Jump to content

Kippy

Members
  • Posts

    277
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Kippy

  1. I personally hardly ever use the airbrake outside of enroute flight. I mostly use it during descents enroute to and from the airport. In a combat environment, there is little reason to use it. Many guys like to use it as a divebrake when they're making a gun run from steep angles, but this practice should be avoided. The logic behind it is sound; You want to increase your trigger time on target, so decrease the closure rate to the target. But remember that while using the gun, you are especially vulnerable to ground fire because you are going to fly in a highly predictable straight line until you stop firing. The longer you have to shoot, the longer the enemy has to shoot back at you. With the GAU-8's power and accuracy, you generally don't need a long trigger time anyway. However for your enemy, that extra trigger time can mean more small arms hits to your aircraft. And there's also the break. After you're done firing, you want to immediately break away from the target area as to not soak up any incoming ground fire. You want this break to be urgent, and you want to be highly maneuverable going into the break. Thus, you want a higher airspeed. (280-330 knots is awesome and will give you all the room you need.) To conclude, for combat, you have little reason to use it because there aren't really situations that justify it's need. For gun runs, minimize the enemy's trigger time and make sure you have all the energy you need and then some for the break; keep to high airspeed. P.S If you extend the airbrake while rolling, your roll rate will increase quite substantially. Try it out sometime. This can have it's own uses.... ;)
  2. The Hawg is a very forgiving and user-friendly jet. The best advice I can give is to read manuals and be thorough. Conform to checklists and commit to learning the aircraft inside and out. You mentioned a concern with a lack of power. Many DCS pilots choose to carry six mavericks and six GBU-12s on TERs, as well as their other weapons, oh, and full fuel. Unless you're facing a small army of stationary, defenseless cereal boxes, this practice is hilariously impractical. You're slow, won't be going anywhere in a hurry, and the obscene weight and drag added by carrying such a massive payload will render you unable to maneuver with any sense of urgency. Instead, look to the real-world payloads for inspiration. Carry only two Mavericks, and at most four GBUs. Do not carry anywhere near full fuel, simply take what you need and a sufficient reserve. You will notice that with a conservative payload, you will hit almost 280 knots in cruise at full power and you'll be able to turn on a dime. All those extra weapons ard fuel is just not worth it. The A-10s primary tool of destruction is the gun, anyhow. The gun is crazy effective and is capable of destroying countless targets if deployed correctly. Learn to use that thing like a pro. That's the best advice I can give.
  3. You can always go around. XQqIc0B-xm4
  4. KC-135 or E-3 from this guy. We all love to think of the fast, punch-packing fighters burning holes in the sky, but we always seem to lose sight of the whole picture of the network of support that allows them to complete their mission.
  5. Kippy

    LANTIRN!

    Woohooooo! Heatblur rocks!
  6. Please contribute what you can to the discussion. Obviously you are knowledgeable on the matter. If you insist this conversation is moot because of the subject matter, then don't go cruising for trouble arguing with people and making attacks on the pilot whilst providing no evidence for your statements. Also, if you do have access to classified information like you claim, then somebody must have briefed you on OPSEC and the steps involved. Let's apply some OPSEC measures and not disclose so openly the fact that you have access to Critical Information.
  7. It is possible to mount MIL-STD-1760 weapons (JDAM, JSOW, WCMD) on the BRU-55/57 bomb racks. I think we will probably see this capability on our Hornet.
