Jump to content

lmp

Members
  • Posts

    1260
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by lmp

  1. I think it's a real possibility that we won't see major updates to this module (sadly), but OTOH the older Ka-50 and A-10C got their updates. Something similar might be possible. Refresh the old F-5, sell a new version with, say, Maverick support and/or INS to recoup some of the costs. I don't expect to see that, but I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
  2. I'd love to hear about the radar overhaul as well.
  3. I remember all the crazy stalls in the MiG-21, flying the MiG-15 into the ground after I oversped it or stalling on final because the engine takes an eternity to spool up from idle, the L-39 rolling over when I pulled a little too much AoA after a strafe run... Good times.
  4. There have been plenty of quirky aircraft in DCS, I don't see why the F-4E should get any more hate than the others. Also the "4th gen club" isn't a bunch of ignorant fools. Give the community some credit.
  5. I think the sooner ED sits down with all the interested third parties and comes up with a common system that everyone switches to the better. To me realistic sensor implementation is now the thing that separates the good modules from the great ones. I'm sure not everyone feels the way I do, but for the most part the FMs in different modules seem pretty believable to me. But after seeing how the Phantom's radar will be modelled and what for example RAZBAM does, and then comparing it to what we had in the F-5E and the MiG-21... It's hard to go back to the old planes. I want to see the same, high level of quality in all the aircrafts' sensors and IFF is a part of that as well.
  6. To me the most obvious simplification is that all aircraft, regardless of reality, have a magical transponder that works with every interrogator. Even planes that shouldn't have a transponder at all. It's great to simulate system and user errors, false positives due to a friendly along a similar azimuth etc., but right now we're missing much simpler and more obvious stuff. I think the key is that getting the AI to work in an unreliable IFF environment is a much bigger job than creating the unreliable IFF environment in the first place. We would need a comprehensive set of RoE options for the AI, including air defences, and we would need to explore the possibility of friendly AI shooting us down in error.
  7. This would be awesome and should be done for all modules as appropriate. It would be a very cool debriefing tool.
  8. Since we're dealing with a fictional cold-war-gone-hot scenario, I don't think it would be much of a stretch to extend the customary 1989 end date into the early 90s (fall of the SU, Georgian independence). Then the RDI equipped Mirage 2000C fits in just fine. And really, in terms of capabilities and role, it's the closest match we have. The Tomcat is in a different weight class and it's older than the Mirage is newer (if that makes sense). So if you want a very "fair" scenario, then it's the Mirage. Of course, in reality, war isn't fair and you see modern, more capable planes fighting along side older, less capable ones. You can balance it with numbers and skill. Consider that if MiG-29s started rolling off the production line in, what, 1983, then you would still need years to train instructors, then regular crews, develop new tactics... By the time the wall fell I expect the MiG-29 units were only beginning to become truly proficient with their machines. It's realistic that the guys flying older jets are better trained and more experienced. For a late 80s/early 90s "realistic" (rather than "fair") scenario, I think the F-5, F-4, both Mirages, MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-29 of course, entire FC3 lineup, and Tomcats are all viable. I probably missed some - my rule of thumb is "could it/did it fly in Desert Storm?". Balance them with numbers, weapons, appropriate missions, skill and you're golden.
  9. I disagree. MiG-21bis contemporaries include the F-5E, the Mirage F1 or the Phantom and it's competitive against all of them. And what's perhaps more important, we actually have those contemporaries in the game. Which of the F-13 contemporaries do we have in DCS? In practice, a MiG-21F-13 would end up fighting the same Western fighters that the MiG-21bis faces now, but without the superior T/W ratio, missiles worth a damn or even a decent gun. I fail to see the incredible mileage we're missing.
  10. I didn't say it would be out of place. I said it would be more out of place than the bis. The maps we have and are getting in the future support the bis at least as well as the F-13, the other modules support it better and the aircraft itself was built in larger quantities and longer than the MiG-21F-13. Explain to me how the bis is "sort of a crutch variant that really doesn't do a great job of representing the MiG-21 in DCS alone, at all" and the F-13 isn't.
  11. I'd buy a well done F-13 or PFM, but for anybody who isn't a huge MiG-21 fan they would be a tough sell. The bis is heavier but it also has a much more powerful engine (ridiculously so with the second stage AB). The PFM has only two missile pylons and it can't carry any of the good stuff. Forget about R-60s, R-3Rs, R-13s. You're stuck with just the earliest R-3S and RS-2US missiles. You can either have a gunpod or a fuel tank. You don't even get a gyro gunsight, just a fixed reflector sight. If the bis didn't have the Kh-66, then a PFM would have that going for it - being the only PGM capable Russian full fidelity plane. A poor man's fighter bomber. But that's not the case and capabilitywise it's just a worse bis. And for anyone who isn't a MiG buff this will matter. The F-13 is perhaps a little more desirable. More of a pure dogfighter, lighter, internal gun, better visibility, better looking... The improvements of the second generation versions focused on all weather bomber interceptions. For the type of flying most of us are interested in these just weigh it down. But on the other hand the F-13 is just an early cold war dogfighter, it's not really good for much else. Once there are some Western jets of the early supersonic era, it'll make more sense, but at the moment it would have no opponents and would exist alongside another MiG from the same era with the same armaments. It represents the MiG-21 well in the context of our other Cold War planes. We have a late variant of the F-5, the Mirage F1, a late F-4, a late MiG-23... Everything from the seventies. The F-13 would be more out of place in this company than the bis.
