Chrinik

Fo´shizzle, dawg. I think this thread has run it´s gambit.

Jammers are used to mask your movement to gain a positional advantage on an enemy in a BVR conflict, break missile locks or override/blind the supporting RADAR, depending on the type of jammer. They are also handy for when you have a visual on the enemy missle, as the missle cannot properly lead a jamming target, and will be easier to outmaneuver kinematically. There is also a reason why you can´t keep your jammer on for extensive amounts of time. Jammers are hard to maintain, break constantly because of their complicated electronics, and generate alot of heat. Anecdotally: I read reports that the internal Jammer for the F-15C can be used for 5 minutes, after which it will start "melting out the back of your jet"...it uses about 80% of the cooling capacity of the jet just to keep it running. External Jammers are cooled by the airflow, which is probably alot more effective then any internal system. However, in DCS, you can turn your jammer on on takeoff, and never have to bother with it. Even an arbitrary timer after which the jammer would break would fix this, and cause people to be more careful with jammers. There are a lot of gamey systems in DCS that affect missle performance, doing crazy maneuvers the missle is trying to lead will cause the missle to bleed all it´s energy, lag is one other such phenomenon. A SARH missile that looses lock because of a jink due to lag goes stupid, as they can´t reaquire targets (for some reason), an active missle (inclusing IR) will simply reaquire after a jink because they actively look for targets, and guess what is theoretically still right infront of the missle if it goes dumb....the target you initially launched at. So it just sais "Oh, there you are" and keeps going. So while ED could try to look at their code bases and missle tracking logics and fix various aspects to make the missles perform better (or closer to real life) I don´t think they want to given all of the more lucrative buisness options they currently have available.

Pro-Tip for Combat: Getting shot at sucks. Getting hit sucks even more. Avoid both as best as possible.

Ah, mist, verpasst...bin grad am Umziehen und hab nicht reingeschaut. Wär sogar erreichbar gewesen. Aber ab nächsten Monat sollte der gröbste Umzugsstress vorbei sein. Mal schauen ob ich dann auch mal vorbeikommen kann, wär bestimmt interessant, mal ein paar DCSler in echt zu erleben. Kenn sonnst nur einen. Und der Wohnt in Berlin XD Ich find übrigens Orte nahe des Hauptbahnhofs geiler, aus offensichtlichen Gründen der Erreichbarkeit, und weil man dann vielleicht sogar was trinken kann.

http://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=98 Verarschen? Es gibt einen Stammtisch in Hannover, andere Städte weiß ich nicht.

This sounds like a personal problem that can be easily fixed by training.

Remember that the P-51 was not designed to fight at 100% full tanks. It is very easy in DCS to just run an air start and put all planes at 100% fuel. The P-51D had to fly-off about 45 Minutes of fuel just to get into a decent trim again, because they crammed so much fuel into this thing to be able to do it´s stuff. On airshows, they typically do not load it up with full fuel because they don´t need to be going anywhere...they put in exactly what they need, plus an emergency amount and that´s it. Those Pilots would probably tell you how much of a bathtub the P-51 is with full tanks, if they even ever flew her that way.

And now is the Fighter Year(s)... Stay patient, by Christmas 2016 you guys will be missing the turkey because of all the awesome planes you got to fly around in.

Devs should just never say anything about projects ever and just suddenly release a product. That way, the community won´t tear them to shreds and Q.Q about the release date. You didn´t have a DCS:F-14 3 years ago so what´s a few more years. The most patient of communities has always been the flight sim community, but this seems to be reversed for DCS.

Then make the mod, run a server that runs the mod. Problem solved.

Are you sure that´s the correct TacView? I see an F-15 sortie where you down an IL76...

A: I was not talking about the Super Hornet. B: I did not mean it would replace the F-14, but rather then building and retrofitting weapon systems onto the F-14, it would have probably still been supplemented by F-18s in the case of war that carried those systems from the design drawings. So F-14s would fly Air superiourity for carrier launched F-18s and Strikers, with the F-18s doubling as close protection escorting the other strikers after the strike mission was completed. Maybe. We will never know honestly, so take this as what it is, my opinion.

