Jump to content

Mars Exulte

Members
  • Posts

    5167
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

3 Followers

About Mars Exulte

  • Birthday 03/21/1986

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    Nearly all DCS modules
    Il-2 1946, CloD, BoS
    War Thunder
    Arma 2/3
    Wargame EE, ALB, RD

    Various Combat Mission series... WWII European and the Black Sea one

    Kerbal Space Program
  • Location
    Dontgiveacrapistan
  • Interests
    Flying, sailplanes, military history, music,

Recent Profile Visitors

50852 profile views
  1. In RL aircraft do not fly around with 10,000lbs of bombs to level an entire city single-handedly. That's why they fly in groups. A single aircraft of any type is not expected or asked to stop an entire formation. There would not be "one" of anything. There would be dozens of them, just like there was in Desert Storm and every other major conflict. The difference being A-10s would be getting swatted out of the sky whereas stealth aircraft would not. In the real world "flying under the radar" is not a magical cutoff whenever you're below a certain altitude. No, it won't either. You're describing an environment that the A-10 has literally never been asked to operate in. In Desert Storm, nobody was "flying in under the radar" to strafe SAMs with an A-10. Even if true, that's... completely irrelevant. A helicopter could probably do the same thing, that is irrelevant. Outside of canned scenarios ala Growling Sidewinder, that A-10 would never know the F-35 was around nor be expected to "dogfight" with it. Everything you keep typing just further emphasises you are using video game logic and don't really have any idea what you're talking about, no offense. It is not realistic to keep flying a 50 year old platform whose usefulness even when it was new is debatable. It has had a successful career due to operating in environments of overwhelming air supremacy where it could do its thing unimpeded. In a contested environment, A-10s would not last very long, and that includes the 1980s when they were designed with a Fulda Gap scenario in mind. It was expected then that they would all get destroyed relatively quickly, they were just a hammer to slow the Soviets down.
  2. It will not get shot nearly as frequently as an A-10 either, which is kind of the point. You're not going to be loitering in a major contested airspace anyway, so the importance of that specifically is debatable. As above, B-1s provided more close support than just about anything else. A-10s are slow, which also is a factor to consider. If it's not in the immediate area, it's going to be a wait. There is no sense in arguing in favor of an antiquated, obsolete platform that cannot realistically be expected to operate in a modern theater. For low intensity stuff like Afghanistan, you do not need a ''massive payload'' and you don't need a high tech fighter jet in the first place. That's why they have been looking at stuff like the T-6 and Super Tucano as low cost, high loiter time alternatives for low intensity operations.
  3. The only thing the A-10 has over anything else is the gun, a weapon which it would never live long enough to use in an actual contested airspace. Everything else it can do, everything else can do as well or better. CAS? You can do CAS from a B-52 dropping small precision smart bombs from 35,000ft as far as that goes. Most CAS missions in the last thirty years were NOT provided by A-10s. ''It's cheaper!'' Not if the plane gets shot down. A F-35 can roam freely over contested airspace. An A-10 cannot, period. The A-10 is a 50+ year old airframe designed to an outdated concept, and expected to operate in an environment where it would be exceptionally vulnerable. That is why it's being phased out, along with all the other airframes designed in the 1970s, although many of them can still operate effectively due to the nature of the roles they fill.
  4. Unfortunately, I *do* remember that. Well, I am a colonial, yes! But more practically... also, yes! They are fussy about these topics. It is an unarmed trainer jet widely exported. Also, beside the point. They can be negotiated with, that doesn't mean those negotiations are as painless as with some other countries. ''Hard to work with'' does not mean ''impossible''.
  5. No, because those are still British aircraft. Remember all this stuff with Ukraine and F-16s? Denmark, Poland, and others expressed a willingness to transfer aircraft PENDING US EXPORT APPROVAL. It's gonna be the same for everybody approximately.
  6. @MAXsennaWell, to give some reference points for you, I pay $50 a month for club membership (it's a non-profit and everyone volunteers their time) and it costs $35 to be towed to 3000ft and $20/hr for the plane. I originally got interested in gliders purely as a cost cutting matter to learn the basics for entering more expensive primary training, but I ended up really enjoying them for their own sake. One thing I really like is most the gliders are bubble canopies it seems, and use a stick for primary controls. You have a really great view, and it feels more like ''flying a fighter'' instead of ''flying a car'' (I hate yokes).
