Jump to content

Bananabrai

Members
  • Posts

    1026
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Bananabrai

  1. On 10/25/2023 at 1:25 PM, Coeptus said:

    Stuff I don't want to speak about in the forums...but to keep it simple, the ICH-47F was pretty done in terms of modeling...at least what we've seen. I'd bet 1 and a half years or 2 at the most.

    I think so as well. It all depends on so many factors, but in general I think the ED coders know their code, classes, etc pretty well.
    Also the CH-47 is at least system wise not as complex as an Apache, Hornet or Viper, and at least in the widest understanding in terms of modeling for DCS uses similar code etc.
    Then there is the FM but that is different for everything...

    In general I also think less complex modules like the WW2 birds took not as long as the complex ones, and they also got faster if I think about the Mossie for example.

    By now it's their 5th helicopter and I think they know what they are doing.
    Could still be 5 years out if they only have one guy sitting on it, in the end it is just speculation.

    5 hours ago, admiki said:

    If ED told us that it is firm 24 months out I would buy it right now.

    What if it is 25 month out. Will you buy it then only one day later? Or not at all?

    • Like 2
  2. On 10/22/2023 at 11:26 AM, Alpha said:

    Well, there´s been at least two real life Fighter Pilots in this thread alone who tried to help you understand the difference between a computer game and real life (something close to 100% of people here do understand) and why one sentence, torn out of context, might have led you to such a mistake. It´s not our job to make you understand and instead of choosing to learn and broaden you knowledge you chose not to. 

     

    So far I have "read checklists" with enough comprehension to fly safely and professionally real-life military and civilian aircraft for decades - and to be amused by individuals with zero RL background making bizarre comparisons between Computer Games and Real Life 🙂

     

    The kings are helping us to understand. How honored we can be. Lovely how much you care. And so professional...

    Ah sorry, forgot you said it is not your job, I guess I imagined the rest then.

    • Like 1
  3. 27 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

    It doesn't AFAIK. The NASARR didn't have that feature in the 105 and I'd be surprised if it had in the 104. It's gonna be depression-bombing only.

    Both the 104G and 105 were initially thought to bring light and cozyness in the mid-high kT range, not waste time with conventional bombing.The bombing computer is gonna be a LABS type with the "idiot-loop" delivery method.

     

    CRV-7 rockets supposedly were fun, though. Same story, depression settings and a bit of Kentucky-windage.

     

    I also didn't hear of particular good bombing equipment in the 104G. 

    • Like 1
  4. I am not sure how much data HB has to improve it, in terms of accuracy and in terms of making it work with all current DCS radars again.

    But I also think it should be a little more accurate and also work better in terms of DCS.
    I think the ELINT performance of the Viggen and also the HTS are a bit nerfed. At least I have some knowledge/experience to believe so.

    But EW is also a very sensitive topic on the other hand. 

    • Like 1
  5. On 10/13/2023 at 9:12 PM, Gizmo03 said:

    Das war nicht gegen AviaStorm gerichtet. Das muss von ED freigegeben werden.

    So ist es. Hab schon nachgefragt bei ED, dürfen wir aber noch nicht haben. 

    Ich mag Discord auch nicht mehr so gern, aber es natürlich auch einfach der bequemere Weg zu kommunizieren.
    Man kann Informationen (leider auch viele Sinnlose - siehe manche Posts) halt einfach viel schneller zu Verfügung stellen.

    Bis auf weiteres bleibt das also wohl erstmal so.

  6. On 10/14/2023 at 1:54 PM, Alpha said:

    No, it isn´t airframe specific. I have flown civilian GA airplanes, different military Fighter Aircraft, pretty big civilian Airliners as well as their simulated Versions (professional and recreational/PC-based ones): So far I have never ever experienced any Simulation that is more than a good rendition of certain aspects of real Flying, sorry. It doesn´t really matter if you´re looking at Cessna-type-of-aircraft which you "master eyes closed in front of some Home Computer" and then fly for real at your local field or an Airliner you train on in a professional, full-motion simulator and then fly for real or you enjoy DCS in VR and compare that to real-world-flying in a Fighter Jet - it doesn´t get beyond a certain percentage of the real deal. There´s thousands of impressions, factors, nuances, feelings, "there is no restart-mission if you hit something" etc in real life. 

