Snappy

Thanks man, that was a good one! Kind regards, Snappy

Quote: "There's really nothing stopping ED from coming in later and adding such things from time to time ya know. Just because most of the Hornet's crew is moving over to the Falcon doesn't mean work to improve the Hornet won't continue. Heck, I fully expect ED to add new features to the F-18 as they become declassified." Well I wouldn't expect any new declassified systems if I was you .On the contrary, they are already scratching things from their original Hornet goal, like certain radar modes that the real aircraft has. Anyway I'm out now. You can get stuck on Stingers as long as you like or not. It seems clear ED is not bringing them. Feel free to buy something else if its a deal breaker. Regards, Snappy

If you 're cool with delaying your Apache for several more years, while ED first does exactly this for every single weapon system(oh and conformal tanks ) the F-16 airframe (and to a degree the F-18) is capable of carrying, including those by other customer countries (as is the case with the Stingers), then fine, have it your way. Because those airframes also have more capabilities than what they bring in the sim. And btw its not touted as being "realistic" or anything. Its simply the way ED chose to simulate the aircraft. As one without Stinger capability. The more "realistic" thing only referred to dropping the idea of going to wage fox 2 war against fighter jets. Its fun yeah, maybe. Realistic, no.

Excellent .Problem solved then. Buy the Mi-24. Then you get R60. You won’t get any of the many push-to-win buttons/capabilities of the Apache though. regards, Snappy

"Now, here's the kicker, in a training scenario, that 70s era attack helo managed to 'kill' an F-15, so it's not that much of a stretch to give more helicopters A2A capability." That is not a kicker, nor is it sth. new. Look up the joint Army/AirForce J-Catch excercise from the late 70s if you havent already. Helicopters fared well against jets before, in close-in knife fighting with guns, even without stingers . If you have to personally deal with fixed wing threats without CAP, you shouldn't really be flying there anyway (unless you do it for fun in a sandbox scenario). Any semi-smart modern fighter jetpilot would just engage you with short/medium range missiles from out-of-stinger range anyway if he detects you. And if he doesn't you certainly shouldn't be drawing attention to yourself by lobbing low PK stinger shots his way. I seriously doubt attack helicopters get send into high threat(from air) areas without air cover. "Basically, I believe that if a plane CAN carry something in the real world, it should be able to do so in game, no matter how impractical it is." Yea, I get that from a sandbox playstyle point of view, that this would be nice to have. But it's just not practical and would need to be applied to all other ED aircraft too and that adds just way too much workload&complexity on ED. The US army doesn't really seem to use it, other nations do yes. So does that mean the F-16 should get the entire isreali weapons loadout that they use with it? Anyway form Joelsi's post it seems that this is not happening anyway, so we can drop the discussion. Regards, Snappy

Yea, that statement is likely true for real life. In DCS, no .Though I personally tend to think the issue is more on the Hornet side of things, not the F16 FM.

No , I think you misunderstood or misread what he said. The part of being noticed by the locked on enemy was referring to using RWS. Thereafter he specifically said "But if I don't wanna let him know, I use TWS. " I would also prefer a more realistic simulation of the TWS weaknesses/limitations in the F-16/18 by ED. Regards, Snappy

Totally looking forward to see you doing exactly that. Seriously am. I'm afraid you might be in for a rude awakening, but if you actually pull it off even better. Will check the future participant lists of the usual big brawls for your name and hope to see you put this into practice. kind regards, Snappy

Hey Lace, just wanted to say thanks for the mission ! I just had my first go at it and enjoyed it , even though I wasn't successful haha. Things were going a bit too well for my liking and everything seemed quiet, which added to the overall feeling I might be overlooking sth. First indicator of this was an RPG hitting my helicopter I'm going to try again. Good idea for a Mi-8 mission, it was fun hovering over and scouting ahead of the convoy. Thank you! Regards, Snappy

Ok then , I simply used more decimal points in the conversion..Thats why I ended on a 6. Regards, Snappy

