Jump to content

Vampyre

Members
  • Posts

    987
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

About Vampyre

  • Birthday 12/23/1972

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS
  • Location
    Mesa AZ
  • Interests
    If it has wings, I'm interested.
  • Occupation
    Tin Bender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thas depends entirely on its opponent.
  2. I'd like to have a A-10A prior to the LASTE modification. Pre-LASTE A-10A flew from 1978 to just after Desert Storm. The FC3 A-10A is a 90's upgrade.
  3. There are two things you can do. First, when you pull up the loadout screen in the MP server you can right click on the individual stations which will pull up a drop down menu with a list of all of the weapons available for that particular weapons station. Second, you can open up the mission editor before joining the MP server and create a mission with an F/A-18C lot 20 (or any other platform for that matter) and if you have the correct mission set for the server you want to fly on you can create a premade loadout. The key to the premade loadout is the correct mission set for the module on the MP server you want to fly on. The default loadouts for CAP mission set for the Hornet are all AIM-7/AIM-9 loadouts.
  4. Vampyre

    MB339CD

    The expert simmers are the ones who will appreciate it the most. The gamers on the other hand... well, gamers are going to game. Having the most advantages possible is important to them. I'm looking forward to the MB-339A, especially for use in the Falklands map that RAZBAM are doing. The G-91R looks interesting as well and it, along with the MB-339A, is a good addition to the Cold War line up in DCS. Looking forward to your future endeavors as well.
  5. DMAS- Digital Modular Avionics System. The ARN-101 is the Bombing/Navigation Computer.
  6. I really enjoyed the German twins back when my main flight sim was Il-2FB. The modded version was great fun online and I usually took the Me-410 when it was available. I also quite enjoyed the Me-210, Hs-129B, Ju-88, He-111, Dornier bombers and the variants of Bf-110 as well. I used the Me-410 mostly as a fighter in mid war scenarios and as a fighter-bomber in late war scenarios. Load her up with her standard 20mm and 13mm cannon/gun armament with additional cannon/gun armament in the form of the 30mm MK-103's in the weapons bay and belly mounted 20mm tray and you could cut through bombers like a hot knife through butter and vaporize fighters with a single burst of fire. It was great fun back in the day.
  7. I think he was trying to focus on American Phantoms... only problem is that he threw the K in there which was Royal Navy.
  8. Not true. The F-15C CFT's were used on 57th FIS Eagles out of Iceland, 1st TFW Eagles out of Langley, 21st TFW Eagles out of Elmendorf and the Israeli C's and D's carry them as well. The USAF hasn't really used them since the cold war but they are capable. EDIT- Just found a photo of a Kadena based 18th TFW C Eagle with CFT's as well.
  9. I still want the Me-262. It was one of the two, along with the D-9, that I actually wanted. I already own the Mossy because it is one of my favorite WWII planes. Now, if they want to go back and offer something other as a replacement of the Me-262 because they do not have and cannot get everything needed to do the module for those who backed the project then it would have to be something new. I'd accept something like a B-26 Marauder, Me-410, Beaufighter or TBM Avenger as a substitute but never something I already have. I don't want a second Mosquito. Edit: Actually it would be a second and third mosquito.
  10. We are talking about a 35 year old bomber. There is hardly anything in it, even in its upgraded form, that is state of the art anymore. Many of the things required to do a good simulation of the Bone are already in DCS World and would need to be tailored to the new module. As with any aircraft to be considered for development, documentation availability could be a sticking point as could any classification issues plus the fear, uncertainty and doubt of a positive ROI could stop the development of the Bone as a module. I know that I would like to see how good it is at all of its missions so anything less than full fidelity is not worth including in DCS World. A "dumbed down" half baked module would be a hard no for me. If I ever see something less than full fidelity like what you have said you would accept here offered by ED then I would see it as a quick cash grab and I would be worried about the future of DCS World in general. That would be an indication of a problem with the business model. Maybe ED will put something like what you are advocating for in MAC if that ever materializes. As for me the only FC3 plane I regularly fly for fun is the MiG-29 and as soon as the Full Fidelity version is available that will go straight to the circular file with the rest of the FC3 planes I have. FC3 was necessary to maintain the player base at its time of inception but it is becoming less relevant now. I feel FC3's place in DCS World would have gone away by now if not for certain Russian laws prohibiting the simulation of their equipment. "Dumbed down" is not in ED's mission statement for DCS World, in fact the opposite is true. That is why I suggest MAC. MAC is supposed to be a lower fidelity version of DCS for people who don't want to or don't think they can grasp the systems management aspect of DCS World. It has been really quiet on that game though so it may just be vaporware now. I really don't know. I would never support a dumbed down aircraft in DCS World and ED have stated it is not their intent to include such content in DCS World in the future. Until they change their stance on that the point is moot. IIRC, there was a game modification that allowed one to use the AI B-1B model with an FC3 cockpit that might interest you. It was super limited and had unrealistic flight performance. It is also one of the reasons why I dislike game modifications in general. The creators not supporting them as they should, questionable capabilities, general over performance and poor damage modeling makes them not equal to the quality standards of most of the DCS paid modules. Their problems are pretty glaring if you know what you are looking for. I avoid them like the plague for the most part. There are some pretty decent game modifications out there like the VNAO T-45 and community A-4E but by and large, most modifications are not good realism wise. The creators of these modifications enjoy doing this in their free time and they do have people who enjoy the content they make but I have problems with the suspension of disbelief and I am primarily a multiplayer flyer which means there are compatibility problems and failures of the integrity checks to deal with. That makes them not worth the time and effort for me.
