Jump to content

Chrinik

Members
  • Posts

    443
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Chrinik

  1. Say something remotely negative bout the F16 and of course you get corrected immediately XD More dangerous: Single engine, inherently more dangerous then twin engine. Less capable: Size and hardpointwise it simply carries less then other fighters, and what it carries is not unique to the F-16 and pretty much everyone can carry the same weapons, the main versions are also not carrier capable like the F-18C we´ll be getting. A good thing to get my point across would be the song "I wish I had a gun just like the A-10" by Dos Gringos, which are active duty Viper Pilots, longing for the nice features other US aircraft have, then concluding that all of their Pilots would wish to fly the Viper, but not really coming forth with arguements other then "because it´s better". XD I never stated that the stuff it does, it does bad. Simply that what it does, others can also do and most of the time, better or more of. It´s just that the F-16 can do it cheaper, but that´s not really a concern in DCS now, is it? That is probably why it´s so successful, it´s a jack of all trades, not really excelling in anything, but pricetag, but it can pretty much do anything.
  2. When the F-16 came out, it wasn´t much to look at, either. When the MiG-29 came out, western observers where shocked it came with the capability to mount Medium Range Missiles, when the F-16 only had Sidewinders. That was actually one of the driving forces to upgrade that capability into the F-16 family very early. And to believe the MiG-29 was once a CONTESTER to the SU-27... It´s just that Soviet upgrade doctrine, especially around the 1990ies, was lacking behind western countries, upgrading most of their arsenal to multi-role, PGM capable jets irrelevant of initial design specification, while the Soviet plan was "we build it for this job, lets make it better at it´s job" when it came to upgrades. Better engines, better avionics, sure, but expanding capabilities in terms of multi-role..."dumb bombs and rockets will do" seems to have been the philosophy, atleast in terms of the cold war. When a dedicated ground attack version was made of a fighter, it recieved a different designation and was then, in fact, specilized for ground attack. XD It´s only after the tumult of the 90ies settled, that russia has been investing into their arsenals again.
  3. That is in stark contrast to any footage from MiG-29s flying around, and the characteristic, reddish-hued smoke can clearly be seen.
  4. Correct me if I´m wrong...but wasn´t the RIOs Radar display a CRT-screen? Wouldn´t that mean that the tube simply displays whatever signals it gets onto the screen, regardless of WHAT those signals are supposed to be? Would that, in turn, mean that the screen could also display a LANTIRN image, albeit crudely or off-color? I mean, it´s not a color image, it´s B/W, and any single channel CRT can display any B/W image?
  5. Well...all the versions in DCS do. Which he was referencing. We don´t reference super mega awesome MiG-35s with new, less smokey engines. The smokey MiG-29 Engines are a commonly known part about it.
  6. Could you not hijack a threat about russian missiles with US missiles, it will get toxic XD
  7. The Message was "Why doesn´t Leatherneck or any developer do the plane I want, instead of the planes they ARE doing?" To which the response was "Because they already started work on X and it would be too hard to make Y now, and also classification." I found the Message to be incredibly stupid and ignorant, honestly. You can go and play FSX or whatever, it has all the planes you want, wether they are fully realistic or not, but you can pretend they are. But wondering why a developer doesn´t do "the most modern version of X plane"...well, the reasons have been stated, but why don´t YOU do it instead if it´s that easy? This isn´t even defending the developers or ED, but I honestly think that some people seem to think software developers are wizards that just hit a bunch of keys and stuff magically appears on the screen, the thought amuses me. As for the "cash paying folk"...they will pay cash for the F-14A and B regardless. Even the L39 sold copies, believe it or not. BTW, what DCS module uses the LANTIRN Pod?
  8. Well MiG-15 and F-86F don´t carry much weaponry to begin with XD
  9. Okay, this is giving much confusion to people...say the target waypoint is a Building on the end of a Road. The road is going 240 and you are approaching from 180, but you need to (for whatever reason) approach over the road. So you set your RD for that waypoint to 240 and it will guide you so you will approach the waypoint from that direction.
  10. Why? MiG-29 is nothing new, except for the model, which you can look at, the plane doesn´t handle any differently.
