Andrew8604
-
Posts
316 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Andrew8604
-
-
On 12/16/2021 at 11:46 AM, Darkdiz said:
Thankyou sir, appreciate the answer
Darkdiz, how has this worked out? I want to connect two Windows 10 PC's within my LAN so that my son and I can fly together in DCS. Can it be done without a dedicated server? I have a 3rd fairly fast PC that could be a dedicated server if needed to be. But I don't know how to get two copies of DCS playing together without using an online server. Do you know? Sounds like you might be trying to do the same thing?
Does each PC need to have its own unique DCS account?
If I want to fly as two crewmembers in an F-14, does each PC need its own purchased copy of the F-14?
-
On 1/23/2022 at 11:19 PM, navyBtown said:
Is it just me or does the hull number on the bow look like it’s a bit farther back than where it needs to be?
I agree. It should be considerably more forward. And they are not the correct font. And the anchors are missing. But I think it is still a 'work in progress'. Also, I don't know what the structure feature is called, but you can see a horizontal line marking different angles of the hull right below the numbers of the photo. But the model does not seem to possess that line. So, the shape may be wrong, too. If I may criticize...keeping in mind that I have contributed zero ships.
-
Pilot: either "Topper" or "Wash Out"
Guy-in-back: "Dead Meat" ...because you guys are undoubtedly going to get him killed!
-
As to WHEN it might come out as Early Access: I would hope for a response from HB such as...
They are aiming for October 2022. If they encounter difficulties with development, it could slip to as far out as April 2023 or more. If everything goes well, possibly even September 2022. And that they will TRY to give us an update the last week of every month, until then. Even if to say, "Progress continues."...with a picture of some part of the aircraft to keep us pacified.
Something like that. Just my guessing/example here, I know nothing about the actual timeline!! But if they tell us something like this, then we'd know from the start what time period we're looking at and even the chance it could take significantly longer. And if it is going to be ready in July, just keep telling us October and then surprise us!
Thanks, HB!
-
1
-
-
On 1/25/2022 at 2:21 PM, dali said:
I will act surprise when ED announces Vietnam
(Mig-21 - check, Mig-19 - check, F-5 - check)
A-4E - Check
MiG-17 - on the way...?
A-6E (close enough) - on the way
A-7E (close enough) - on the way
F-8J - on the way
All we need then is a Thud, a Hun, and a Spad. (F-105D, F-100D, A-1H) -- and a Jolly Green (HH-3)
-
On 1/19/2022 at 3:50 AM, razo+r said:
You should be able to change it by editing the first post.
Thanks! I did. I edited the first post. Is it good now or have I ruined it? Or should I just "hide" the whole topic? Is this of any use to anyone, or just a distraction, or garbage?
-
2
-
-
58 minutes ago, Hiob said:
I think the topic needs to buried or renamed.... It's kind of misleading....
True. How do I rename it? Or, I'm fine with having it removed, entirely from here. I've copied my last post of positive comments on the mod in a single post on the Community A-4E 2.0 thread. This is the last I'm going to post here.
-
I was most definitely out of date!! Dang! I guess I kept looking at: Community A-4E Project | The Community Repo for A-4E-C and its Official Submods (heclak.github.io) ....and kept seeing version 1.4. I thought work on the A-4E-C had reached its end. I think that page needs to be updated!!
I have version 2.0.0 now. Wow! This is one sweet mod, now! I've discovered a lot!
Radios work. It seems, not always, but often, you need to set the correct UHF comm frequency to get a response. Good. You can program the Channels and use them, too.
Flight Model: Feels much more fluid and properly limited, now. The clean A-4E is a scooter! Start hanging things under the wings and it really drags down. Even a pair of Sidewinders is a drag. I think this is realistic, though. And yet you can hang 12 Mk-82's underneath and still fly reasonably well. That's a 6,000 lb load on an ~11,000 lb aircraft! (not including internal fuel).