  12. The version you're probably thinking of is the F-13, not the F. The F was a guns only variant built in very limited numbers. The F-13 could employ two K-13/R-3S missiles, but lost one of the two NR-30 guns. This was the first widely exported (and copied) MiG-21 version that saw a lot of combat. One "problem" with the F-13 and the later RP-21 equipped MiG-21s is that the ingame MiG-19P and MiG-21bis already do what would make the earlier 21 variants interesting and unique. Even though they (mostly) shouldn't. For example, you mentioned the Kh-66 and RS-2US beam riders. Those don't go on the bis, the radar (RP-22) is incompatible. If the MiG-21bis developers hadn't included those missiles, it would make, let's say, a MiG-21PFM more viable. Different radar (despite a similar designation, the conical scan RP-21 is quite different from the monopulse RP-22), different missiles, no internal gun, completely different cockpit... That's worth a full price tag in my book. But because the bis already has those weapons, even though it shouldn't, the PFM would just be a worse bis in just about every way. Most players simply don't know or care that the beam riders are unrealistic on the bis. The MiG-19P developers "stole" some appeal of the MiG-21F-13 by including the R-3S missiles. From what I understand this isn't strictly unrealistic, but was something added late and in a limited way. Most users never had heaters on their MiG-19Ps. And again, most people won't know or care - they see R-3S on MiG-19s as "standard". Now, I'm not saying if that didn't happen we'd have two or three generations of MiG-21s to choose from. Chances are we wouldn't. And I understand why the developers did what they did. Those early jets have limited gameplay potential so every bit helps. After all, don't like it, don't use it. But because they did do it, I think the unlikely prospect that we'll get another MiG-21 became even less likely.
  13. Not the frequencies, the entire beacons. The MiG doesn't use the nav aids that are on the maps. Instead, for any selected RSBN, PRMG or ARK channel, it has it's own set of coordinates in a config file, that it points to instead. It's one of my biggest gripes with this module.
  14. That, sir, is a typo. I meant the R-73 that we all know and love. I fixed it now in my original post, thanks for noticing.
  15. The "two of each" loadout isn't the default - it's an airshow thing because it looks cool. A typical fighter loadout would be 2xR-27R + 4xR-73. The missiles on the outer and middle rails should be the same.
  16. RSBN is the Soviet equivalent of TACAN and PRMG is their version of ILS. Both systems already exist in DCS, there are a handful of stations on the Caucasus map, but none on other maps. The only aircraft that can make use of them now is the L-39. The MiG-21 also has an RSBN receiver but the developers decided to ignore the beacons placed on the maps and instead hardcoded their own. Regarding other radio aids, out of the three you listed, the MiG can only use NDBs. It doesn't have a VOR receiver and TACAN is Western military standard, never used in the Eastern Block. There is also no support for Western ILS. The RSBN receiver is much more useful than the ADF for a number of reasons though. 1. We get a lot more channels that are not set by the ground crew. The ADF frequencies are preprogrammed on the ground in the MiG and there is only three of them, or three pairs of outer/inner, I'm not sure exactly. 2. We get range information and generally much better precision. 3. In combination with the PRMG it can be used for precision approaches, even using autopilot. Also the RSBN was planned from the beginning to be a mobile system, that could be set up anywhere quickly. It would make a lot of sense to be able to actually use it this way.
  17. I think this is a must now that we're getting more RSBN capable aircraft (not just the 29 but also the 23). Mobile TACAN stations make it a lot easier to navigate in older Western aircraft, we should have the same for Eastern ones.
  18. It does have an INS and a panel for it. You can choose one of the previously preprogrammed waypoints or airfields (so a total of six locations stored in memory). FF Fulcrum should be less annoying to navigate - because you will actually know which waypoint you're flying towards - but not really more capable than the FC3 Fulcrum. What would make it slightly better though would be mobile RSBN stations, so go and upvote that thread ;).
  19. Well... Define program. AFAIK the INS in the Fulcrum-A can store a total of 3 waypoints and 3 airfields that are preprogrammed before flight. No console in the cockpit to change them or add new ones I'm afraid. Other than that, you get RSBN/PRMG and an ADF (with preprogrammed channels as well I believe?). So unless ED gives us a knee board page for changing waypoints, there won't be much programming. Expect a lot of things to be chosen for you by the ground crew or the aircraft designers themselves. Another example would be radar display ranges tied to the PRF, no choice in the number of bars for scanning in elevation... That's just how they designed planes on that side of the curtain
  20. lmp

