WinterH
-
Posts
2883 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by WinterH
-
-
Most likely because it is already in development as a full fidelity module.
-
I don't care an iota about historical scenario relevance. Well, ok maybe not to that extent, I do care a bit that if possible an aircraft should fit with existing assets to form a cohesive scenario if possilbe, but it's mostly a nice to have for me.
DCS is first and foremost an aircraft sim up to the maximum degree, and I like it precisely for that. So bring me more great and interesting aircraft modeled very well, so I can experience their characteristics. If it has things I can put it up against that fit its performance level, great!
But it isn't end-all for me if the aircraft is interesting, and the module is well made. La-7 seems to tick both these boxes just fine.
-
1
-
-
I'd rather see no effort put into this, and said effort used in, for example, improving AI infantry and their animations, which would add incomparably more to DCS experience in my opinion. I can imagine a whole host of things I'd rather see before this.
And if this is ever added, I'd only not hate it if it's completely optional. So I can maybe enjoy it once or twice, and happily turn it off for rest of the time.
-
On 2/23/2024 at 8:10 PM, Gunfreak said:
So basically soviet/Russian aircraft goes from the equivalent of a Sidewinder P5 to a Sidewinder X. Skipping the equivalent of L and M.
They never necessarily had AIM-9L and M equivalent. They had R-73, which much superior in off boresight, but was somewhat less countermeasure resistant. It is stil not quite an AIM-9X equivalent, which isn't a surprise, as there are like a couple of decades between the two.
The one we have in DCS is, afaik, indeed the cold war R-73.
Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt when it comes to things like this.
On 2/23/2024 at 8:10 PM, Gunfreak said:In DCS the R73 seems to have 60 or 70 degrees off boresight ability.
I think, If the missile launch is only possible at up to 45 degrees off boresight, but the missile still can pull the rest as the angle increases, I don't think that's unreasonable. If the launch is allowed at greater than 45 degrees, than there maybe something wrong.
13 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:So if you want a none high off boresight missile in your MiG29A you have to give it the R60Ms.
That's the thing, R-73 was always a high off boresight missile, and indeed if you want to give something without this capability for whatever reason, you should give the MiGs R-60Ms. Which I think still may have slightly greater off boresight launch ability than AIM-9Ms, but are much shorter ranged, and will go "ooooh shiny!!!" whenever it sees flares.
-
1
-
-
I remember it being in 80s, but not the exact date. Which isn't very precise, I know
-
6 hours ago, Kalasnkova74 said:
Phantom II users like Israel , Turkey, Germany, Greece and South Korea feature local modifications for anti ship missiles.
Not entirely sure, but I don't think even these have dedicated anti ship weapons. Turkish 2020 Terminators have Popeyes and locally made SOM with about 100 and 250 kms ranges but they are more land attack missiles. Perhaps German ICE and Greek AUP had Harpoon but I don't think I've ever seen it mentioned for those. Coupd be feasible I guess, with them having a radar AFAIK based on the early Hornet radar.
I think Japanese EJ-Kai may have had yhe capability to use Japan's anti ship missile, also found on F-2s but again not sure.
With the two F-4E's we'll get, the options to attack ships will be Mavericks and bombs, guided bombs included. Just don't try to go against really teethy ones I guess
Though to be fair, some less capable and older warships could be feasible.
-
This isn't anything unusual or new as far as DCS is concerned to be fair. We've long had many aircraft with Vulcan, and as far as a typical fighter sized target (without a cheesy damage model) is concerned, great majority of avaliable guns perform within the same ballpark imo.
That said, yes, Vulcan is one of the best with great muzzle velocity, insane rate of fire, and ok hitting individual shells.
DEFA is ok too, pretty much all aircraft use it tend to have two of it, velocity is meh but serviceable, combined rate of fire is just over half of Vulcan but individual shells hit a good bit harder.
GSh-23L has roughly similar, maybe a bit better rate of fire compared to 2 DEFAs, shell hitting power vs aircraft should about midway between DEFA and Vulcan but velocity is horrible so trajectory isn't flat and range is shorter. So Vulcan is a good bit better but that's not news.