In-flight refueling: You can refuel from the KC-130 and S-3B Tanker (probably the KC-135 with the 'basket', too). It seems like you must have the tanker's UHF frequency set on your comm radio to communicate with the tanker...which makes sense. It sure would be nice to have an (AI) A-4E-C Tanker that would carry the refueling store on the centerline and 300-gallon tanks on pylons 2 & 4 (and no pylons carried at stations 1 & 5). Would also be nice to have an (AI) KA-6D Tanker (carrying five 300-gallon tanks) and KA-3B Tanker in DCS. An (AI) A-1J Skyraider with external tanks and external refueling store would be nice, too. (And an (AI) Grumman E-1B Tracer as the AWACS). Throw in an angled-deck Essex carrier and this would be all set for Yankee Station...but those other planes are outside this mod, I know.
Carrier Landings: I can make approaches to carriers now and get the FLOLS to appear and LSO to comment on my landings (not sure if that comes from having Supercarrier module). Although, the LSO's lateral guidance seems to be off-center for the Melbourne II and Clemenceau carriers. But if I ignore that, and ignore the "wave-off, wave-off", I can catch a wire practically every time on Clemenceau (but not on Melbourne). No more exploding!! I haven't found the correct version of the Hermes carrier that has arresting wires, yet.
APC: The automatic power compensator (auto-throttle) works very well and makes carrier approaches much easier. I set elevator trim for 6-deg., full flaps, gear down, hook down and engage the APC. You have to hold the nose up quite high in attitude (realistic). For those like me who are addicted to HUDs with velocity vectors, if you set the A-4's bomb sight to about 164 mil, the center of the sight is a pretty good indicator of where you're going in this landing configuration. If you're high on the ball, hold the site about 5-10 mil below the end of the carrier deck and vice versa for being low. The APC will take care of the throttle, and you'll make a controlled correction. I can make nice, slow, stabilized approaches this way.
Radar: Awesome! Far, far improved over the one in ver1.4!! It actually 'paints' recognizable terrain now. It paints the ships at sea and buildings on land, too. Unfortunately, it does not paint aircraft. It "should" be able to, within range. It wouldn't track or lock on any targets, but it should show those with sufficient radar cross-section...which can help in locating wingmen or tankers. However, that may be a problem to implement, I don't know.
Bombing computer: I used to have a hard time getting on the right dive angle, speed and release altitude at the calculated mil-setting on the bomb sight before. Now, with the bomb computer, you set the sight at 0-mils and the Weapon Mode selector at CMPTR. And set the radar to GRND mode. Put the bombsight on the target at greater than 30-deg dive, press-and-hold the bomb release button and start a gradual pull-up. The bombs release automatically at the required time. In combination with the intervalometer, I can lay 6 Mk-82's down a row of targets pretty easily, now. I'm not sure it works on ships at sea, though.
And I do all this in VR with a Rift S headset.
I know it says, "No plans to make any other versions of the Skyhawk", but an A-4B (Argentina A-4P) is going to be almost needed.
It should be able to use the same flight model, I think. I'm not sure what all is in a flight model. Different engine, J65-W-16, close to the same thrust (800 lbs less), but higher specific fuel consumption, I believe. Smaller engine intakes. Shorter nose and only 3 stores stations. Same wing. Same 20mm guns. Same landing gear. Same canopy and cockpit, bit with different instruments. No radar. No doppler drift/groundspeed indicator. Older navigation computer, but same functions (I think). It might not have the APC, either. No bombing computer. Much simpler weapons panel. No avionics hump. But it has a windshield wiper! ...and the US Navy used this version as a fighter in the 1960's to defend ASW carriers! It could still scoot and carry a couple Sidewinders. I think it should be a future project once the A-4E has maxed out. And as for a future mod? How about the KA-3B Skywarrior? No ejection seats! Would pretty much only use it as a tanker, but it would be cool to fly around in. Or else, the A-1J Skyraider?
