HWasp
-
Posts
567 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by HWasp
-
-
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.
-
6
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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.)
-
2
-
-
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!
-
3
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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)
-
2
-
-
While I have to agree, that wings might break way too easy, and it might not be realistic as it currently is, what would be a more realistic way to punish people for ignoring the limits and abusing their "single use" throw away plane constantly?
While simply breaking the wings at a fixed 1,5x limit G is simplistic, that is the legal limit, and it has the right not to withstand more abuse, even though IRL it would survive as it is over engineered for obvious reasons.
There are many factors here, like lack of feedback, lack of control forces, so there are no perfect answers to this, but is it surely the correct way to go for a study sim to allow people to pull 13 Gs on a 7,xG plane every single time in practice, just because on the handful of IRL overG situations it did not break? This also paints a wrong picture.
I'd much prefer a more complex model with random cumulative damage, not just a simple G=x you loose wings for sure, but I think limitations should be still enforced.
That being said, I think the current model is not that horrible, it really just needs a bit of attention and practice. Honestly, I don't even remember the last time I lost a wing during a merge. (I drop the tanks in time though, not trying to go for it with 3 bags:) )
-
1
-
-
There are at least 3 mystery birds among the 4th gens in DCS now, the Hornet, the M2000 and the JF-17, for them there is no solid data publicly available regarding sustained turn rates, and unfortunately this makes it quite impossible to settle debates about this subject.
I don't think it's a good idea to take DCS bfm relative performance too seriously, at least for the modern planes with classified performance data.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Karon said:
Since you are talking about R-24 and AIM-7, this is how they look like in-game right now. At the end of the day, these values are what matters.
Hopefully, we will see a thorough upgrade to the new API by the time the Flogger arrives.
Speed vs Time:
And Range vs Impact Speed:
Thanks!
I think the R-24 in game now is still from the Lock-On era, just as old as the MiG-23 model. I'm sure they'll update it for the module's release.
-
On 7/3/2023 at 5:44 PM, SgtPappy said:
I agree. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I do hope that the early F-4 will have that characteristic smoke.
Though I believe if the radar is used correctly, the F-4 crew may maintain more SA. I used to never use the radar in the F-5 but I've found my SA is much better when I turn it on and look where GCI/AWACS has vectored me. Split throttles or min burner for both engines could mostly eliminate the smoke (as the MiGs are also a little bit smokey and I've spotted them from a distance from smoke or long after burner tails). Also Jester has been invaluable for me in the F-14 during a merge. I think Jester 2.0 will be just as useful.
The AIM-7E is barely a BVR missile but I think it may find use as an all-aspect WVR weapon, like an R-3R on steroids.
Some people will surely be turned off when they realize they're not wiping the skies of MiGs, but there will be others who will find out how to use the Phantom properly and be very successful, as is the case for every module in the right setting.
I've also started to use the radar on the F-5, even if I can't lock up a contact, somtimes it can help a lot.
I'm a bit worried about Jester though, because I always found it very slow to work the radar through it in the F-14. I hope they'll create a way to point the radar where I want more quickly, otherwise I think it'll be very difficult without PAL or anything similiar in the F-4.
Anyway, really looking forward to it!
-
18 minutes ago, Temetre said:
What "extremely generalized statement" have I made about the F-4Es radar effectiveness against ground clutter?
Or I can save you the time and tell you, I didnt make a statement, I questioned yours. You are either confused or lying, so I dont see a point to continue this.
Dude... seriously...
You start this whole crappy argument about the MiG-23 when I didn't even mention it in the first place, then call me a liar just like this... What the hell is wrong with you?
Ok, let's have it your way, F-4 good MiGs bad, everyone is happy!
Have a nice day!
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Temetre said:
Well you did start talking about as if the Mig-23 is always gonna be in a superior position because of acceleration.
I know the F-4E got a less advanced (in A2A) radar, but the Mig-23 also doesnt got a doppler radar if you wanna be exact. Its one of the first soviet BVR and lockdown capable radars.
And thats the kinda stuff, you say "neutralize the radar in most cases", which is such a giant, generalized statement that it seems ludicrous. Why did so many Migs in Vietnam die to Aim-7s then? Didnt they just fly low and become invincible to Sparrows?
Ah yes, soviet assumptions over american planes prove soviet plane superiority?
Like I dont wanna be too snarky, but come on. Also the soviets competency is very questionable, considering how bad their planes performed against western aircraft in most situations. The Mig-23 was supposed to replace the Mig-21 and be more agile, and they actually failed at both goals. Clearly their assumptions didnt always work out.
I suspect, you don't have too much experience fighting human opponents in fox1 scenarios in DCS, because, then you'd know how important speed and altitude advantage is, given the radars and missiles are roughly in the same league.
Maybe during the Vietnam war, MiGs had to intercept US aircraft, that were not flying low? Come on, seriously... You must be joking at this point.