MiG-19's 30mms though shoot very flat to a decent range and hit very hard, so it's a match I'd say, even if with very little ammo count.
For air to ground, fire rate and relatively flat trajectory are good, but shells aren't particularly good bs even light armor in DCS at least. But it's still better both A-4 and F-5's guns for this purpose of course. DEFA isn't particularly amazing in armor penetration as far as I know anyway. Maybe only MiG-19's guns are slightly better vs light armor but then it doesn't have much ammo.
I guess purely going with other 70s birds in DCS, yeah it'll be the best gun, but I wouldn't say that'll be an earth shattering revelation anyway
also considering we're getting a mostly mid 70s Phantom, by then F-14 and 15 were in existence. Also the F-104 already had Vulcan before the Phantom and it's in dev by Aerges.
-
3
-
-
Considering just how much are we missing from (rather important) historical units, and the speed at which we get new AI stuff, I'll have to say no.
Mods? Yeah, sure why not. Official? Nah... please don't.
-
5
-
-
Our module, thankfully, isn't a Vietnam-first variant. It did as far as I know see some service there, but it's towards the tail end. Of two variants we're to get, the first one is about 1974ish, and the latter one is from 80s. The first one can be somewhat useful as a late Vietnam bird, but is amazingly well fitting as a 70s to 90s international service bird, which I vastly prefer, and fits better with what we have and what's coming in DCS.
Right now we have almost nothing that properly fit Vietnam War in DCS. Only a few kinda-sorta-maybe close enoughs. AFAIK, UH-1 mostly fits with a caveat or two, but mostly for a late war setting, same goes for F-4E DSCG. A-4E, depending on whether one's ok with freeware mods or not, also fits, pretty much exactly. MiG-19: only kind of, but close enough I guess. From upcoming modules A-1, F-100, and MiG-17 should fit well, but they're some way off in the future in my opinion. F-8 would also fit, but even though it is an aircraft I am very interested in, but at this point I think the best case scenario is it arriving many years from now, if at all.
Same goes for AI assets, arguably it's even worse actually. Pretty much no AI aircraft, no infantry (though I suppose current ones would work as a placeholder, kind of), and aside from some AAA, most other things are later variants of what served during Vietnam for either side.
Thus, unless one's fine with some suspension of disbelief, F-4E having a war RWR is the least of worries for a "Vietnam in DCS" experience. But the ones we get fit beautifully into existing and upcoming modules from 1975-1990ish period. Maybe HB will consider making the strobe only RWR an optional downgrade down the line to have an F-4 that'd fit slightly better for earlier parts of Vietnam War but to be honest it'll still be a bird with slats etc, and I'm personally rather thankful for that.
3 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:For example - Chaparral we have it's late version.
Oh yeah I also lately think that we need more variants of existing ground units, especially SAMs. SA-9 (Strela-1) for example, ideally we should have a both earlier answer later variant. SA-2 and 3 too, should ideally have multiple variants from older to later. And most certainly for MANPADS. It really feels sad trying to make 70s missions or lower threat, Bush war kind of things, but either having to leave out manpads entirely, or have to contend with later Stinger and Igla variants. But the direction ED seems to want to take with regards to AI objects worries me. Great payware models and free ok looking ones is on one hand an excellent and fair sounding initiative, but on the other hand it sounds like it will take forever for them to happen, and in my opinion that's by far not worth at the expense of us getting multiple variants of old vehicles across the periods even if they use current old models.
-
3
-
-
I'll be honest, MiG-23BN doesn't excite me all that much. However, I'd love a MiG-27K, failing that, MiG-27M may still be somewhat cool, but not nearly as much as the K.
Truly hoping, and looking forward to the arrival of days we can have both a Su-17M4 and MiG-27K in DCS.
-
6
-
1
-
-
As far as I can recall, things like R-27EP were the hot topic in late 90s to mid 2000s ish, and were touted almost exclusively as anti AWACS weapons. Designers probably didn't expect them to be precise enough to home on fighter radars and hit them? So intended more like a suppression of enemy air surveillance kinda deal probably.
