Jump to content

WinterH

Members
  • Posts

    2883
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by WinterH

  1. That's what I mean, that's the wrong folder and it will cause this problem. Any free mods need to go to the folder I have mentioned above Users/(whatever your windows username is)/saved games/dcsworld/mods/aircraft That's where you need to put it.
  2. Make sure it's not "Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\...\Mods" But "Users\Your Windows User Name\Saved Games\DCS\Mods"
  3. Personally I don't think mystery helo is a thing anymore. Razbam's helicopter team's first product was supposed to be Bo-105, together with Miltech-5. Since then intended helo FM programmer has been absent for a long time, and Miltech-5 moved on again to find programmers and continue doing the 105 themselves. My impression is, we shouldn't expect helicopters from Razbam for the foreseeable future. Of course with the amount of information we have (or rather lack thereof), we may be missing things, but unless Razbam says otherwise, with no updates on hinted helicopter modules for years, their already quite full pipeline, and above situation with Bo-105, I'm inclined to think this way.
  4. There was that video from Octopus-G for Su-17M4, it very much seemed like Magnitude-3 teased a Su-17 or Su-22M4 too, and there is the mod from SVKSniper. Actually, back then some years ago there was even another mod project for it here on forums somewhere. Sadly, so far none seem to have it contacted with ED, thus nothing is confirmed. I very strongly hope it will be Octopus-G's next module, out of the possibilities, they are the dev I want to see doing this bird. Su-17M4 is the only thing I want quite as much as the F-4E. But it looks murky whether it will happen or not, and seem like even if it will, it is many years ahead. I like the Iskra dev's attitude and hope he will get a license, the more devs, the better. But the bird itself isn't one that excites me too much. I'd like a Gnat, Magister, or even a Hawk T1A again, or, obviously, a Su-17 Anyway, the topic is for newsletter discussion, and I think we're way off that mark
  5. WinterH

