Jump to content

fergrim

Members
  • Posts

    69
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by fergrim

  1. Does nobody know? It's fine if Thunder Strike has been cancelled. I just really love this module and I have two campaigns I play, besides a dynamic one. Not sure if there was some final word on it, or if I maybe need to redownload the module or what. If this was some big, annoying issue, I'm sorry I'm not here to complain, just for the information.
  2. I know it wasn't purposeful and I'm really not trying to be a d*ck, but the way you titled the post would make it appear to the casual observer that there is in fact a bug at play. When the reality is that it's actually a highly specific detail that the developers went out of their way to keep authentic, it's a little lame that the story is instead "A bug". It takes very little for a person to decide to skip or buy and just seeing the title of the thread could easily give someone the impression there are careless mistakes still.
  3. I was finishing up a mission in one of the campaigns, and trying to find the best nearest airfield. Anyway long story short, for all I could tell, the JF-17 not only spontaneously created a set of waypoints guiding me in for a landing, but it did so at an airfield that's listed as having no ILS. However as far as I could tell, the entire experience seemed identical to the ILS tutorial. Can the JF-17 generate its own set of reasonable landing pattern waypoints for whatever airfield it might be landing at?
  4. You know, you guys should just pretend it's two years ago, you could spend some time being super appreciative of the awesome JF-17 we have right now. What's the point of new stuff if the moment we have it, we forget it in favor of random "Deka can we have's"?
  5. I've actually taken the time in the past few days to meticulously go over each of the JF-17s weapons and functions, with the help of the training missions, the manual and chuck's guide and in my opinion not only is the JF the most fully featured of all my modern DCS jets but also, everything that's meant to work does actually work. C-802AK and AKG included. The G can be tricky because you need to keep in mind you're flinging cluster munitions, and the AK can be tricky because the tutorial is out of date in regards to it saying that the "size' option isn't implemented yet. But I honestly found myself impressed at just how many tiny details and features work flawlessly on the JF-17. I also own the Viper, and in comparison, the Viper is like a staggering zombie - looks humanish, looks completeish until you get into its guts. I also own the Harrier and the tomcat, and it's a similar vibe with those. These guys deserve love and praise for developing such a clean and well functioning module, really. Same with my hornet, too, though the hornet is fairly a good deal better off than the viper. But so many other module owners can only dream of complete HARM functionality, fully functioning air AND ground radar modes - and fully functioning GPS guided weapons. Not to mention the high end targeting pod. It's good to be a JF owner. (I do wish the AKG didn't require MITL, but on the other hand, it's a really unique missile configuration - i'm glad we have the option. Given we already have a JSOW, not having the AKG being pure easy mode is kind of fine)
  6. i'm sure you're right about this. I felt like I was having the same issue, before I discovered that this little button was holding me back. And on a similar note, don't forget to hit the SPJ button right next to it if you have a jammer pod! You can edit its modes and such under cmbt, same as where you change your chaff and flare options. Default key is "E" to activate it. Mode 1 jams any radar that locks you, and mode 2 jams any radar that's tracking you. It's mode of operation is described as essentially providing a second, false contact that's a brighter return than your actual self. This is why you might want to set it to mode 1. It's not constantly beaming, so it doesn't draw the same attention, and in waiting to apply itself until you're locked - in theory - its sudden operation achieves an effect that results in the lock on you being broken. I've experienced exactly this when in dire straits in a mission, and suddenly remembering I have this pod to turn on. This is interesting because it's markedly different from the sorts of jammers we typically see which are "shine a flashlight in your eyes" sorts of brute force operations. And the third option lets you set it to be front facing, rear facing or both. Basically for SEAD, front facing is good, for losing a dogfight rear facing is good and for a hectic furball or a combination of the other two, F+B works well (but the power is understandably divided).
  7. I was almost disappointed by this, but then I realized that we have like four or five options for long range attacks on ground that are even more automated. And MITL isn't exactly a deal breaker either, right? It's still an incredibly versatile, long ranged missile that by its nature can make really intelligent moves to avoid being shot down on its final approach. And while I AM a fan of the module, I want to make clear that I'm not trying to be an apologist for it, so much as assuming others were confused in the same way I was. First hearing it required mitl i thought it was a downgrade, until I dug into my memory and went over the old books
  8. My google-fu is somewhat weak and I can't seem to find a straight answer. I personally own Black Bear and Desert Thunder. But neither of those come with the module, right? I thought there was one called "Thunder Strike" that was going to be released with the module, but as far as I can see it's still just an early access preview, right? Just wanting to make sure I'm not somehow missing out on content for my favorite module.