-
3
-
-
On 12/26/2021 at 1:41 AM, WinterH said:
You really seem to be out of date
These days A-4E mod has mostly (perhaps fully?) working radio, can do aerial refueling, and has a pretty nice custom EFM flight model. For me personally it's more of a free module than a mod at this point to be honest.
Edit: oh and also make sure checking out the bombing computer after updating
(weapon mode to CMPTR position, select slick bombs, radar in AG mode, sight zero degrees depression, put the sight on your intented target, press and hold pickle, computer will release the bombs at the right moment to hit, you can also pull up to level flight as you hold the pickle)
I was most definitely out of date!! Thanks! Cancel the wish, DCS! It's already here!! Dang! I guess I kept looking at: Community A-4E Project | The Community Repo for A-4E-C and its Official Submods (heclak.github.io) ....and kept seeing version 1.4. I thought work on the A-4E-C had reached its end. I think this page needs to be updated!!
I have version 2.0.0 now. Wow! This is one sweet mod, now! I've discovered a lot!
Radios work. It seems, not always, but often, you need to set the correct UHF comm frequency to get a response. Good.
Flight Model: Feels much more fluid and properly limited, now. The clean A-4E is a scooter! Start hanging things under the wings and it really drags down. Even a pair of Sidewinders is a drag. I think this is realistic, though. And yet you can hang 12 Mk-82's underneath and still fly reasonably well. That's a 6,000 lb load on a 13,000 lb aircraft! (not including internal fuel).
In-flight refueling: You can refuel from the KC-130 and S-3B Tanker (probably the KC-135 with the 'basket', too). It seems like you must have the tanker's UHF frequency set on your comm radio to communicate with the tanker...which makes sense. It sure would be nice to have an (AI) A-4E-C Tanker that would carry the refueling store on the centerline and 300-gallon tanks on pylons 2 & 4 (and no pylons carried at stations 1 & 5). Would also be nice to have an (AI) KA-6D Tanker (carrying five 300-gallon tanks) and KA-3B Tanker in DCS. An (AI) A-1J Skyraider with external tanks and external refueling store would be nice, too. (And an (AI) Grumman E-1B Tracer as the AWACS). Throw in an angled-deck Essex carrier and this would be all set for Yankee Station.
Carrier Landings: I can make approaches to carriers now and get the FLOLS to appear and LSO to comment on my landings (not sure if that comes from having Supercarrier module). Although, the LSO's lateral guidance seems to be off-center for the Melbourne II and Clemenceau carriers. But if I ignore that, and ignore the "wave-off, wave-off", I can catch a wire practically every time on Clemenceau (but not on Melbourne). No more exploding!! I haven't found the correct version of the Hermes carrier that has arresting wires, yet.
APC: The automatic power compensator (auto-throttle) works very well and makes carrier approaches much easier. I set elevator trim for 6-deg., full flaps, gear down, hook down and engage the APC. You have to hold the nose up quite a high in attitude. For those like me who are addicted to HUDs with velocity vectors, if you set the A-4's bomb sight to about 164 mil, the center of the sight is a pretty good indicator of where you're going in this landing configuration. If you're high on the ball, hold the site about 5-10 mil below the end of the carrier deck and vice versa for being low. The APC will take care of the throttle, and you'll make a controlled correction. I can make nice, slow, stabilized approaches this way.
Radar: Awesome! Far, far improved over the one in ver1.4!! It actually 'paints' recognizable terrain now. It paints the ships at sea and buildings on land, too. Unfortunately, it does not paint aircraft. It "should" be able to, within range. It wouldn't track or lock on any targets, but it should show those with sufficient radar cross-section...which can help in locating wingmen or tankers. However, that may be a problem to implement, I don't know.
Bombing computer: I used to have a hard time getting on the right dive angle, speed and release altitude at the calculated mil-setting on the bomb sight before. Now, with the bomb computer, you set the sight at 0-mils and the Weapon Mode selector at CMPTR. And set the radar to GRND mode. Put the bombsight on the target at greater than 30-deg dive, press-and-hold the bomb release button and start a gradual pull-up. The bombs release automatically at the required time. In combination with the intervalometer, I can lay 6 Mk-82's down a row of targets pretty easily, now. I'm not sure it works on ships at sea, though.
