F-86E and MiG-15 Bis which etners service around 1950/1 ish 

    Then the MiG-19P and F-100 which we have in the works would place us circa 1960

    The F-4 and MIG-21 we have are 1970s versions  so they would be great for the 1980s map and the same holds true with the Mirage F1 and F-104

    I'm not saying it would be easy to do the Fulda Gap right I'm just saying  every cold war module would work with the Fulda Gap. 

     

    • Like 1
  3. I say if we're going to get the Fulda Gap, don't limit it to a late cold war 1980s version. I say let's get 2 or 3 version.

    The late version you requested would be awesome no argument there. It would be great for the F-4, MiG-21 and MiG-23 the MiG-29 might be great but we'll need early model F-teens to be 100% realistic 

    I would also include an early 1940s/50s version for the F-86 and MiG-15 and WWII leftovers like the La-7 and F-51.

    Then depenpending on how different it would from the late version a 1960 version for the MiG-19 and F-100.  

    • Like 1
  4. 18 hours ago, Tengah said:

    Is there a way to pursue a pool of modder resources, for example, the likes of the A-4 team, CJS, et al coming together to assist? 

    The Thud is an amazing piece of Miltary Aviation history that really, really should be represented here in DCS.  A much underrated aircraft, with one heck of a service life...  

    Unless someone says they are working on it officially I say if you have the skills to mod then let's work on it I can test

  5. 19 hours ago, draconus said:

    Count some flight hours in jets and you'll get it too.

    The random failures are modeled as probability model atm so basically the same.

    Right now Random failure are random. I know that Ward Carol mentioned briefly how common some system failures were. 

    17 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

    Of course. DCS has a random failures setting you can enable now. If they're done realistically they’d be extremely rare though. At the rate most people play games they’d likely never experience one. I had a bird strike and engine failure on takeoff in the A-10C. It was awesome! I got to pull the fire extinguisher and abort the takeoff. But that’s once in 12 years of playing the game. 

    19 hours ago, draconus said:

    You can also trigger them as well. Even if failure are exceedingly rare you can also the system could  portable and put on a road for short runway use. There is a lot of potential cool ideas.

    • Like 1
  6. 1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

    A Saber. Sure. Again you probably aren’t getting hit by missiles. WWII aircraft you get to land damaged all the time. Really that’s the best fun you can have in a flight sim. But getting to do that in 4th gen jets is exceedingly rare. Plus you have an ejection seat so odds are you’d just eject vs trying to land with damage. I would guess the hook is for system failures like hydraulics when you have no flaps or brakes. It’s also used for rejected takeoffs. I’m not really against the feature since again I’m all up for emergency landings. But I can see why this would be a low priority. 

    Oh yeah. I did the Maple Flag A-10 course which takes you through all that. It’s great. The Hog is definitely a plane you can get the chance to bring home all full of holes. 

    Battle damage is not the only reason a system will fail. I have seen photos of sadly shot up Phantoms.

    • Like 2
  7. 1 hour ago, Roosterfeet said:

    Also, some of the third party campaign designers like to include scripted failures and emergency procedures in their campaigns.

    In the real world things fail. When we get a dynamic campaign I would hope to have failures as an option. I am not sure the if we could realistically model meantime between failures but we can currently script them.

  8. On 3/23/2024 at 9:33 AM, rob10 said:

    IIRC ED has indicated they currently have no plans to add land arresting gear (or it's very low priority).  That may change down the road, but don't expect it currently.

    I'm not supprised it is low on their list, as it would require revamping the damage model to have the tail ripped out or landing gear collapse if you try to land a viper or mud hen on a carrier. The only USAF plane that might realistically land on a carrier would be the Phantom II then again that was originally a navy plane. 

  9. On 3/22/2024 at 4:43 AM, Dragon1-1 said:

    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.

    A WWII and modern would be the bare minimum. The 1980s variant(s) need to be in DCS core and the World War II variant(s) should be in the WW II asset pack.  The number of possible Iowa models would really on how pedantic you want to get.  During World War II there were 3 bridge configurations and some differences in AA and antinae as they went through a few refits. 

    Open- IOWA and NEW JERSEY had this configuration when they were first built

    Round- unique to NEW JERSEY

    Square- what all 4 have today if we can only have 1 WWII Iowa model this would be the one to have.

    All 4 ships today https://inchhighguy.wordpress.com/2021/08/18/how-to-tell-the-iowa-class-battleships-apart/

    IOWA and WISCONSIN have a slightly different bow than NEW JERSEY and MISSORI

    They all have different amounts of teak and NEW JERESY's got a unique superstructure.

    Then in between there is the Korean war configuration which is basically the late WWII with the catapult removed so the fantail can accommodate helicopters then the NEW JERSEY's Vietnam configuration which removed the dedicated AA guns and saw the superstructure modified to the t shape to house ECM gear and I believe the zuni rockets for chaff. 

