PetRock
-
Posts
96 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by PetRock
-
-
Hello,
I don't have a track file yet, but was flying MP last night in MT version, and I popped the main landing gear tires every time I took off from Incirlik, runway 5. I think it may have something to do with the new suspension code, or from the pronounced dip in the runway?
Thank you,
-
On 8/24/2022 at 9:48 PM, SkateZilla said:
Most of those were export and late F-5E items, not on the Block they are modelling.
As for the F-5E Update, IIRC its already been stated to only be Artwork and bug fixes.With respect, this position is now unrealistic, and certainly not what I would advocate for now, or going forward, for any module in DCS.
Modeling a single jet, on an exact date, operated by a single operator, rather than an exemplar example for that era that best captures all the used and implemented capabilities, especially those that were implemented by a large percentage of its operators during its storied service life, is where we should be going. ED and many 3rd party devs have already de-facto committed to this "exemplar" philosophy, like with the Harrier, and even the F-16 (x4 HARMS for example). We, your customers, are quite literally begging for the F5-E that could be and that we will happily pay for it!
With the coming wave of more gen 3/3+ cold war jets coming to DCS, interest in an iconic jet from that era like the F-5E, is going to only grow but to offer the F-5E as it is now will feel flat and disappointing.
Give it the A-10C and the BS 2/3 treatment! We totally understand that a remake of this magnitude isn't cheap, but again, we, your customers, are telling you (ED) that we would be more than happy to pay for a high quality remake and fleshing out of such an iconic aircraft. You are only leaving money on the table.
-
3
-
6
-
-
On 10/28/2022 at 11:33 AM, uboats said:
1. light bomb at outer station for jf17
2. if you mean wmd7 laser, i will check it
3. ls6 250 is a smaller version of ls6 500, almost same kit, you can find photo online and compare.
Has there been any information found on dual rack, triple ejector, or even multiple ejector type racks for the inner pylons?
Rumored block 3 cheek station for sensor pod would also be a god-send. To me personally, I would love to see the JF-17 try to represent the best of what it can do within the limits of documentation. With the new tools that ED has provided, if anyone wanted to limit the module to strict Block 1 or 2, then can allow/block whatever is needed.
A man can dream, right?
Great update and thank you! Keep up the good work!
-
2
-
-
Line Select Key. They are the keys along the edge of the MFDs. LSK L1-8 on the left, LSK R1-8 on the right side.
For this bug, the best bet now is to make a quick mission and arm/drop the GB-6s, then switch to LD-10s, record a track (.trk file) and submit it in the bug section. If your HUD is saying RDY and your master arm is off, and you are in air to ground mode, you should be able to launch the LD-10s.
-
6 hours ago, Napillo said:
You probably interrupted the ground crew as they were re-arming. If you do weapons, then fuel, then after they do fuel, they always seem to check weapons again, and if you interrupt that, unexplained things happen and some of your weapons don't work.
Nope. It definitely has something to do with switching to the LD-10s from the GB-6s. Might possibly have something to do with the alignment process, but again, this bug is easily bypassed by just pushing the LSK R2 where the "PWR OFF" text would be, if it were being displayed properly.
Again, would make a track/recording if I had time, but I am way too busy on the home front atm, but to help the OP, just push the LSK R2 where the prompt should be and the LD-10s should power on and start aligning.
-
Bump...
Any updates on MER/TER/whatevers on the inner pylons, or new munitions coming to the JF-17? Cheek station for Pod?
Just wondering how these questions will fit in with moving the JF-17 out of EA.
Thanks again for the wonderful module - did some radar only GB-6 strikes last night that were a breeze while my friends in hornets were having to get down low under the clouds to use pods and getting shot at.
-
I have also noticed that sometimes the "PWR OFF" text is missing from the RSK2 position in the stores page, but if you hit the button, it will come on and "PWR ON" will display and align process will start.
When I have free time again, I will have to do a proper track and bug report.
-
5 hours ago, gnomechild said:
I disagree. I think it was probably a bit complicated as at the very least you'd have to update the circuitry for the logic of which missile to fire, and also have a way to indicate that those were locked on. Obviously this is not insurmountable as the the Greek F1s carried four sidewinders using the outer wing stations. But if it was never actually done beyond one test aircraft I think it makes more sense for Aerges to just stick to modelling the weapons system that they have access to and that fits the variant we're getting
Oh for sure, with Aerges being a smaller team, start with what is accessible now and build from there, but what I am asking is what info reversed this earlier build, and asking about what will be happening in the future. Is there missing documentation that the community can help source? etc. (obviously through ITAR or legal methods).
-
So bringing this back to the crux of this conversation, Aerges, what information can you share about what brought about this apparent decision to limit sidewinders/magics on the outer pylons?
Compared to some other "what if" load outs tested on other aircraft, wiring the sidewinders or magics on the outer wing pylons was likely just installing an additional wire bundle/ connector, and pylon adapter. I even suspect that there was little to no modification on the fire control side, and they likely just interfaced it as another Magic type missile. What documents or SME information can be shared about how this was tested, but then ultimately not used? Would this kind of installation remove the ability to carry missiles on inner pylons? Any information that can be shared would be appreciated.
