Jump to content

cailean_556

Members
  • Posts

    108
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About cailean_556

  • Birthday 05/02/1985

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    FSX Steam Edition
    DCS World - Steam
  • Location
    Land Down Under
  • Interests
    Flight Sims, Combat Flight Sims, RTS, RPG
  1. Literally having this bug at the moment in the F-14A - I thought I was losing my mind. I had just respawned from a "controlled rapid disassembly" - pulled back on the stick as much as I could while supersonic at low level. For science... Seems I'll have to restart the mission. EDIT: Restarting the mission and getting out of and back into the Mission Editor didn't fix the 'right engine won't start' issue. Had to quit out of DCS completely.
  2. I'm not panicking at the apparent "lack" of screenshots, or updates in general. I would find it very "out-of-character" for an experienced DCS 3rd Party developer, such as Heatblur, to declare a project will release in 2022, if it wasn't in a state where such a release was considered very possible. Granted there are "under the hood" things us mere peasants don't get to see that could alter their schedule, however for Heatblur to make the call of "it'll be out in 2022" during the first official post regarding the F-4 module means that they're pretty confident it'll be out this year. 31 December, 2022 is still a 2022 release. Once 1 Jan 2023 rolls around and I'm still not sitting in a Phantom cockpit, and I've not heard or seen anything about a delay, I'll start making noise. Until then just remain low-key excited, don't let expectations get the better of you and don't get demoralised when you don't see or hear any news about a wanted module (this last one is my kryptonite - South Atlantic, Mirage F1 and MB-339 news, when!?). From memory, we (or at least I) saw very little "progress updates" of the F-14 before its release. So I would imagine the F-4 would be handled in much the same way. EDIT: While trawling another forum thread:
  3. I had attempted to utilise JF-17s as AI for a SEAD/DEAD training mission I made - they would come in and (I thought) they would fire their LD-10s in Passive mode toward an SA-11 SR (Snow Drift) - which is set to be permanently active until destroyed, once activated. I figured the AI would use Active or Passive mode to engage the radar, as I had set its task to do so. No matter what I tried (ROE, Override attack, moving the waypoint closer to the target, disable RTB on Bingo Fuel) the JF-17 refused to engage - despite other AI aircraft (with HARMs and Shrikes) being able to work as intended. I surmised it was due to the LD-10 being more of a "Self-Protection" ARM than an offensive ARM, so I switched it out for an F-16C with HTS/HARM, which I knew worked (which it did). I then changed a pair of F/A-18s carrying LGBs (in the same mission) into JF-17s carrying C-701 (CCD version) that were intended to destroy a disabled HAWK site (TR destroyed, site unable to fire). The F/A-18s that did this task prior had no issues. The JF-17s, however, simply overflew the target in a Race-Track (they are not set to orbit, they are set to 'Bombing' the units at the target points) and never released ordnance. I changed the C-701 (CCD) to C-701 (IR). Same thing happened. I changed their loadout to GBU-12s and tested again. This time they released the GBU-12 however it did not appear to track and missed the target by a significant margin (the AI JF-17 was also carrying a TGP, which I assumed it would use). I even changed out the JF-17 AIs for Mirage 2000Cs armed with dumb bombs - they were able to destroy the targets accurately, despite dropping their unguided bombs from 20,000 ft. There is no wind or other threat that would affect the aircraft or its weapon systems - the JF-17 AI does not seem to understand how to employ or use its 'smart' weapons. I don't know how long it has been like this, as I've not really used JF-17s as AI attackers in missions before.
  4. Update on this: Instead of copying the trigger, I simply made new ones from scratch. I was able to copy and overwrite text from other trigger Actions with no issue - I did not try deleting entire paragraphs. I also, quite embarrasingly, realised during a QA session that I had set the launchers of the HAWK sites to Rapier launchers. I don't think that would cause the issue, as the trigger last night was based on an SA-2 site, but it has been rectified. I have not yet had a CTD or other issue. Once I've done a bit of QA, I will attempt to replicate what I was doing last night to see if I can force the CTD again and provide an update. EDIT: After doing about 40 mins of QA, I copied the 'Kish SA-2 Disabled' trigger, moved it to the bottom of the list and then deleted the second paragraph. Unsure whether it's because I elected to manually add, as opposed to copy, the trigger, if DCS was just having a bad day or whether or not it's my computer (which is very new, but not outside the realms of possibility) but I wasn't able to replicate the crash.