And I do all this in VR with a Rift S headset.
-
1
-
-
On 12/28/2021 at 7:59 PM, AG-51_Razor said:
My Dad was the first Flight Deck officer for the new Yorktown CV-10, a plank holder, and said that this hanger deck catapult was used just a time or two during the shake down cruise to prove that it worked but never again. He told me that the pilot that went out that hanger door had told him it was the most terrifying thing he had ever done as a Naval Aviator!!
Then I think about those that launched off the midship or fantail of cruisers and battleships in the SOC Seagull, OS2U Kingfisher and SO3C Seamew.
My dad watched several OS2U's launch from the USS Salt Lake City CA-25 in 1945. And the recoveries. The ship would turn and make a smooth patch of sea (inside of its arc) for the plane to land on. Then it would taxi alongside, onto a "sled" towed by the ship and be hoisted up by crane back aboard, with crew in it. It was launched by something like a black powder cartridge.
That would be pretty cool to fly the OS2U in DCS. Cruise at 130 kts. Land on the sea at 50 kts. Carry a couple M30 100 lb GP bombs, or depth bombs.
No, I don't expect to see it.
-
2
-
-
But do you all think the Phantom II is significant enough that it should be represented in DCS twice, once as a land-based version (probably the F-4E) and once as a carrier-based version (probably the F-4J or F-4B)? We have the Su-27 and Su-33, MiG-29A and -29S, Su-25 and -25T, A-10A and A-10C. Sell the two F-4 versions as separate modules, with a 'combo' deal.
And is there enough in common between even an F-4B and an F-4E that one developer should make both? Or should HB, for instance, make the naval version and perhaps ED make the air force version?
Does HB's development experience with the F-14 make them better suited to make the naval F-4 variant? Can't they use some of what they developed during the F-14 on the F-4? Even if that's just knowledge on how to go about it?
The Forrestal is out there waiting for its F-4 Phantom II.
-
Making just the F-4E would be like making just an F-35A (no vertical landings). Both of these aircraft need the extra effort from the beginning to produce two versions.
For the Phantom II, that "should" probably be the F-4E and the F-4J (or the F-4S or the F-4B or N...just one of the naval variants). I would be happy to have the F-4E first (by the end of '22?...probably not) and then if the naval F-4 could follow within 2 years (I hope). I mean, if they put full effort into the F-4E with keeping in mind how the systems coding would be different for the 'J', why couldn't they do that? After the 'E' is out, in release, then produce the 'J'. Would you all be butt-hurt if they even used 97% the same flight model as the 'E' for the 'J'? How many of you out there even knows the difference? Maybe the 'E' has a slightly higher top speed? Not when you have ordnance hung underneath, though. The cockpit framing shape/dimensions between the 'E' and the 'J' should be identical. Do they use different ejection seats? They're the same, aren't they? Or very close? The radars are different, that's for sure. But some of the A-to-A and A-to-G modes must be the same. The back seater in the F-4E does what? The back-seater in the 'J' is a RIO, like in the F-14, right? There are some differences in weapons panels, a few console panels, the fire-control systems. But fuel, hydraulic, pneumatic and engines should be very much the same, no?
Why was the F-14A and B so much more work? It couldn't have been like starting from scratch. The whole 3D model was already there, maybe some slight modifications. The flight model should be nearly the same. It had to be all systems changes. But the F-14 was quite a bit more complex in its fire control system than the F-4, wasn't it? Could it be that the F-14A was something like 35% of the work of the F-14B, when HB thought it was only going to be 10%? Something like that? Sell the Phantom II's separately!! $79 for the 'E', $79 for the 'J'. Or both for $129. Then offer the 'E' at pre-sale for $69. And the 'J' at pre-sale for $59, but only after the 'E' is past early-access. The 'E' and the 'J' should be understood to be different enough that you have to pay for both. I think it's clear from this forum that there are two groups of Phantom Phans here...they're going to purchase their favorite version...and most of them will probably purchase both, no matter how much they say, "If it's not the 'E', then it's better if no Phantom at all." "If I don't get my ice cream cone, then I'm going to hold my breath 'til I pass out and die." This is the long-awaited F-4 Phantom II we're talking about! It requires two versions even more than the F-15C / F-15E...much more so than the Fw-190 A-8 & D-9.
