Wizard_03
-
Posts
1650 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Wizard_03
-
-
7 hours ago, Nipe2989 said:
I prefer the smooth zooming effect of the Lightning, but as a Hornet driver I try and stay true to Navy flight and use the ATFLIR.
Why is it not carrier approved?
Curious.
Too sensitive it can't handle traps. ATFLIR was designed specifically to give the aircraft a modern pod capability that is survivable in the harsh world of CATOBAR operations.
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, Nealius said:
ATFLIR can do HUD-projected FLIR?
It could when the pods were new, however NVGs came around the same time and they made it obsolete pretty much out of the box. Fleet hornet pilots never trained on it and the controls for it most aircrews have never touched in their whole careers. The little green window on the pylon above the pod itself is where the feed comes from. Idk if they could even been turned on and work properly during the scope of the DCS hornet (in the mid 2000s) as that equipment was not maintained by ground crews either. Not sure about the legacy pods from way back when but for atflir the navflir functionality pretty much wasn't used at all as NVGs do the job a thousand times better. And USN is the only atflir operator.
AFAIK ED has no plans do to the older pods.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, SlipHavoc said:
This was always the case. Always, since the beginning, regardless of anything the companies involved say. This is why you should only buy modules if you are happy with their current state, and you should not buy them if you will only be happy if they eventually end up in some imagined future state, because it is always a possibility that that might not happen. I have personally been happy with every module I've purchased, because I buy them based on the features they have at the time they are released, and I manage my expectations so that I will not feel completely doomed and betrayed if they never get more patches. I expect to be quite happy with the CH-47 as well, and I'm looking forward to flying it.
The EULA doesn't state that or even imply that. And even if it did, that's not necessarily legal.
"Everything subject to change" I'm pretty sure doesn't mean that you can take people's money and walk away. If it does then I say "Everything is subject to litigation"
-
4
-
-
37 minutes ago, sthompson said:
If you were a dev would you be more likely to abandon a module if (a) there was an ongoing stream of revenue from people who use the module to support further development, or (b) the only way to get new revenue was to work on something else? A subscription model (as in option a) might not be a complete solution, but it probably would help enormously. Money talks.
If I were a dev I wouldn't charge people money on a project Im not committed to completing. And if I had to quit work for whatever reason, I would absolutely feel obligated to refund anyone who has paid. I would consider my store front description a contract that I have agreed to fulfill.
Those are just normal business practices. Can you imagine if this was the service industry?
-
6
-
-
2 minutes ago, Cab said:
This never occurred to you?
That ED can just take your money and bail? no honestly It didn't, in most countries that kind of behavior is considered criminal.
-
3
-
-
16 minutes ago, thermalguy said:
What would be nice is if they had an option for a subscription base where you pay a monthly fee and get total access to all modules and maps.
That wouldn't fix the issue. The issue is that early access is a good faith transaction that eventually the modules will be completed. However the devs can evidently just quit at any point leaving the module in an unfinished state.
If modules can be abandoned in the early access period then we can't do business. I need a guarantee that what I paid for will be delivered now. At this point my trust in them has been completely eroded. I can stand delays, I can't stand having my money stolen.
-
9
-
-
Will not be pre-ordering anything from ED until work on DCS: F-15E is resumed AND an official timeline on development and release date is published or I'm issued a full refund for that abandoned module.
Extremely disappointed and unsatisfied with the state of things right now.
-
10
-
-
What are: "Additional MSI functions?"
-
2
-
-
Depending on the outcome of this situation, the F-15E may be the last DCS module I ever purchase.
Absolutely unbelievable, what a complete slap in the face to all the loyal supporters who really have no where else to turn for modern high fidelity study sims, many who have been here for more than a decade. My eyes are on both companies the EULA doesn't cover false advertising. The product page has a list of features that the module was supposed to ship with on release. So Either Deliver what I paid for or give me my money back. Period. Customers shouldn't be held hostage over disagreements whoever is right or wrong in this case or any case.
Even with a best case outcome, this situation has seriously degraded my trust in both parties, and going forward I will be much more careful about supporting either side with my wallet.
-
9
-
-
Are patches on a multi month month cycle now? This year we have only had a single update to the game.
-
R-27 is never going to be competitive with AMRAAM period. So to the forum title question, I would expect to be shot down in a BVR situation facing anyone with a ARH missile, and super shot down if that missile is a 120C. R-27 should be more then competitive against early Aim-7s and the ER versions (if we get them for game play purposes, as the MiG-29A 9.12 historically didn't carry them) should be very competitive against late sparrows. R-73 should be about the same as a 9X with a little less resistance against flares.