  8. WE WANT YOU! http://v163.org TeamSpeak3 IP: 163rd.teamspeak3.com The 163rd Virtual Fighter Squadron is opening it's doors. We're seeking A-10C pilots and Combined Arms JTACs of all skill levels. ABOUT US Inspired by the real 163rd Fighter Squadron, we take to the skies of DCS's virtual battlefields with one mission: Conducting realism-centered operations that provide an immersive and ejoyable simulation experience for our pilots. After conducting some research and putting our heads together, the group of experienced Hawg Drivers who founded our squadron reached the conclusion that the DCS community had a lack of organized groups to fit the needs of DCS's many players. So we founded our squadron hoping to target what we felt was a large demographic of DCS pilots. We strive to conduct realistic operations, but we under no circumstance sacrifice fun for "true realism." What we mean to convey is that we will not have you perform mandatory check rides, nor will we have We do make communicate realistically and use proper radio calls, use proper A-10 Tactics and Procedures, carry real-world payloads, and expect our pilots to have a sufficient understanding of the fundamentals of aviation. But do not fear! If you think you might need some training beforehand, we offer one on one A-10C and L-39 instruction to all pilots of the DCS community, not just members of our squadron. We welcome all new pilots, regardless of age or experience level. All of our conduction missions are designed in-house by staffers from our squadron. While our operations do not represent many boring, monotonous tasks and requirements, they also are certainly nowhere close to action-movie level of detachment from realism. Our mission designers and staffers aim to find what they call the proverbial "goldilocks zone" of mission design. We often joke of "The Two Commandments of DCS Mission Design." 1) Thy Mission Shant Be Boring 2) Thy Mission Shalt Be Believable Trust me, those two commandments are not always easy to balance. Our missions and operations are formatted into month-long campaigns that we call "scenario packages." In order to conduct a diverse range of operations, we aim to simulate many different types of threats and battlespaces, each unique to it's individual campaign. The mission staffers will generate the campaign from the ground up based on a political scenario they create. Here is an example of one of our "scenario packages." Those keen on political history may notice some similarities to certain real-world events Our staffers draw their data for scenario generation from both historical, hypothetical, and probable real world events. We primarily hope to keep most of our pilots within the North American region, but are certainly open to reviewing pilots from elsewhere on Earth. Exceptions can and certainly will be made for pilots who display no internet connection or communication issues when flying. Our squadron currently conducts scheduled operations on Friday nights at 1700-2000 EST. While that is our current scheduled time, we are by all means willing and able to reschedule these events if needed to fit the needs of the majority of our pilots. While we do conduct scheduled operations, many of our pilots use our Teamspeak server as a "hangout," and you are welcome to do the same. Many of our ops are conducted "on the fly" and usually begin by somebody in the Teamspeak channel saying the words "Anybody care to fly?" Many times during these ops our pilots will fly aircraft other than the A-10C. These ops are not considered official squadron events, but are great fun, provide opportunities for our pilots to get to know each other, and are typically more relaxed and less "serious" than our scheduled operations. Please visit our website for any other information. If you're interested in joining us, we'd love to have you! Please establish contact with us at 163rdvfs@gmail.com, PM the poster of this thread [Kippy], or visit our Teamspeak and speak to "Kippy." Please include relevant information such as a brief synopsis of your capabilities, goals, time schedule, and any other interesting information about yourself that you feel we should know to us. As a side note, we also plan on talking to some virtual squadrons about collaboration for a possible DCS : Hawgsmoke event this year. More on this at a later date.... SOLD YET?
  9. 5 hours. We were a flight of 4 called to loiter over a convoy moving through the mountains near the Russian border north of Dzhvari, but got diverted over to the Oni region for a Troops in Contact call. Pounded mud, loitered there as those guys moved north, until the convoy over north of Dzhvari called us back with their own Troops in Contact call. Pounded more mud. Loitered more. Hit tankers inbetween and as we needed in pairs of two. Worked with player JTACs at both locations. Was a complete blast, but I was exhausted by the end. It's fun to fly the A-10C as a CAS bird.
  10. A-10s, F15Cs, etc. were never formally "retired". Analysis suggests they're still being used extensively for testing radar tech out in the desert. That's why it's interesting to analysts. Analysts don't care about the plane per se, we care immensely about what's being done with it.
  11. +∞ For a visualization of just how useful this tool could be: No more having to place an object, load the mission, get angry because it has to be moved 5 meters to the left, go back in the mission editor, move it, load the mission up again, get frustrated because you moved it 2 meters to the left too far.. Turned me away from intense mission making.
  12. I don't imagine the ED doing this module. These things are still flying. They have been spotted flying around the Jedi Transition chased by F-16Ds as late as last month. They've caused quite a buzz over the last year among aviation analysts.