-
Are you all aware that FlyingIron Simulations is working on, and making progress on, the A-7E Corsair II, full DCS module? I mean, maybe you are aware, just FYI. Yes, it would be cool if we could have an AI version of the A-7 right now.
DCS A-7E Corsair II: 2021 Q4 Development Report – FlyingIron Simulations
-
The Intrepid carrier is looking good! Along with that Corsair.
I believe it should say "Short Hull Construction", not "Short Haul"...in the description. But being "Short Hull" just means (primarily) it has a bow that supports only one 'quad' 40mm mount, with the slightly longer flight deck that over hangs that mount and restricts its upward arc of fire. The hull length in the water was the same for all Essex-class carriers. They said it has 17 40mm guns...by the pictures, that means 17 'quad' 40mm mounts. That adds up to sixty-eight 40mm barrels! I believe that is correct for the time period they are modeling. And despite that, it was still hit by a Kamikaze aircraft in 1945. The Intrepid was originally fitted in 1943 with far fewer 40mm mounts. But like they said, they are modeling her as she was after a refit in 1944, I think. And so it also has two H 4B hydraulic catapults. I think it originally only had one flight deck catapult. These are hydraulic catapults, so you won't be seeing steam from them. Modeling ships from WWII is difficult because they kept making changes to their gun armaments and radar antennas, and sometimes a good portion of the superstructure.
It does appear that the 20mm gun mounts along the edges of the flight deck are all sitting up too high. Like maybe 3-5 feet too high! The gun shields are too tall, too. Judging by actual photos of Intrepid from '43-'44. I don't think they could swing the 20mm guns around to fire across the flight deck. I can imagine they wouldn't want an excited 20mm gunner swinging the barrel around in the heat of battle and mowing down the bridge crew and 40mm gun-mount crews up there! And I suppose mounting them down low kept them from interfering with aircraft operations. I see railings around the flight deck, too. I don't think they had those, at least not during flight operations. I've looked at a 1944 photo of Intrepid and there were railings around the gun platforms...or I think that's called the 'gallery deck', but not the flight deck...not that I can see.
This carrier would be a fine home for Hellcats, Dauntlesses, Avengers and Helldivers, too...if they ever get modeled in DCS.
In the early 1950's intrepid was fitted with a long bow, and so was identical to the 'Long Hull' ships in that regard, at that point. It was also fitted with C-11 steam catapults and a new island superstructure that took away the 5-inch gun turrets, and the aft elevator was moved to the starboard edge around that time. In the mid '50s it received an angled flight deck, reenforced for jet aircraft, an enclosed 'hurricane bow' and heavier arresting gear for jets (minus pretty much all the guns). I'm hoping in this form it will be modeled, as well, for the F-8J Crusader. It could probably then be numbered with a '14' or a '19' too, as the Ticonderoga and Hancock, which were very similarly modified. Move the starboard elevator forward a bit, with a little deck-edge and hangar deck re-trimming, and you'd have '16' Lexington, '31' Bon Homme Richard, '34' Oriskany and '38' Shangri-La, as well.
Then take that and change the catapults to hydraulic H-8's and reduce the size of the forward elevator a bit and you'd have '9' Essex, '10' Yorktown, '12' Hornet, '15' Randolph, '18' Wasp, '20' Bennington, and '33' Kearsarge. Take the WWII Intrepid and remove most of the guns, but not the dual-5-inch turrets and replace the tripod mast with a mast from one of those of the modernized ships and add the "long bow", and you'd pretty much have '21' Boxer, '32' Leyte, '37' Princeton, '40' Tarawa, '45' Valley Forge, and '47' Philippine Sea...although, they might be best in their late-WWII fit as Korean War-era carriers, with possibly the 20mm guns removed.