-
1
-
-
-
21 hours ago, SpecterDC13 said:
ECM pods on the centerline is CAT I. They go CAT III when loaded onto the wing stations.
Centerline tanks are also CAT I. However, if you do 3x tanks that is a CAT III. So for instance if you do 2x or 6x 9s and three tanks that is a CATIII configuration.
TGPs and HTS pods are instant CAT III no matter what.
But you will or should get a stores config caution with certain A2A loadouts as it is a reminder that if you shoot one off the rail on either side you are now asymetric which is a CAT III condition.
Again, this goes with what I was saying about how it is the pilot's job to ensure he/she is in the correct CAT option as during flight your conditions can change. So know what is on your jet and you will be ok.
Now that makes perfect sense. Also Didn't consider asymmetrical loads from missile firing.
-
The MiG-29 is very dangerous in a dogfight. unless your in a viper or hornet, I'd kill it quick and far away. However its very hard to master energy management in the MiG-29 so most players won't be able to take it too its full potential. Its far to easy to over pull the stick in tight turns because the aircraft will very quickly give you more and more AOA unlike the viper which slowly looses speed when you pull to hard, or practice HUD BFM. But if you can find the MiGs sweet spot, don't cross control, and watch your AOA, you can out rate almost every jet in the game. staying on corner speed is the trick. Over speeding is likewise a no no and will get you shot down in a lot of situations.
Once you do master energy management you can then intentionally Pull hard when you see someone screw up and take nasty snapshots the same way the hornet and flanker can (though not quite as dramatic), in lots of situations against the viper or any other dogfight monster. It not as punishing as the hornet when you get slow either you can dump the nose and get fast again real quick as long as your not on the deck obviously. Don't expect overshoots from the bandit though, that type of energy dump is do or die in the fulcrum down low.
But I feel most online players will be dead after the first few turns with the MiG for not managing their energy well. So i don't expect it too perform any better then it already does on the servers. But its a heck of a little airplane in the right hands.
-
8 hours ago, SpecterDC13 said:
I will verify the ECM pods and centerline, but I am 99% sure that ECM pods are CAT III. But I'm pretty sure the ECM pods are CAT III due to the design of them. They may be lighter, than a centerline, but the components inside can be more sensitive to higher G limits. Which again, the CAT switch limits AOA it does NOT limit the amount of G you can pull. Under the right conditions you can still hit 9Gs. The switch just essentially makes it harder to do by limiting how much AOA you can pull at once. A centerline can have a higher G limit because well it is just a tank with fuel and no special components inside of it.
It doesn't matter block of the airframe on whether or not something is considered CAT I or III. Any TGP (lightning or sniper) and HTS pod is CAT III. Again the SMS memory does not account for anything loaded onto 5L or 5R. Anything loaded there essentially throws a 1 letting the SMS know something is there but it does not say what it is and therefore does not tell the SMS "hey i need to be CAT III". It is on the pilot to make sure he stays in the correct CAT regardless of the caution light.
If it was just the TGP pylon loaded to the jet (so without the actual TGP) then the pilot would be cleared for 9Gs as the pylon itself is rated for 12Gs. But for obvious reasons the G limit is 7.5G with the TGP due to the strength of the bolts that hold the TGP to the pylon.
Most units (if not all) will limit their pilots to say 7.3G during training exercises in order to make the aircraft last longer. Combat situations are a totally different story of course.
Needless to say there are so many factors that play into what makes a certain loadout a CAT III vs CAT I. And that can be either the -2 or even unit enforced.
Yes, that is correct behaviour.
8 hours ago, Gregkar said:I will stick to what i know which is basically what @SpecterDC13 describes and will just ignore the stores config warning light.
2 hours ago, Falconeer said:Not sure about the ECM, ill have to look that up, but that config is 100% Cat 3
Thanks all! I will ignore the light, pretty interesting quark of the viper. Sounds like the SMS and FBW are still pretty old and don't just figure themselves out like you might expect from a more modern system.
I do know that centerline stores can cause instability at high AOA in most jets so I guess it's not that surprising that ECM might be CAT III. Given the vipers dislike of high AOA in general.
-
5 hours ago, Falconeer said:
Centerline tank is 100% Cat 1. We use that config for all our BFM training (in RL)
But the ECM pod on centerline station is CAT III?
So I'm getting a stores config caution, with 4 AAMs two wing tanks and ECM pod on centerline, with the switch set to CAT III. Is that correct behavior? Because that is a CAT III load.
-
1
-
-
Hard to believe the ECM pod is CAT III on the centerline station. Centerline external tank is not according to the manual, and it's both bigger and heavier then the short pods.
