jojo
-
Posts
4833 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jojo
-
-
In a well balanced multiplayer scenario one could expect a Mig-23 to be much more readily available than a tomcat, which might have several limitations like higher cost, longer spawn times, no Aim-54, Aim-120 and so on... (you'd think say Iran has a big store of those?).
Tomcat never got AIM-120 in US Navy :smilewink:
-
Let's say that Blue SEAD isn't quite what it should be.
We are missing stand off jamming (EA-6 Prowler) and fighter's countermeasures are quite simplistic.
In Bosnia, Mirage 2000N performed strikes with Mk-82 in visual attack mode.
One got hit by a MANPAD because he pulled up too low.
But they were protected from medium range SAM by SEAD.
-
The thing is the Sniper is not manufactured by Boeing
Sent from my VKY-L09 using Tapatalk
Yeah, I know, it's LM.
But what are we talking about ? It's 3D model. We'll see in due time...
PS: since Sniper is mounted on F-15E, Boeing has to know about it. But I'm not lawyer, I don't care about Razbam licences agreements. It isn't my business...
-
-
There is no miracle, the Mirage 2000C is a fighter first, and not a dedicated strike fighter.
So if you don't see your target visually, you need someone else to give you coordinates (Forwar Air Controller = FAC, other fighters with targeting pod = A-10C, Harriet, soon Hornet and Tomcat) or know where your target is at the briefing.
-
I doubt the accuracy of the ARBS vs CCIP will be modelled to that degree though. At it's base level I think (but what do I know) the calculations for the two are probably coded the same. Even if they weren't, the Sim doesn't handle ground vehicle damage models to a degree the the CEP difference would matter.
Hopefully it will change soon:
Modeling UpdateWe recognize that an important aspect to improve in DCS World is more realistic damage modeling in regards to localized effects, visual effects, affect on hit components, and type of weapon impact. Regarding the latter, the new damage model will be based on two types of weapon impact: penetrating impact and proximity impact. This provides us with three primary weapon effects on a unit: penetrating (projectiles), volumetric/pressure wave (high-explosive) and volumetric/shrapnel. This last effect allows weapon casing fragments to be tracked as unique objects entering the unit. This is not modeled in our current damage model system, but it will provide a great improvement to aircraft, and later, ground unit damage.
When a projectile or shrapnel penetrates a unit, the strength and functionality of the of the unit component it intersects with is affected. This includes components like spars, flight control surfaces, engine, weapons, fuel, etc. This, in turn, can greatly affect aircraft performance and system functionality.
The team has been working hard on this new damage model system, and the primary work is now complete. It is now undergoing internal testing. We will first roll out the new damage model system in our World War II aircraft, then later move to our more modern aircraft and then ground units.
My point being, there is a reason the NA is still in service alongside the II+.
Because there wasn't enough second hand APG-65 available for the upgrade ? :lol:
And even Russians has now made even more improved one to their attack aircrafts. I don't now remember what was the aircraft but it was flying in Syria. The system gave a laser guided bomb accuracy to conventional dumb bombs. So you got cheap way to deliver bombs as each of them doesn't need to be more expensive, but the aircraft itself is the expensive unit and not the thousands bombs you drop.I think it's the Su-24M2.
While they certainly improved their CEP, the GBU like accuracy sounds like marketing BS to me.
Otherwise a cheap, light, simple and efficient solution to increase accuracy has often been laser rangefinder :music_whistling:
-
Nothing wrong with 40km run in. At 0.5nm/h drift the time it takes to fly 40km is on order 20m drift. OK it's not 20km run in with ~10m drift but no big deal.
Don't trust Earth-to-grid coordinate transforms for DCS because DCS world isn't Earth shaped. I measure from 47N45E to 47N28E is 1287km with one of those online calculators but in DCS it is 1293km. X-Z coordinates
In XZ that's 00277381, 00812290 to 00219193,-00479611
Deltas 58188, 1291901
Distance 1293.2km
Best coordinate transform is whatever coordinate to XYZ grid (using the unique formulae for DCS) and then normal flat trigonometry.
At least try the software before rejecting it.
It is purposely designed for DCS and takes into account DCS earth geometry (flat terrain).
I tried it with good results in polar coordinates mode.
-
For polar coordinates you can have a look here:
https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3481491#post3481491
There is a software used to calculate the values based on IP and target coordinates.
Only Caucasus so far.
40km seems to me too far for IP.
I would rather choose one around 10Nm...
-
I understand your point, but FC or soon Modern Air Combat are for these types of customers.