-
1
-
-
Outstanding mod!! I flew v1.41 a lot before. But now, with inflight refueling and radio, useful radar, bomb computer and APC...it's just an awesome mod. I can't wait for there to be an angled-deck Essex-class carrier to fly it from (along with the future F-8J Crusader).
Nosewheel steering: a bit of controversy, I suppose. I think many of us want a choice, if possible, to have to nosewheel steering or not. (I still have to check out the "rudder applies differential braking" option). I think steering by differential braking would be fine, except, at times, at walking speeds, the brakes seem to fade or have no effect. Since my rudder pedal toe brakes have no feedback at all, I can't tell when the wheel locks up. Or is it locking up? There are times when I have full brake input on one side applied and there is no response. The aircraft just keeps moving straight ahead. As if below a certain speed, the brakes don't function individually. I'm not sure what the exact problem is or for sure what's happening. I just know that steering is sometimes not functional at very low speeds....which makes maneuvering on a small carrier deck very difficult. One time I went off the edge of the deck with full left brake and then both brakes pressed. It just wouldn't turn or stop. That's unsettling and seems unrealistic.
Approach to carrier Clemenceau (mod)...LSO constantly tells me I'm lined up left when I'm visually right on centerline and then waves me off. I have to land right of centerline to come aboard without a wave-off. Is that a carrier mod problem or A-4E-C mod problem? The AI A-4E-C's seem to always line up well right of centerline and often take a wave-off, too.
Approach to carrier Melbourne (mod)...I can't seem to get the hook to catch a wire. I do bolter after bolter, having been on the ball and on center. Again, is that the carrier mod or the A-4 mod?
Feature request: Can you make the radar show airborne targets, too? I've read a real-life pilot account of using the A-4E's radar to locate an airborne tanker or wingman. I know it has no tracking or weapon guiding function, but just a simple search function that would show airborne targets of sufficient radar return strength, or radar cross section. Actually, use the existing Search function, just add appropriate strength echos for airborne targets when antenna elevation is adjusted so that the radar beam sweeps an aircraft.
Feature request: A-4E Tanker. Will it ever be possible to have a functioning Air Refueling store "buddy tank"? If not on the flyable version, could we at least have an AI version? Maybe a KA-4E (AI) to distinguish it from a regular A-4E (AI)? Or just A-4E-C Tanker (AI)?
Can you make the A-4E (AI) show slats fully deployed when below a certain speed or with gear down and when parked or as a static aircraft? And a few degrees more nose-high attitude when parked or a static aircraft?
Feature request: Can you make the rotating beacons appear to "flash" when viewed from the sides? Can you also include the fuselage lights...which I believe are on the forward, underside of each wing, outboard of stores stations 2 and 4? I've seen pictures of these on a real A-4L. I think the 'E' has them, too. Or they might be outboard of stations 1 and 5 on the 'E'.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, Admiral189 said:
Happy New Year Everyone! Sorry i have been MIA for a while. I really had to take a break.
I started the Bainbridge Model over because i didn't like the outcome. She is coming along great now. As long as i can keep my motivation going she will be complete soon!!
Hey Andrew, i have enough models to create that will take up the entire year. Some models are just aren't available and if they are their either not a good build or their too costly. At the moment i have at least five more models to build in the Bainbridge era. USS Sacramento, Wichita, Long Beach, Virginia Class CG and the USS Yarnell. Not in that order.
WIP!!!
Hey Admiral. Do you build these models yourself or obtain them from other sources?
How do you ensure they are to scale from a 3D drawing program to DCS?
Do you use Blender?
I'd like to learn how to build these in 3D. Maybe you or someone else can animate and program them to function in DCS, if I could make the models? Although, there's about a 1-in-1000 chance that I could actually make any.