  7. Hey everyone. This year I started pushing hard on finishing up my flight training, squeezing in 28 flights over the last few months. I'm very near soloing and won't be too much longer to get final certification. I want to share some of the useful bits I've learned, and how my RL flight experiences have compared to simulation. I'll try to hit all the keypoints and obvious questions people might have, but feel free to ask anything you want elaboration on. My background Nerd from childhood, of course. I grew up playing F-117 Stealth Fighter, Thunderhawk, and got my first Thrustmaster joystick as a present to play Jane's US Navy Fighters. Stacks of info cards used to arrive in the mail, with eventually many large finders full of them. Lots of books, of course. Eventually as my access to money improved with adulthood so did the caliber of my simulation equipment. Today I have a 3/4 pit with top of the line gear and a VR headset, the only step up from here is a full motion rig. Simulator wise I'm not the best pilot, but I would say I'm well above average as far as being able to fight, fly formation, tank, land smoothly, etc. I had zero flight experience in rl until five years ago when I began an ill-timed attempt to begin lessons. The aircraft I am currently training on is an aerobatics rated, two seat Schleicher K-21 with a 55ft wingspan, pic provided below. My instructor's background My primary instructor is retired from USAF and airliners. He flew F-16s in Iraq, and has 750 hours in T-38s as an instructor. His total hour count is presumed to be ''many thousands''. He's a good guy, very rules oriented as military types tend to be. We don't talk much about his service history because of lack of time. He's stretched super thin so we're focused on task at hand, cause he's got other stuff to do when we're through. The other instructor I fly with is a very experienced civilian pilot who still flies a 172 nearly every day down to the airfield where he then usually either instructs or hops in one of our towplanes. Also a great guy with a huge amount of experience, a bit more hands off in his approach. I'm very fortunate to have such excellent instructors. Their experience and wisdom is literally priceless. Gliders? Really? Yeah! I actually have become quite smitten with them, as the emphasis is purely on personal skill and judgment. In a lot of ways any idiot can fly with an engine, but you have to really be good to stay in the air without one. You also have to be really good to get DOWN with one, because you do not have the option of a waveoff or go around. You get it right the first time, every time, you cannot afford not to. It's also a very affordable way to fly, virtually anyone can afford to do it. While your hours do not transfer over to other ratings, you learn all the same things, so it's very useful for ''pre-training training''. The final exam is an all day ordeal, a 500 question written exam, oral pop quiz and then a lengthy flight with an FAA examiner. Topics covered include everything EXCEPT engine related items, so weather, airspace restrictions, aerodynamics, best practices, etc etc. What challenges are unique to gliders? As indicated above, you don't have an engine (usually, a few models do), so most ''challenges'' revolve around that. Keeping track of where you are, how high you are, and whether or not you can return to the airfield safely are critical cause past a certain point you're definitely coming down and it's definitely going to be right around here, so making sure ''here'' is a good place to come down is important. This can be really important on a windy day where strong winds can cause you to drift farther than you intend, forcing you to put down in a field. If it happens, it happens and there's procedures to get you home, but if you routinely land out unnecessarily you'll be viewed as an idiot and nobody will come help you Another important, related aspect is the landing phase. Things happen very quickly and if you let yourself get too low there is no way to recover. You can also lose control of the situation due to weather conditions like severe sink. I have seen planes forced to land the wrong way up the runway due to being physically unable to reach the far end, and myself had to turn in midfield due to extremely severe sink preventing a proper pattern (we were doing doing the glider equivalent of touch and gos). Another critical phase is the initial tow. This is generally a pretty placid experience, but things CAN go wrong and they tend to be serious if they do (no engine, remember?) If a tow line breaks or the hook fails you can find yourself having to make critical decisions with very little time to do it. Do you have enough altitude to perform a pattern? Turn around and land on the runway the wrong way? Are you high enough to clear the trees and buildings at the end of the runway and make it to the field on the other side? This is extremely rare though, if proper maintenance is being performed. More likely is either the towplane or glider losing track of one