    Su-17

    I'm sure MiG-23MLA will sell pretty well. Seems like there are lots of people who want more Cold War aircraft, or more red-birds, or some others specifically want both red and cold war birds, and it fits the bill for all of them. I'd count myself in all 3 of those groups too tbh. However, I feel like differences between MiG-27K and 23MLA are more than what they share. I remember some years ago Overstratos saying something like 27K being specifically difficult to get all docs about, but it could be made with educated guesses where docs aren't available. Not entirely sure how I feel about that, but tbh pretty much all modules have some of that in, and looks like that's the only way we'll get more red birds. Also I think unlike MiG-27M, K wasn't exported much, if at all, outside of Soviet Union. What makes K unique and interesting in addition to a Su-17M4 is Kaira tv sight+laser designator, kind of like an older Shkval, and M doesn't have that afaik. Su-17M4 and MiG-27K would complement each other so nicely in DCS though... one can dream
  6. For me it's literally the most plain-jane a fighter can look, never really liked it, one of the reason I never really got too deeply into F-16 sims is that... they're F-16 sims, and back in the day ED effectively cancelling Belsimtek's F-4 for it was another huge nail in Meh-16's coffin for me, not to mention the way it released And the way it is designed to fly, which it achieves successfully, isn't too exciting for me, feeling sanitized by FBW to the level of feeling sterile. Now, let me qualify these being completely subjective things of course, and mostly for a simmer's entertainment point of view. F-16 was, and remains to be, one of the best bang-for-buck multirole fighters ever, and is the choice that makes sense for many countries, including mine. That doesn't mean I have to like the darn thing tho
  7. They are just always visible at preset locations of certain maps as far as I know, and aren't related to that setting.
  8. Really depends on what you mean with jack of all trades, but if we go by the general meaning imo F-15E will never be the jack of all trades compared F-16, F/A-18, or indeed despite it being a lot lighter the JF-17. Strike Eagle at heart will remain a bomber with good self escort capability. It is very focused and specialized at that. All the others above can do that too, but a lot less well than F-15E. However, in addition they can do SEAD, anti ship, and I'd argue have more options in interdiction of mobile vehicles etc. None of which are among the menu for SE. Well guess it can also do anti convoy work with CBU-97, 105, and JSOWs, and looks like it'll get Mavericks too, but AFAIK JSOWs and Mavericks are kinda gameplay stretching of payload options for that variant, and even then I'd argue the other 3 remain overall more flexible by far. Anyway, as for the thread's actual subject... To each their own I guess. Personally I've always been Meh at best vs F-16, or indeed outright hostile towards it. I don't like its looks, I don't enjoy the way it flies, at all, but I'll agree it is a very capable and reasonable airframe indeed. But capability wise they are very similar with hornet, only difference is in the way sensors are operated by HOTAS, and many including myself find the way things implemented in F-16 to be janky. Guess it's the speed and acceleration in the Viper that you like then. But for me Viper is the very definition of boring interestingly
  9. Mostly, yes. You will not need to know a bazillion MFD pages, ICP menus, etc. But Phantom will be harder to fly well, or to operate smoothly. At least that's what I think it will be like. Kind of I guess. F-4E has more and more complex systems and weaponry on board. But at the same time, look and feel of the cockpit design and instruments will be similar enough. As far as I know, the dive-toss and laydown bombing modes we'll have on F-4E DSCG and computer bombing mode on A-4E are fairly similar.
  10. I love MiG-21, but I want upocming/teased Mag3 modules much, much more. That said, MiG is indeed a love of mine, a special jet, and at the very least systems modeling-wise it needs a lot of love. Some people also think FM isn't quite there, I am not entirely sure where I stand on that one, but it is another concern being voiced anyway. Thing is, another variant wouldn't be a "bonus", it'd be a new module really, unless it is MF or another last gen 21, but then it isn't different enough to make it interesting for us sim-folks I'd say, and modeling cockpit would still be a non-trivial cost/effort I feel like. I'd be happy with the paid update route if it somehow includes another variant I guess, but not sure that'd be worth the effort. Also, honestly, at this point I'd rather get more Fishbed variants from another dev, and if Mag3 will keep giving us modules, I'd like to see the F-8 in DCS at least. I love the MiG, but realism-wise it's probably not quite there with some of the later modules we have. I loved the idea of Cristen Eagle II unlike many others, but the execute seems to have left something to be desired for many, myself included. I love the Corsair and I am very interested in it, but how long it seems to take makes me wonder if there's some trouble somewhere. I love the F-8 and Su-17/22, but... honestly, I'd rather get Su-17 from OctopusG tbh, as it's an aircraft I really, reaally want to be well made. To be fair, A LOT has come to pass in the world during last few crazy years, and those things had an impact on all of us in some way or other, devs included. So that may have had some effect on Mag3's efforts too. But I feel like soon-ish, they may need to give us a proper update aside from Corsair itself to keep/win back some of the confidence from the community. An update on the MiG-21 2.0 that was spoken about by Magnitude themselves some years ago, what to expect post Corsair, and on F-8J too. It kind of seemed like for some time, main systems/FM dev wasn't as present as much anymore, but thankfully lately we've been seeing some updates on CE2 and the MiG every now and then, so perhaps things are improving, or perhaps, it was just that the Corsair was kicking their backsides a bit too much to do really well, and they've had little energy left for anything else during the time. Hope that was the case.
  11. That is very much debatable, and I say this as someone who has been forever unimpresses by MiG-23s for the most part. It only holds water when F1 gets Super 530F, which I believe wasn't all that common among its customers (though Iraq had it afaik). Also, even then, it is about on par. MiG's radar is more powerful, they are both supposed to have limited look-down capability, but R-24R is at least on par, perhaps better than Super 530F. Then, on top of these, MiG will have an IRST, and a medium-ish range IR missile option in R-24T. Granted, IRSTs in general overperform in DCS, it is still an advantage than can be leveraged under right circumstances. Finally, the other important factor in BVR, speed and acceleration. F1 is no slouch in this department, but MiG-23 is a class of its own in these departments. So, WVR is debatable, but BVR, more often than not my money will be on the 23 between the two. Likewise compared to F-4E. APQ-120 isn't really an amazing radar, and at least right now in DCS, even the most updated AIM-7s remain rather unimpressive weapons. One can argue it can even be somewhat competitive vs an 80s Mirage 2000 or MiG-29 in BVR, or indeed an early Hornet. If Mirage only has the regular R530 as its "BVR" weapon, there isn't even a competition to speak of imo. Edit: Having said all that, while yes, BVR vs early F-16 is a thing, I stil wouldn't put a lot of money on any MiG-23 vs any F-16.
  12. Man... We really need the laugh reaction back.
  13. WinterH