Well...the campaign is over...the server is still running for funsies and to test stuff.

To add to that, it would have probably been more desirable to develop and build an entirely new airframe that already incorporates all of these new capabilities then to retrofit them onto an older airframe. IE: the F-18 would have probably been kicked into service regardless. So, really, pushing for an F-14 that carries a bogus loadout of "modern missles" just to stroke ones ego and spam more AMRAAMs because the Flaming Cliffs F-15C spoils f:helpsmilie:ing everyone in terms of combat performance, people forget that the Mig-21bis was also a specific variant modeled with a specific capability and wasn´t a 93, 97 or 2000 model that carries better RADAR, glass cockpit and R-77s. Honestly, I see this alot lately, people don´t seem to be content with the stuff they are actually getting and demand the latest and greatest. With the RAZBAM Mirage there were forum threats about how much it sucks that it isn´t a 2000-5 with MICA missles or Exocets and how boring and sh:helpsmilie:t a bog standard 2000C would be in comparison. If you want your damn fantasy loadouts, do them...it´s relatively easy to mod some lua files and get whatever loadout you want, but outright demanding people should simulate stuff that "might have been but never was" is hilarious. Especially considering that the only reason one would want Amraams on an older platform is so they feel "competitive" because they are used to them and don´t want to transition to a platform that doesn´t have them because they feel like less of a good pilot without the missle doing all of the work (obvious hyperbole). Anyone want a SU-47 module? Comanche Helicopter? Hey, maybe we could also get that Boeing Joint Strike Fighter attempt. They are not real, so making sh:helpsmilie:t up about them should be fairly easy.

Sometimes there are other factors at play. Just from the pictures alone I cannot determine what´s going on to replicate it.

Welcome to computerized flight, where the Pilot mearly suggests what the plane should do, and the avionics know better.

Lofting works with the KH-58 U, launching from a high altitude and pointing 20 degrees nose up, the missle will fly to an altitude anywhere between 20 and 30km and then simply falls towards it´s target. Enabeling you to hit targets 300km away no problem.

Yeah guys, that´s all fun and games and good explaination, but that was not the issue, considering one of the contacts shows up on the HDD and still doesn´t appear on the HUD. Something is going on there. I would say lower the display range, I never use 200 clicks for anything.

Uhm...The Mikoyan-Gurewitsch plants are all in russian territory, staffed by russians, and even the engines and almost all individual parts had been manufactured in russia. That Russia was Boss of the USSR doesn´t mean every soviet invention was a collective effort of the mighty people of USSR....:noexpression: It´s more russian then the M1 Abrams is american, who´s gun is german and who´s armor is british.

They know...there are other reasons involved and not just "Why don´t they make one, it will print money?"...they can´t "just" make an F-16 out of the goodness of their heart. Funny, people tend to direct newbies straight to the Youtube Channels to get directions on how to set up DCS. Then don´t launch from a carrier...and noone expects you to buy the F18 but what´s the point in telling us that you´d pay full price for an F-16? I´d pay 200 dollars for an SU-30MKI if someone made one, does that somehow change the odds of there ever being one? Nope... Uhm... Western Planned or released Modules: Sabre, Hawk, C101, F18, F14, Eurofighter, Viggen, Mirage 2000C, A10C, Huey, Harrier. Eastern: L39, KA-50, Mi-8, MiG-15, MiG-21, maybe MiG-23... Oh yeah...such heavy imbalance towards the Russians. Need moar NATO ASAP. In all honesty, that was an asspull. Everyone has their own favorite toy they want in DCS, that does not change the reality of it. So is the F-18 and everyone wait´s for that impatiently, did you even think before typing that? There is no resistance to the F-16 because it´s more capable, most stuff is more capable then the MiG-21, there is so much resistance because it´s "Just another NATO jet" and we are already getting enough of those. The capability of an F-16 is in no way different then the F-18 we will have soon, in other words, boring. Unless you want to fight other F-16s over Caucasus or just play singleplayer all day, you´d have no one to fight. There will probably be an F-16...noone actively want´s to prevent it. But given the current field of DCS and the current state of modules and what kind of modules we will be getting, the skies will be relatively empty on the Redfor side for quite a while, while NATO aircraft get announced left right and center. And most people are very interested in all of those western aircraft, don´t misunderstand. But people would probably like to get some kinda equal footing with the "Russkies"... I do not count FC3, that´s more of a game to me and the only reason we still use it is because it has the most capable fighters in it atm. That will change. But then it will be very one-sided.

