Bananabrai

When I did my pilot licence I learned: - the same conversion as mentioned by Machalot for ft <-> meters - nm x2 & -10% -> km (ex.: 220nm -> 440 - 10% => 396) (407km precisely) or - km /2 & +10% -> nm (ex.: 400km -> 200 + 10% => 220nm) (216nm precisely) - airspeed, don't convert that, it changes with ALT and everything, MACH is better anyway and same across the airframes. (otherwise you have IAS, DAS, CDAS, CAS,...) It is also not slow and more precise than the times 2 or div. by 2 when really more accuracy is needed. It's still an entire airfield of error but its stillt good. My dad (Tornado pilot) also always told me in critical situations it is super handy (and more important) to be able to make a good enough guess quickly than to calculate the exact solution in 10 seconds more time. That is something you have to gain experience on. Just throw a guess out, write it down or remember it and check later (after the missiion) if that was right. You will be better next time... For me it already works that good, I look at the distance indicator of the viggen and my brain immediately sees rough nm values and if I think 2-5 seconds about it I am ready to hit the mike and give a Hornet buddy a nm distance to target, good enough for him to keep SA.

Endlich hab ich mir den Link zurecht gelegt um damit mal bissl aufzuräumen: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/256582-truegrit-a-natural-developer-of-the-dcs-f-4f-and-dcs-tornado/?do=findComment&comment=4519286 Bin zwar überhaupt kein WW2 Fan, aber PBY Catalina: Oh cool, wusste nicht das die ne EQ5 oder 6 machen würden, da wäre ich absolut dabei. Super Etendard fänd ich auch cool. Ne RECCE Variante oder nen RECCE flieger allgemein fände ich auch mal cool. Warte auch schon lange auf den ~angekündigten TARPS der Tomcat. Somit wäre ich auch mal wieder beim Thema "Angekündigt".

Für mich ist irgendwie noch nicht mal das richtige angekündigt. Am meisten warte ich auf die F-4E und die A-7E, den Wunsch nach einem Tornado können sie aber für mich nicht stillen. Die Mirage F-1 macht mich noch an, war als Kind für mich optisch schon einer der coolsten Möhren. Da kommt aber leider nichts fanzösisches mit ARMAT oder EXOCET. Der ganze moderne Rest lässt mich eher kalt. Werde aber wohl trotzdem einges davon holen (bspw. F-15E) um mit Freunden und im Geschwader zu fliegen. Ansonsten fühle ich mich mit dem Wunsch nach wirklich mal was komplett anderem eher alleine da. Also Im Sinne von P-3C, B-1B, M/SH-60B/R (mit dem twin rear wheel)

Yes, I know. If you keep the BAT on for XY seconds after shutdown the MEM align is available. For the purpouse of DCS you could just assume it was on and fully aligned in advance. Just assume there was someone flying before you in the same jet. At least the MEM align should be made avaibale through ME or DCS settings.

Es ist immer nur eine Antenne an soweit ich weiß, damit das System weiß wo das Signal her kommt. So würde es zumindest Sinn machen und das System muss nicht selbständig signale zusammenführen/beide Antennen überwachen. Korriegiert mich wenn ich falsch liege.

AT-802 it is then for you I guess Or mybe a Colomban Cri-Cri^^

Wenn die missile recht tief ist und du auch könnte das Bild durch gelande gestört sein. Außerdem ist es wichtig das du entweder der Rakete hinteher fliegst oder von ihr weg und dann die jeweils richtige Antenne am Datenlink pod an hast. Falls du rechtwinklig zu ihr fliegst ist der Empfang schlecht. Wenn du direkt darüber fliegst könnte das Signal auch schlecht sein. Ich muss zugeben ich setzte die SLAM immer ohne terminal guidance und DL-pod ein... Das INS ist garnicht so schlecht und ist meines Wissens nach GPS unterstützt. Ich mache meine Aufklärung vorher aus der Ferne und werfe die Waffe dann im Tiefflug ab, nutze sie also eher wie eine AGM-154.

What kind of capabilites can we expect from the HTS? Does anybody know a little stuff about R7 (that of course is ok to post)? - Somthing like, will it have some kind of ELINT triangulation if positions are unknown? - is there a way to extract that on the real aircraft (like the Viggen ELINT data can be put into Combat Flite) if ED decideds to model that of course... - etc.

