Jump to content

TLTeo

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2525

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Everything posted by TLTeo

  1. TLTeo
    As an addendum, this means you need to be very, very, very careful with your rudder pedals during landing and takeoff.
  2. TLTeo
    1) Personally, just roll off, not hitting the paddle because that turns pitch off as well 2) Not that I'm aware of, the function of the Tomcat paddle switch is nothing like e.g the Hornet's 3) The manuals I can look at are beyond the time frame of our Tomcat (1972 A, or early 2000s jets with DFCS), but the first one states that disengaging SAS should only happen as long as the paddle is pressed, and the latter (which again, completely different FCS) says that SAS should not be disengaged when the paddle is pressed, so yeah, you might be right.
  3. TLTeo
    If that is true, then that order hasn't gone through yet (and it may not because ECRs and nuclear armed Tornadoes are not as easily replaced). The latest German order is not to replace the Tornado fleet, but to replace the Tranche 1 fleet iirc.
  4. TLTeo
    If I recall correctly, Spectre11 a while ago wrote that no Typhoon with AMK has been ordered. Idk if that came before or after the new Luftwaffe order though. Ok I think this even beats getting Phantoms that can't fire Sparrows. I'm impressed.
  5. TLTeo
    Eeeeh except if you dig sufficiently around the forums you'll find that even that nice clear cut distinction doesn't really hold (e.g. the 4 Harm/6 Mav drama, Sniper being on and off the feature list, the SDB being extremely borderline, to name a few). There's enough info in the FAQs out there from both Ironmike and Spectre11 - don't expect an exact year/tranche/software version/block/batch/insert generic term that people think means specific version even though it doesn't, and that's fine because it's representative of how that fleet (or pretty much any fleet - Klarsnow, a Mudhen WSO, said exactly the same thing about that jet) works IRL. As long as we don't get blatantly inconsistent things like Brimstone on a Typhoon without PIRATE, it will be fine tbh.
  6. TLTeo
    No, in other words the entirety of the Typhoon fleet is a constant frankenjet so (beyond whether it's a German jet with PIRATE or a non German one without it) worrying about a specific serial number's capabilities on a specific day makes no sense.
  7. TLTeo
    You can't carry 530s together with a2g ordnance because the aircraft computer can't handle it, that has always been the case. The only thing that's changed recently is that you can carry different kinds of a2g ordnance without a problem, which the aircraft computer can handle but is not done IRL.
  8. TLTeo
    Welcome to the best jet in DCS, enjoy your stay
  9. TLTeo
    G-91, Mirage F-1, F-8, A-7, A-6, MB-339, Typhoon, in no particular order. I would love to add the Mig-23 to the list, but with RB you never know whether anything is going to actually happen or not.
  10. TLTeo
    If they aren't comfortable with their ability to finish the Typhoon, I highly doubt they will start on other modules, especially something equally as complex as the Rafale. More likely they will assist with developing the EF and pick up expertise that way.
  11. TLTeo
    For the most part I doubt it will be less realistic than e.g. the Hornet or Jeff, which also do not have much documentation available (e.g. the e/m diagram of the Hornet) but are still fairly believable modules in terms of their performance. The one thing that will be completely fantasy and unrealistic is the EW capability of the aircraft (which IRL is also one of its strengths compared to other 4th gens), because it's done extremely poorly in DCS, but that's not exactly news. And why would this be the case? The Captor-M is the best mechanically scanned radar ever built. If the AWG-9 can do it, I don't see why the Captor can't. But yes, these super long ranges reported e.g. on Wikipedia are obviously estimated under hyper-optimal conditions, see the 53 nm figure for the AIM7 and 60 for the AIM-120C.
  12. TLTeo
    Beyond this, the Block 3 is significantly different from the Block 1/2 - other than the HMD, it has an AESA radar, a different fully FBW FCS, supposedly an IRST and a new MWS, a new HUD, an extra hard point, and a different engine to name a few. Asking for Block 3 features to be included in the DCS module is like asking for e.g. the Super Hornet AESA radar to be carried by our Hornet.
  13. TLTeo
    The first one Iirc the increase from v5 to v9 is some ~10% increase in performance (e.g. detection range et al.).
  14. TLTeo
    Yep, same idea
  15. TLTeo
    Haha that's hilarious, I wrote my post going by the old "planned payloads" sticky and that changed again with the lastest one
  16. TLTeo
    I'm trying to modify the instant action tank-busting mission, but the JTAC does not give any tasking to the player flight. If instead one replaced the Viggens with Hornets (also carrying 4 Mavs), the JTAC behaves normally, so it's not due to mission editor settings or unit placement. I have also tried using different loadouts, but the result didn't change. Mission files attached. edit: @IronMike apologies for the spam, I just would like to confirm you're aware of this AJS-37 Tank busting_hornet.miz AJS-37 Tank busting_viggen.miz
  17. TLTeo
    They keep going back and forth on that though. Currently it's not on the list of planned payloads, just the Litening.
  18. TLTeo
    Ternav is not the doppler nav radar, it's the update to it that makes it take automatic fixes to avoid drift as long as the radar altimeter is working, and it's from the 90s. The doppler radar is from way before then, it was introduced with the Viggen itself in the 70s. Much older jets had doppler nav radars as well - some variants of the F-100, the F-105, the A-4E off the top of my head. In fact, at the time the F-104G having an INS instead was an exception (and a fair improvement, the INS produces less drift generally). so yeah, tldr, there's nothing particularly remarkable in doppler nav suites that can't be done in DCS, given that it's doable even with lua in a (very good) community-based mod, so that really isn't something that would stand in the way of any of those old Cold War modules.
  19. TLTeo
    Likely the same level of complexity as the Viggen's and G-91, seeing as they also use one.
  20. TLTeo
    This is what you are not understanding. Contrary to what you want to believe we do not have that information, because gathering that information requires large amounts of real-life test which, to the best of our knowledge, have never been performed. Unless you can show real world information proving the contrary, that rules out the GBU-12 as a valid loadout.
  21. TLTeo
    Yeah DCS does not really model the airflow around the jet and the effect it has on stores separation, so these tests don't really mean anything.
  22. TLTeo
    Italian ones too (and JDAMs too I think?). As far as I know (it was somewhere on Spectre11's post) only Kuwaiti Typhoons carry GPBs.
  23. TLTeo
    It took a while for the F-5 campaign to be approved by ED, so I assume the same is true for the Mig-21. My guess is because they have lots of missions (25 iirc?), the process is longer than usual.
  24. TLTeo
    Whether the bomb can be strapped to the jet is not the problem, or what separation tests would confirm. What matters is whether the bomb separates from the jet in the same was as an unguided Mk-82, or whether the guidance kit causes problems. That is completely different from APKWS, which are designed specifically to be plug-and-play with normal launchers. That is the exception, not the rule.
  25. TLTeo
    If you want to go the realism route, the fundamental question is whether the GBU-12 needs its own set of trials to qualify it. If the answer is yes, then it doesn't belong in the module imo (and it's a whole other situation from the Sea Eagle, for which trials were performed at least). If the answer is no, being cleared for the Mk 82 is enough to be cleared for the GBU-12, then imo it might as well be added (and it's not that much work either), exactly like for the F-5E, because It wouldn't be less realistic than a whole lot of other loadouts in DCS.
×
×
  • Create New...