But even with full fidelity, Mirage 2000C would remain quite a simple fighter to handle. Weapon system is fairly straight forward to master.
Most complicated part is the INS, and it isn't that hard...
-
You can't install DCS onto a FAT32 partition since it contains files > 4GB in size.
Convert your disk to NTFS.
Ok, thanks.
Maybe something to add to system requirements...
-
We are the ones that have understood you can only develop proper simulations of declassified/out of service aircraft, because you would have to do guessing for most vital systems, which is not a proper simulation.
Amen :thumbup:
-
I have both a desktop and laptop computer.
Before moving from my home, I tried to update DCS 2.5 Open Beta on my laptop.
I did several attempt but the update or repair always freezes more or less at the same point.
I try to uninstall and re-install, but it was the same thing.
Finally I moved with my hardware, and tried from another location with good ADSL connection too.
But it's the same thing.
So I'm unable to use DCS on my laptop now :(
The update failed, the installation fails too, I didn't have any issue on the desktop computer.
-
You don't need a FB account to see the link.
-
Export Mirage 2000E, Mirage 2000D & Mirage 2000-9 do carry targeting pod (Mirage 2000-5Mk2 probably can but I never saw it).
Mirage 2000C databus can't handle video.
-
In the first video update they did I think they mentioned a Gr.7, maybe the 9. I can't remember at the moment.
Personally I'd rather see the +. (Along with a CH-53, 46 or MV-22) to compliment their Tarawa. I'd really like to see them flesh out their work with that. It's a new element in DCS and stands to be a powerful one. But I get there are a lot of Europeans in the community who want a GR version of the Harrier too. But who knows?
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
They said on the forum that the issue was the AG radar.
I would vote for the II+ :smilewink:
-
They are listed by alphabetical order (except Nevada), so the 1st one starts with a letter between Fw & K and the second one L to Z. ;)
It was posted on another forum, but the source is probably Facebook.
RAZBAMJust got it delivered, fresh from the oven.
The black squares are not our projects so we cannot show them.
Nothing to do with South Atlantic map.
-
is it still planned ? I thought i read you would do it. Am i wrong ?
I think we won’t see it before Razbam get AG radar API. And since Hornet still doesn’t have AG radar mode, no need to hold your breath. :smilewink:
-
Soooo ... There's virtually nobody calculating with precision its Bingo Fuel. I'm really surprised.
So much hate from users towards Razbam to get functionalities on this bird when they don't even use a function as basic and vital as setting their bingo fuel value, that's insane. I really got the impression by reading the "Mirage 2000C Missing Feature/Bug list" thread that most of the people posting on this section of the board were going deep about realism. I suppose all this "study sim" thing people are craving for is just a way to complain and whine on Internet - as usual.
Yeah, I'm disapointed. If by chance I find the information about the super secret formula of the Bingo Fuel, I'll come back and post it on this thread, who knows, someone could use it one day ?
There isn't any secret formula. You can do your own test to get your kg/Nm at cruise speed (depend on altitude, load out and selected speed).
So bingo would be:
fuel to go home + wave off and climb to cruise altitude for alternate & fuel to go to alternate + final reserve (waiting time).
Final reserve is usually X minutes of waiting time above alternate. (usually between 20mn and 30mn, it can depends on weather, day/ night, expected problems).
You can try 300kt @ 10 000ft, note your fuel flow (kg/mn) x YY mn of waiting time.
There isn't one simple answer. you must select your flying parameters.
Long story short = when you have DETOT = 2000kg, you would better go home or look for a tanker :smilewink:
-
Superbe :thumbup:
-
You need to add fuel for alternate and final reserve to be safe :smilewink:
-
Yes, RDI radar AG mode won't change how you attack targets.
We are missing:
- mapping mode (but no zoom or DBS)
- terrain avoidance.
We have the most important: TAS (AG ranging).
-
Yes, but you see, I just asked and he was kind enough to edit his signature.
So everything is fine.
Sometimes it's good to play nice...
-
A flight manual is not the same as performance statistics, though. I doubt the full capabilities of the Longbow radar would be in there.
It’s worth having a look yet. :smilewink:
-
Some news for M-2000C with some real life video screenshots (pro simulator of aircraft, can’t say)
Screen from HUD, PCA, radar mode and RDO mode.
DCS: MiG-23MLA by RAZBAM
in RAZBAM
Posted
To rely on GCI is a weak point. Look at Israelis F-15 Vs Syrian Mig-23 in Bekaa valley :music_whistling:
DCS World isn't an accurate representation of Electronic Warfare...