-
Posts
128 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by hvymtal
-
(All aircraft) MIssing RWR information for some ships Type 052B Type 052C Type 054A LHA-1 Tarawa CVN-74 John C. Stennis Recommended fix: add the following lines to the ALR Reference file game folder\DCSWorld\Scripts\Aircrafts\_Common\Cockpit\AN_ALR_SymbolsBase.lua I know at least the Mirage references a different file. If there are others, please make sure all RWR reference files are modified! I tested this exact series of lines in-game and found them to accurately and cleanly add the respective RWR returns to the aircraft I tested: F-15C, F-5E M-2000C failed; it references a different RWR definitions file that I do not know how to access and test. I am also limited in my ability to access and test for other aircraft Note: This may also apply to several radars for ELINT purposes on the Su-25T, some of which may not be present here
-
Location would help good sir! You assume that I know what I'm doing!! The fact of the matter is that the user shouldn't have to fix it themselves though :/ Edit: found it I think: Scripts/Aircraft/Common/Cockpit/AN_ALR_symbolsbase.lua
-
Well the SPS-49, Top Plate, AEGIS, Dragon Eye, etc are the primary things to worry about as a pilot. Besides, I'll take one only for the sake of keeping clutter down
-
article in this months PC pilot is concerning
hvymtal replied to Cowboy10uk's topic in DCS: F-14A & B
Who said anything about just starting in the RIO seat? Stay there like I will and you won't have to worry about the many deadly aerodynamic quirks! So long as your pilot has half a clue of course. This being DCS that is never a guarantee though.... They did say how many freaking times though that it would be fully featured at early access release -
Will the "countries" parameter all be in one neat line to make it easy for those who like to comment it out and use any skin whenever? Cause I swear if I have to go through another one of these.... or these
-
Well I mean it's clearly all just a big hoax right? xD
-
GR.1 is just as good y'know. Stand-off weapons are for sissies! And it can have some features form the GR.1B and IDS incorporated, too And it has 2 guns And historically accurate shark mouths, which is what's really important here And on a practical note there will be a lot more info about the GR.1 declassified right now, whereas a GR.4 is only just coming out of service and modern IDSes are still kicking for the foreseeable future.
-
I would do very bad things for a Heatblur Tornado GR.1/IDS If it's the F-111 I hope to god it's the D or F cause I do NOT want to do manual navigation and targeting calculations for my pilot!
-
Missing RWR information for some ships, SAMs Several naval vessels are missing the relevant RWR information and display as an unknown (U) These include: Type 052B (Top Plate variant) Type 052C (Dragon Eye) Type 054A (Top Plate variant) LHA-1 Tarawa (SPS-48 ) CVN-74 John C. Stennis (SPS-48 ) Also affected is the MPQ-55 CWAR radar for the Hawk This bug also affects other aircraft with western-style RWRs
-
Missing RWR information for some ships, SAMs Several naval vessels are missing the relevant RWR information and display as an unknown (U) These include: Type 052B (Top Plate variant) Type 052C (Dragon Eye) Type 054A (Top Plate variant) LHA-1 Tarawa (SPS-48 ) CVN-74 John C. Stennis (SPS-48 ) Also affected is the MPQ-55 CWAR radar for the Hawk This bug also affects other aircraft with western-style RWRs
-
Bug: Missing RWR information for some ships, SAMs Several naval vessels are missing the relevant RWR information and display as an unknown (U) for the F-15C and A-10A These include: Type 052B Type 052C Type 054A LHA-1 Tarawa CVN-74 John C. Stennis Also affected is the MPQ-55 CWAR radar for the Hawk This bug also affects other aircraft with western-style RWRs
-
Missing RWR information for some ships, SAMs Several naval vessels are missing the relevant RWR information and display as an unknown (UK) These include: Type 052B Type 052C Type 054A LHA-1 Tarawa CVN-74 John C. Stennis Also affected is the MPQ-55 CWAR radar for the Hawk This bug also affects other aircraft with western-style RWRs
-
Missing RWR information for some ships, SAMs Several naval vessels are missing the relevant RWR information and display as an unknown (U) These include: Type 052B Type 052C Type 054A LHA-1 Tarawa CVN-74 John C. Stennis Also affected is the MPQ-55 CWAR radar for the Hawk This bug also affects other aircraft with western-style RWRs
-
Missing RWR information for some ships, SAMs Several naval vessels are missing the relevant RWR information and display as an unknown (UK) These include: Type 052B (Top Plate variant) Type 052C (Dragon Eye) Type 054A (Top Plate variant) LHA-1 Tarawa (SPS-48 ) CVN-74 John C. Stennis (SPS-48 ) Also affected is the MPQ-55 CWAR radar for the Hawk This bug also affects other aircraft with western-style RWRs
-
On aircraft which can distinguish specific RWR returns (A-10A, 10C, F/A-18, AV-8B, F-15C, M2000C, F-5E, etc), several naval vessels are missing the relevant RWR information and display as an unknown (U or UK) These include: Type 052B Type 052C Type 054A LHA-1 Tarawa CVN-74 John C. Stennis Also affected is the MPQ-55 CWAR radar for the Hawk
-