  11. "So the AMRAAM manufacturer released the information about thrust, fuel flow rate and accel time?" No, he didn´t, and that is the problem. "since it has 6 large instead of 120C's 4 small fins" Where did you get the idea that the R-27 has six fins and the 120 has 4? Both missiles have EIGHT fins, four tailfins, and four Elevons, with the R-27 having some sort of stabelizers on the nose section. You don´t just need fins to pull G, you also need SPEED, and your missile was rapidly bleeding speed since it was apparently launched in very shitty parameters needing to pull 7 Gs sustained to even keep close to tracking the target. In the end, the missile was simply defeated kinematically, the target left the seekers gimbal limits, and it just went stupid.
  12. But then I´d rather call it "Vietnam" rather then "Korea"... Very interesting, I hope the air to ground won´t include too many hard targets, it would be fine. But I´ve been looking for an excuse to get into the MiG-15 I just bought.
  13. Yeah, I thought I had it right the first time...well, the joy of WIP XD
  14. I quoted the typo in my initial post, what is your incorrect input needed for? It only tells me there are more typoes in the manual. To remind you, the typo that threw me off is: ""7. The alignment process will abort if: a. You click the PSM Mode knob to another position." "8. You can check the alignment process status by clicking the PSM Operational Mode knob to the TST position." " The reason this threw me off is that there IS no "TST" position on the PSM Operational Mode knob, only STS, but there is a TST setting on the PSM Mode knob that will abort alignment. So me following the manual led to breaking the alignment process.
  15. I know this sounds condescending...but...do you have Maveriks loaded on your wings?
  16. And the manual contains a typo that made me twist the wrong knob thereby aborting the INS alignment instead of checking it´s status. I have also had to change from Lat Long Decimal to Lat Long in the options menu to get the right data.
  17. I can´t get this thing to work, I don´t know where to get the right coordinates, the aircraft starts with complete bogus coordinates (apparently), making a manual input absolutely needed(?) on every, single startup, it does not take the ones I offer it, only some arbitrary numbers far, far away from my position seem to be legit (opposite end of the parking space, a good 2km off) and I just don´t know anymore. Half the stuff described in the manual doesn´t work and is contradictory, such as: "7. The alignment process will abort if: a. You click the PSM Mode knob to another position." "8. You can check the alignment process status by clicking the PSM Operational Mode knob to the TST position." Not only does this NOT give me an indication as to how far the alignment is, it also aborts the damn alignment. I just give up. Edit: I think I worked it out, the Manual contains a typo...it is talking about the PSM Operation Mode knob but instead of TST (which is on the other knob), it means the one that has STS...this threw me off so hard.
  18. While we are on air to ground stuff, what is up with my gunpipper? I can´t seem to get it to move, it stays boresighted. I must have missed something, rockets work plenty fine, bombing works, but as soon as I try to gunrun I can´t get the gunpipper to predict an impact point. Not even an inaccurate one, it just stays boresighted. Is it not implemented yet or am I missing a switch somewhere?
  19. Well, when you are used to planes that do the flying for you and cancel unwanted plane movements (such as supressing roll inertia)...:smilewink: Technically the SU-27 also has a FBW system, but it does different things and works slightly differently. It helps prevent you from doing crazy stunts that would hurt the plane or make you stall, but AFAIK it did not actually make the plane fly for you exactly as you input it. That´s why we still have to trim with speed changes, as the FBW does not do that for you. It did not fly "on rails", so to speak. So for a common US military aviator born and raised on powerful machines kept in check by computerized flight controls it would feel like it has alot of inertia and no "pitch stability"...atleast from my reconning, don´t know what machines he was used to. I wonder if russian aviators would comment on US jets that they feel "boring" or something because they can fly them "hands off"...
  20. We can only dream for the future XD
  21. Depends where the missile looked when it reaquired, but general consensus is that they should not reaquire targets because of some Radar magic being performed to only guide your missile, and not everyone elses. The S530 does not have DL or INS guidance and is thus an entirely passively guided missile. Wether or not it can pick up targets after lock is lost if the seeker simply sees the return again is beyond anyone, I believe.
  22. Also, don´t use AI opponents as a benchmark for anything...they use SFM.
  23. Same issue here.
  24. Yeah, about that, why did only the A get a new 3D model? The S is far more used in MP then the A from what I´ve seen...is the S still coming or am I going to have to wait another year or two?
×
×
  • Create New...