Jump to content

HWasp

Members
  • Posts

    558
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by HWasp

  1. 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.

    • Thanks 2
  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...

    • Like 2
  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.

    • Like 1
  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. 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.

    • Like 1
  6. 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.

    • Like 2
  7. 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.

    • Like 2
  8. 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.

    • Like 1
  9. 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.

    • Like 2
  10. 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...

     

  11. 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.

    • Like 1
  12. 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.

    • Like 1
  13. 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.

    • Like 16
    • Thanks 1
  14. 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.

    • Like 6
  15. It's been a really long time since the original release. I know many people consider the plane unfinished, it certainly has it's problems, but overall I think it was great value and it still is.

    I don't known how many hours I have in it, but more than enough to call it a great buy.

    I'd like the 2.0 version to be a proper complete overhaul, bringing this beast up to the current standards in all aspects, and I'm very much willing to pay for it!

    If you'd develop another version as a bonus, even if it's as similiar as a -21MF, I'd be happy to buy it for full module price, if bundled with the 2.0 upgrade of the bis.

    Classic cold war module production for DCS is booming, and we need the MiG-21 in it's full glory. I hope, there are enough people, who think the same, willing to spend on this holy cause.

    • Like 13
  16. On 12/6/2023 at 10:39 PM, æck said:

    that was true for early variants, but MiG-23MLA has a G limit of 8.5 and wing loading comparable to other contemporary fighters. (370 kg/m2 compared to 544 kg/m2 on MiG-23M, they literally removed a ton of weight overall)

    Western pilots who inspected the MLA did criticize the cockpit visibility and fuel consumption, but it wasn't all negative. There's a quote I often post about this:

    • "Dutch pilot Leon van Maurer, who had more than 1200 hours flying F-16s, flew against MiG-23MLs from air bases in Germany and the U.S. as part of NATO's aerial mock combat training with Soviet equipment. He concluded the MiG-23ML was superior in the vertical to early F-16 variants, just slightly inferior to the F-16A in the horizontal, and had superior BVR capability"

     

    Even though I wouldn't bet any money on the 23 against the F-16 in a turn fight regardless of that quote, I think many people will be shocked, how much better our MiG will be compared to the general expectation.

    I think there are too many debates about turn rates, when discussing the 23, while real question is, how good the R-23 and R-24 and the radar will be.

    If the R-24R is close to the R-27R, as expected, and the radar works well within it's useful engagement range, with the insane transsonic acceleration of the MiG, it will be very deadly in DCS. Reading through some debates, I think many people don't realize, how important the kinematic advantage is in these SARH fights, and the 23 will be very good in that aspect. 

    Other than that, the MiG-23 can really choose, which fights to take, while most adversaries won't have that luxury. There is no running away from the MiG. This is my favorite thing about the MiG-29 we have, I think the 23 will be the same.

    My current bet is, that it will hold it's own against some weapon limited 4th gens (meaning AIM-7 and R-27R only) if flown the right way, and will be the best among 3rd gens in air to air in general. People, who think they'll have a good time against it in an F-4E, with Jester in the back, because they've read some stories somewhere, will have a rude awakening.

    • Like 5
  17. 51 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

    Would love if AI could toss bomb, both guided and unguided. Same with helicopters. If the Russians copters could lob rockets which they apparently do.

    That would be nice to have as an option.

    I think the AI should have attack profiles based on expected threat levels, that could be set in the Mission Editor or in Dynamic Campaign. One could be the current low threat "target practice" type, then one intermediate, that is more agressive, and one with bomb/rocket toss.

    • Like 1
  18. I would be interested, what type of changes can we expect regarding AI ground attack / CAS behaviour with the new GFM, when it releases?

    I'm hoping for a new AI, that flies much more agressively by default. Are the attack profiles, speeds and altitudes going to be redone? 

    Regarding unguided weapons, will there be an option or a logic to change profile and release parameters based on expected threat level? (For example AI firing rockets further away from target at a higher speed and more agressive profile if high threat is expected.)

     

    • Like 2
  19. On 11/13/2023 at 8:40 PM, exhausted said:

    I agree with his post. The Marine and Navy jets are by far the most recognizable Phantoms, being carrierborn masters of the air and the ground. I think that those who also share that concern have shown valid reasoning here. We are not at all saying Heatblur won't do eventually do a naval Phantom in the next 5-10 years, but I would be very surprised. 

