Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by lmp

  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


    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


    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


    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


    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.
  16. Because that's where the bombers flew. Flying high gives you a much better range and - as you noticed - makes you difficult to intercept. So that's what the B-29s did. The MiG-15 was built to deal with this threat and so high altitude intercepts were the bread and butter of MiG-15 pilots. Take off, make best climb into the stratosphere and catch the guy before he gets away or you run out of fuel. Just like BFM or making carrier traps it requires thought, practice and knowing your aircraft well. I encourage you to get familiar with chapters 8 and 9 of the flight manual as well as the concept of "coffin corner": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_corner_(aerodynamics) There are several things that work against you at high altitudes. Firstly, your engine can generate (significantly) less thrust in thin air. You cannot maintain airspeed in turns or recover it as well as down low. Secondly, there is the "coffin corner". when it comes to airspeed, your low limit is 300km/h indicated (citing the manual): Your high limit is officially Mach 1: but really, you'll be experiencing serious controllability issues much earlier: Notice how your low limit is expressed in kilometers indicated and your high limit is a Mach number (true airspeed). As you get higher a given indicated air speed corresponds to a higher true airspeed/Mach number. If my online calculator hasn't lied to me, at sea level 300km/h indicated corresponds to Mach 0.25, while Mach 0.86 (so the Mach number where controllability starts to suffer) is 1050km/h. That's a difference of 750km/h to play with. And you get plenty of engine power to boot. At 15500m 300km/h is now Mach 0.7, while your upper limit of Mach 0.86 corresponds to 378km/h. That's less than 80km/h of difference! In other words, at 15500m you are almost stalling and at the same time almost out of control because of being too fast. And you can barely maintain that speed because your engine is at its limit. The good news is, the Sabres aren't much better. They can go a little faster without losing control but their engines are weaker and their ceiling should be lower (it was IRL, I haven't done any extensive testing in DCS). So what can you do at or close to the ceiling? Now I'm no expert, but here's what I do: - Keep your airspeed indicators in your scan at all time. Pay attention to both your indicated and your true airspeeds. - Forget about aggressive maneuvers, particularly in the vertical. Lazy turns and shallow dives and climbs only. - Practice identifying overspeeds early and getting out of them. Read the manual, practice how your ailerons, rudder and elevators react at high Mach numbers. You probably will end up messing up and overspeeding from time to time, but if you can catch it early, you can often correct the problem without a huge loss of altitude. - Pay attention to your fuel state. In order to climb to the service ceiling and stay there you will need to be flying at full throttle. You really won't have much time before you have to turn back. In the end, like everything in DCS, it comes down to practice. Practice efficient climbs to stratosphere altitudes, practice how the aircraft behaves at 8000m, 10000m, 12000m, 15000m. Shoot down some non-maneuvering targets first, then move on to maneuvering ones... Good luck!
  17. I disagree when it comes to the Phantom. Your argument makes sense to me in case of aircraft such as the MiG-15 that I mentioned or, in case of the Vietnam War, the F-100. Yeah, these aircraft saw some combat outside of their famous war, but I can see how incorporating them into realistic historical scenarios could be difficult (though not impossible). The Phantom is a different story. It was the backbone of the IDF in its time, fought in the bloody Yom Kippur war and beyond scoring a comparable number of kills to the USAF/USN in Vietnam. The Iranians used them in their long and bloody, if not very well researched, war with Iraq and continue to use them to this day. That is a lot of really interesting history. We shouldn't let the pop-cultural image fool us into thinking the F-4 was "pretty much just Vietnam".
  18. How does that go against anything I said? I'm not arguing that a Vietnam map would be a bad fit for an F-4E module or DCS in general. I'm arguing that the F-4E would be a great fit for the existing maps - the Israeli and Iranian AFs used the type extensively in combat and the latter still flies it today. I could agree that, let's say, the MiG-15 doesn't make much sense without a Korea map since it didn't do anything particularly exciting outside of that war, but the F-4E is far more than just a Vietnam war jet.
  19. The F-4E that was initially being developed by BST was supposed to be a 1980s USAF variant - I presume that's why this date came up. Of course, plans may have changed since then, we'll have to wait and see. That being said, F-4E would be a great fit for the Persian Gulf and Syria maps. In fact, I don't think I can come up with a more historically fitting a/c except for a few that we already have. I don't understand the fixation on Vietnam, it was far from the only big war where the Phantom played a part. I'd say it wasn't even the most interesting one, but that's of course just my opinion.
  20. F-4 fits great on the Persian Gulf and Syrian maps, and as well as any Western a/c on the Caucasus map. The Afghanistan map is a perfect fit for a lot of existing modules, including the latest helicopters. These two announcements don't have to be connected. I'd love me a Soviet ground pounder, but all clues point to the Phantom.
  21. Another thing to consider is that both the L-39 and F-5 are now quite dated, don't look as good as the newer modules and receive next to no attention from the devs. I can only recommend them to people who are interested in that specific airframe. In terms of gameplay options, visual fidelity, availability of supporting content and chances of having the remaining bugs squashed there is simply no comparison.
  22. I guess it depends on how low quality the HOTAS you're moving up from was. You need to be able to do very fine pitch, roll and throttle corrections. If you have jittery pots or a worn out gimbal, that'll be a problem. If you use the little slider with 3cm of very rough travel on the base of your joystick for throttle control, that'll suck too. And obviously what you use for rudders doesn't matter, you won't be needing them for this maneuver. I learned to AAR only after I got a Virpil HOTAS, but how much difference did it really make? No idea, maybe it just invalidated my excuse. I still had to put in the work, it didn't magically become easy, and it's very much a perishable skill. If I don't practice regularly, my AARs become sloppy.
  23. Try leaving it off for the entire flight - see if it still happens to you. I use the yaw channel very sparingly precisely because it's so easy to have it mess up your rudder trim.
  24. I did precisely that by accident yesterday. I flew the Persian Gulf dogfight instant action mission, which starts you out with the 400L tanks. I dropped the tanks, dived on the Sabres - got to about Mach .9 - .91 - then I slowed down to safe speeds, killed the Sabres and landed with no controllability issues whatsoever. I didn't do any testing beyond that but it seems to me you're good as long as you drop the tanks first.
  25. Wow, I honestly haven't thought of just doing this in the default.lua, but it makes perfect sense. That's a really nice solution, scoobie!
  • Create New...