The TGP and HTS are CAT III certainly.
-
Please apply the new Hi Def S-3B 3D model to the tanker version of the aircraft or add buddy refueling pods to the new version. Quite disappointing that the only carrier based tanker in the game looks like it was made for the gameboy advanced.
-
2
-
-
The boost lever has nothing to do with the regulator, the regulator simply blows off excess manifold pressure through the wastegates above what ever setting the aircraft is configured for, 64" wet in this case. Regardless of throttle or boost lever settings.
Full safe power should be the absolute limit in any case, they didn't include a self destruct button at the end of the throttle travel. In any case it's up to ED, they have the bug report now and they can provide an explanation as to why their aircraft is the way it is.
-
It only makes sense, with that much boost, and the inclusion of water injection with 47C they need to protect the engine from detonation especially during combat.
Bug report
-
see thread and attached images
Currently the P-47 is far more susceptible to overboost and can overboost above 64" under a wide set of conditions because the aircraft is modeled without a manifold pressure regulator. Images attached in the above thread show the available and part numbers of the missing regulator and its installation on the aircraft and instructions for installation on aircraft as early as the P47C in contrast to the version modeled in DCS erroneously without one.
The regulator should keep manifold pressure at or below maximum (64" wet) for most or all of the flight envelope with the throttle full open 100 percent.
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, Brigg said:
Thank you so much, so according to this parts catalog as far back as the P47C they were equipped with manifold pressure regulators. Now the question is why does the DCS Version not have one, as earlier versions could and did use manifold Pressure regulators to control boost.
Can't really get more conclusive then that, literally written in black and white. I will submit a bug report.
-
8 hours ago, Art-J said:
To sum it up, I don't know for certain if our -47 should have a regulator or not, but we don't really need to be THAT worried about overboost, 'cause as long as both temps are kept in check, the engine in DCS can take quite a lot of it (unlike also non-regulated P-40E in the "other sim").
We need to find out if the real one did, because I see having to manage the throttle to stay below max allowed manifold pressure and or opening up intercoolers and oil flaps in the middle of a dogfight as a huge disadvantage. And nowhere in pilot testimony or the manuals suggest it had that limitation. Other sims dont model it that way and there's no information in the DCS manual about it at all.
If it is true then they need to place that in bold all over the operations section. Because it's a big deal and It means you have to be much more careful in the P47 with managing power then you probably think, certainly much more careful then all the other aircraft in DCS. In the P40 in the other sim, its annoying but your not really going up super high and certainly not fighting up high so its not a huge deal because you don't in fact over boost that much since as you get higher your engine runs out of breath anyways just need to watch out when diving quickly, not having a regulator in an aircraft designed expressly for high altitude fighting seems like a really big oversight. Especially since the pilot absolutely needs one to breath out of in any case, but they evidently forgot to put one on the engine? I don't buy it.
-
10 hours ago, grafspee said:
@Wizard_03 So what max boost should be governed by this boost regulator ? 52" or 64" ?
This is form P-47N manual and starting with P-47N-25 automatic engine control showed up but this one only control throttle valve and turbo waste gate to operate in best efficiency but still over boost could happen if you push throttle too far.
P-38 was plane from different company as well any other so this is no near proof that P-47 had ever automatic boost control.
P-47 D manual.
This should answer your question, P-47 did not have boost control like in P-51 or spitfire, if you pushed throttle and boost too far you will over boost.
So this mean that all other sims failed to deliver proper engine model
That is why i always choose DCS.
Both, a regulator can map for both water injection on and off.
The first part is referring to the P47N loosing it's boost lever which is not what we are talking about.
The second part is also Hardly conclusive, you can still overboost in both the spit and the mustang too and they have regulators as well. That quip in the manual is referring to the take off stop which is not modeled in DCS. You also have full military power all the way up to 33k in DCS so that manual is at odds with what we have in the sim anyways. Unless it's referencing military power and not WEP which is what matters for this discussion.
ATFLIR vs Lightning
in DCS: F/A-18C
Posted · Edited by Wizard_03
LITENING has a much better camera and gyro system compared to LANTIRN which is a second generation pod. But they intended it for the F-16 and other ground based aircraft. The advanced capabilities that made it better then LANTIRN also made it unsuitable for CATOBAR. LANTIRN also for the record had lots of problems related to cats and traps because it was also not meant for the boat. It just wasn't too concerning when seen in the light of greater maintenance issues with the tomcat. And the capacity was desperately needed for active conflicts at the time. But it was always seen as a bandaid solution.
The navy wasn't happy that LITENING wouldn't work, because they were then forced to design a new a pod specifically and ultimately only for the hornet. ATFLIR.