The Black Swan

Is there any plan to implement the new bomber formation AI to the WWII fighters so that we can have close group formations in the radio menu? (Like the option for FC3)

This guy knows his stuff ^

We just got their 1Q update....... Evretin' gon be aight guys.

Oops I got those mixed up with TALDs that I saw on the chart of stores for the legacy. :doh:

"Sarcastic one line response to a sarcastic comment. Just saaaaaaaaayin'. :D" I know, I just can't resist a good discussion about the F-18 :D "Data link is definitely nice. It makes killing the 1v1 air to air mentality just that much easier for the uninitiated, which is just perfect. ATFLIR ought to be cool too, but I think that really comes down to what other ID capabilities we'll get in the Bug...Like, do I want that pod or do I want an AMRAAM?" But we are initiated aren't we? :megalol: In a 1v1 an ATFLIR could let you watch for an ET and thus save flares. That's not even getting into stealthy tracking tactics. "The radar, I'd imagine, is somewhat on par with what we currently have in the Eagle, probably with more functionality for certain things. The range and stuff is important though for the Bug because your acceleration sucks, so getting a clear picture and getting the commit started from early on is a priority." Not sure about it being on par, the APG-73 is what was used on Super bugs. One other thing (IIRC) the 73 has an extra 5 degrees for cranking. "More missiles brings a bunch of other problems. Look, mach 1.4, 1.5, whatever, that's great - How long does it take you to reach that? That's the problem. And that's where the Eagle will dominate the Hornet. Another thing here: Can you afford to go over the Mach? Do you have the gas to do it? That might be an issue too." - A quick glance at some charts shows at 30,000 ft with 2 aim-7 and 2 aim-9 takes 3 and a half to 4 mins to get to M1.5 From M.6 or M.7 That's without upgraded engines, which add 20% more thrust IIRC. - Hornet fuel usage has been exaggerated IMO. At good altitude it won't be that bad. Overall yes the eagle dominates here, but only if the hornets better SA fails to let the pilot plan ahead. "Also, I'm typically operating under the assumption that the AIM-9X is completely unaffected by flares." Now THAT would be overpowered! :D You know what else would? If ED models the towable decoys. :matrix:

Sweep, it's the systems modeling. F-18c should have data link, ATFLIR, a better radar, and can carry more missiles. If it carries less missiles then at high altitude it could achieve M1.5 so in kinematics the difference is not that big (if you were meaning speed to boost missile performance I'm not talking about dogfighting) That's all before you get to the aim-9x.

Why would anyone who likes DCS host a server that they would never play on? :huh:

Wow I've never hit a player that far away, AI yes but not a player. When it comes to non-maneuvering targets, 40nm shots are possible as well. You just have to be going fast and if the enemy dives at all the missile is done.

1. "was not made for" yes... but it was upgraded specifically to combat *low sea skimming missiles* 2. "nor intended to be used against fighters" maybe not at first, but the navy did very much intend to use it for that purpose later, hence why they opted out of the AIM-120 for the cat. 3. "The threat of long range soviet bombers was non existent" really? I thought escorting Russian bombers back to the motherland was a regular event by 2004 or am i wrong? 4. Could BlackLion stop by and help again? So that we can have some sources here? :D 5. The vid is poking fun at your ALL CAPS. Sorry if it was condescending. :)

HOJ is rarely used, but there is a particular situation it could be useful for. When your missile has good range (when you are high and fast), then a target coming right at you will enter rpi at a pretty long range and a HOJ shot shouldn't alert the enemy so there should be a higher chance of the enemy unknowingly flying right into the missile. There is obviously the problem of how to know if the enemy is in range and coming toward you... The only way to know this is by having kept track of the enemy prior to when he started jamming, kept track of friendly AWACS reports, or kept track of other aircrafts recent call outs. (Or when we get the hornet, possibly slaveing the ATFLIR to the source of jamming if it can see that far)

If those are the figures then i don't see too big of a problem. If Ironhand's figures are even close to accurate then i would guess that the low Pk of missiles in multiplayer has to do with the combination of chaff WITH maneuvering to drag down the missiles performance. Which leads me to the conclusion that more accurate drag simulation for the missiles would alleviate the problem. Missiles which keep near their top speed longer will give less time to react, less time to get to/spend in the notch, and a larger area in which to worry about CM. I guess what I'm saying is, based on Ironhand's tests and my own experience, I'm beginning to think the best way to make missiles "scary" as you put it, is to fix/improve the range and speed problem. A little tweak to the CM might help with the ability to spam chaff to win, but overall... to achieve the most realism at the smallest performance cost, i think helping the drag issue is the way to go.

When the merge happens I will promote the living snot out of DCS. :D

Ah so it has more to do with the launching aircrafts data link capability than the missiles then. Thanks

Off topic question but does the link 16 with amraam do the same as the aim-54?

pff.... haven't you guys watched ironman? Of course you can pull 23 Gs!

Lol

Doesnt really answer my question. I'm asking if there is hard data on how much chaff rejection a missile has, or if we kinda have to "wing it" Pun most definitely intended I guess what I'm getting at is... If missiles chaff rejection in the sim creates a realistic hit percentage, what hard data do we have to say that is wrong? Not saying estimating based on the modernness of a missile can't get close to accurate. I'm just saying that the range and drag issues seem to be based on more facts and figures than the CM issue. Especially with the test that Ironhand did above giving a ~33% hit for the ER as he said. (Which if I remember correctly is around the average success of BVR missiles?)

Thank you for the awesome update!!! If you have the time, could you comment (based on your research) at what kind of range the TCS can allow for relaible target ID?

... I'd like to know what justification there is for ANY particular chaff rejection. Drag charts, thrust values, and burn times give a solid foundation for accurate simulation of a flight model. But what about chaff rejection or reaction to beaming? Is there some documentation out there that says, my missile has a 40% chance of losing lock with chaff? Is there solid info? Or is it just an educated guess based on which missile is newer and Pk in combat?

Oh please yes an Arleigh Burke destroyer is needed!

It was a post by chizh which was kind of a "ya we might do that 'wink wink'" Type post.

Ya just check out the user files section I mentioned. All extra skins are free in DCS and there are a lot of them!! :thumbup:

I take personal offense at this statement. :)

It is ONLY speculation. And yes there are many different priorities that come first if it is planned, namely the hornet and carrier modules. Just as there are rumors that an f-16 is next there are also rumors that an F-4 is next.

I remember it being said that ED had someone working on air to ground missiles and once he was done with them he would move to tweaking a/a? Pretty sure that never changed am I right? If that is the case I would think that person is busy with the hornets new weapons and will start back on that soon? Thought for sure I remembered something like that.