    Su-17

    If we get a 29, I'm sure it'll be a 9.12, that's what they said back when they hinted at the idea the first too. I remain unconvinced Kh-29T rework is anything beyond sim assets maintenance at this point, but again, hopefully I'm wrong. Again Su-17M4 is sharing the spot with F-4E in being the thing I'd be most anticipating to see and enjoy using in DCS. If not that, Su-22M4 isn't that far off either, but if possible would prefer the 17. I would really not expect any MiG-29 beyond 80s to be honest. But it would be cool indeed if we could get one that is somewhat multirole, but I'd understand the argument against it too, in favor of an older one, if getting a later one would mean it being at the expense of one that is representative of more ubiquitious variants all over the world. I'd love to get a MiG-27K someday, but not sure if it is super likely. They would complement each other well with Su-17M4, each having different pros-cons. Anyway, I'm actually kinda happy to speculate about Su-17/22M4 though Su-25 but even faster Lots of boom and dakka Janky-advanced 80s coolness Cold-War Soviet stuff Quite a bit of options for SEAD, not only that, full fidelity Red-SEAD What's not to like! I truly hope Octopus-G will give us this bird after (also anticipated by me) La-7. On one hand I like them as a 3rd party warbird provider, and I love warbirds in DCS, and I have more Soviet birds or potential rivals I'd like to see from them, on the hand... Su-17M4... and Octo-G is one of my favorite devs personally tbh.
  14. More F-4E, F4U, OH-58D footage, maybe some Lavochkin, possibly more Chinook. Maybe juuuust maybe some F6F in engine, but doubt it. Will probably have some C-130 in it too. Don't expect a lot of Eurofighter in it myself, if at all. Also the end video tease, at least one of them, will probably be MiG-29, maybe :p. Beyond these I don't see much point in speculating tbh, it IS basically wishlisting imo. I'd love if a Cold War AH-1 would be announced but we don't have lots of reasons to believe that's happening yet.
  15. I don't know if current missile API allow that, but as far as I know, earlier on a lot of weapon aero and seeker performance parameters were in editable .lua files, and someone who had them altered could perhaps ruin people's fun in a server that doesn't enforce pure clients/integrity check. There were also some utilities that'd give you something like a western 4th gen's EW MFD page, even if your jet doesn't have such a feature which created bit of a storm, and kinda gave us integrity check feature in the first place Well basically, there is a reason integrity check exists. But with any online PvP experience, it is hard to know what is people cheating, what is people being salty over being defeated, or indeed, what is sim engine/network going wonky sometimes.
  16. WinterH