Freue mich schon mega auf diese Map! Endlich klimatisch mal wieder was anderes^^

Is there something for Syria yet? Also, I have been flying 8-10 missions of the 'Viggen over Persian Gulf' Campaign in Coop with 1-3 other players and whats kind of strange: -Mostlty there not many AI aircraft scheduled. -The timing of the flights is sometimes pretty of, AI SEAD flies alone somewhere, then later some other flight... -As a player, even in the Viggen with fast startup, you cannot make your TOT if you set a few more parameters in your cockpit prior taxi. I can't imagine how it is with newer aircraft that need alignments, etc.

I think DCS itself is kind of a time bubble, and that's why the opinions are so different. I can only tell from the GAF, but things are not always the way they officialy seem. Stuff gets tested, integrated and then the customer decideds (when it's ready), he doesn't want it anymore... So what is it then, can an AC use the new equipment or not? Are we simulating an aircraft, or an amry, or just how a specific squadron operated it? Should the sandbox decide that? I think so. The mission builders get more and more advanced, there scripts out their, take off loadout checks, we get more options to set in ME... How often would I use APKWS on a UH-1H huey? Not often, as I need someone lasing for me, and I need to know where the target is. Mabye I would lose a couple of missiles due to missalignment with the target. But that's how it is in real life, laser designation is not 100% effective, sometimes the weapon doesn't see the laser. Would I use it at all, heck yea. The UH-1D was phased out of German service 1 or 2 weeks ago. Why couldn't there be a UH-1H active in the timeframe of an APKWS? Same counts for the Apache. Or the F-5E.

Haben wir hier im deutschen Forum schon ein thread/topic für Grafikperformance & Probleme offen? Also was wo allgemein Fragen gestellt werden können, zu Problemen, aber auch zur Leistung und zu Ergebnissen mit diversen GPUs? Hab so auf die schnelle mit der Suche nichts gefunden.

I, for myself, consider Mrianas a 'ocean only map'. And we will get it for free. Sounds great to me. I think it only is not released as fast as all of us want it to have, as they really do roll out stuff at moment. I mean, come on. Look at how the game was at 2.5, or before that. I find the current time in DCS a blast, and I've played the game since 2011 oder 2010 (can't remember). And look at the roadmap for 2021. If they do half of that it will be awesome already. For the wishlist here, I would really enjoy 2 things not related to aircraft in DCS. A Combined Arms simulation like ArmA, hell even OFP style vehicle and Infantry boarding and simulation would suffice for me. And, to come back to the topic, the Sub- and Sea-warfare stuff. Low-res sea bed, should be doable... And the warfare in style of Cold waters to begin with, maybe get it more like Silent Hunter later on? Mybe even not, I mean the focus should stay on aircraft if on anything, but we need our toys to play with...

If it extends enough to the south, Kuwaiti Invasion and the resulting Gulf War. Also Iran-Iraq... Not so bad, looks nice. Although I am almost tired of hot areas, as Afghanistan will also become a thing. I was so relieved that Syria has trees and green stuff on it, and I know Afghanistan can be cold. But it's still kind of a sand-coloured map and its not somthing lika a baltic map... Thats why Falklands will be cool (like beeing nice and in a cooler are^^) So I have to say, I am wishing for maps nearer to the poles.

Not necessarily. If you've got perma death or "single life per XY hours" on a server for example, you think at least twice if you do a mission and how you do it. And I have to say, on BlueFlag for examples where you have 5 Lifes per 4 hours or something, I almost sh*t my pants doing a low and fast mission in the Viggen, doing a strike and knowing there are two Tomcats coming for me... So getting the pilot sweaty in their simpit is the mission of the mission builder, but it is possible. Real fear of a real pilot is of course not possible, that's true.

True. What really is giving me a great feeling/experience, is when I achieve a thing which is really challenging. And I have to say, I always liked the looks of the ADV. Even if it is underpowered or whatever, I would still really enjoy to fly it. It's still a Tornado. It's just that an IDS (late GR.1 for me as well) would be really a lot more amazing. What I think they were only able to test in a very limited fashion IRL, is how the performance was without external fuel tanks. I guess they mostly did that against other F3s, as they could do that just around the corner of the home plate. But I assume they were not able to test they jet clean in DACT. That's what we can do in DCS. Maybe you can really stand a chance against something if you drop your tanks and get your tactics right. I mean: we're comlaining that it would not compare well against all other fighters in DCS, still some managed to shoot down fighters with the A-10 in DCS...