  5. Things like this is why I have trust issues when people say things like "Do your own research"... Just who is right, and who is wrong? The one? Or the many? Multiple sources quote a particular number, however one source (a source I consider - and not just because I'm Australian - to be a typically reliable, in fact I'm surprised this site didn't show up during my original search for info) has information that is contrary to that. By the same token, I would also consider the Federation of American Scientists (fas.org) to be also typically reliable - so who's right? When multiple sources say one thing, and another says something completely different? I'm sure ED has the smoking gun on the matter - I just want to know if the system in DCS is accurate. If this is accurate, the only thing remaining (that is triggering my obsessive-compulsive tendencies about this) is the fact that the tracking/fire control radar has a supremely longer range than the search radar it is supposed to be paired with... If that is indeed the case, it's like we need a longer-range search radar to pair with the SA-5: like the P-14 'Tall King' or the P-35 "Bar Lock' search radars (which look very similar to the airfield radar installations on the Caucasus map) for the SA-5 - so it can be cued onto target more reliably.
  6. If you follow the links for the SA-5 system itself within the GlobalSecurity.org link for the radar (S-200 SA-5 GAMMON (globalsecurity.org)) it discusses minimum engagement range, as does S-200 SA-5 GAMMON - Russia / Soviet Nuclear Forces (fas.org). However it could also be dependent on the variant. That being said, this site (SA-5 Gammon S-200 Angara ground to air missile system data | Russia Russian missile system vehicle UK | Russia Russian army military equipment vehicles UK (armyrecognition.com)) contradicts the other two and quotes a minimum range of 7km but doesn't quote sources for that information. 60km does sound like a stupidly long distance, and it'd be hard to get confused between 7 and 60. Perhaps the min range for the missile is correct after all and globalsecurity.org and fas.org are wrong. However the Square Pair, on the other hand, there's definitely something up with that.
  7. Hey BN, Apologies mate - I figured (incorrectly) you already had them. Please find below the four logs from each time I attempted to do the same action - the third and fourth attempts were "For SCIENCE! (TM)". Hope this helps. dcs.log-20220316-104924.zip dcs.log-20220316-121257.zip dcs.log-20220316-122408.zip dcs.log-20220316-122834.zip
  8. Working on a SEAD training mission on the Persian Gulf map. Iranian HAWK, SA-2, SA-11 and SA-5 sites (HAWKs on Abu Musa, Sirri and Tunb Islands, SA-2 at Kish International and IVO Havadarya, SA-11 at Lar and IVO Havadarya (co-located with the SA-2 in the same area) and an SA-5 in Bandar Abbas, near the airport). One HAWK site (Abu Musa) is active at mission start, the rest are set to activate as the site before it is destroyed (either by the player or by an AI DEAD package (which is yet to be added to the mission) OR by the player using a Comms Menu action once a certain unit of that particular group is destroyed (such as the Abu Musa HAWK site's TR - which prevents the site from firing). I also added pairs of F-5E, MiG-21bis, F-4E, MiG-29A and F-14A (the HB one) (uncontrolled) that can be activated by using the Comms menu. After placing the units in the desired configurations in the desired areas, I set about adding triggers. After creating the desired trigger, I would copy it and then modify the Conditions and Actions, and content of those Actions as required. Getting towards the end of the triggers pertaining to the Iranian SAMs, I copy a particular trigger (Kish SA-2 Disabled) as I've done with literally every other trigger. I move it to the bottom of the trigger list, rename it (I call it Bandar SA-2 Disabled), modify the Conditions (Unit Dead - Ground-3-2) and then attempt to modify the 'Message to All' action, by highlighting and deleting the second paragraph of that particular message/action. As soon as I press 'Backspace', DCS generates the crash log window and, after allowing it to do its thing, DCS CTDs. I've managed to save the mission template it at a point where you should be able to simply copy the mentioned trigger. I have not (yet) attempt to copy another trigger, however I have been able to modify current triggers contents without causing a CTD. PG_Iran SEAD_Training.miz
  9. I'm not sure if it has always been this way and I've just never noticed until now, or whether this is new, however I've noticed the 'Square Pair' target acquisition radar for the SA-5 may have an incorrect max detection range. In the Mission Editor, it has a range of ~215 nautical miles, which equates to about 398km. According to 5N62V - Radartutorial, SA-5 (Gammon) / S-200 (militaryfactory.com) and S-200 SA-5 GAMMON (globalsecurity.org) (and Wikipedia) the Square Pair (depending on version) has a range of between 270 and 300km. Currently, it has a detection range that exceeds that of the P-35 Barlock radars (~320-392km, depending on version). Is this intentional, based on non-public data, or is this an error regarding the unit in DCS itself? Either way, just making a note of it. EDIT: Upon further investigation, I've also noticed (using the same sources) that the SA-5 missile (due to the booster burn-time, etc.) has a minimum range of 60km, whereas in DCS the min range ring indicates ~7km.