    Su-17

    Yeah that's some weapons grade speculation and wishful thinking Su-17M4 is the thing I want to see happening in DCS perhaps the most. Few other things I want as much. But that doesn't mean we should start reading into things way more than reasonable imo I'd be happy to be wrong here though...
  17. It was not though, by the time Lockheed took over the F-16, from the company that actually first designed and built it, General Dynamics, the type was like 20ish years old in service already. Not sure how this follows to be honest. Deal of the Century refers to F-104 afaik, and that was some ways before the F-20s time... F-20 was, in fact, intended as an F-104 and F-5 replacement. When F-20 did indeed get killed off by indifference of US towards the type, and by the F-16 itself, Lockheed had nothing to do with the F-16. F-20 was very cool, but with adding features that made it thus cool, and up to scratch with modern tech, it became barely any cheaper than current F-16s, new 4th gen competitors like F-16, F/A-18, and Mirage 2000 all promised a lot more future upgrade potential, and while being pretty close to those new types in flight performance with the upgrades, it was still not quite up there in most respects. I am honestly curious, can you give us a list? Afaik, by the time LM took over, which was after mid, probably late 90s, Block 50 was already a thing, or was about to be. Block 40 happened under GD afaik. The sales that killed F-20 happened in at most mid 80s, and by then LM had nothing to do with F-16. And again, while most was, not all of the sales that killed it off were F-16s, Hornet and even Mirage 2000 did pay some part as well. Although the Mirage in the end, arguably didn't end up being upgraded to as truely multirole as F-20 was, at least not in great numbers. But the potential was there. Back to the topic itself, a lot of the advanced air to ground stuff are literally tacked-on afterthoughts on the F-16, and it shows. A-10C upgrade was more of a ground up thing, as was the Hornet, being intented as multirole for the Navy and Marines from the start, replacing A-7s, to a degree also A-6s, but only supplementing F-14 as a fighter, latter remaining the main fleet defender still. F-16 at first was supposed to be a light fighter with mavericks and some bombing features too. Multiple sensors and precision weapons came later. Being primarily centered around the idea of pre-planned strikes isn't as bizarre as it may seem at first. In truth, great majority of air combat operations are pre-planned flights if possible. Planes looking around for targets is really more of a sim-ism we are accustomed to. In A-10's case it is more fit, it being a primarily CAS platform, but even its system works much nicer with preplanned targets being available.
  18. One thing I've found: setting the release delay to the minimum of 0.1 seems to yield better results with KMGU (as in the attached screenshot). Still not great mind you, but it deals a lot more damage this way. The bottom setting specifically labeled as "Series KMGU-MBD" seem to do the worst. Yes, it gives about a kilometer of coverage, but release is so slow, bomblet coveraged in that area is too sparse and they often miss vehicles entirely. Tested with 4x KMGU pods. 8 of them would probably yield considerably better results, but that also seems to be bit of a memey loadout. Well, on the other hand, perhaps not, as Su-25's weapon system is supposed to handle 1 or 2 types of A/G weapons at most simultaneously afaik. With RBKs containing PTAB 10-5 bomblets, I'm sure a somewhat working delivery profile can be found, but I gave up on them after trying quite a bit. Only niche use I may recommend them is mixing and releasing together in a MiG-21, where you both get dedcent coverage, and some of the coverage being of more dangerous 10-5 bomblets. With Su-25 only allowing release of 1 type of bombs at the same time, it's moot there, and PTAB 2.5M and PTAB 1M seem to remain better options. Though, unless I use the cheaty CCIP (which doesn't really fit except for a direct dive on a single target anyway), I can't figure a working profile to hit things with cluster bombs in MiG-21 even though I can in most other aircraft that doesn't have a bombing system. I blame the absolutely horrid forward visibility So far, closest option for Su-25 I've found that is in consistence with Mk20 in performance is PTAB 1M from mid altitude CCRP level release. They are about equal in that case. In general Mk 20 seem to have a lot more reliable coverage from any kind of release, but bomblets aren't super powerful. They are better than PTAB 1Ms though. I think, what happens in KMGU setting is, that it simultaneously releases ordnance from every selected hardpoint with every release pulse, which would theoretically increase bomblet density, but it seems the time between those pulses is too long, thus counteracting that benefit. At least these are the observations I got from trying, and then watching the track in super slow motion from the bomblets' and targets' perspectives. As a bonus, all these testing yielded some cool screenshots and footage
  19. Personally, it being satellite imagery is the greatest one among the reasons I didn't buy this map. It may well look great up high, but down low, which tends to matter in combat flight sims, it tends look less than ideal in my opinion. But I udnerstand not everyone agrees about this. Besides, the map having been developed from the scratch for so long with satellite textures as the basis, I am not sure it would be even remotely easy to change that. Besides, I guess it is fine having some satellite based maps for folks who like those, and crafted texture based ones for the other side of the coin like myself.