    Skin thread

    One thing I find quite annoying is when the countries which are present on the maps are missing liveries. In case of the MiG-29 those would be Russia, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Technically also the US I suppose. Of course it's great if other countries get their liveries, I will be heartbroken if Poland and Ukraine don't, but it's really annoying to have the right country, right airbase, right aircraft but wrong livery.
  21. I'm pretty sure this is already planned considering the ongoing rework of the F-16C and F/A-18C radars, but it's definitely worth saying. The differences in radar modeling between modules are very visible and going back to an older (or just worse) implementation is quite painful.
  22. F-15C or A-10A perhaps? No FBW but at the same time no real quirks in the FM. All the modern aids are there (HUD and flight path marker mainly), but at the same time the simple avionics won't distract from the flying. The Viper can be tricky during takeoffs and landings. The Hornet is easier if you insist on a full fidelity module, but the trimming logic doesn't carry over to other planes.
  23. Turning really hard isn't the be-all and end-all of defensive flying. The FW-190 with its great roll rate can spoil attacks, force overshoots, win scissors fights. Its speed allows its pilot to disengage once he has an opening and run from fights he isn't likely to win. Can a slower, more maneuverable fighter outturn the FW-190? Sure, but how about two? Or four? Fights often aren't fair. But if you can run away from a single Spitfire, you can run away from a full squadron of them just as well. Of course in any defensive scenario you are at a disadvantage, pretty much by definition. And not every fight can be won, regardless of what you do. Particularly if you've already given the enemy every possible advantage to begin with - like in your scenario above. Also consider that a turning fight, whether you initiate it or it's forced on you, will probably take you all the way to the deck. You'll be slow, you'll have poor SA, any friendlies you were escorting will be gone, any bombers you were intercepting will be gone. Even if you win, you will be at the mercy of anyone who shows up to investigate. Defensively it's definitely better than dying, offensively - not a great option in most cases. So, to sum up, being able to turn well is nice and the FW-190 is (broadly speaking) not a great turn fighter, but... 1) as Ala13_ManOWar said, it's not as bad at it as you initially made it out to be 2) turning isn't your only defensive option and usually isn't your best offensive option ... so since everything in airplane design is a trade-off, sometimes sacrificing some turning ability for other advantages can be preferable.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...