another, potentially resulting in them going opposite directions to each other while still connected. Maintaining sight at all times is essential. Also possible is a failed release. Confirming the rope has properly come loose is very important before beginning any maneuvering, as again, you can end up going opposite directions while still connected. In one instance two pilots decided to ''race'' to the ground and a failed release resulted in the two aircraft hitting opposite ends of the towline at high speed, ripping both planes apart and killing all involved. Another potentially dangerous time is when a number of gliders separated by only a few feet vertically are all climbing in the same thermal (potentially a lot of them). It is important they are all spiraling in the same direction, at similar speeds, and nobody make any unexpected moves because the guys further up the column can't see the guys below and visibility to the rear and sides can be obscured by the wings, etc. Did simulator experience help with the transition to real flying? Yeah, quite a lot, particularly with overall familiarity with concepts. I went into it knowing approximately ''what to do'', knowing what the instruments are and how to read them, basic concepts of aerodynamics. Basically I started with a very well rounded ''knowledge base'' to build on. We also use a very nice pit onsite for training when the weather is bad (Condor 2 based) That said, I cannot emphasise enough two key differences between my sim experience and RL. #1 There are huge swathes of stuff that just don't really get done in-Sim. Radio usage is minimal and never to ''official'' form. Coordinated flight is very impractical for any aircraft lacking a modern HUD because you have to be heads down looking at an instrument, personally never bothered. Don't have to bother with airspace regulations. There's tons of other stuff of a more scientific or procedural nature regarding aerodynamics you may or may not have encountered or thought about that are suddenly required knowledge. So, I knew a lot about a lot of things, and zip about others. Terminology and being able to accurately describe things in a way it can be understood is another major shortcoming. #2 I cannot stress enough the importance of physical sensations. You can feel where the plane is and what it's doing in a way even a full motion rig can only dream of. Coordinated flight is trivial when you can feel whether or not you are doing it right. Landing is a whole different experience, even compared to VR the perspective feels very different, as well as physical sensations. The mental aspect of knowing you can potentially cause damage or death with a sufficiently bad mistake is also an aspect to consider. You don't get to casually botch landings anymore, especially in a glider, you either do it right the first time or it's apt to be serious. Can a person fly a real plane with ONLY simulator experience? Yes and no. Obviously simulators are a core part of the training pipeline for everyone from my glider club to the USAF. That said, there is a huge gap between ''basic familiarity with concepts and procedures'' and doing it for real. Probably why those pipelines inevitably end up focused on RL flying and dedicated trainer aircraft are still a key element of every program in existence despite the growing usage of VR. Could you handle just flying around, especially in ideal conditions? Sure. Could you handle a critical phase of flight like landing and takeoff? I would say a very cautious ''maybe'' with an experienced person available to talk you through it. On your own? Probably not. The potential for disaster would be extremely high. For example, just unfamiliarity with the physical controls could easily result in under or overcompensating at a critical moment. On that note, even the dampers I have installed do not feel like the real thing. In game I can do anything IN anything. In RL I was actually surprised how I felt not like I was starting from scratch all over again, but starting just above that. Key takeaway and useful tidbits from my training #1 Checklists. Use em. Seriously. 99% of the dumb stuff that occurs is a direct result of not having an established process or order of operations. For best results, have a simple checklist for each stage of your operation, and always follow it. If you get sidetracked or lost, start over. My instructor even has a printed checklist for his final pre-flight briefing regarding emergency procedures and inflight communication, even though he ''doesn't need it'' just because having it makes sure nothing ever gets forgotten. #2 Coordinated flight. Actually pretty important. The K-21 flies like a pig if you don't coordinate, wobbles around, sluggish to respond, etc. Fly it coordinated and it is very docile, smooth, and relatively responsive (for such a long winged aircraft). #3 When landing be farsighted. I mean that literally, don't look at the ground near your aircraft, look at the far end of the runway. Helps tremendously with perception of motion and overcontrolling. #4 Make many small corrections rapidly as needed rather than large