  20. Just tried KMGU and... wow that was super impressive visually, and equally unimpressive effect-on-target wise. Coverage looks good, at least not donut-like. But maybe bomblets cover the area sparsely. I think this was another case of CCRP being long, but may well be me too, anyway missed the first two vehicles in the line, one of which was that Abrams, but did only 18% damage to T-80U (and overall it's resistance seemed worse than Abrams in other tests), killed Bradley, and did nothing to the M113 that was on its path, maybe missed it wasn't perfectly aligned. Yeah they were different indeed. And I feel like damage after defeating armor is lower on RBK's 2.5KOs, needs more testing to confirm As for Western CBUs, my experience with Rockeyes have been hit-miss, sometimes I got amazing results out of them, other times highly disappointing. But generally seem to do a bit better with them, yes.
  21. Also testing, will do some more but so far: - Just like Ironhand said above, PTAB 10-5 disperses in a ring shape, leaving a huge mostly safe zone in the middle. - PTAB 2.5M and PTAB 1M both disperse a lot more uniformly within their coverage area. - Tested them from a Su-25, and while I'm not 100% sure it isn't me, I feel like with 80% confidence CCRP and even CCIP falls LONG with PTAB 10-5 and PTAB 2.5M - Dropping with a high-ish CCRP using PTAB 1M ensured that a half decent area was covered, and bomblets fell with a fairly steep, almost perpendicular to the top of the target - They DID penetrate an Abrams, and did 95% damage with 7 hits - PTAB 2.5M and 10-50 had less coverage, with 2.5 having a bit more reliable coverage that at least isn't donut shaped. - With 10-5 it feels like releasing a stick of multiple RBKs is more or less mandatory so the donuts at least somewhat intersect - Seems, 10-5 kills Abrams with 2-3 succesfull hits. I'll test more, including KMGU, interestingly, sub munitions are named different between KMGU and RBK, not sure if it's significant, but one's called PTAB 2.5KO, and the other PTAB 2.5M, will test KMGU too, as well as other clusters like Mk 20 Rockeye, Belouga, BL755. I recall BL755's bomblets being quite damaging from years back when I was playing around with them on MiG-21.
  22. At first I was going to react the way you did, Ramius does have a point in saying issue is (well at least partially, probably) in hitpoint based damage model: With and unguided cluster bomb, unlike CBU-97 and 105, we probably get few penetrating hits on tanks, and in HP based model small submunitions' damage is not enough on a tank that has lots of them, even when it can penetrate. Well, maybe anyway... still not sure, because the mission log only lists damaging hits, aka those that did penetrate, and as far as I can recall, when I use clusters on tanks I rarely get any "damaged" entry for those, meaning even if they do hit, they didn't penetrate. This needs some testing to find the real issue/or set of issues.
  23. I am not sure about that tbh. I'd agree some years ago, but it seems this was improved down the line somewhere. When I've tested GSh-23 on various aircraft about 3 years ago, whether I hit a vehicle from front/side/rear/top did matter significantly. Not only that, the impact angle of the shells mattered at least as much. I'll update this post later with its video from back then. So in this case it may well be that the penetration from the submunitions being perhaps underestimated. Though this itself should be easy to check from their Luas, there's a data mining repository of DCS weapons somewhere on github that's updated with every patch. As for the CBU-97, like others have said it isn't an apples to apples comparison because its submunitions are "guided" and will almost all hit the available targets in their area of coverage. Russia is supposed to have a similar submunition, named SPBE-D but don't know if it was made avaliable in widespread use, and even then, when. In any case, we don't have it in DCS yet. I even think it's in files somewhere, just not available in editor even for recent AI planes I think, and certainly aren't avaliable on any player flyable aircraft either. However, I think CBUs without such sensor equipment should still be deadly on most tanks, but right now they are very underwhelming on anything beyond IFVs.
  24. Once again, call me boring but I'd much rather have SBD. More iconinc and historically significant, at least by some degree, a lot prettier :P, and from what I've read much nicer to fly too.
  25. Been a while last I did anything with the MiG, so you may well be right but, I'd echo the other poster in mentioning the difference in guns. .50 cals on US warbirds are so flat shooting they might as well be laser beams, 13mm + 20mm combo on Fw-190 is a bit less so, but still fairly flat shooting with pretty good muzzle velocity. Also while they are two different gun types on the 190, their ballistics are fairly similar up to reasonable dogfighting ranges. 23mms and 37mm on the MiG are really not flat shooting weapons, they both leave something to be desired when it comes to velocity. Also, unlike the all .50 cal setup on American birds, or 13+20mm on Fw-190, ballistics of 23 and 37s on the MiG are very different if you want to shoot them together in anything further than just beyond point blank. So unless your targets perfectly still, and you are quite close, they will require more deflection than you are used to with the other birds.
×
×
  • Create New...