Because I was completely unaware of this thread existing in the first place lol. Oh well, merged anyways :P That was not worded as well as it could be; for the perspective of the F-4, yes that is the same thing. But there were other posters who seemed to be confused and were wondering why there weren't additional options for other modules. The point of the original thread before it was merged was specifically in the case of the F-4 and modules that surround it. Hope I cleare I hope you actually read the rest of the post instead of focusing on one line, because I feel I addressed several of the concerns you brought up in the greater post. Numbered points to respond in-depth. I already have addressed all of this (and it's pretty clear you didn't actually read all of my original or my big supplementary one -.-), but to counter each major point directly 1. I have already stated that the poll is not intended to create pressure, it is intended to gauge interest and provide a tangible figure using the microcosm of the forums. The original intent was to create a poll where such desires can be quantified without having to go post-by-post and seeing how many forum members want the F-4 and how. That has been clearly stated by me, the OP of the old thread and creator of the poll, at multiple points. Whether that data creates pressure is up to ED to interpret for themselves, but the original intent was certainly not to create pressure. 2/4. Absolutely correct, I'm just not sure at how much tangible data they were relying on for that. Sales projections based on existing modules are not, in my opinion, accurate given that the current crop of 3rd gen aircraft is of a very different level of capability and depth to the F-4. Perhaps they took that into account, I don't know for sure. Given the poll's outcome so far (even with a slight lead towards the F-16 in total and a decent lead if you only count the "prioritize F-4" options), perhaps they were correct, but, taking a massive leap of faith and assuming they based it on sales projections, probably not as correct as they thought. 3. Again, I'm not the originator of the petition, and the petition itself is hardly worded with malicious intent. The implications of such a petition can of course be interpreted as "forcing" or "bullying," but I feel that that opinion is engendered in a massive misinterpretation of the intent of the originator. Yes, change.org is been regularly abused for various ends that can be absolutely fairly be classified as an attempt to force or bully, but I fail to see any malicious or forceful intent in the petition in itself.
-
I'm not the one who made it, and this would hardly be the first time change.org has been used outside of its original intended purpose :P
-
Not simpler, just more old-school. The F-4 is by no means a simple aircraft; it is truly the first plane that is multirole in the sense we know it today, but technology of the time necessitated a two-person crew to achieve that level of capability. It also requires some new core tech that the F-16 will not need to develop bespoke thanks to the F/A-18 Unrelated: grammatical tip, either more/most or -er/-ist, not both. In the case of simple, it's -er/-ist
-
Ignoring those who have chosen to make personal attacks against mine or others' character for just a bit... a bit further rationalization from me Regarding the poll: the question and the poll topic is specifically regarding the F-4. The concern was not who wants which module first, it was more if you wanted F-4 to be put back into active development and if so, where. As for the poll's intent, it was to gauge and give a tangible figure on public interest. I failed to account for the internet's tendency to run away with stuff, and I have elaborated on this point in the first post. Please re-read before leveling any more accusations of malicious intent, thank you very much. Regarding my own personal desire to see the F-4 prioritized ahead of the F-16: The F-16 represents the same generation and type of aircraft as the F/A-18 and F-15E. From a tactical standpoint, it offers the same swathe of capabilities and ordnance options as a land-based F/A-18, and from a variety standpoint, the two are interchangeable save for the F/A-18 able to be based on water. Same gun with similar ammo loads, same number of ordnance and fuel hardpoints, same air-air options, almost same air-ground options, similar radar capabilities, features, and performance, both have HMDs, both have datalink and situational awareness display options, etc etc. From an individual aircraft and pilot-end standpoint, they are completely different in just about every way and I don't think a single part is interchangeable, but from a tactical standpoint, they offer the same suite of capabilities and for the most part the same experience wrapped up in a different airframe. The human-machine interface is broadly similar, which discounting a somewhat different theory of operation would likely lead to a fairly same-feeling experience Contrast that to the F-4E, which is a whole generation earlier, is two-seat and requires both crew, and has a vastly different human-machine interface. While its capabilities from a tactical standpoint are lesser than the modern jets (duh), and there isn't anything it can do that the F/A-18 can't, the actual experience of operating it is fundamentally