  9. I've been reviewing the documentation as much as possible and I think the only misunderstanding that may have developed is that the C-802AKG -requires- MITL in order to successfully hit its target. It's not an option, but a necessity. And as I think about it, I remember that I couldn't use the 802-AKG at all without a data link pod, which is used for MITL exclusively. Maybe I'm misremembering, but it seems to me right now that the missile is working as intended. Not to mention, I don't remember anyone from ED or deka saying that there were any problems with this missile, right? My oldest version of Chuck's guide is worded in a way that implies this as well. Edit: I also remember a mission for the JF-17 which was meant to highlight usage of the 802-akg. The mission was to destroy a convoy traveling along a highway. The 802-AKG was meant to be used due to its ability to fly along said highway controlled by MITL, until spotting and destroying this convoy. So that, to me, is further evidence that it always required MITL. The JF-17 has several other options for stand off range ordinance that doesn't require any such thing that all work just fine, so it sort of makes sense.
  10. Between each module being made by different developers and the focus of the game being high fidelity simulation, I think there's a lot of folks expecting some kind of war thunder-esque /competitive online pvp balancing that are going to simply end up feeling misled. I think the most active squadrons time spent on developing in-house co-op scenarios is indicative of where you can really find the highest quality gameplay . Though of course those same scenarios can also be a blast PvP, but the point remains that specific real life based scenarios are what's required - because in just a random map, with random fighter versus fighter, there will never be anything remotely approaching balance. Which perform best in a random dedicated server with popular settings will never really have relevance regarding the individual module's quality. If there was, then that'd be an indication that the simulation aspect has gone entirely to sh*t. I mean, battlefield is balanced. World of warplanes is balanced :s Though I've had some good fun with carefully set up historical matchups for sure - especially with not random strangers.
  11. As someone far more fascinated by Red than Blue (as an american citizen we get the blue options shoved down our throat via every media from toddler age onward) I really hope you guys will keep up the amazing work. Even if adding these might take a little more time, patience is no problem. Just please don't randomly "nevermind" it because it's been too long anyway. The JF-17 is really special in regards to the lineup and it's basically the only chinese design origin modern jet in the game (J-11 just doesn't count, since even in real life it's just a reskinned Su-27). And while I love the Russian stuff, the chinese stuff is totally a new experience and just awesome to try out. Huge huge fan of the SD-10 as well. AMRAAM competitive hardware from any other nation is just so incredibly needed.
  12. The RBS is a Viggen anti surface missile, right? If you can't equip an RBS-15 on the JF-17 then what is the relevance? Like, alert, everyone stop buying ammunition for your ar-15, it's weak compared to 7.62. It's not even like the Viggen itself is a viable stand in for the JF-17, or vice versa. One is basically dedicated anti-naval air to surface, and the other is a strike fighter with considerable air to surface capability besides. If they had zero CAP and were making a beach landing, bring on the viggens, but if they have any air support whatsoever then the JF-17 would fit the multirole there quite comfortably. though of course, both is always a great idea
  13. Crap, I posted without looking. Wait, so is the 802AK actually working? Misreported as not working because of people figuring out size setting?
  14. Long range, cruise missile type weapons, especially the anti naval ones are hands down my favorite weapons. In fact, it was the first one I learned how to use when I got my JF17 (and I was blown away by how intuitive the cockpit is in the JF-17 - you can really tell it's top tier modern as compared to even the F-18 - just that much more intuitive) Is the C-802AK still not functioning as mentioned in that one patch note (I think it said it was failing to detect a target on its terminal run), or is it working properly now? And if not working still, is my memory correct in regards to it only be the sea version and not the A2G version?
  15. Yes, but that is the solution. Having its own camera lets it work in a pinch, without an ideal loadout, for example by freeing up a pylon for use by something other than your TPOD. The camera on the weapon isn't meant to render the hud unnecessary. The name of the game is combined sensor input. Generally for CAS the last thing you want to do is fly low and slow over the affected area, removing a significant component of your JF17's ability to defend itself and rendering yourself a much easier target for a wider variety of anti aircraft weaponry that might otherwise have had a near 0 chance of successfully engaging ypi. Speed, afterall, is life.
