Jump to content

HWasp

Members
  • Posts

    558
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. There are 3 modern fighters in DCS World (that I know of), where no public EM diagram or similiar solid performance data is available. I didn't want to start a discussion about them, since this is the F-16 thread, but it's easy to find out which ones I'm talking about.
  2. I think the F-16 is correct as is, it matches public data, it's been reviewed multiple times. IF relative performance of the modules is not accurate, I would be more suspicious about some of the other modules, where there is no public data available...
  3. Yes, I've seen many. That's one of the reasons I never liked the old FM.
  4. I love some aspects of the update, the general handling, the new nose authority, but there are aspects of the performance, that are very difficult to believe. The way, it can pull though the vertical at low speed at 40+ degrees of AoA, and the things it can do inverted.... These things should be looked at I think. Here is another very safe demo flight: newF18_50%demo.trk
  5. Maybe you should look at the actual diagram instead of just reading the numbers only, then you could observe, that at the 7.5g limit the "normal" speed for max STR is around Mach 0.6, which is close to 400 kts and around 20,6-7 dps.
  6. 50% fuel take off DCS standard 20C Some of these maneuvers, especially the negative AoA ones look very wrong to me. What is the TWR at 50% fuel? newF18_50%_2.trk
  7. I'm sure there will be many people complaining. My guess, how it will go in multiplayer: Get F-4, load full fuel, 3 bags, 8 missiles, take off 30nm from frontline. Try to use sparrows, but all the MiGs are in the ground clutter of course, so waste one shot maybe. Drop the tanks, merge with MiG-21, still having full internal fuel and 2-3 sparrows and all the aim-9s on the aircraft, try to use the vertical, but this a 21bis and DCS so it does not work, loose speed, struggle with controls, get shot, go complain on the forum. (Just joking ) Regarding the video, I think, everyone needs DCS hours and practice on the given DCS module to get good at flying that particular DCS module, regardless of their background and training. Even if you'd get an F-14 pilot there, who has never flown DCS, practice would still be needed most likely because the actual controls are completely different for example.
  8. If you mean, that they should properly finish the existing ones first, thats ok, nothing against that. I don't really want anything that much, I'm just signalling my willingness to buy an A version of those planes, any of them, if/when they are available.
  9. Valid point. My counter argument is, that new versions of the same plane could (and should) be used to finance graphic/system upgrades of the existing version. My other point would be, that I think the "fun" factor peaked in the 80s latest, and with all the other cold war jets in development, it would make sense to concentrate there and develop a more complete plane set for that period.
  10. I don't really see, how this is connected to what I wrote, but you are not wrong. It really is annoying sometimes, I'd also prefer if modules would come out of EA quicker and get completed. I think that having more versions as I propose would not be against that, it might even help, since that would mean a dev group is more commited to a single type even if versions are quite a bit different, instead of starting something completely new.
  11. I'd buy a F-16A, 15A, 18A "downgrade" even though I have the current modules. Weapon restrictions can solve the problem even right now, more or less, but of course that is not perfect.
  12. I've made a track: You can easily take the DCS 21 into the vertical even below 400 km/h (215 kts), low speed handling and turn rates can be excellent if you don't mess up. Try doing this with the F-5... MiG-21_lowspeedhndlg.trk
  13. The DCS 21bis is not a brick, far from it. It's even overperforming compared to the RL charts in the low speed regime, you just have to be able to control it well enough to keep it on the limit and avoid the stall. You can even keep it nice and stable beyond the red line on the AoA indicator, you just need coordinated control inputs (no slide slip) and careful pitch control, then you can have extremely good turn rates with it. With the emergeny afterburner power is not an issue either. Roll rate is very good as well. The DCS 21bis can dogfight against an F-5 or any other 3rd. gen on equal terms, there are many people doing it daily online on the Cold War servers...
  14. GS is not the right place to start flying the MiG-29. Try BlueFlag '80 (the 1980s server version) or Tempest's server, there you can fight on more equal terms. (1980s weapon restrictions, no amraams flying around) The MiG-29's advantage over the Su-27 is it's superior kinematics, great acceleration and climb rate. You can pick your fights and get away from very hairy situations (if you have the fuel ) and you can give your R-27s a large boost in effective range with your speed. Flying low, trying to ambush people is a valid tactic on GS, with everyone else having amraams, but in the 1980s setting against Sparrows it's a completely different game. There, being high and fast is usually the winner tactic, and the MiG-29 is very very good at that.
  15. I'd argue, that MiG-23 vs F-16A is not a bad comparison even in 1v1. It's much more problematic, when people compare it against the F-15 and F-14 directly in 1v1. That is when the economics and numbers really come into play, and that is completely disregarded in so many cases. By any metric (price, production numbers, deployment numbers), these top jets should be able to win the fight against superior numbers to pay for themself. Most arguments are about STR, missile and radar ranges, etc, only 1v1, but can the F-15/14 reliably beat MiG-23s in a 2v4 for example? Maybe, but it won't be an easy fight with Sparrows.
×
×
  • Create New...