  13. A common argument I've found here is that the development of civilian, piston driven trainer would divert resources from more important projects, such as an F-15, F-16, and other types of military jets that have come to symbolize DCS. Allow me to make a rebuttal to this often spoken claim. Producing modern modules such as the A-10C, the F-15, and the F-16 is and will continue to be incredibly expensive and resource consuming. However, despite these expenditures, the demand for these modules is high - thus they sell well and turn the highest profits, correct? That's where you're wrong, buster. If you read the post Wags made, A letter from Eagle Dynamics he states a bullet point that I think is the strongest argument we have in favor of an aircraft like this thread is calling for. The A-10C is currently what many would consider "DCS's flagship module," and has been for years. I have little doubt in my mind that the A-10C is probably the highest selling DCS module, barring perhaps Flaming Cliffs 3. But yet, a much less selling P-51D module has twice the cost effectiveness? Let me ask a question. If generation 4+ fighter modules are in such high demand, why are we not swimming in them? I mean, all businesses want to produce as much profit as they can, so it would make sense to develop these modules in such high demand? Right?.. No, because of cost effectiveness. Like I said, these modules are incredibly resource consuming to develop. The return on the investment the developers get is too small because of the significantly higher expenditures. Thus, developers are more likely to produce modules they believe will generate the highest returns, not the highest sales, and often times, the best selling-product a company produces isn't always the one that generates the highest net profit. So.. we're never going to get those Generation 4+ fighters we all want? No, I'm not saying that. There is hope that one day we will be swimming in these modules, but if we want to ever see that day, we as a community have a responsibility - making these modules profitable for the developers. What's "nice" about the development costs of these modern modules is that their development costs are rather fixed. It doesn't matter if one person purchases it, or if one million people purchase it, the development cost will remain largely fixed. So, in order to increase the profit yielded from the development of modern modules to make them more cost effective, and thus see increased development on these modules, we must increase the number of people who buy these modules! How can we do that?... Easily! I'm way oversimplifying here, but the larger the consumer pool (the DCS community in this case) is, the more sales these modules will see. If we want to make these modules profitable and thus see more of them developed, we need to expand DCS's community. And how exactly do we do that? Develop a diverse range of modules! Because of DCS's power as a flight simulator, I guarantee civilian aircraft will generate quite a lot of interest from other corners of the flight simulation community and draw new pilots in, which is what DCS needs. Think about it! Jimmy is flying his little Cessna in a DCS multiplayer server, and sees an F-14 pass overhead at 500 knots while rolling inverted. I'm willing to bet little Cessna Jimmy will want to do what he just watched that F-14 do because it looked so cool. I'd say the odds are good that little Jimmy will soon purchase Heatblur's F-14 module... If a third party developer produces a very well known civilian aircraft such as the Cessna 172, for example, and it fails sell well and attract new pilots, I will livestream myself to YouTube eating my own socks. Those are just my thoughts.
  14. We stand behind you, Heatblur. It is not easy to stand before a community and admit that things did not go as planned. After seeing the work Heatblur has poured into the F-14 so far, there is not a doubt in my mind that Heatblur's F-14 will be everything we are hoping it to be and much more. A longer wait only adds more excitement for me. Each passing day as I sit down at my desk and look at my model F-14, I realize we're one day closer. I can't wait.
  15. Hey itzdsay, myself and the A-10C guys I fly with would be happy to fly with ya. Shoot me a PM at your convenience, we can work something out. We're flexible.
  16. Why even browse the wishlist then? You're statement is entirely correct, but threads like these expressing majority interest or in this thread's case, disinterest, give developers some input from the community on what the community would and wouldn't like to see. Remember the basis of any decision making process. Observation. The more threads like these developers can observe, the more information a developer has on a potential community response to a module they are thinking of developing. While I'd like to see a trainer such as the C152 in the game, it seems obvious the majority of DCS users don't care for it. And thanks to this thread and threads like it, and to the threads and posts in response to M3's CEII announcement for example, 3rd party developers now may reconsider developing a module that they now know would be unpopular. and the DCS community is heard. It's a win for the community and for the developers. These posts don't hurt anybody, quite the opposite I'd say, so there's no need say /thread quite yet.