    For all the expected fanfare of the F-4, just don't be surprised if you see a lot of people holding off for a proper 'tailhook' version. 

     

    I think you should consider the possible preferences of people outside the US a bit more, because for me, living in Europe for example, the Navy Phantoms are a very distant thing. I have never seen one, not even in a museum. 

    I'm quite certain, more people have some kind of a memory or connection to the F-4E worldwide, than any other version, simply because that was exported all around the world.

    The Navy Phantoms are also cool, I'll buy that module as well, 100%, but HB has made a sound decision bringing the E first.

    Honestly, we should all just be very happy, that these cold war legends finally start to show up in DCS. F-4, F-104, MiG-23, F-100, Kfir, etc. whichever version, I don't care, I'll buy them all! 🙂

    • Like 3
  20. 10 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

    Sustained operations.   These don't really exist in DCS or in most flight sims.  But it's still a sim and you can get a fresh aircraft every time so you don't really get to draw a line.  Just because you don't like that they can pull 34920349g one time doesn't mean that they can't, or that this is wrong.

    This already exists.

    Like I said, RAZBAM raised the bar here.

    And again, the feedback IMHO as I suggested - log aircraft fatigue in the debrief so that people know what they've done to the aircraft and since understanding fatigue requires serious undertaking IRL I would object to having some sort of 'fatigue bar' that can be referenced during flight.

    So to put it another way - if the wings breaking is the result of fatigue (this aircraft's limits would be low compared to modern fighters, so easier to fatigue), the result is correct and what's needed is feedback so that it is understood that this is the result of mistreating your aircraft.

    If, on the other hand, it's the result of say wake turbulence?  Fix that stuff - wake turbulence has had issues in DCS so just turn that off.

    Fresh aircraft does not mean it can go over it's ultimate load limit. There is simply no guarantee there. It's already 150% of the normal limit, so no, I don't like to see that happen routinely in DCS. 

    If we look at it like this, it is not wrong either if the aircraft falls apart 1% over that, it has the right to do so. It's the over-engineering of the over-engineering that protects you at that point...

    Again, best compromise would be to make it a bit random. 

    It's good to hear that RAZBAM has those features, I'm not up to date on those, will check it out later.

  21. 51 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

    There's no realistic way to punish them, and you shouldn't try.  You're not flying a realistic scenario, but your aircraft is supposed to be simulated as realistically as it can be.  For everything else, there's WarThunder - I mean MasterCard 🙂

    The idea here is that you're not going to maintain an airframe in-game realistically anyway, even if there was a campaign where you could accumulate fatigue and lose the airframe to it, how hard you use it up would have more to do with the intensity of the campaign than anything else.

    In the game though you just get a new airframe every single time.   I doubt this will change.

    I haven't been able to break it so far so I'm not sure what's going on either.  Admittedly I didn't try very hard, but I yanked 10G until GLOC and the needle indicated that this is what I maxed out at.  I did it more than one in a row and the wings didn't break - so I think what we need is some output from the game, even if just in the log, to tell us that we're fatiguing the airframe and how much, and/or a record of this in the debrief you see after you exit the mission.  This would probably help identify where exactly all this breakage is happening.

     

    Punish might have been the wrong expression for what I meant. Provide feedback, that they are doing something wrong is better.

    Is it a warthunder thing to show people, that going beyond the ultimate load limit of their aircraft is not good? Where exactly would you draw the line then? 

    By cumulative damage I meant cumulative within a single flight, simple as that.

    Again, I don't think it's good or realistic to simply draw a line at 1.5x and be done with it, but on the other hand it is not wrong either. Nobody will ever guarantee, what exactly happens and when exactly beyond that limit. 

     

    • Like 1
  22. 16 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

    While I am not in favor of catastrophic failure at the precise published limit, if it were to be applied, it MUST be applied in the same manner across ALL modules without exception. 
     

    Of course, my perspective is that of a PvP player in MP. 
     

     

    I agree, these things should be standardized.

    Best option imo would be an increasing chance of catastrophic failure + cumulative damage further increasing that chance if multiple exceedences happen. 

    The F-5 specifically could use a special control option, that would decrease stick sensitivity as speed increases to aid people flying without force feedback, stick extensions etc. (like the ARU in the MiG-21)

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...