     

    Best analogy I can come up with (sts) is that even the most high-res, 3D "Visual pleasure for adults on some screen" is faaaaar from the experience with a real human being 😉   That´s about the distance we´re talking here - which still leaves a lot of fun in DCS, don´t get me wrong! Just don´t forget about the huge gap between Reality / Real world flying and Simulation / Computer-based-Entertainment.

    Was that 'no' to me?

    Because you were saying no but still making my point.

    Besides, you are not the only one flying real aircraft. And if you have flown so many aircraft, you should know that there are many air frame specific differences between aircraft.
    Or do you want to tell me a Cessna lands the same way and as easy/hard as a F-16, B747, C-130,...?

    Thus I still think that AAR per se is not always harder IRL than in a simulator.
    It will depend on many factors for both sides: what WX you face IRL, which aircraft do you fly, which type of AAR your aircraft uses, how "well done" are you after your (training-)mission.
    Same counts for the armchair flyer: VR or monitor, good frame rate or old rusty sh*t graphics PC, had a bad day or a good one, excited or annoyed, do you already know the module or not,...


     

    • Like 1
  7. On 5/21/2023 at 5:09 PM, Kirk66 said:

    Alpha is totally correct; AAR in DCS (in VR, flat screens just plain suck) is pretty easy and actually fun; IRL it's harder and nobody honestly enjoys it but you do what you gotta do. There is a Mover video on an F-16 fatal accident at Shaw AFB a few years ago that covers this pretty well.

    On the boom, at night, in a turn, in a cloud, with all your friends watching - stress, what's that?  "Relax, wiggle your toes, stop trying to squeeze the trim button off the top of the stick, just fly formation...OFFLOAD COMPLETE...thank god - disconnect!"

    Then again, hanging out in the observation position on the KC's wingtip watching your buds take their turn flailing around or being abused by a rookie boomer ("JUST STICK IT IN THE HOLE ALREADY!") did somewhat make up for it.

    A lot more fun and relaxing in DCS.

    Might be air frame specific experience?

    Most pilots I heard, say it is easier IRL, same with learning to land a plane, as you have the complete package of feelings and correct view and not like on the computer a 2D Track IR or not perfect to real world VR view.
    But that were also probe fliers, mostly Tornado and Typhoon guys.
     

    • Like 2
  8. On 9/3/2023 at 12:26 PM, Beirut said:

     We have the C-101 - the blonde, the L-39 - the brunette, and the MB-339 - the redhead.

     

    If asked which one you would like to have, the proper response, of course, is: "yes please". 

    You choose the C-101 to be se*ier than the L-39? 😛
    After I re-bought the Kamov now and enjoy the Hind so much, I need to fly the L-39 every now and then.

    • Like 1
  9. On 8/16/2023 at 6:07 PM, Ben27603 said:

    I need to add the J-8 but looks like fertile ground ahead.

    DCS Estimates 2023 Aug.jpeg

    I wonder:

    - How you assumed our TOR as modern. It's a CW plane and we do the non-modernized CW version of it, which we stated.
    - And then the iCH-47 we are getting (w/ MFDs and modernized systems etc., like the AH-64D) as CW instead of modern (besides, there was an ingame video of that)
    - Same for the C-130J with MFDs glued everywhere as CW?
    - And in general the difference between 'Nam and CW (e.g.: F-4E -> CW ?)

    For your question: the J-8 probably is still some time away. But you'll rate it somehow.

    • Like 2
  10. On 8/9/2023 at 9:46 AM, OPEC said:

    Danke für die Rückmeldung. Wie siehts denn beim Rest aus? 

