Eddie
-
Posts
5038 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
10
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Eddie
-
-
Yep. Already implemented for the A-10C and P-51D. No reason it wouldn't be for future AFM aircraft.
-
Known issue.
-
But yeah, actually sitting and doing the maths, they did a direct Mach to TAS conversion, not allowing for altitude.
-
I didn't say they were right. Only "about right". They are only around 150-200 knots out. ;)
It is indeed a bit optimistic. But that's what happens when you give people with no aviation knowledge raw numbers.
I suspect it's just an incorrent TAS conversion. But not exactly unexpected or unusual.
But such numbers are meaningless anyway, they just look good on the news. I bet their JSF number was off as well. But I didn't pay attention to what it was.
-
Your point being? It's about right going by the last public data I saw, which is all the media would have access to.
-
Fuel tanks in the rudders, interesting.....
How so? Far from uncommon.
-
Not being able to model aircraft A to "DCS standards" does not mean it isn't possible to model aircraft B. Even if A and B are from the same generation and have the same capabilities.
Likewise, just because ED themselves can't model a given aircraft, it doesn't mean someone else won't have the necessary contacts/sources to do so. And what can't be modelled today, might end up being possible next month. It's not a clear black/white thing.
-
The A-10C is still by far the most accurate representation of a modern military combat aircraft to date.
Very little of what isn't there is classified. It mostly a mix of there simply not being enough time /resources for ED to implement such things or the USAF/US DoD not allowing things to be implemented in the commercial product.
Every single system I mentioned could be modelled based on public information/physics/common sense, if the dev resources were there and the USAF/US DoD allowed it.
The point is, as has always been said. If I, or anyone else, tells you system X is realistic how would you know any different? At the end of the day, as long as the implementation is plausible and maintains the suspension of disbelief it's fine.
Question for you, looking at that list of systems that are not modelled/simplified I posted before, can anyone tell me why/how they are simplified? I'd be willing to bet the number of people on these forums that could is barely in double digits.
There is nothing that makes me think the same could not be achieved with the F-35.
-
1
-
-
They are not exactly shortcuts, the approach speed calculations I wrote above are exactly what the charts say just in text form. And the takeoff rule of thumb is just rounding up the numbers on the chart so it's easier to do in your head.
Nothing that couldn't be worked out by anyone bothering to read and understand the performance charts from the -1.
-
Now that the veil of ignorance is lifted we can maybe authoratitively find out just how much of the A-10C's systems are actually modelled, if only to facilitate a benchmark of sorts to pin down what accords with a DCS tag.
Are you in a position to comment on that? Put a percentage to the speculation?
Well, now lets see, a quick "off the top of my head" list.
Systems that are either not modelled or have at least some degree of simplification and/or "game" modelling (some of the below will be down to limited dev resources and/or known bugs).
SADL/JTRS
DSMS
IFFCC
Electronic Warfare/Countermeasures
TAD
IFF
Radios (Crypto/Havequick)
Maverick
JDAM
WCMD
Unguided Rockets
LUU-2
LITENING AT
Engines
Hydraulics
Environmental Control System
Putting a percentage value on it.
No more than 70%.
-
LOL.
I find it quite amusing that people are so happy with the A-10C given the number of systems/weapons that are heavily simplified or flat out not modelled, and yet the prospect of the same thing for a Lightning II is somehow so objectionable.
-
1
-
-
Wow, a 2 page thread for something so simple?
Rotation & take off speeds are calculated using mission planning software. And there are a few applications made for DCS that will do this for you. Flaming Squirrel provided a link to one such program.
But a rough rule of thumb is 110 knots + 2 knots per 1000 lbs above 25000 lbs. So 130 knots at 35000 lbs, 150 knots at 45000 lbs. Rotation speed is 10 knots below takeoff speed.
Approach speed is simple mental arithmetic.
25,000 lbs + fuel + ordnance = gross weight
Approach speeds are just as easy to calculate.
110 knots + 2 knots per 1000 lbs of fuel/ordnance for full flap approach speed
120 knots + 2 per 1000 lbs of fuel/ordnance for no flap approach
145 knots + 1 knot per 1000 lbs of fuel/ordnance for single engine approach
-
Known bug.
-
Download ALL 5 files at the link below into the same folder and then run the .exe file to launch the installer.
http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/downloads/world/dcs_world/
-
The HEI rounds in CM are simply there for effect on soft targets. If you only have API rounds on board, your effectiveness vs soft targets such as dismounted infantry or even trucks etc. is reduced.
And the 4-1 ratios is there because it is the most effective/best balanced mixture. No different to how tracers are normally 4-1 mix with ball rounds etc. Thats all there is to it.
-
Thanks Dangerman, exactly as I suspected. Good old fashioned manual delivery.
-
The difference is: you can't get out of fog by descending ;)
BTW minimums for airfield still apply either you fly airplane, or a helicopter, if you don't see the runway at decision height, you can't land. That's why there has to be a cloud base barely over minimal height - to perform IFR approaches here. Because the ILS on Huey isn't suppose to get you to the landing spot, only to the runway decision point - from there on its VFR.