different thanks to the much less advanced HMI and necessity of two crew, while still providing all of the essential capabilities of an advanced multirole fighter in a much earlier timeframe. This is further reinforced by the fact that many multiplayer servers and groups deliberately limit the ordnance or airframe options in order to provide more balanced or thematic gameplay instead of seeing one side's top-shelf plane run away with it, or 3rd gen jets getting repeatedly roflstomped by 4th gen jets. The F-4 has no such concerns of being limited from its maximum potential in air-air and not much in air-ground, either. Furthermore, ED does seem to like their aircraft contrasts, and the F-4E is the perfect counterpart to the MiG-23MLA with regards to air-air, and while the MiG-23 has less tools (and hardpoints) to play with than the F-4 for air-ground, it still has a very respectable toolbox nonetheless. The F-16, meanwhile, has no such eastern bloc competitor in the modern, full-fidelity lineup (excluding the low-fidelity 1st gen MiG-29 module) and unless the Russian or Chinese governments decide to start handing out MiG-29M or J-10A info like candy, we won't see one. You could argue that a comparison can be made between the F/A-18 and F-16, but it's not the same thing as a complete worldview shift like we get with the East/West contrast. Of course, development concerns do mean that the F-16 will be able to be developed more easily utilizing technology leveraged from the F/A-18, but to halt F-4 development completely? That's where I personally am disappointed. Helicopters are a totally different animal to jets, and to halt development on the F-4 completely in favor of a plane where background systems will have already been developed? (sidenote: no the planes do not share the same hardware but almost all of said hardware operates on the same principles; the core tech is mostly the same) this also comes with the concern of doing the F-16 too quickly and too soon after the F/A-18 and in the same timeframe as the F-15E; the concern with that is that it could lead to lost sales for the F-15E and F-16, whereas the F-4 plays to a different niche and would lack such concerns. Finally, related to the thread itself: I would really appreciate it if people did not make personal attacks and throw around accusations. We are all here because of DCS and I feel comfortable in making the assumption that we all want what is best for it. I feel comfortable in assuming that almost every participant in this thread is human and has feelings and emotions like everyone else. Such toxic behavior only begets further toxicity and inhibits constructive discussion. Reverse our positions and see how you would react to your own words. Would you say that to the other person in real life? If so, do you expect it to end in anything other than a fistfight? Moderate yourself and contribute to the discussion, not the bullshit TLDR: -F/A-18 and F-16 are tactically similar and have similar human-machine interface, runs risk of feeling samey from pilot's perspective -F-4 has totally different, less advanced but equally if not more involved HMI, and requires two crew -F-4 is less susceptible to having max potential gimped by mission-maker balancing tricks -F-4 has a good Eastern bloc contrast aircraft already in the works in the MiG-23MLA by RAZBAM, whereas the F-16 does not have an eastern-bloc contrast in high-fidelity and likely won't for foreseeable future -F-16 will have more core tech to rely on from the F/A-18 to speed up development whereas the F-4 has much less so -Concerns of lost sales due to possibility releasing in a crowded market for 4th gen multiroles whereas F-4 has much more open market space -Don't be toxic, there is a person on the other side of the screen and it is kind of insulting for accusations of malicious intent to be leveled when the intent was not malicious in the first place Edit: If there is someone in-the-know with regards to this particular decision viewing this thread and it is permitted to do so, it would be appreciated, at least by me, if some insight on what the actual rationale was behind the decision could be shared instead of people trying to figure it out ourselves with zero basis to go off of (guilty as charged)
-
Well, it's the 18th. Hopefully the fix will come, and without a 3 day steam delay...
-
Is Modern Air Combat intended to become a branding label for future low-fidelity/sim-lite modules, or is it intended to be a one-and-done thing like Flaming Cliffs, at least from ED's side? If the case is the former, will this mean that other modules may be added to the core MAC bundle or not, if that is a question that can be answered ATT
-
It's almost as if developing highly complicated fighter jets takes time...
-
A-7 was always a favorite for me, a very different take on what makes a good frontline attack aircraft. Faster than the A-10, but not as fast or relatively fragile as the Su-17. It will make a fine compliment to the F-4E and F-14
-
Fuel consumption: close to nonexistent (AFAC, anybody?)
-
* DCS: F-14 Development Update! Scan, Lock, Fire! *
hvymtal replied to Cobra847's topic in DCS: F-14A & B
I think RIO is the one with control of LANTIRN. Not sure what JESTER will be like, but you can probably ask him to designate specific targets