But maybe I could make components that would be assembled onto a ship's structure and contribute in that way.
From Wikipedia, it says Bainbridge had two screws. ...or am I not supposed to point that out?
It might be best to give everything below the waterline very muted tones, very little color and blue-gray shifted. DCS's water is about 300% too transparent, I think.
-
"It's no big deal."
-
20 hours ago, navyBtown said:
Yes, @ElvisDaKang you heard right that there is Bainbridge in the works. The goal was to get it out by Christmas but some issues came up. @Admiral189 will launch her as soon as he feels it’s ready, till then here is a screenshots back on the 18th for you to drool over.
I was just educating myself on all of the US Navy cruisers, destroyers and frigates (CAs, CLs, CAGs, CLGs, CGs, CGNs, DDs, DDGs, DLGs, DLGNs, FFs, FFGs) built during and after WWII.
Bainbridge CGN-25 was a single-ship class, nuclear-powered, derived from a Leahy-class CG (or DLG?). This models it in its final configuration, right?
Does Admiral have a list of ships to produce?
My requests would be:
Allen M Sumner-class, FRAM II config
Gearing-class, FRAM I config
Forrest Sherman-class, one of the 4 converted to DDG and one of the 4 with just the ASROC box launcher.
Charles F Adams-class DDG
These should make good escort ships for an angled-deck Essex-class carrier, SCB-27C/-125 mod. Such as: Intrepid (11), Ticonderoga (14) and Hancock (19) with starboard elevator more aft, and Lexington (16), Bon Homme Richard (31), Oriskany (34) and Shangri-La (38) with starboard elevator more forward.
-
I figured out how to change the color of the skin to air superiority blue, removing the dark ghost gray from the DCS paint kit template, and adding the US insignia without the blue border. But no AF number or tail code. I don't have a picture handy to show, though. I modified a skin for the F-5E in air superiority blue, too. I think it looks pretty sharp in that color.
Yours looks pretty good. Did you fade the orange? It looks more faded/weathered. That still looks like ghost gray instead of air superiority blue, though. But it's subtle and hard to tell for sure. I should dig back into it and make one with a "fresh" paint job of day-glo orange and air-superiority blue. I think it was that orange. This was "my plane" back in the 70s when I was about 8 years old.
I still can't believe I get to sit in it and fly it...in DCS.
-
Why did you guys take away nose wheel steering on the A-4E-C? Did not most A-4E's and all A-4F's have it? Except maybe the stripped-down aggressor A-4Fs. Because they didn't need it operating only from Naval Air Stations like Miramar and Fallon. But it is very useful maneuvering on small carrier decks like the Clemenceau and Essex. Videos of real A-4C's and E's on carriers show an aircraft handler with a "tow bar" steering the nosewheel to get the jet lined up on the catapult. Nosewheel steering emulated that.
The real problem is lack of grip of the main gear tires on the carrier deck or a skidding tire goes to zero drag to where you can't get enough drag on one tire to turn the aircraft. Is that tire friction force dependent on the carrier in DCS? I was trying and trying to get lined up on the cat on Clemenceau. Finally, in flighting the brakes, I could not get the aircraft to turn for nothing and I went off the deck, canopy-first into the water!!
Differential braking would be okay if it performed reliably. But even a skidding tire has drag...it should have drag, unless the flightdeck is covered with a layer of ice.
Couldn't you make it a keybound option? "Nosewheel Steering toggle on else off"...and I'll put it on a joystick button. When off, steering could be by differential braking.
-
On 12/27/2021 at 6:06 AM, Calabrone said:
Radio slave I don't know what it is. The problem is that with A4 when you approach the airport you can't communicate with the control tower. As for the Tacan or the BDHI indicator they work fine!
