Jump to content

HWasp

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    644

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by HWasp

  1. HWasp
    The MiG-19 release was indeed horrible, BUT many things changed since then, and for the better. Until this happened recently... RB has improved a lot, and there was a very good chance to get a really high quality MiG-23. If you followed the MiG-23 development, you'd know that things could be expected to meet F-15E standards, and that is good enough for me. If this all happened years ago, I wouldn't care too much probably either, but you need to look at the current picture.
  2. HWasp
    I'm also suspecting, that the F-18 overperforms in some areas, but we'll need much more details on how that chart by GVad was created (data sources) to get something going here. Previous threads on this topic were all dead ends simply because no real data was available.
  3. HWasp
    It would be really sad, if that turned out to be true... Did anyone up there calculate, how much this little drama will cost both companies in the next, let's say 3 years, if not resolved?
  4. HWasp
    Of course you can fight at low speeds, just the DCS 21bis can do it better, so you'll be at a disadvantage. I think, it's better to actually test in DCS, what really works, instead of going after history. Results won't be the same for multiple reasons... So, to back this up, I've just quickly made 2 tracks, with a simple maneuvre sequence: Start at 400 kts, cash in energy with a 360 deg horizontal turn to enter that low speed regime we are discussing. Do a full loop starting from low speed, then transition into another 360 on the deck. Based on the stories, you'll probably think, that the MiG-21 will be at a disadvantage and maybe even fall out of the sky going vertical at that low speed, but in DCS, it completes this sequence almost 10 seconds quicker, than the F-4 will (F-4 60%fuel 2 heaters, MiG-21 80% fuel + 2 R3S), flown at red line AoA all the time. That is a big difference, and I didn't even use the flaps on the 21... So it doesn't matter, how well you can control the F-4, you just don't want to go there in general. Against the Mirage F-1 it's quite even, so it might be worth a try sometimes because the F-1 accelerates much worse. F-4_seq.trk MiG21_seq.trk
  5. HWasp
    You are right about the 21AI, people just really, really like to argue here, even if it makes no sense. I'd suggest trying the MiG-23 AI instead, that is not doing extreme things, maybe a bit too easy, but certainly good for gunnery practice. ........................................ For me the main and only rule for the F-4 is to never get below 400 kts. I think the bleed rate below 400 is the big trap in the F-4, even pulling through vertical on the way down in a loop, it's easy to turn all the energy into vortices instead of turn rate.
  6. HWasp
    Wow, I don't understand, why RB didn't think about this solution... It really is so easy. Just get money from somewhere else, and that's it.
  7. HWasp
    The spin was the post I originally replied to and not your reply. Obviously, It's RB's official responsibility to pay their employees, but how does that matter if the root cause is that they simply don't have the money because their primary income was cut? RB likely communicated to their employees what happened early (an employer would not want to be in a position for a second, where the employees would think, they are not getting their due because of the employer's deliberate decision). We are talking about a very small company, where everybody likely knows everybody, there are personal ties. Why would they react like that? Why would an RB employee go legal against RB, knowing the money is simply not there? The reason for not leaving immidiately is likely, that they actually liked their job, and hoped to be able to continue... If they were not really commited to this, they weren't DCS devs in the first place. Does not seem like easy money to me.
  8. HWasp
    Nobody claimed that RB employees were not paid for 5 or whatever years, where is this even coming from? Nobody ever said that afaik. RB's main source of income was/is cut for multiple months, whatever financial plans they had, got invalidated, that is the story. The reason is the "thing" being discussed here for 88 pages. Why spin this story around as if it was somehow RB's deliberate decision not to continue to pay their devs? I'm not arguing about who is right or wrong, (nobody is probably), I just don't like that the little part of the story we seem to know is being spun around.
  9. HWasp
    How is it even possible to come up with this?
  10. HWasp
    You are right, it is not something to go too crazy about. Actually, on contrary to many people here, I don't care about that money at all. What I'm frustrated a about is the possibility of loosing some good modules I enjoyed flying and the seemingly high possibility of loosing the MiG-23 for which I've been waiting for a long time.
  11. HWasp
    Well, development stopped, PR damage is done, those are facts, and some RB devs left the scene, that is also a quite certain unfortunetaly. What exactly the conflict is about, that is the topic more or less in the realm of rumors, that is true, but that was not my point.
  12. HWasp
    Minimizing damage? Does this look like as if either party tried to minimize damage? It would be interesting to see, how much revenue both parties will loose on this in the next 3-5 years compared to whatever the conflict is on about. Of course we'll never know and they will not research this topic either most likely...