  16. Actually, you know, it's not all that confusing if you look at it from the perspective of Razbam being rational. The Mig-19p is the only variant that historically had radar and was armed with a combination of cannons and air to air missiles. This loadout makes it the most fun variant to fly of the bunch, and makes it the most competitive it can be in the highly assymetric DCS environment. The S didn't have radar and those models that came after the P (the PM) switched to an all A2A missile design (removing the cannons, which we all know was a briefly undertaken folly by any nation that made that move and wouldn't be all that fun to fly in DCS given the famed unreliability of that early generation of A2A missiles.) So basically the S had neither radar nor even primitive A2A missiles and I got the feeling they were looking for something that was clearly a step beyond the Mig-15/F86 in terms of tech. The Mig-19p with radar and AA-2 vympels seems to be the perfect technological step up from the Mig-15 as a sort of, close enough equivalent to the American F-5e I guess.
  17. Star Citizen doesn't really exist so it doesn't count. I mean, of course a tech demo that was announced a decade ago is going to use all fourteen. But Battlefield 5 is literally the only legitimate game that's going to use all of them. And I'm curious what you could possibly be complaining about. You spent enough on your computer to be able to trade it in for very reliable car. I run the game on an I5 6500 3.2 ghz, and a GTX 1080 and it runs like a dream both in VR and in normal screen modes. Part of me thinks you made this thread just to start a conversation about your computer hardware. And power to you, but no one here is going to be anymore impressed than the friends I'm sure you can afford quite a few of. Computer software has been moving very slowly for a while, honestly likely because it's in a great place and has been for some time. And it's not going to make any sense for software developers to develop for hardware like yours until the average consumer can afford it which won't be for a while. You should know that already. The average consumer these days has a 780-980 equivalent. Most really special features of your hardware won't be used to any significant degree until people are buying the same setup for a quarter of what you likely paid. "I have a 14 core Intel CPU clocked at 5 GHz. Turning items on like mirrors and visibility range over low/medium really tanks the FPS. But my CPU us barely being used as is my 2080 Ti. Is the main game engine still only single thread? Such a shame for going on 2019." The more I reread this, the more disgusted I get, and annoyed that you asked a question you didn't really care about the answer for just to brag about your new computer to a bunch of strangers. If your FPS is fluctuating so much that you can actually notice it (which I doubt, you're probably just staring at an FPS counter rather than playing the game) then just use VSYNC or the Nvidia proprietary equivalent. It'll even out your fps and keep it to a decent number. But I don't believe you'll find any sympathy for the fact that you're usually at 300 fps but sometimes it drops to 225. It feels disingenuous.
  18. Yeah games that legitimately use multithreading are still so rare that when one does, it's noted in every article and sales blurb. Single core performance is still very much king.
  19. I think it's just you. I was just playing the hornet campaign earlier and I adjusted my landing approach by making sure I was approaching on the side with the wake. But I'll give it another look in a minute or two.
  20. I wasn't here for FC3, all I know of it is its current form, professional flight model and less detail, although I still feel like I learn a lot and have a lot of fun with the FC3 ones I own. I also love russian aircraft, but overall realism is very important to me. I may love russian aircraft more than the US ones (because living in the US we hear about how great we are from childhood on - so learning about russian aircraft and capabilities is like a whole new world and eye opening as to the large gap between the propaganda we grow up with and the reality) So what WAS FC3? I assume the FC3 aircraft in DCS now are a lot more realistic than they were when FC3 was released. Is this MAC game supposed to basically totally ignore realism in favor of WoW-esque multiplayer balance? Basically if I play DCS because I appreciate the educational and realism aspects then I won't want anything to do with this new one? Also, MAC's list of aircraft were all aircraft currently available in DCS IIRC - but they wouldn't be the same ones? Just highly dumbed down versions of them?