That soviet assumption chart has the F-15A on top, far far ahead of the MiG-23. Also the F-16A is shown to be better. I guess that clearly demontrates soviet superiority. lol
I'm always eager to learn, so if you have some good data on APQ-120 being used at low alt against aircraft in the ground clutter, just post it, I have no problem with being proven wrong, but at this point you are the one throwing around extremely generalized statements.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, Temetre said:
LOL my bad, you said 21 and I read 23 and read it differently^^
Ive seen a lot of people say that people do this, bot not a single person - on this forum and HB/RB discord - actually do that. In contrary, most of the time people who claim the F-4 is overhyped, they also tell you all about how the Mig-23 is amazing and superior in all ways. And you kinda did that:
To say in WVR the chances are "even at best" against a Mig-21 or so, is massively underestimating the F-4s dogfighting ability. The slatted one has rating speeds close to the 23 and enough nose-authority to go 35-40 degrees AoA (coming from vietnam era dogfighting brochure). Its not gonnA be an F-14, but if you think its bad, then you gonna get a bad surprise.
And the idea that any plane can just fly low and neutralize Radar+Aim-7s, or that acceleration (the only thing the Mig-23 is great at) determines any fight just seems like weird overgeneralizations. Its not even like the F-4 is slow or anything.
First you come up with the MiG-23, that I didn't even mention in my post, you originally replied to, then this, as if I was some kind of 23 fanatic... strange way to discuss things that is for sure.
Look, I don't really care that much. I'll fly both modules for sure, and then I'll see, which one is better.
If you don't have a Doppler radar or some kind of MTI for look down capability, then surprise, surprise, flying low does neutralize the radar in most cases and therefore the Aim-7. You know, that the F-4E does not have a Doppler radar right?
Have you seen this chart before?
-
3 hours ago, Temetre said:
I think people are way underrating the F-4E and overrating the Mig-23. Its kinda weird, because nobody is expecting miracles from the F-4E in A2A, but the 23 is treated like its flawless perfection.
In reality, the 23s radar doesnt make its missiles fly further, they are very limited in range. You might shoot in BVR, but youre gonna be WVR when - if - the missile hits. Especially if you shoot low. The lockdown is gonna be very limited, and lets not forget that the F-4E has more missile to waste. Maybe the -23 will have a bit of an edge, but its not an Aim-120 duel where radar and speed are everything.
Im also a bit dubious about missile performance. The R-24 will go up against the Aim-7M, and the latter can keep up with R-27R/ER.
With WVR i cant agree at all; if size was everything, then the Mig-21 would be an amazing dogfighter. And the Mig-23 is likely worse, itll have big trouble getting its nose on anything for a kill, especially with its low speed AoA limiter.
While im not sure how itll translate, the IRL track record of the Mig-23 is pretty terrible, even the few ML(D) uses. Otoh the F-4E Phantom is pretty stellar, as soon as the US developed new strategies to counter soviet interceptions. Phantom served a long time, while the 23 couldnt even fully replace the 21.
I didn't even mention the 23, but ok...
My point was, the lack of look down capability of the radar can and will be used against it by non BVR planes like the 21, so that might make it difficult to avoid WVR, where the chances get even at best.
Regarding the 23, the main advantage I expect to see is it's speed and acceleration.
The MiG-23 has insane acceleration going through the Mach (there is an interview with an American pilot who flew the 23UB and F-22 as well, and he said, it beats even the F-22 in transsonic acceleration. And that is just a UB...)
My money will be on our 23MLA in a head on Fox-1 joust that usually happens in DCS, when some sort of GCI is present, because speed and altitude advantage are key there. I think they are actually even more important than in a Fox3 scenario.
The 23 can always be a lot faster unless the F-4 comes prepared, already high and supersonic.
Afaik radar ranges are pretty close except look down and low altitude, where the 23 has the advantage clearly.
The 23 will also be able disengage from the fox1 fight with better chances if needed, while the F-4 can't do that unless the 23 runs out fuel.
I don't know, who treats the 23 as flawless perfection, I always only see the opposite, everyone thinks it's complete trash based mainly on the MS version.
We'll see how it will turn out...
-
Here, you can bank the plane without any yaw oscillations up until 40 degrees AoA... Just use the rudder, thats it.
The compressor stall got me though
-
For me yaw oscillations happen only if I do large uncoordinated inputs at high AoA.
Basic rule:
As AoA increases, more and more rudder is needed for roll and at max AoA it is rudder only. Throwing the stick around at high AoA leads to oscillations... so don't do that maybe?
-
1
-
-
23 hours ago, Harley Davidson said:
I think I have just about everything in the DCS aircraft line up and 2 choppers, it seems to me like the F1 is the worst flying jet right now. A few years ago the f-16 wasn't that great and they adjusted the flight model to represent how it actually flys. I'm hoping that there are updates on the way for this beautiful bird because you may as we fly a Cessna in combat. I fly mostly single player and I know that the AI can fly like UFO's but wow the F1 will not out turn anything... well maybe a C-130.
