Jump to content

lmp

Members
  • Posts

    1212
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. In that case, it's a nice solution. It should please just about everybody. I hope ED listens and we will see improvements here soon.
  2. Oh, sorry about that, that's what the forum "quote" feature did and I didn't check if the author was correct . I was just putting my two cents in rather than trying to discuss with anyone in particular. At any rate, I agree that, if we get a proper simulation of IFF (and I hope we will), there should be some way to make it work across systems in the less hyper-realistic missions.
  3. Frankly, I don't see how that improves the realism of the simulation. It looks like added complexity for complexity's sake. I think this should be handled like it would be in the real world - with a good deconfliction plan, rules of engagement, other sensors, proper communication and a dose of common sense. It would make the air war so much more tactical and interesting. This would work for proper MP missions and we could always have some sort of cheat (like the current "magical" system) that can be enabled in the mission settings by public server owners.
  4. I've seen plenty of people surprised by their helicopter "suddenly falling out of the sky", though I admit it was mostly a problem when the Huey and Hip were new (yes, I've been here for a while). How close to perfect is the modeling of VRS or various doppler filters is really besides the point I'm trying to make. Which is that there are plenty of people confused by the various intricacies of the simulation, realistic IFF would be just another one of those intricacies and not something that would break the game. Yes, it has the potential to be more frustrating than someone not understanding why he lost a radar lock, or control over his helicopter, or why his GBU didn't guide/explode, or why the engine died in his WW2 fighter... but these intricacies and constantly improving fidelity is why I and many others play DCS with all its issues rather than move on to other games.
  5. Wouldn't the public MP issue be solved by having a server enforceable "relaxed IFF" mode? People are also confused by Doppler radar blind speeds, VRS in helicopters and a plethora of other realistic phenomena all the time. Doesn't mean we shouldn't have them. That (and AI that could work within it) would probably be much more difficult to put in than the IFF overhaul itself. I suspect this is why we don't have realistic IFF yet.
  6. 1) Our F-5E only has an IFF transponder, not an IFF interrogator. Regardless of any improvements to IFF simulation in the game, F-5E pilots will have to identify their targets visually. 2) The biggest limit of the current implementation is that IFF always magically "works". Transponders cannot break, cannot be left turned off or incorrectly set up, are always compatible (Soviet and NATO systems shouldn't be) - in fact, there doesn't even have to be a transponder on an aircraft for it to be correctly classified as friendly by other aircraft on its side. If IFFs were modelled better it would mainly increase false negative responses and thus - blue on blue cases. I don't believe it would completely break MP servers. The WW2 and Korean fighters, as well as the F-5E have to rely on visual identification and people deal with it. Players of modern modules would eventually get used to the new limitations, though accidental shootdowns would be more common.
  7. The included mini-campaign and the single missions include some good examples of fairly complex, A-G focused missions for the Hornet. Typically you're given ground attack or SEAD duties as part of a larger strike package with capable escorts. Most of the time the Eagles and Tomcats splash any bandit before he gets close. You can focus on attacking ground targets without the mission feeling too sterile or safe. If that's too much for your friend, you could always downgrade the MiG-29s to MiG-23s (etc.), or get rid of them altogether in the editor.
  8. lmp

    AAR

    I suspect getting rid of the deadzone is what made the difference. My previous stick needed one because it was so old and worn out - and I couldn't AAR anything if my life depended on it. Now I have a VPC stick, got rid of the deadzone and making those ever so slight corrections is a lot easier. Congratulations on your progress!
  9. lmp

    AAR

    No deadzone, no curves. I use some curves for other modules, but the F-16 feels fine without any. It was the other way round for me - Hornet proved much easier than the Viper. Somehow after I found out where the basket needs to be, I hit it every single time without any tricks. Only works for the Hornet unfortunately - connecting to the basket with the Harrier is a different matter altogether. Once I'm plugged in, staying on the tanker is much easier even if I have to do it longer than when using the boom.
  10. In the Hornet you're supposed to have the anti-skid on for field ops, but off for carrier ops. On the deck you only ever use brakes at very low speeds and so anti-skid is not needed, thus having it off means it can't fail and get you into trouble. The in game aircraft is set up accordingly by default so perhaps the mission had you start on the deck or intended you to land on it and that's why it was off?
  11. The practical way of achieving this (or something similar anyway) is with high off boresight, lock on after launch missiles rather than rearwards firing missiles. You avoid the control issues stemming from launching with a negative velocity, accelerating through zero to a positive velocity. And if you want you can launch them forwards or 90 degrees to the side (from the notch for example) or wherever you need at this point. Nobody is building rearwards firing missiles, but everybody is building high off boresight ones for a reason. However regardless of how you do it, you'll be sacrificing a lot of range. In a normal launch the movement of the shooter contributes to the energy of the missile (and considerably), in your scenario, the missile needs to expend a lot of energy to even start flying in the right direction. So it can be done, but at the cost of (a significant amount of) range. However in practice I can't see why it would ever be your plan A, rather a last ditch effort to create problems for a bandit who sneaked up on you or forced you on the defensive. Since the MiG-23 Soviet/Russian fighters have IRST capability which help eliminate Doppler radar blind spots and in the modern world of datalinks individual sensor limitations become less and less of a problem. In the end the guy on your six will still have a big advantage.
  12. I may be reading this wrong, but I think it may have been just Gypsy's way of saying "the APG-68 has a pitiful range" rather than serious advice?
  13. lmp

    AAR

    I fly in 1920x1080 so a pretty low resolution these days. I can see the lights well enough, but I use a fairly narrow field of view. Maybe it's something you can experiment with?
  14. lmp

    AAR

    This is what made all the difference to me. I used to fixate on the lights too much. When I focus on flying formation with the tanker and only glance at the lights, I can finally get where I need to be and stay there long enough for the boom operator to do his thing. I don't know why this wasn't obvious to me at once after all my Hornet AARs, but for some reason it wasn't. The rest is practice. My Viper AARs still aren't as clean as I'd like them to be, but I'm past the frustrating part of not being confident of my ability to fill up my jet safely.
  15. The F-5 could be a great module if it got the attention it deserves from the devs. Aside from the above FM bugs, the TACAN is highly unreliable, the RWR is not working correctly and the radar implementation is simplistic at best. So that's your primary navigation system, your primary defensive sensor and your primary offensive sensor - all in need of some serious work. I used to really like and recommend this plane, but in its current state, I have to withdraw that recommendation. If RAZBAM can continue to do good work on their old M2000C module years after it's been released, I don't understand why ED can't do the same for the F-5.
×
×
  • Create New...