Well, I think the JA was better than the ADV, comparing both to their A-G variants, at least in terms of power. I don't know how much the engine of the JA differs from the AJs, but the ADVs engines were not different enough from the IDSs engines, so it was underpowered in terms of A-A. ADV could have not pulled a SR-71 'intercept' I guess. System wise I imagine it beeing the same as IDS vs AJ, it's a twin seater, Panavia cramped more systems in there, and is was supposed to fight beyond home country. Even some IDS drivers said the could have needed 10-15% more thrust, at least the ECR engines have a little more oomph. I think the Viggen guys were happy with their engine, I imagine them wanting to have systems of the IDS.

The Tornado GMR is capable of STT other aircraft. They can at least do a 1 bar scan. Although the range is really poor, only with dry air (Holloman) and that 1 bar scan they achieved something like 40-60nm (thats optimal conditions and you are not scanning a large vertical area with 1 bar...) Don't know the AZ settings and probably on large targets as well. It was more like 10-20 nm in the normal German or Labrador environment.

There was a new video a couple of days ago, they are simulating every single blade of the WW2 prop planes now. So maybe that will get a thing sooner or later, I mean they change the weather system as well...

Imagine a country like germany, where not as much money is put into weaponry, as the big players put into it, especially after the reunification. Example, the germans used Hueys to cover Hueys in the Luftwaffe for certain tasks, when the threat situation would be lower and no Bo-105s are available. With that kind of thinking and availability of types as a pre requisit: Would you say there is at least some system except for the Mk I eyeball to use for very very very light RECCE in the Hind? Like the F/A-18 used Mavericks as visual/recon sensor or target finding in the early 90s. What kind of sights for example does the Hind use for targeting the Shturms? I mean, the did not always had the best intel in Afghanistan, or did they only fly pre planned attacks? Maybe there is also a link to a picture here in the forum already?

ah, good thread. I need to write some things down, as I am working on a 1988/89 CVN-71 mediterranian deployment (that of course turns into fictional histroy) - No GBU-30 series of course, no -154, no AMRAAM, no JHMCS - Didn't know the Navy had no -9M until Gulf War. - 7M is fine I think, when you consider the enemys you're facing in the timeframe. MH is just the loft variant, isn't it? - How were the E-Mavs used back then? With the Nitehawk or did other platforms / JTACs lase exclusively? - I read that AGM-88B did see a lot of use on ALPHA Hornets before, so as we have no B Harms I'd go with C. - What about the laser GBUs? -24 wasn't a thing I assume, but the -10 series? - Harpoon should be fine, although it's also the wrong variant I think. - Walleye should be ok. - SLAM was also only introduced with the Gulf War as far as I know. - all the unguided bombs and rockets should be fine. - Anything else? - Use a lot of A-G radar, i guess it was its best capability in the late 80s! - the biggest thing for me though is that in DCS i cannot limit data-link as much as I want. I know that MIDS has been a thing for quite some time now, but I think it wasn't ready back then. Or was it? Do I see it correctly that the Hornet was >90% used for A-G stuff, and only for the stuff the A-6 couldn't do? Don't know what that would be.

Another question, not be understood as a request or some speculation: Was there with any of the P-Hind users some that used early generations of NVGs? Can we expect to get a NVG for the Hind, or will this not be a thing?

Kann die echauffierung teilweise verstehen, wobei ich schon sehr viel Spaß mit der Mirage und auch mit dem Harrier hatte. Bier ist da für mich eher kein Vergleich, für 50,- kauf ich nicht 5 Kästen sondern 2, ich will ja genießen und nicht ertrinken. Aber wenn ich ins Kino gehe wird mir für 10 oder 15€ auch ein toller Film versprochen der fertig sein soll und manchmal ist er halt k*cke... Und dann sitzt man da auch noch 2-3h. 70€, so viel wie ~5-7 mal Kino, also max. 21h joy, das hab ich mit dem Harrier schon durch, wenn vielleicht auch nicht am Stück... Ich weiß ja nicht wie ihr das macht, ich habe bis jetzt bei fast allen Modulen die Geduld gehabt und sie gekauft als sie das erste/zweite/... mal im sale waren. Denk so mach ich das bei der Mudhen auch. Plus: ich lass mich dann auch durch diverse reviews spoilern...

What would the Su-30MKK bring in terms of A-G capabilites?

This. It's great to be able to use different freqs via SRS, but its better to just have it in the cockpit.