I don't know why you called it radio slave. However, I believe you are correct. I set up a mission with 4 different aircraft carriers to test out ops on all of them with the A-4. Stennis, Forrestal, Clemenceau and Melbourne. I just tried to contact the "tower" or carrier, any of them. I get no response. That's what you're saying, right? No response from ATC when called. But I can contact the tankers. I haven't tried to talk to wingmen yet. So we can't get LSO grades of out carrier landings because we can't contact the carrier.
Sadly, the Buddy Refueling store has been taken away. Even if it didn't work, I liked to carry it. It was cool. I was hoping one day it might be made to work. At least on an A-4E-C Tanker (AI). The typical loading for an A-4 Tanker would be no pylons on stations 1 & 5, 300 gal fuel tanks on stations 2 & 4, and the buddy refuel store (which is also an external fuel tank) on station 3. Theoretically, it would be a tanker to go up to when you're low on fuel and need another 700-1,500 lbs to make carrier landing approaches. In my practice, inflight refueling is so difficult, that it probably won't help me.
-
Merry Christmas, Rudel and crew at Magnitude-3! The picture looks great. The Corsair must be getting close. I will be waiting for when it's done. Don't mind the negative comments here, please carry on with the great work as best you can. I'm happy with getting updates, even little ones. Afterall, you could have chosen to just say nothing. It's going to be worth it, I'm sure. I see a carrier underway, too!
-
6
-
-
On 12/22/2021 at 11:23 PM, Oban said:
Can we keep this page for Admiral's releases, other mods should have their own pages for talking points, it's derailing Admirals work , progress and release page
We're on Page 58, I don't think there's much point in that anymore, here. HOWEVER, I do agree it would be nice if there could be a page, locked down, to where only he can edit it. This thread for discussions of his ships and requests, that thread just for status: What has been created and what is on the list to be created, and maybe what has been requested. And of course, links to where the ships can be downloaded.
Right now, I am wondering what all ships he has created. Did he create the carrier Clemenceau? Or was that someone else? Is Admiral or anyone else working on an angled-deck Essex carrier, SCB-27C/-125, with steam catapults from the mid-60's? And then, SCB-27A/-125/-144 Essex with hydraulic cats and sonar for antisubmarine aircraft. I assume Magnitude is working on the late-WWII, straight-deck Essex for their F4U Corsair. I hope they can release it to us, soon. Maybe they're working on the angled-deck Essex for their F-8J, too?
-
2
-
-
Whether launch bar or steel-cable bridle, the physics are a force applied to the aircraft for a set distance. For the post WWII, H-8 hydraulic catapults, that was up to 15,500 lbs for 150 feet of stroke, which took 1.69 seconds reaching a top end-of-run speed of 105 knots. For steam catapults, the length of stroke, force and speed attained are greater. For launch bar, the aircraft is pulled by its reenforced nosewheel strut. For bridle launch, the aircraft is pulled by a cable wrapped around the catapult shuttle horn and each end attached to launch hooks on the underside of the aircraft or in its main-gear wheel wells. In DCS, force is applied to the aircraft to accelerate it to given speed in the given stroke distance. Whether launch bar or bridle cable is simply cosmetic, except for possibly where and at what angle the force is applied.
The Essex-class carriers' catapults used a launch bridle. Interestingly, the Essex, CV-9, as originally built, had no catapults on its flight deck. Just one on the hangar deck, as the post above shows an example of. 8 of the 24 Essex-class had 1 catapult on the flight deck and the other 15 had 2 catapults. These were all H-4 hydraulic catapults, I believe. In the early 50s, the H-4's were changed out for H-8 on 8 units and C-11 steam catapults on 7 others. For the other 9, they kept what they had from WWII, I believe. 3 of those 9 ships that were designated LPH's (helicopter carriers) in the early 60s may have had their catapults removed.
-
1
-
But maybe I could make components that would be assembled onto a ship's structure and contribute in that way.
Las Vegas Blvd WRONG building names
in DCS: Nevada Test and Training Range
Posted
It's a fake! You've been suckered in!
Weren't you suspicious when you paid your dime at the Le Petomane Toll Booth in the middle of the desert on your way in to town?