HWasp
-
Posts
567 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by HWasp
-
-
1 hour ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:
Ah yes, I see it now - thanks.
Let's hope this mess gets resolved with minimal further damage...I think, way too much damage was done already. Talented and seasoned devs leaving DCS completely is real long term damage... This whole thing is just sad.
-
12
-
-
Just to make it clear for those people, who are not familiar with this:
Outside air temperature has a very large effect on jet performance. Usually a standard temperature of 15 degrees Celsius is used for tests and diagrams. DCS default is 20 C.
Higher temperature leads to decreased performance.
-
14 hours ago, Theodore42 said:
I'm not sure OPs methodology is sound but
I've finally got to replay the track in DCS, and this is much worse, than I thought. OP has set the temperature to 41 degrees Celsius in the "test" to get the wanted results....
So it turns out this is not a case of simple incompetence and lack of knowledge, but an actual attempt at disinformation (a really bad one though
)
Not sure if this should be just laughed at or reported to the mods. I would think, spreading misinformation on purpose here just to bait people is a bit too much.
-
19 hours ago, Exorcet said:
The F-4 will dominate the MiG. Some of the factors that made the MiG threatening in reality like RoE and missile reliability may not be present in DCS. The MiG-23/Mirage F1 will be the fighter to use to go against the F-4. Fishbeds should avoid Phantoms and try to go after Tiger II's.
That's unlikely due to the radar of the F-4. It will be difficult to avoid merges.
Once there F-4s will need to be very careful not to get sucked into a low speed fight, because as mentioned above, the DCS 21 does overperform there quite a bit. It will be interesting, can't wait...
-
4 hours ago, Theodore42 said:
I'm not sure OPs methodology is sound but
I've noticed the EM charts for jets with afterburners seem to indicate the max sustained turn rate is at or near the G limit, not the corner speed.
Well, both are at the G limit in this case. Corner speed is the minimum speed, at which the aircraft can pull the maximum G available (regardless of speed loss). In this case, the lowest speed, where 7.5G is available. This will also produce the max ITR.
Max STR will come at a higher speed, where the Ps0 line meets the 7.5G limit.
OP flew much faster than either of these speeds for the given weight, so it's all invalid.
-
59 minutes ago, Cab said:
It would be useful for the discussion to hear what you think the OP gets wrong.
Just to keep it short and simple:
Maximum sustained rate occurs in this case, where the 7.5G limit (in this config) can be first maintained without losing speed at constant max.AB. That speed will be around 400 or less for the given weight. OP is flying much faster than that, resulting in lower rates than the maximum available (even 490 in the second turn). OP is also obviously not keeping constant max AB, as that would result in acceleration at those speeds and Gs.
What you see on the tacview are 2 random turns at different speeds (not even held constant..,), neither of which are anywhere close to the actual maximum performance of the aircraft.
-
3
-
-
10 hours ago, wilbur81 said:
A quick post as a reference:
There is a fair bit of misinformation floating about regarding the DCS Hornet and it's Sustained Turn Rate (over) performance in the form of user created EM diagrams, Youtube videos, etc. I submit that ED has pretty much nailed it. Here is a completely slick Hornet with 60% internal gas, at near-sea level, through a few max G turns...But keep in mind, I've flown these WITHOUT the paddle switch employed, as a real USN Hornet would be (and which would be reflected in real world EM performance charts) flown, real world. This is obviously only one, non-extensive, test, but you get the picture. The paddle makes a fairly significant difference.
Max sustained turn rate in this test was 18.5 Deg per sec. These were all max stick deflection pulls, in full AB. You can definitely get the little chart at bottom left to read higher in the 23-24 deg per sec range, but if you actually watch the live "object box", those dps are not sustained but momentary, and at low airspeeds... which makes the chart itself a bit misleading. Truly sustained, after testing both the Viper and the Hornet, the Viper has a consistent 1.5-2 deg per sec. sustained advantage when watching the live object box in TacView.
STR - Slick Hornet - SeaLvL.trk 110.71 kB · 3 downloads Tacview-20240402-215526-DCS-STR - Slick Hornet - SeaLvL.zip.acmi 25.24 kB · 3 downloads
It is obvious, that you lack basic understanding of the subject you are trying to post about.
Please, at least try to educate yourself about basic concepts, like what maximum sustained rate is, before trying to correct others...
-
15 hours ago, darkman222 said:
Which ones are you referring to? I thought ED models only things that data can be publicly accessed.
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
-
-
17 hours ago, darkman222 said:
Yes. I am not doubting how the DCS F16 is modelled with the currently available data. I was saying unless, if not out of a sudden contrary evidence pops up, which is unlikely, we need to work with what we have.
Thats the whole point of what I try to contribute here is how to get the 21 deg/sec out of the current F16 FM. Trying to point people struggling in the DCS F16 to look into other factors they need to consider other than flying 450 kts circles and wondering why they cant win a dogfight that way.
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
-
-
10 hours ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:
Have you ever seen an F-18 airshow demo in real life? If not, try to get the opportunity at your earliest convenience.
It is jaw-dropping what that thing can do!Yes, I've seen many. That's one of the reasons I never liked the old FM.
-
1
-
-
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:
-
1 hour ago, wilbur81 said:
That's a neat chart... But those numbers are apparently nonsense...I'm assuming this was done with the Paddle Switch pulled (which doesn't count). The real corner speed for the Legacy Hornet is no where near 456 knots, nor is it in DCS if flown properly (without the paddle). If these tests/results were accurate for the Hornet with no paddle pulled, that would be an insult to all the work ED have put in on this flight model. Would love to see actual tracks of this guys tests.