  11. When I say full fidelity I mean almost exactly like the Heatblur F-14 with its implementation of Jester AI and human controllability. Human or AI crew is not an either/or argument. the Heatblur F-14 is evidence of AI and human implementation with almost any combination of crew requirements. The crew stations on the Bone will lend themselves well to the Heatblur setup because of the redundancy of the stations and the limitations of DCS. The Bone has two stations for flying the aircraft and two stations for operating the systems. While, in a perfect world, all four seats would be manned by humans I don't see that as feasible every time one wants to fly the Bone just like it is not feasible to have a RIO in the Tomcat every time someone wants to fly it (unless you are in a virtual squadron that specializes in the aircraft). Depending on the Heatblur implementation of Jesters LANTIRN capabilities the AI could also use targeting pods or other sensors to aim air to surface weapons... that is still a big question mark at the moment though. I do believe they will get it working though. At a minimum, I would envision having one to four human crew with AI to fill the places of everyone but the pilot. That seems to be a DCS multiplayer limitation. In single player offline the player would be able to use AI or be able to "jump" to any station of their choosing as it is currently implemented in DCS for other multi-position aircraft. If the AI is not capable of operating the offensive systems well, then a minimum of two human players will be required to operate the jet. One to fly the jet and one to operate the systems. There is only a need for one person to fly the jet. The OSO is critical to mission accomplishment because that station is required to aim the weapons. As for the DSO, the DCS EW implementation is so basic (and I don't see that changing anytime soon) that you don't even need someone dedicated to operate the defensive systems. Stream/retract the ALE-50, dispense chaff/flares and turn the jammer and associated EW systems on and off and verbal cues to tell the pilots what to avoid and that is it. An AI could easily perform that task. How the Bone will be used in DCS: I imagine that not a lot of 10+ hour missions will be completed. I expect around one to three hour missions to be the norm simply because this is a high fidelity simulation of aircraft within a game framework and very few people have 10 hours to burn doing big circles on the maps we have. Yes, it will be more difficult to operate effectively but that is part of the draw for me. Combat aircraft rarely operate alone in non-permissive environments and even when they do they are usually aircraft specialized for that like the F-117 was. I have always been a fan of bombers. I find it fun to sneak in and hit targets under the noses of the enemy and then try to sneak back out. Back in my Il-2 FB days I always enjoyed the Warbirds of Prey servers Bomber night event we had every other Friday. Some of the most fun missions were when we would get 70+ multi engine level bombers like B-17's, B-24's, B-29's, or Ju-88's and keeping formation at 30k ft to bomb a single target area. I enjoyed the pressure of being in the lead bomber and having to jump from the different pilot gunner and bombardier positions, calculate the drop for the rest of the formation while under attack from enemy players in 15-20 fighters and friendly escorts in 10-15 fighters. Having extra crew to do some of those tasks would have been appreciated though. That was great fun and very memorable. I think there are still videos of some of those events on Youtube. As for rage quitters that want the feeling of glory of doing it all themselves, there will always be those types out there. My suggestion is to not let them in your aircraft in the first place. I never let random people in my aircraft. I have to know you and trust you to allow you in my aircraft. They are usually a lot less effective than they think they are as they are not really team players.
  12. The C+ was intended to bring the earlier lot 10-11 airframes more in line capability wise with later lot Hornets like the lot 20 we already have in DCS. Asking for a C+ in DCS is asking for a very slightly downgraded version of what we already have. Lot 10-11 jets as originally built did not have things like JHMCS, APG-73 or MIDS. A production standard A or lot 10-11 C would be a better candidate for a DCS Module due to them simply not having all the 21st century upgrades. They were true Cold War aircraft.
  13. The problem with an FC3 level B-1B is that, without a ground radar or targeting pod (which are limitations of FC3), it will be a iron bomb or basic CBU truck. Without multicrew or a suitable AI alternative it will not have a reliable way to aim the bombs as It has no HUD. It has to be a full fidelity module to use a Sniper targeting pod, air to ground radar and multicrew so it can use JDAM's, WCMD's, JASSM's/LRASM's or even simple Mk-80 series bombs or CBU's. Anything less than full fidelity wouldn't be worth including.
×
×
  • Create New...