These are all late-upgrades to the F-15. Nobody talks about those. The F15C we have in DCS is a weird, pre-MISP II but still kinda MISP II F15C that can carry Amraams somehow...Or it is just visually misrepresented. The APG-70 Radar and Color MFD were never mentioned anywhere in DCS. The MFD seems to only be used for stores display. In any way, we have a destinct time period F15 (ca. mid 90s) going up against destinct time period SU-27S´s (ca. 1980ish) and that is why people complain...10-15 years is alot of time in aviation tech and despite the fact that older SU-27s are still in russian service, so were older F15Cs at that time.

I was on the ramp in Tiblisi in a MiG-21 and an SU-25T while blue choppers who took off from there strafed us. We owned Tiblisi and spawned on it at the same time you guys did your chopper defences. If you truely recaptured it, it showed RED to us and we were allowed to spawn, and so was BLUE...this is the issue. We got the message we captured Tiblisi Aerodrome and of course that it was closed before...we still noticed choppers taking off for the entire duration of the assault.

Okay, after a day, here are my final thoughts on the campaign. First, let me again thank everyone on REDFOR for their outstanding job, personal gratitude goes out to the Chopper pilots who constantly did fuel runs. Or reduce the amount of fuel used per sortie, or do both. 1: The fuel system is good, but needs tweaking. Either increase the load carried for less trips, or reduce the distance of travel for Choppers. 2: Strategic Airbases in each PAK sector. There should be atleast one airbase that houses a couple fighters for each Team, scaled by distance from the main area. PAK 5 and 6 had little strategic value for REDFOR, as fighters had to fly 250km just to get there to defend. We rebased some fighters manually to Senaki Kholki and Kutaisi, but it´s still different when Blue caps PAK 3 and has 2 airbases within 100km that can launch into PAK 2, while if Redfor captures PAK 3 the airbases closest to PAK 5 is still 200km out. 3: Squadronslots...remove them. It is also hard to balance this factor as it creates a situation where a certain airbase could become overly important because instead of 2 F15s and 4 squadron locked F15s, if that Squadron gets online, a total of 6 can suddenly be launched. It also creates the inverse where airbases lose importance because the respective Squadrons are NOT online and the slots can´t be utilized. 4: more FARPs. I think it would help with the Choppers travel time and give more objectives. 5: Strategic objectives, such as factories, refineries or trainstations, that can be taken out for a slight and timelimited debuff of the respective side they belong too. 6: I noticed infantry moves towards airbases on their own when dropped near them, is this extendable to all objectives? I had a friend sign on and he loves the MI-8, and then I was shocked to hear he hates flying it in blueflag because he wants to support the troops he dropped CAS style. This would certainly give more of an incentive for choppers to just haul ground troops as they could drop them off of an objective, and the infantry would assault the objective for them (and capture it if they are done) and they can either RTB, do something else, or support those troops with direct fire. 7: MIG-21s should not cost lives. If we extend the logic of choppers, then this old, point defence fighter gains immediately more significance as a strategic tool for deepstrikes, airbase defence and interception. I would have flown a MIG more often had I not thought that my lives would be more usefully spent in a modern fighter or CAS plane. A shame really. There are other thoughts I have that can likely not be implemented or would be impractical. I guess both sides have to live with Randys who join, spawn, take up fuel, die, do not organize and then complain about it...

Yeah, I found myself in it...I´m the guy strafing the chopper on the ground at 4:15 (at 6 minutes he despawned crediting me XD) and around 13 minutes the giant missletrail that comes down from the sky was an ill launched R-27T which was my last missile and I was completely winchester everything and went home.

[ame] [/ame] It has been an honor fighting with you, thanks to everyone who participated. [ame] [/ame]