I really hope they change it to make it fly like I've read it does instead of a little pull on the stick and you get that wet fart and you basically hover. I've tried out fight F4's, su 17s, mig 19's and most 3 gen jets, its just terrible. I thought the F1 was supposed to be really good for its time?
1. Don't ever compare FMs to the AI, because they are not accurate at all, that MiG-19AI might outrate an F-16. They are UFOs as you said.
2. If you can't control your speed and you just get a "wet fart" out of it, maybe learn to fly it, and try again?
(btw the MiG-19 is a very good rate fighter, it might outrate the F-1 for real, this does not depend on age, the MiG-17 and 15 will also outrate it for sure)
-
3
-
-
I think, against human opponents, the F-4 won't have too much success in BVR, even against 21s because of the radar. People will either stay low or dive once engaged and loose the lock.
After that, in WVR, it's a huge beast with smoking engines, and that will be more important than exact turn rates imo.
Usually, the one who spots the enemy first, wins.
Wouldn't be surprised if the F-5 would be more successful in air to air in practice. At least in DCS.
-
1 hour ago, myHelljumper said:
Yeah, we are splitting hair here.
While we want to be open about our model and try to demonstrate its accuracy where possible, I feel like this is going to be an endless debate.
Unfortunately the endless debate will remain, no way around that. Best of luck!
Thank you very much as well !
-
24 minutes ago, Kercheiz said:
HiWhat doesn't make sense is messing up a FM set up around a LOT of reference points (the above being one of many) because viper players are upset of the performance comparison. I'm ready to tune stuff brought with valid arguments and sources, not this.
The only thing that might be concluded here is, maybe the gear drag is too high (despite it being checked like the airbrakes). And if it was decreased, you won't have anyway a big margin in the no engine landing procedure.
Can we close the topic? I've got a radar to develop and it will likely be endless debated as well (remember the "ludicrous" detection range which is now acknowledged as legit
)
If really the M2000-C BFM performance is a problem for you, add a tournament rule to enforce the central tank.
And remember to practice your BFM. Tactics and skills are everything, endless two circle rate fight is boring.
Thanks
I think you are mistaken here a little bit, because I don't give a sh.t about the F-16 or any specific module, don't care about balance, because I don't do guns only frequently (really only just sometimes) I fly early cold war jets, that's where the fun is for me.
The reason I started posting here was, that I thought something might be slightly off with the module, that is all.
Thank you very much for your hard work, overall I think it is quite excellent.
The STR issue remains an open question for me, you did not produce data, that would convince me, but of course that doesn't matter.
There is an unfortunate trend here in DCS, that modules with very scarce documentation, like the Hornet, perform in surprising ways compared to modules that have much more detailed documentation available, that makes me question their accuracy sometimes.
Hearsay is hearsay of course, but if the module's performance does contradict it directly, it is natural, that it raises questions.
I personally find it very strange, that this great possible feature of the aircraft is such a guarded secret, and they avoid sustained turns at airshows, like a plague... (hud video is prime example, had to look at it 5 times to notice that 2 seconds of actual sustained horizontal turn)
I really hope, that at some point some better evidence shows up, so this question gets settled.
Did not mean to be offensive in any way, again I do appriciate your hard work, even if I happen to question it like this.
Thanks!
-
2
-
-
11 minutes ago, myHelljumper said:
Yeah as I said before I forgot to write that, my mistake.
That's how the procedure is described, I think that's because that gear will take 20 seconds to lock and you need some time to notice it didn't work and to use the emergency gear handle.
Also, 230 kt is a minimum speed (I guess I forgot to add that too), you should slow down at least to under 270 kt at it is the maximum speed for the gears. 230 kt should be the speed just before the flare.
I'm also barely able to make it work when doing the final at 230 kt, maybe the gear induced drag is a bit too much.
I don't see how can you establish useful data from this if half the equation is gear drag , which is also just a big unkown. How can you establish from this, which part of the equation is wrong?
If clean config glide is the question for the L/D, there needs to be a gate, an exact altitude and distance to pass with the clean aircraft.
Now the result is:
A- gear drag is too high
B - L/D is too low
C - both gear drag and L/D are wrong
D- ?
So basically the whole thing doesn't make sense.
-
1
-
-
I'll have to amend that, it is not working from 30k 40nm with 280 as well.
-
25 minutes ago, myHelljumper said:
Also the gear should be dropped at 5000 ft when the speed is 230 kt.
Ok, now it is your turn to demonstrate this with a track, because with the gear extended at 5000, you cannot reach the field from 10k test and is only barely survivable from 30k.
You are basically killing yourself with that 5000 feet gear down, I hope there is a strong technical case for that otherwise it is pretty strange.
MiG-21 2.0 as a paid upgrade?
in MiG-21Bis
Posted
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.