But then, during that same period other things like R-27EM and EA were also thrown around and AFAIK they ended up being mostly just marketing fancies didn't they?
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Hiob said:
But to answer seriously - as you already mentioned, the Tomcat, the Viper, F-5, any Mig, any Mirage...... (tbh I don't know from the top of my head, which exactly are the time appropriate variants....)
If we're talking about 1975 indeed, Viper doesn't exist in service yet, neither does the Eagle. If we're talking DCS, the only Mirage that applies is F1, and afaik F-4E with slats have about 1 degree per sec better sustained turn rate.
Tomcat will be better, no question there.
Personally I believe if we turely compared 3rd gen options in DCS, F-4E will be one of the better dogfighters, possibly even the best, if flown very well, but it will probably be hard to fly that well.
Overall though, I do believe F-5E and MiG-21Bis will have ample chance to outdo it with relatively similar skilled pilots. We'll see. When MiG-23MLA comes, it should be interesting too, I personally think slatted F-4E is the better dogfighter of two, even if just slightly, but not sure, MiG will be advantageous pre-merge though, and I'm sure it'll accelerate much better overall too.
4 hours ago, Temetre said:You think the Mig-21 and Mirage F1 will outturn the F4E, that would be the ~75?
Mirage I'm not sure. But both F-5E and MiG-21Bis has a better instant turn I think, and if things get slow they'll remain more controllable than F-4 imo, slats or not. But we'll see.
-
Yeah, even as a professional F-16 hater, and a self-proclaimed champion of "F-4 is A LOT more maneuverable than people give it credit for", I don't expect F-4E to be even remotely able to keep up with F-16 even at low speeds, let alone beat it.
-
2
-
-
I think if you let it as an F-16 pilot, some stuff like MiG-19, MiG-17 etc could out maneuver F-16 when it is very, veeeeeery slow but, things really shouldn't go there, and even when you get somewhat slow, it is very easy for F-16 to claw back that speed. Besides, unlike those MiGs, F-4 isn't known for being controllable/maneuverable when slow, even with slats afaik.
I'm a life long professional F-16 hater
, but even still, I'll have to admit that it was indeed made to be a dogfighting monster, and for the most part achieved that just fine.
On 1/15/2024 at 7:18 PM, Dragon1-1 said:I was talking our F-16 versus our F-4, so a fat modern Viper versus a slatted F-4. Remember, both engine power and weight grew as the Viper evolved, the wings did not.
Technically yes, but those fat new Vipers in fact accelerate hell of a lot better than older ones as far as I know, and old ones were pretty great in acceleration themselves.
On 1/15/2024 at 7:18 PM, Dragon1-1 said:That said, fighting the Viper slow was never much of a thing.
Yeah, essentially this. Now, I suppose if we are discussing average DCS Joe Stickmann, including myself :P, yes, there will be folks who get suckered in to "I'll turn as tightly as possible, anything else be damned" in an F-16 every now and then probably. But even then I personally wouldn't expect an F-4 to be able to do much, because F-4 itself isn't an aircraft known for good behavior at lower speeds, and the F-16, especially the one with an 2000s engine in it, will be able to accelerate out of those situations a lot easier by just letting go of the stick :P. The same caliber pilot in an F-4 probably would already have departed controlled flight at that speed anyway.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Bremspropeller said:
Iran and Iraq also had F-7B fighters during their conflicht, though it seems they didn't use them too heavily.
Technically, I suppose there's also India and Pakistan, one being a MiG-21 user, the other F-7.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, lmp said:
Which of the F-13 contemporaries do we have in DCS?
While I'm very much in the Bis camp, if we speak historically, F-13 did fight or at least had the potential to meet in a shooting war things like F-100 and F-104, F-4E, all of which are in development for DCS. Other things like F-5E and Mirage F1, while later generation and in general superior, aren't too far stretches either. Also if we stretch into what-ifs including aircraft made by Soviet Union too, MiG-19 and MiG-17 are rough contemporaries.