-
Hello,
So it sounds like in at least EdA service, sidewinders (or Magics) weren't carried operationally on the outer wing pylons. The Greek Air Force notably flew with this configuration with similar F1 models. With so many screen shots from earlier in this module's development showing the x4 IR missile configuration, I am not going to lie in that I am a bit disappointed that this sounds like it won't be available initially (x4 missiles while still keeping the stronger inner pylons available and a belly tank (while very heavy) was going to be my preferred load out on Flashpoint Levant and Enigma's CW servers).
Aerges: what can you communicate on what documentation you found to reverse the earlier builds showing the x4 IR missiles? Is this something that we can handle like with the F-16 x4 HARMs in the mission editor? Even outside the F1, a lot of small capability enhancement like these were tested in other countries on a variety of aircraft throughout history, and the aircraft were perfectly capable of doing so, and plenty of documentation exist on how it would/did work, but were never implemented purely because of cost. The decision to adhere to strictly 100% historical load outs I think would be better left to the mission designer/community to enforce themselves, now that ED has provided better tools in the ME.
Any information you could share would be greatly appreciated.
PetRock
-
1
-
2
-
-
I actually noticed this a few weeks ago - PWR was missing, but once I hit the LSK on the MFD where it should be, it came back and started alignment. Was playing online MP and rearmed a few times.
I'll try to grab a track over the next few days.
-
1
-
-
While on the topic of skins...
Anyone know of an "F-20" skin for the JF-17?
-
1
-
-
Some of the best DCS news I have heard in years!
Bravo Zulu!
-
1
-
-
Hello @Vibora,
Hope you and Aerges had a wonderful new year and holiday. Hope to hear more about the F1 and was sad not to see a peep about it from ED in the last weekly newsletter.
Looking forward to more soon!
-
3
-
-
NGL, I would pay for the block 3 like the A-10C2 upgrade that ED did.
-
4
-
-
Oh... you can't use the AI Flight model to base any test on. Its widely known they use a much more simplified FM that is "generous" with the laws of physics.
I was curious if you had flown the same profile, in the F-5, before/after last patch.
Has anyone else done so?
-
5 hours ago, HWasp said:
So, just a quick test:
Barrel roll at 8,6-8,9G with 2 aim-9s, and the same at 7,6-7,8 Gs with a full large centerline tank.
Both cases I'm far beyond all the red lines and nothing happens. Why is this not enough?
Was this maybe adjusted last patch?
F-5wing1.trk 338.14 kB · 1 download F-5wing2.trk 178.52 kB · 0 downloads
Did you also do a run before the last patch or this this your first test?
-
@BIGNEWY@NineLine@Kate Perederko Is this being looked at? I don't see any comments from the last Open Beta change log patch notes and no comments in this thread yet. If this bundled with another thread/bug, let us know so we can consolidate our findings to you/ED.
Happy New Year.
-
Sorry to bump again, but still hoping that as more information becomes publicly available, more loadout options or combos can be added to the JF-17.
Have a good new year.
-
1
-
-
Just to update this... I finally got my net fixed, but then straight to work.. ugh. Finally back and should have the trk uploaded in next 24 hours.
-
Since I made a big post about this last spring... Before you all get too excited about the explosive mass... are these # values *corrected* for TNT equivalent? There are still some glaring errors in DCS where devs took explosive filler weight and just = HE explosive power (which is wrong).
A lot of modern explosive compounds are much more potent than TNT per equivalent weight, so those numbers being higher than the actual weight may be factoring in the actual explosive power that warhead should have.
I have no idea what explosive compound China or Pakistan would be using in the PL5, so we would have to see what Deka says.
-
So was this an attempt at trying to integrate maneuvering speed load limits? Will this get fixed or at the very least, streamlined in the near future, or will this be left "as is" for the foreseeable future?
I don't think anyone has an issue with a load limit being imposed, just that it is consistent, not only with the known reference documents that we have access to, but also physics to the limit of what we have in the DCS engine.
-
Ok we will let you know what we find.
-
Would it possible for Aerges to comment on what the long term plans are for weapons that were carried by the F1 for other nations, but not with the Spanish Air Force? I know that they have said if they can find documentation that would consider it. I ask because we really need a cold war aircraft with ASM missiles like AS-37 since the Shrike is stuck in dev hell limbo.
What has happened to the update ?
in DCS: F-5E Tiger II
Posted
While shrikes would be completely a-historical, Taiwan and Saudi Arabia used EO Mavericks on their F-5Es for a long time. If the F-5E is going to get a full rework on the level of the A-10C II and Ka-50 BS 2/3, I would shoot for one of those. Mission maker option for x4 winders, and EO mavericks (in addition to the long standing bugs and inaccuracies of the current offering) would be well worth it, and would better place the F-5E in DCS as its most advanced and capable version that saw the most service outside the USA. The F-5E we currently have in game is a bit of a franken-plane Swiss re-export back to USN for aggressor training, but it's what ED/BST could get a full document/performance library for, so its what we got in DCS.