  17. I'm totally for this, and allow me to present a few reasons why. DCS has always prided itself on being the top of the line combat flight simulator. While I don't exactly agree with a recent announcement by a third party developer on their new module in development, I think they said one thing that is completely true. To paraphrase, "DCS is a very powerful flight simulator." It's abilities extend well beyond combat. DCS has lured many virtual pilots in with promises of realism. These promises have certainly been delivered on, but DCS is certainly lacking in some regards. Subpar ATC, lacking a sufficient weather system, etc. I think DCS is lacking in one major regard: Training new pilots. DCS in its current from simply hands you the aircraft, a few hundred pages of manuals relative to the aircraft you're flying, and the rest is up to you. While I have been an advocate for this "dive-straight-in" approach for a long time, there are simply many pilots who don't want this. They want their learning process to be small, digestible bites rather than a feast. It is my understanding that a good portion of virtual pilots here at DCS have no affiliation to aviation in the real world. Thus, many of our virtual pilots here lack the fundamental basic understandings of aviation. I have taken virtual "students" in the L-39 before who could employ every weapon the A-10C carries with great effectiveness, but could not explain to me the function of an aircraft's flaps. For virtual pilots that pride themselves on their realistic operations, that is unacceptable. How can we expect DCS to be an immersive environment when the pilots flying the aircraft don't even know how their plane is flying? A small, propeller driven trainer such as a Cessna 152 would allow experienced pilots to meet what I see as their responsibility: teaching the fundamentals of aviation to new pilots. I can already see many counterarguments as I'm typing this. What about the Casual pilots of DCS who really don't feel the need to be professors in aeronautics to have fun? That is the beauty of DCS! Everybody has the freedom of choice. You can conduct operations as realistically or as casually as you want. If you want to shoot down IL-76s with your A-10's rockets, you have the freedom to do that! But for a simulator priding itself on realism, many pilots are much more serious than that. Many pilots here are here to become proficient in their aircraft of choice and become mean, lean, virtual killing machines. With this group being what I perceive as a large group of DCS pilots, we have a responsibility to these guys and 'gals to ensure that they have a good time and are trained well to their wishes. We already have trainers that are better suited to DCS's combat aircraft. (L-39 and friends) Yes, that is true. However, these trainers are not what I would put a fresh student pilot with a shiny new empty logbook in. These trainers represent the baby steps into the performance envelopes of fighter jets. Not ideal for learning the fundamentals of aviation. There are many reasons on why a prop driven, side by side seated aircraft would be a superior trainer for much less experienced pilots, but nothing truly paramount. This is honestly the "toughest" counterargument I can think of. While having put though into it, I still think there could be better trainers for newer, less experienced pilots. It would take time, money, and other resources away from the devlopment of other modules. I suppose this is true as well, but a Cessna 152 or any small, propeller driven would be the least resource consuming module done to date - take that to the bank. Data on these aircraft is, of course, widely available. Magnitudes more than data for fighter jets I would think. These aircraft are also much less complex than modern fighter jets, and in my thought process at least, would require less actual development work than pretty much any other aircraft. The benefits of having this trainer around would far outweigh the minimal [relative to other aircraft] development expenses. Digital COMBAT Simulator. The fundamentals of aviation still apply to combat aircraft. It is essential to learn these fundamentals. Well, I didn't have a prop driven single engine trainer when I started DCS and I did just fine. You may very well have, but it's all about improvement. Any step we can make the colossal task of learning about aeronautics and how it factors into DCS easier for new pilots is a step we should take. It's all about drawing in new pilots and making their experience enjoyable and easy, so they will stick around DCS and buy other modules.. thus giving developers the money and consumer base they need to develop that F-15E or F-16C you're longing for. Alright folks, I'm done rambling. That's just my two cents. Thank you for your time.
  18. TARS has been dead for years I think and last I knew was incompatible with newer teamspeak versions back in 2015. It's successor is SimpleRadio, which works nicely. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=169387
  19. Reporting the same issue across all versions of DCS updaters. Tried changing my computer's date, nothing, Disabled security. Ditto.
  20. I apply braking as needed. That said, I barely ever slam them fully down. Sometimes if I float a good ways before touchdown, I need to get more brake action going. This is true for any aircraft. Realistically, you'd want to brake as lightly as practical but of course still meet the required stopping distance to make the runway exit you're planning for. This is of course to reduce brake fatigue and increase the lifetime of the brakes... It's not much of a big deal here in DCS to slam the brakes on as it is in real life. Some much larger, heavier jets such as 747s and 777s actually can experience brake overheats fairly easily and potentially ruin tires by applying full braking for a landing when it isn't needed, especially when landing overweight. So, braking...I'd say is "At pilot discretion."
  21. https://global.adsbexchange.com/VirtualRadar/desktop.html Military filter applied
  22. By playing with the brightness and contrast, I came up with this image. Looks to be the nose of A P-38, as you can see the guns protruding from the nose.. but other geometry in the image doesn't quite line up. EDIT: I think the "figure" or whatever you want to call it on the right appears to be a wing with 3 underslung HVAR rockets.
  23. In my days watching ADSB and listening to HF, I've seen and heard quite a few interesting callsigns. TRUMP16, CATCH22, etc. But tonight, I have a bone to pick with the Navy. I want to speak to the E-6B crew who stole my handle! :ranting:
×
×
  • Create New...