People fight those fighters even in MiG-15s or MiG-19s, and will do so in MiG-17s soon, so a MiG-21F-13 should prove to be an interesting option imo. Sure, Bis is overall the more capable aircraft, duh, it has over a decade over the F-13. But while I personally believe alleged maneuverability advantage over Bis is probably way overblown by legend and lore, it will still have some advantage in some flight regime or other, which should be interesting to explore, and it's canopy should allow for considerably better visibility outside.
Imo for purely the opportunity to explore the earliest and purest MiG-21 experience alone, it is worth getting an F-13 in DCS.
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, pepin1234 said:
Do you really think people gonna believe certain government gonna put in jail the programmer.
Yes.
-
3
-
-
To be honest I don't think what an operational F-20 would exactly be was even in existence when the project was canceled.
There were 3 prototypes built if I recall correctly, and each were different. I think a 4th was to be made too but cancellation came before that. Also with 2 of them crashing on demo flights, there's only one left in existence, probably mostly stripped of everything and hanging off wires in a museum. I doubt meaningful access to an intact existing airframe is in cards either.
On one hand I'd enjoy the possibility to explore things like F-20 and Ye-8. On the other hand, for all intents and purposes, they don't exist anymore, and arguably never even existed in the way they were supposed to be operationally. I don't think they're feasible to make at the level we call a DCS module.
-
1
-
-
Or the best yet, they may not happen, and thus not taking away from possibility of more full fidelity aircraft, yaaaay!
ED is supposed to do MAC too anyway, where they would presumably belong, if that ever happens
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Art-J said:
Granted, FAQ doesn't literally say naval version (whichever gets chosen) is going to be a separate product, but that's most plausible scenario.
Heatblur staff said that multiple times since announcement of the module as far as I can recall.
-
2
-
-
37 minutes ago, Lime_Acid said:
Where?? When??
Multiple times since (and including in) the announcement of F-4E?
But that'll be some years down the line.
-
3
-
-
27 minutes ago, VDV said:
will F-4E it have AAR? And how it will be, with probe or what?
It is with a boom like F-16 and F-15.
-
3
-
-
59 minutes ago, FlyingCoffin said:
what pod is that?
That's the Merkuriy I think, works same as the Shkval overall, but at least supposed to have some low light capability. The other pod option for that centerline pylon is the Phantasmagoria pod, which is used for targeting anti radar missiles with, and that one shows you in the hud the type of radars it is detecting.
1 hour ago, FlyingCoffin said:also first mission of the campaign "georgian oil war" I fly to waypoint 5 radar detects me. I dont know what to do. Some chaffs some flares after Iam locked up but missile 1 one gets me then missile 2 gets me what shall I do?
If a radar have you locked up, you should try to go evasive, just releasing countermeasures does not gurarantee survival. Try to dive and get some terrain masking going, put the radar abeam (on your 3 or 9 o'clock) and speed up etc. Generally speaking it isn't even all that important to know what radar is locking you up exactly, so much as just trying to get out of dodge.
1 hour ago, FlyingCoffin said:Is there a radar guide for whats detecting the su25?
RWR doesn't directly tell you what radar is tracking you, but it can tell you the rough category of the radar, they were listed in the steam guide you linked earlier before you edited your post I think? It was under the "Threat Types" section.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, DisplayName said:
I thought the R-27R and R-27T was actually a thing
Well I did too, but sometimes things commonly believed end up proving to be "fudd lore". Don't get me wrong, not saying it definitely isn't possible, but if the system works as described it does seem like a distinct possibility that this may not be supported, we'll find out I guess.
-
1
-
Mig 29 cockpit update?
in DCS: Flaming Cliffs 3
Posted
Except it is. A-10 is an existing module, there's no ongoing effort for making a new one, and A-10A and A-10C cockpits are completely different.
MiG however, is being developed as a full fidelity module, and it's the exact same variant more or less. So they could be thinking "it's being improved anyway." Or perhaps they think it's good enough for now.
Too bad you can't control what people can or can not say on your public forum threads huh