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.
-
1
-
-
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?
-
1 hour ago, Kalasnkova74 said:
For those unaware, two (unwillingly) retired fighter pilots occasionally make DCS content showcasing BFM engagements . In the linked video, Mover has trouble at times handing the relatively analog F-14 against Gonky in an F/A-18.
Note these people are trained fighter pilots and thus more experienced than your typical DCS player. If Mover had some trouble, it’s safe to say the average YouTuber used to 4th generation tech is in for more challenges flying and fighting the F-4E, especially for BFM.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the same people hyping up the F-4E now online turn against the aircraft once they lose BFM bouts - either to bad tactics (4th Gen “lift vector and PULL” won’t work here) or to bad aircraft handling like adverse yaw or fighting with the yaw stability augmentation on. The manual nature of weapons delivery will probably be another nail in the social media coffin , since it’ll be dead reckoning nav & mils/airspeed/ dive angle instead of a JDAM and targeting pod. Pave Spike and Maverick will offer electronic targeting options, but it’ll be a shadow of later tech.
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.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, IanC58 said:
The connection is that you want 3 more hi-fidelity all whistles blowing modules, they're not squaring up what we already have.
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.
-
2
-
-
29 minutes ago, Mr_sukebe said:
This is my solution for the missions that I create, ie remove access to Fox 3 missiles, JDAMs, Aim9x etc.It’s not perfect, but I’m happy to live with it, as I’d rather have the time/effort required to be used in creating a completely new aircraft, than something that we can emulate to 90% accuracy with little effort
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.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, IanC58 said:
But do you really want to wait and be teased and Irritated by endless previews, progress updates, peoples I wants and then debates/discussions that get heated?
Id rather see an end point to modules that have been in use for years which are still classed as "early access" this also reflects on what is currently happening with new modules in development.
Finish up and sign off what we have in a priority order.
Every new update brings new bugs to old modules [that are still classed as early access] which is a constant frustration to a lot of people, 2024 should be a year where this sim and its modules are squared away, finished, completed and maybe give us a years break or more to further enjoy the sim at a stabilized point.
Nothing against development and progression here but maybe ED can do this in the background and only launch it when its fully ready and will integrate into the sim without any bounce back on or to finished modules?
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.
-
2
-
-
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.
-
4
-
-
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...
-
On 1/19/2024 at 7:31 PM, Molnija1985 said:
Hello,
sorry for my broken English.
Please, will it be updated flight model on MiG-21Bis (official without mods)? Basically since release the flight model has been very bad...and 21 is not usable on dogfights or close maneuver combat. Now that he gets 21 opponents, it would be worth making the 21 a nimble and dynamic aircraft. At the moment, 21 behaves like a "brick" in the air.
Thank you
Best regards
Molnija
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...
-
15 hours ago, DisplayName said:
I'm playing around with the FC3 MiG29 and the Su27/J11 in order to determine if I would end up liking the FF MiG29A. . . Comparing the two FC3 jets, the MiG29A sucks. Could I please get some assistance and recommendations for using the MiG29A in a way that it doesn't suck compared to the Flanker.
NOTE: Modern jets I do fly on the Growling Sidewinder server, because it appears that it is the only option (give me recommendations for servers?). I have found that the MiG29A bleeds off energy extremely fast in a similar turn and intensity compared to the Flanker; where I found that the MiG29 got so slow it felt like it was hardly moving (~500kph compared to the Flanker which is a very similar turn/intensity did not drop below ~900kph). The situational awareness is nill by (except for the RWR which I do like).
Questions: Considering that the MiG29 has a HUD and the other screen which appears to be a HUD repeater, is it possible on the real MiG29A (FF MiG29A) to have say the HUD set to a form of weapon employment mode (lets say BVR) while having the HUD repeater TV set to a Nav menu? Or, are there any MiG29As that have had a datalink installed that could be used within the ED MiG29A?
I want to like the MiG29, but, I just can't in comparison to the Flanker. So please educate me on how to use it, and I'll continue to try and practice with the FC3 MiG29A. I do tend to use the Flanker at low altitude, very fast, and only using the RADAR for IFF before firing an IR guided missile.
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
2
-
-
While older planes certainly need a bit more skill, learning and patience to operate, they can have a great advantage in this regard:
Usually here one switch does one thing, and even if there seems to be more stuff on the surface, there is less complexity altogether.
I have too many modules, and I often realize, after not flying a 4th gen for some time, that I can't remember the DMS left short + TMS down long + China hat forward + boat switch aft + blink twice + clap 3 times HOTAS command I would need for the mission... maybe it's just me.
I never forget, how to operate the MiG-21 or the F-1, all I need is usually 5 mins of aerobatics, to build back muscle memory. That's much more fun for me compared to relearning the HOTAS.
So, learning curve is steeper but useful knowledge is less perishable I think.
-
16
-
1
-
-
They'll certainly need to finish the F4U first, no way around that, but that can be a good thing as well, as that could generate a nice amount of income for the company, more resources for the next projects. Interesting plane, I'll buy that as well.
What I really don't want them to do, is to handle a potential free MiG-21 2.0 upgrade as kind of a side project in between the new modules.
I hope, that it is planned as main project, and for that, it needs to generate proper income. That is why I'd like to communicate my willingness to pay for it. I hope there are enough potential customers, like me, to support this route.
-
6
-
Whats the status?
in RAZBAM
Posted
Withholding all payments, if true, is a real brute force method even if the cause is legit.
Priority should have been to keep the show on the road while lawyers fight in the background, if necessary. This way both parties loose in the long term on this.