overcorrections. If it's not enough add a little more, a little more, etc. Make these changes rapidly, but no large, sweeping movements, they introduce oscillations. #5 If you bounce on landing, do not try to force the nose down. You bounced because of too much velocity (vertical lateral or both), try to gently hold it off the ground until it stabilises and then land again. #6 Everything happens quickly, especially in a landing. Try to stay ahead of yourself mentally and be thinking about what you need to do BEFORE you need to do it. Ie ''land the aircraft'' mentally (going over the steps) before you enter the pattern. #7 Never miss an opportunity to make things easier for yourself. In my case it was somebody offering to straighten my aircraft before takeoff. I could've handled it, but why bother if you can take that issue out entirely? Do everything you can to insure you have the best chance of success. #8 My instructor's ''mantra for final'' Aimpoint, airspeed - You have selected an aimpoint, typically the end of the runway, and have an approach speed selected. Concentrate on maintaining both of those. Shift your aimpoint - You're beginning the flare just before touchdown as you are passing that initial aimpoint. At this point you're not really looking at speed or anything else anymore, you're 'flying for effect' ie manipulating the controls based on what you see and want to happen. Keep coming down - You're in ground effect and the aircraft is resisting descent. In a glider which is very light and has very long wings, ground effect is VERY strong, it wants to fly! It is critical to actually continue your descent or you'll balloon, if you balloon you'll end up stalling above the ground and then either have a very hard landing or start bouncing down the runway. Don't let it land - In the last foot or two hold it off the ground as long as possible so you land with the lowest possible speed. This is not only safest and easiest on the aircraft, but it's also easiest on you. These things I'm flying don't have a lot of suspension and jabbing your head into the canopy is definitely a thing. Alright, I've been writing this intermittently for several hours now and am getting rumdumb so I'm calling it quits. If I remember anything important I'll add it later, or if anybody has any questions I'll answer them. Again, I'm not some super experienced fighter pilot or anything, I'm just passing on my experience transitioning to real life and useful bits I've learned people might be interested in. See ya!
  8. I'm a bit late, but like where you're going. U think that's interesting and agree. ''Countering AI'' will be less about somehow ''jamming/preventing'' it and more about tricking it into doing something stupid. Inflexibility will be a major handicap for any system. People underestimate the complexity of human decision making, like in your example of a ghillie, what is ''obviously'' a man in a suit to us is not ''obvious'' to a machine at all. It is not capable of intuitive ''leaps''.
  9. The ear splitting noise typical when you die really does need to go. Most of us have ''hear like in helmet'' to reduce background noise while keeping radios, etc. Our audio levels are adjusted appropriately and then when we die we are blasted with painfully loud noise. It is one of the many thousands of basic QoL/common sense sort of things common in most games since the 90s that is overlooked for years on end here.
  10. I'm very sorry to hear of your situation. We'll definitely keep your remembrance. Thank you for all your contributions!
  11. One of these days ED needs to overhaul this placeholder environment.
  12. Oh cool! I just finished watching Band of Brothers and The Pacific with my wife and she really liked both of them. She'll be down for one about skies now
  13. You wouldn't really be mixing the two together on a large scale, TBH. Servers/missions would tend to have a focus on either air or ground, but not both. Nobody would find getting strafed by A-10s every ten minutes fun, and the complexity and scale required to make it work is simply infeasible (in short, aircraft are strategic level assets, tanks are tactical assets and operate at completely different levels) so in practice you would separate them to facilitate reasonable gameplay (ie 'fun'). Ground focused servers would largely tend to delete fast movers and focus on smaller scale engagements with vehicles and possibly limited quantities of helicopters, ala Arma (where fast movers are an after thought that barely functions and everything is more platoon or company oriented focused on a localised area). You could absolutely integrate ground vehicles into DCS but as with everything we already have, the scenarios would be designed with it in mind. You can't just haphazardly throw <profanity> together and expect it will translate to a fun experience for everyone.
  14. Yeah, I can't vouch for the accuracy of that, as I've never bothered trying to verify it. Is something I've seen multiple times in reference from people generally more in the know than me. But you know how that goes sometimes, too.
×
×
  • Create New...