  21. I own DCS and like fifteen paid modules for it, and I don't see at all how modern air combat fits in. Is it meant to be like war thunder, except more sim'ish and modern only? Is it meant to be simply a facelift for DCS' multiplayer? Are the aircraft offered in it going to be redesigns of aircraft already in DCS? Or are DCS aircraft we already own identical to the ones announced for MAC If we own DCS, do we own MAC? Will the aircraft in that be sold separately? Will it be free and depending upon microtransactions for sales? If it's a standalone project not related to DCS, do we know if it will be competing with DCS for development resources? When I saw the announcement I felt like I was supposed to know what that product even is, and I don't think I've ever been so confused
  22. My instinct was that people who play games online tend to get hyper sensitive and angry whenever they die in a way that they perceive to be not their own fault. My area of study in university was philosophy and I can't help but be reminded of what are generally accepted as the progressive stages of moral reasoning - ostensibly one progresses from one to the next but in reality of the six stages only a small minority of people reach the sixth stage, which would entail less caring for your own treatment, less concern with what's fair than what's right and the cognitive dissolution of a firm connection between legality and morality among other things. My point being, I find that the internet is rife with people who never really advance past the second stage - wanting to be seen as good, pleasure in deriding those you're allowed to (allowed to because they have done something to be seen as bad and an overiding concern with fairness (that's not fair that I am being punished for breaking this rule, so and so is a worse person than me and they weren't punished) At this stage the entire purpose of being 'good' is to avoid punishment, and goodness is defined as doing what you believe you're being asked to. When people at this stage find that they are dying, or having their attempts thwarted in a game, they instinctively tend to believe that they are being treated unfairly. Combine this with the Dunnen-Kreuger effect (the effect by which a person with no training in a complex skill perceives that their knowledge is roughly equivalent or sufficient to field strong opinions on said task and even in contradiction of experts) This is, I believe, why when faced with a stall and falling to their death as a result of unskilled operation of an incredibly complex military machine - even with a more logical part of themselves saying that it was likely their lack of experience that caused it, you have people who just picked up their first flight sim questioning the wisdom of more experienced people and the competency of the work of people whose livelihoods and well being literally depend upon having created an accurate depiction of the flight model and who create these flight models daily and for a living. And all because at that early stage of morality one only perceives bad results happening to them to be the result of more powerful forces, while not choosing against the idea of personal responsibility but literally not ever considering it as the idea is so alien and contrary to their operating paradigm. It's nearly as instinctively unnatural a concept to such a person as taking emotional needs of others into account is for someone born into the high functioning end of the autism spectrum. Anyway yeah I came here knowing it was my fault, and I had that on my mind after I read the first few pages on this thread and people so obviously new to it, to the man, suspected that such behavior was not at all realistic. A friend of mine in aerospace engineering said that the particular stall is known and famously deadly, and made a quick simulation for me to explain what happened. (the design philosophy of the Flanker line is based on hyper-instability combined with the canards in a patch down position while the aircraft itself is level, which creates an extreme pressure differential between the center of mass and the center of lift while also actually just plain blocking airflow to the primary wing which causes lift to stall along side said pressure differential and said instability also translates into the aircrafts inertia easily translating into spinning on its own axis - which further removes longitudinal speed from an already slow and stalling aircraft, he said the canards almost act as two ridiculously effective (proportionally) air brakes in that situation. His final conclusion was that it was nearly impossible sans the grace of god, to escape in the video I posted, like I'd literally need a strong wind to come by that I could gain purchase on for some pitch authority haha Also suggested that the earlier the intervention the better the chance of escape, to definitely NOT try to let go of the controls to stabilize it and that the higher altitude you are the more likely that stall is to happen but also the more likely you'll be to escape from it. So more altitude + less speed + aggressively pitching down while the body of the jet is in stable horizontal flight = a great way to destroy a flanker, and reproduce this spin if anyone is interested. You can avoid it in the first place by maintaining at least 400+ IAS at all times, and at higher altitudes like 30,000 feet or more, at least 600 IAS. And if you're not, the next best thing is to be gentler on the stick, and rather than pitch directly down, instead consider rolling inverted and pulling on the stick to maintain stability without the risk of the stall. Then again maybe we've interpreted it all wrong, but it seemed to follow and make sense to me.
  23. Mods should I be posting in this thread or making my own? I just wanted to talk about this particular type of stall which is deceptively easy to fall into in the Su-33 and I have a video of exactly what happened, what I did to fall into it and what I tried to do to get out.
  24. fergrim

    ECM help request

    So two-three years later.... Does the PCM function work or not?
  25. It's not about agreement or not, though. It's simply true. Any in service aircraft is not going to be eligible to be simulated to the degree that we expect from our DCS study quality simulation modules. The necessary information for the requisite accuracy is simply not available. This is why every aircraft available is going to be about a decade old at about the newest. Find a single military flight simulator that goes into the level of detail that DCS does and models a completely new military aircraft. There simply isn't one and the reason is exactly as stated. And neither ED nor any of our 3rd parties have agreements with any manufacturers in the field. There is small print to that effect right on the main screen of DCS and on every loading screen. It's simply matter of the requisite information being classified as newer things are released, it loses its classified status and becomes food for simulators.
×
×
  • Create New...