     

     

     

     

  10. On 3/22/2024 at 7:29 AM, 352ndDeacon said:

    The Iowa class battleship is already available as a mod. 

    I know, I have it and use it. However official assets are always better than mods because ED is supposed to keep them up to date along with DCS core. Next I'm also asking to get a full blown Iowa module. The Iowa-class would be the ideal choice for the first naval module after the super carrier. The Iowas served off and on from Feburary 1943 to  September 1992.  The entire class has been preserved as musems 

  11. On 1/6/2024 at 9:01 PM, twistking said:

    Of course this would also apply to modern DCS, but especially the PTO will rise or fall with ship damage modelling.

    I think we can all agree, that a purely hitpoint based system simply won't cut it.

    Agreed, we've needed a massive overhaul of DCS naval units for a while especially with the Marianas. I think a damage model over haul would be part of the necessary prep work for possible naval modules. 

    On 1/6/2024 at 9:01 PM, twistking said:

    I think ship modelling should at least have the following features:

    - Damage must be seperated from flooding (buoyancy), meaning a "destroyed" ship can still float and a "not destroyed" ship can still flood and sink

    Battleship Row is a good example of the second. Except for ARIZONA and OKLAHOMA all of the active battleships that got sunk were returned to service. AZ blew up after a bomb penetrated her armor and hit a magazine and OK capsized. 

    On 1/6/2024 at 9:01 PM, twistking said:

    - Flooding must take compartments into account - at least in a simplyfied manner
    - Different parts of the ships take damage and fail individually

    The ideal situations not only would we have damage models for differnt part of the ships, but we would also have things like armor factored in as well.  For example an attack against a battleship might have 0 chance of penetrating the armor while it might be able to knock out an AA gun or a radar dish.  Then ideally I would also like to see internal systems damage as well, for example one of the reasons HMS  SHEFFIELD was lost was because her fire main was taken out and I speculate this may have happened with MOSKVA as well.  

    On 1/6/2024 at 9:01 PM, twistking said:


    - Ideally there was also some limited (!) self-repair (stop flooding, stop fires) tied to a "crew status" value. "Crew status" would decrease through hits, with lower values limiting and finally stopping self-repair capability of the ship. If "crew status" is completely depleted, the ship is abandoned.
    - With this there would be three basic kill types: 1. Sinking, because of flooding a set amount of compartments. 2. Ship fuctionally destroyed (superstructure, weapons etc) but still floating without power. 3. Ship abandoned because of depleted "crew status". Similar to previous point, but visibly different (less destruction) and maybe a more realistic result for a bigger, heavily armored ship (in reality high casulties and spreading fire could trigger an evacuation without the ship being completely destroyed or sunk).

    Crew skill would definitely be an issue here, STARK and the 1980s SAMUEL B. ROBERTS are good examples here, as crew skill was part of the reason they aren't at the bottom of the Persian Gulf.  I figure an expert crew might have a lumbar yard on board like NEW JERSEY, they are still finding damage control lockers on her and she's been a museum for 20 years 

  12. 16 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

    Which isn't very helpful for campaigns or other official stuff that would never use a mod. Mods can also break the game.

    Cool to have, but no substitute for an official one.

    I use the Iowa-mod, and there are somethings that can never be fixed as a mod. On the AI side we don't have forward observers or artillery spotting aircraft. Next if you are shelling a target area you can't pick which caliber and shell type to use. They will fire anything in range. Next, we also need a way to pick a ship's load out. As I stated earlier I would love a playable Iowa-class module I could just see the videos with Wags and Ryan Scimanzki about the DCS: Iowa-class module 

  13. 28 minutes ago, 352ndDeacon said:

    The Iowa class battleship is already available as a mod. 

    I know about it and I have it. However, I'm not just asking for the Iowa-class battleships as an AI asset, but ideally, I would like a module. I believe the Iowas would be the ideal choice for the first DCS naval modules.  Anyway, even as AI assets, there are a host of reasons I prefer official assets over mods, and I use a lot of mods. Even as AI assets to do them right we'd need an overhaul of amphibious warfare. 

     

  14. 2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

    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.

    I figure 2 variants would be the minimum, one of the reasons I'd love to see the Iowas is the simple fact that except for the 1970s at least one of the ships saw action every decade of the Cold War as well as World War II. The ships went through 2 or 3 refits in World War II, I believe the main difference between the Korean War and late World War II configuration is the removal of the catapults for helicopter operations, then there is the New Jersey's 1960s configuration which used Zuni rockets to launch chaff, then finally we have the 1980s refits. Depending on how pedantic you want to be you could have up to 6 models of New Jersey alone 

     Anyway, in terms of internal models, the mechanical computers were constant through out their service lives so it would be a matter of modeling the electronics upgrades and the missile battery controls in the CEC that was added in the 1980s

×
×
  • Create New...