    @Bananabrai @MattDicker @K-Swing @Viper1970 (ist doch ums Eck 🙂 ) @Scorscy @CPT. Haddock

    Mir ist leider ne doppelte Plannung rein gekommen 😕
    Wobei ich fast nochmal überlegen könnte, ob ich mit meinem Schwager Samstag dort hin komme, wäre eh kürzer aus Memmingen.

    Finde die location auf jeden Fall mega.
    Finde das könnte gut eine default location für 6x im Jahr sein.

    • Like 1
  11. On 8/8/2023 at 10:01 PM, SOLIDKREATE said:

    As a former Sensor 3, I support the Orion. No way we’d ever get an ISAR variant because that system is still used today. An APS-137 variant is probably the most attainable. The draw back there is no ASW support in DCS without a MOD. So, no “pen bangers” for me. The fun spot in the tube would be the TACCO. We called them Smack-O’s. I think the only player positions should be the pilot in command, co pilot and the SS3. The FE, NAVCOM. SS1and SS2 can be AI.

     

    Sounds awesome. 

  12. On 7/31/2023 at 5:35 PM, OPEC said:

    Dann lasst uns doch mal den Samstag Abend festnageln. Scheint bis dato der Favorit zu sein. 

    Wir gucken dann mal nach einer nicen location. Irgend welche Präferenzen? Eher Richtung Autostrada und Bahnhof? Wer dann noch dazukommt, kommt dazu. 🙂

    Update folgt.

    Bonschab? Ist nich so weit von der Strada wenn man im Süden abfährt.
    Isch bloß die Manchinger Stroß nauf.

    Und vom HBF auch ned. Und parken kann man auch recht ok.

    • Like 2
  13. On 7/27/2023 at 5:49 PM, EricToGo said:

    In the F1M upgrade a databus was installed that let's all parts of the aircraft communicate with eachothe

    Which does not fully confirm something is usable or not.
    I know bus systems. EF is glued together by them.

    With that logic we should also have every US arsenal weapon on the -15/-16/-18...
    I know that a bus makes it a lot easier to integrate, I am not fighting you 100%, I would love to have an AGM-84D and -119 on the Viper, and for sure it is possible.
    But still the software of every computer and BC on that bus needs to know those new signals, so patches are involved, testing the new SW, etc.
    And the Spanish never integrated such a fictional patch/upgrade. That is the difficulty I see.

    • Like 3
  14. 21 hours ago, apolloace said:

    The Spanish F1M variant had the sea search mode with the radar

    A sea search mode must not be related to the capability of shooting the missile.

    It rather is about a rail that can release the missile, potential data connectors needed, a LRI that sends the firing command and hands-off data from an attack computer to the missile or something in that manner, whatever is the data flow of the AM.39, etc.

    An example that comes to my mind:
    The German F-4F had the hard points for the AIM-7, and a comparable radar as the F-4E, but the firing module/LRI was removed from the avionics bay/radar, so it could not fire AIM-7 Sparrows...

    All this doesn't mean I am against it, it is meant as an explanation instead.
    I'd also rather see an EQ6, cause that would also bring an AS.30L and potentially the Kh-29L.
    I am not really hot about the M anyways, but that is personal preference and I will still enjoy it probably.

    If they can find data that it would have been able to shoot system wise and it didn't because the missile just wasn't acquired, I am happy to get the AM.39 for the F1M.
    At least we should not play DCS: Procurement, otherwise we need to limit our DCS stockpiles for EVERYTHING pretty drastically ^^
    Lets see...

    • Like 3
  15. Is there somewhere data for the airfields on the Syria map, for example Akrotiri?

    Also, I guess the synthetic RWY is just displayed if the ILS is active, correct?
    I set up everything to my best knowledge, for Akrotiri:

    Position that is displayed in the info box when you click the F10 map airfield symbol
    287,0° QFU and 3° glide path
    109,70 for the ILS, set to ON
    APP mode, SYS cmd sw AFT

    No luck. But I also didn't get any ILS indications anyways.
    There is still this issue that sometimes RWY is inverted in use or the ILS is only active from a certain windspeed or something

×
×
  • Create New...