  13. HWasp
    Launching without radar lock is the only way to engage targets effectively at low alt and even below you. You need to select BST mode and set the Speedgate in the WSO pit with the Aspect knob for appropriate closure speed. (Jester won't be able to help with this, so either get a human WSO or just "jump" back there and set it yourself) For me Aspect knob to FWD works best (target hot), then visually track the target with the gun piper until impact. Crank is the most basic BVR thing, the purpose is to decrease your closure to the bandit, while still guiding your own missile. The "advantage" is the decreased closure speed itself, maybe coupled with a dive (still within radar gimbal limits) to either decrease the effective range of the enemy's missile launched at you, or just to simply buy more time before a potential merge with non-bvr capable targets.
  14. HWasp
    The MiG-21 charts seems to be without the ChR (emergency afterburner). I can sustain 13 - 13,5 degrees / sec around 220 kts with it engaged, so be careful, there is no STR advantage for the Phantom there. Also, the MiG-21 can easily go vertical even from there (220 kts) and complete a full loop easily any quickly. With that in mind, I'd say always keep the Phantom between 400 and 520 kts and never let go of that speed unless pulling in for a real good shot. MiG-21_450-420.trk
  15. HWasp
    Yes, it would be very important to understand, that in DCS, F-4s are not fighting 21F13s or PFs or MFs, but the bis, with the ChR, and it's always on for everybody in DCS. Once below 4000m, don't count on having better T/W than the 21bis, and avoid getting slow fighting it, unless you can see the "21 dance", which might be sign of weakness... (I'm talking about human opponents only, the 21 AI is just sh.t.)
  16. HWasp
    Ok, so without any profile, I just hit M1.0 at 36000 ft in 02:50 after brake release (clean, full, 20C), hit Mach 2+ at around 06:30 with a DUCT TEMP HIGH warning, pulled up to 30 degrees and, climbed over 76k ft, then back to below 40k with a 180 deg turn, hit M 1.8. At that point Jester reminded me to check the fuel state, so I came out of burner and ended up subsonic over 30k with 2300 lbs remaining and 50nm to go for the runway. By DCS safety standards, thats comfortable. So, yeah, it is slow... compared to the MiG-29
  17. HWasp
    Didn't have the chance to fly the F-4 yet, but in general for the era, it's best to start a shallow descent for the initial acceleration starting from the high 30-ies to reach Mach 1.4 in the low 30-ies or latest around 28k. Then a level segment to reach an optimum indicated speed for the type (if not already there), followed by a shallow climb, keeping the same indicated speed, until maximum Mach number is reached.
  18. HWasp
    I remember Strike Fighters being a cold war themed game, I have no problems being stuck together with the current cold war FC3 stuff, on the contrary, I fly them regularly. My point was avoiding "sci-fi" things like the F-22, F-35 etc. and I'd prefer to stay away from post cold war 4th gens, except for a Flanker, the only reason being that the red side post cold war scene is really sparse. Simplified planes can still have reasonably realistic capabilities, given there are proper sources available.
  19. HWasp
    It's not really possible to build good scenarios without such compromises in DCS... For me, any 9.12 is perfect for the 80ies.
  20. HWasp
    I think, you could go through some videos like this to understand the principles a bit, then it will get easier to learn things on your own.
  21. HWasp
    I'd really like to see a modern FC Flanker version, because I think that due to ED's background with the type, they could build a really decent product. Otherwise, doing new modern, classified planes could be slippery slope and turn into science fiction quickly. It still needs to remain a simulator, and for that proper data is needed, even if the product is simplified imo. I'd prefer the cold war era for new planes.
  22. HWasp
    Most popular choice is: "I like the specific aircraft that is simulated, not available otherwise." Interpreting that survey like that is incorrect, if we want to know, whether people want new FC4 types, that are not available as FF, then the question should be that, not something different. I also fly the FC3 MiG-29 or Su-27 because no FF version is available, but that does NOT mean that I don't want a FC4 MiG-27 or Mirage 3 etc. that is not even on the roadmap as FF yet. For me the flight model is the "essence" of DCS, and FC3 had good standards in that regard.
  23. HWasp
    Why? We could have FC4 versions first, then in some cases FF version could follow, like in the case of the MiG-29. There would be multiple new FC4 planes, the whole DCS scene could benefit from: A simplified modern Flanker A fast red cold war striker (Su-17/MiG-27) More Korean War era planes. WW2 gapfillers like an earlier BF-109G Some of them could be turned into FF later, no rules against that.
  24. HWasp
    If they are not paid for a long time, the devs have to leave at some point to earn a living somewhere else.... That is not a protest.
  25. HWasp
    Well, reading reactions at other places, this does not seem to be the case. I personally don't like it at all, how this whole thing was dealt with by either side. Usually I just buy all the modules, that look half decent, even if I know, that I'll only fly them a couple of hours maybe, like the CH-47 for example. Not going to happen from now on.
×
×
  • Create New...