The point is to perform an ILS approach to landing in a Huey.Let's take Sochi-Adler airport, runway 06 - that runway has decision height of 180m MSL. If you want to limit someone from performing a landing on that airport, you set the cloud base below, or put up a fog with less than 2300m visibility. If you want someone to land there, the visibility has to be above 2300m and cloud base above 180m MSL. Now, with 300m MLS cloud base minimum available to set up, the whole thing is not very stressful, you go from IFR to VFR well above the decision height, no stress, no second-guessing.
Possibly the best posts I've read this week.
Cloud, and atmosphere/weather in general is not one of DCS World's strongest areas. I've no doubt it'll get there eventually though. In the meantime we just have to live with using fog to force IMC at the lower altitude airports.
-
Ells,
To save me hunting for the answer, how is weapon aiming performed in the T.1? I am assuming it's old fashioned manual sighting via fixed sight depression, as opposed to CCIP etc.
-
CCIP and CCRP are realistic delivery methods or do you use manual lol.
CCIP and CCRP are aiming methods, not delivery methods.
Should be just fine.. been flying the good old Su-25 lately =PGood for you. Too many simmers who fly modern jet sims are overly reliant on their HUD or other non essential equipment (TGP on the A-10C being a prime example), once people break the bad habits and really learn how to "fly" and fight their aircraft it's amazing how much more effective they become.
The simple art of flying, be it VFR or IFR, or even basic aircraft handling is something that people should spend much more time focusing on. Rather than going straight to weapon systems.
Based on the syllabus so far, I think ACTS will do wonders for a lot of people out there, providing they stick with it. Learning the "basics" first really does make the tactical aspects easier to handle and you more effective.
-
A couple of shots from a mission last weekend.
How our RWRs looked entering the AO.
The RWR in the same place after hitting "SEP" :eek:
-
I was the formation instructor for the 74th Subs and done a lot of teaching, training and educating in real life so don't worry ill have things covered.
Getting from A to B in in A-10 is easy using the CDU and TAD. Now take that away and what have you got, compass and a stopwatch. How many pilots here can navigate using that method.
I'm sure there's lots to learn ;)
I'm sure quite a few will be a bit shocked when the Hawk comes along and they have to learn real navigation, let alone how to fly and land without a HUD. Or perform an instrument depature/approach. :D
-
As an Ip for a Virtual Squadron its actually quite impractical to teach new pilots everything, it will drive you nuts lol.
It works pretty damn well for us in the 476th. ;) It's not "fast" by the standards of many out there, but then good training never will be.
If I can teach someone who has never even heard of SEMs or a LALD, DB, HADB, HATR, LRS, TTS, Wedge, Fighting Wing, etc., how to do all of it to a combat ready standard in 9-10 training flights totalling around 30 hours I wouldn't say it's at all impractical.
It's all about how you teach and present the material. Of course you can only teach someone who wants to learn.
I'm sure missions like the one you posted are entertaining and well made from a mission design point of view. But I wouldn't say the actual training delivered was all that great. But such is the limitation of scripted offline training.
-
Hi Lenny,
Take a look on the Wiki page here for a list of VFS/VFWs. Your best bet is to visit their websites and see which one best suits your needs and style of flying.
Oh, and you wouldn't happen to be a former member of the 72nd would you?
-
Interesting how so many people are aware that jamming is badly done and still someone comes with ED tags and has the guts to say we need to learn something.
You tell us what is better or worst?
I will take sorbytsia for example again:
It is perfectly known what does it do, secret is how does it do it. Do we ask ED to make a realistic program for usage in real aircraft? No. We ask them to make us jamming that does what is publicly known for those pods. False targets etc etc etc.
It is absolutely unfair to act as if we're all dumb and clueless like someone did in this page, signed with ED Tester tag.
Let me tell you again, before you ban me because I you won't listen to anybody.
WE DON'T want you to recreate realistic software solution for jamming. We want you to create and model the effects of jamming that are publicly available to learn. Start with false targets. I won't fall for your "you need to learn" provocations. And i will not tell you more that I know than> FALSE TARGETS. None of you explains or answers any strong facts.
Ok, well, I'm struggling to work out what you're trying to say so I'll just repeat what I said before and expand somewhat.
Based on your initial post you do not understand ECM anywhere nearly as much as you appear to think you do.
So, sum up:1. ECM must jam all those in effective range
Why? No ECM system will do that in reality. Even barrage jamming cannot effectively jam all emitters on a modern battlefield, nor would an EW aircraft employing barrage jamming techniques attempt to do so.
2. ECM denies you from using your own equipmentNo, it most certainly does not.
3. ECM graphical display on HUD and MFDs must be fixed at last so that it does not show clearly the source (bearing) from where ECM is emmitedWhy? The current representation of a jamming contact on the RADAR is one of the more accurate system implementations in the Flaming Cliffs aircraft. Certainly as far as spot and/or sweep jamming techniques are concerned at least.
ECM, how it works in reality and its current implementation in DCS has been discussed at length many times on these forums. And it has long been acknowledged that it is an area where DCS does not match reality. For the time being, apart from a very basic implementation of ECM in air to air combat, electronic warfare is absent from DCS. And that is a fact we have to live with until ED have the time and resources to model the electronic battlefield.
Heading
in DCS: A-10C Warthog
Posted
HUD heading tape or HSI.