  10. The A-4 is a mod so that can't be used as a comparison - they're not held to the same level of 'realism'. Things can be, are and may be added for 'gameplay' over 'simulation'. That being said it may also be that the A-4E, at some point in its service life, was modified to allow for NVG use so they've added the feature. That's speculation on my part. It may be technically possible to use NVGs in the later (DMAS) F-4E - possibly - however a quick Google search shows there is material suggesting night operations in the F-4E over Vietnam were possible using 'Pave Tack', which was an early EO/FLIR targeting pod that was larger and less capable than the LITENING pod. Pave Spike was a 'day only' pod. You have to understand that, at the time this jet was in its prime, personnel-mounted night vision systems were still very much in their infancy, though vehicle and weapon-mounted systems were maturing. I haven't read anything that doesn't specifically state that NVGs weren't used by F-4E pilots, however it doesn't specifically say they were used either - not until much, much later. There is an article that refers to an F-4 lost while the crew were conducting night flying under NVG conditions in 2005, however that may be well outside the timeframe of the versions of the F-4E we're getting which, as I understand, are an early Vietnam-era jet and a -1980s variant with the DMAS added. I'd go with 'No, we won't be able to use NVGs in the F-4E'. That way if it comes out and we can use NVGs, everyone's happy. If we can't, it's nothing we didn't already expect.
  11. RAAF F-4E, used as an interim fighter-bomber until the delivery of the F-111. Despite being well loved by their crews and talk of retaining the F-4 was at least entertained, they were returned to the US.
  12. I've been taking a break from DCS (not entirely willingly) and I can't wait to get back into the 'Cat and have Jester designate and call out targets for laser guided munitions! I've no doubt the UI will take some getting used to, seeing as I've not been in the Tomcat (A or B) for quite some time but there's one thing I've noticed that's been bugging me... Where's the official VF-1 'Wolfpack' livery!? I bought the VF-1 shirt (was part of the pre-order)and when the B shipped, there was no VF-1. I got told something along the lines of 'It's planned but VF-1 only flew the older A model', which is fine. But now we have the A model and nil by VF-1 livery - even after this massive update (which added a few more liveries, or at least I hadn't them noticed before). Is the VF-1 livery still planned as an official livery for the F-14? Yes, I know I can get it from the user forum in the mean-time and liveries are low priority but I would still like to see the squadron whose shirt I bought at pre-order have an official livery for the plane in DCS.
  13. The differences between the Su-7 and Su-22 would be significant enough to warrant their own modules, I would think. I don't think it would be as simple as say changing the engine type (which is a gross over-simplification of the process, I know) in an F-4. The Su-7 lacked both functionality and capability the Su-22 had, beyond the VG wings. Obviously very different flight models too, as a result. To be fair, I think even the F-4 package would probably be easier if the F-4E, F-4K and F-4J/S were developed as separate modules due to the number of not just external but also internal differences. But I also think that to most people (that don't truly appreciate the aircraft), they just see a gun, or a different tail and go "Is that all that's changed? Why are there so many F-4 modules when they're all the same plane?" But...until someone goes "Oh, we're developing this", any F-4 is simply a pipe dream. If we could get a Thud in DCS, it opens the door to the F-111 too (which I'm surprised I missed the first time around). I don't believe they were ever historically used in the regions DCS has currently, but that won't stop people from finding ways to use them, same as the F-105.
  14. I agree. With both. There may be some communications delays, however computer systems can bridge those gaps (and clearly do). From my own personal knowledge, a lightweight, man-portable short-range search radar of US origin was tied in with a system that cued a European SHORAD missile system, doing so more or less automatically - despite the three systems very clearly not being developed to operate together and yet were made to do so. I can't comment on the effectiveness in war-time, but it worked during testing and on exercise. Likewise, any search radar could be used as an EWR/GCI radar. This could be a setting in the 'Set Options' menu of the asset in question.
  15. I'd love an F-4K (anything to fill the very underwhelming RAF roster in DCS), a Buccaneer would be equally welcome. I'm not as eager for a Tornado but it would also be a welcome addition - but a GR/IDS Tornado needs to come with an ADV (AI or module). I believe we'll see GR.3 Harrier at some point, I know RAZBAM has eyes on it after the Sea Harrier (and everything else they have lined up) so it might be a while. Same with a Lightning. I'm actually surprised we haven't seen a serious attempt at a Hunter or a Jaguar yet (mods don't count). There's a Lynx asset (unsure if just AI or intent on module) being developed by RAZBAM for the South Atlantic - or at least that's where the model was shown. I think ED is improving/updating its Sea King AI model. Would definitely welcome the Nimrod or a different Herc variant so it's not just a C-130H painted in different colours (yet also missing liveries for other non-NATO users - like the UAE, Australia, Oman...). I also would love to see a Gloster Meteor come to DCS at some point.
×
×
  • Create New...