Unless it’s a typing error regarding the baseline numbers on your part, already your first lbs to kg conversion is seemingly wrong , by some 87kg too light. 26888 lbs is 12196 (rounded down) kg , not 12109 kg Not much in the grand scheme of things, however my point is, if you expect to have this taken serious by the dev team, probably better to have this basic stuff correct. regards, Snappy

Yeah I thought so, but sorry just to get it clear: Frosen, are you saying there should be a text there, but it is not in DCS in general at the moment due to a bug ? Or do you see the EP13 controls text on your installation and I'm having a texture issue on my system only ? I know the countermeasure switch in the 2nd picture used to be labelled wrong in DCS . But thats a seperate issue. Regards, Snappy

I would guess the flashing is on purpose, to clearly differentiate it from the actual HUD target symbol, which is the same icon ,but non- flashing. Even more so, because I think in reality the HUD target symbol is not always directly centered on the actual position of the enemy aircraft in your HUD FoV, unlike it is usually in DCS. Probably another thing less precise in reality than in digital simulation. If you look up various HUD footage tapes on Youtube, you can see the HUD projected target symbol is sometimes outside of the enemy aircraft or lagging somewhat behind. Another reason could be, that it flashes as it re-calculates after every x no . of fired rounds during a longer burst, but that would seem pretty advanced. Certainly Victory knows much better if thats the reason or something else. Regards, Snappy

Best to leave that decision to heatblur.Naquaii already said they will look into it. Then they will reach their own conclusions.

Could you kindly take a look at this? After updating to 2.7 I'm seing this in some instant action missions, for example "Offensive counter air" and" tank busting " The Glass edges /Frame of the HUD is missing. Any idea what might be causing this? In other missions I don't have the problem. I'm using no mods, except the A-4E and I cleared my shaders folders after updating to 2.7 Also I didn't change any graphic settings after updating. No problems before in version 2.56.x Also, should the placard above the EP13 brightness and controls selectors look like this? Regards, Snappy

As someone who is often critical of DCS and ED's way of doing things, I still wish to give credit where credit is due. This is an impressive update across the entire board.Lots of improvements in many areas. Well done ED! Thank you very much for the big work you put into this! Regards, Snappy

As far as I understand it in general, ( I can't speak for specific aircraft / instruments manufacturers , so I can't say whether this applies to the F-16) not every mechanical gyro instrument like the ADI is completely compatible with aggressive maneuvres / accelerations. So on some aircraft during aerobatics or wild maneuvering the gyros are caged before you begin the aerobatics in order to protect the delicate mechanisms inside / prolong their service life.Caged meaning they are fixed in their position and not moving freely as they usually would in their function. For those aircraft, it would be a good idea to afterwards double check you have uncaged them again before you begin your approach or do any kind of flying that requires them working normally . However I have difficulty imagening a fighter type aircraft that is limited in this regards, in other words, I would be very surprised if they didn't put avionics /gyros in that can take a beating and are fully capable of aerobatics and rapid maneuvering. So it really doesn't make a lot of sense to me either in the context of your landing tutorial.Maybe its a bug, or it has another procedural context. Kind regards, Snappy

Is anybody else seeing that the HUD glas frame (top end of frame ) is missing in 2.7? I cleared the shaders after updating, but did not change aynthing else in graphic settings. Regards, Snappy

Yes in the tacview screenshot he is half a mile away , but in his HUD screenshots he is already very close, he should get the Breakaway X if he gets any closer? Or did that X have more of an advisory character in real life and people flew in closer to make sure the bullets hit the target? Serious question, not meant sarcastically . Regards, Snappy

A side question out of personal curiosity: Why did the soviets put in a western - style( for lack of a better word) attitude indicator into the hind? What I mean is, why did they divert from their usual version of the attitude instrument, where the horizon is fixed and the aircraft symbol itself moves in correlation to attitude changes? Most of their fighters up to Mig29/SU-27 use that system and so does the Mi-8 helicopter. Why did they switch for the Mi-24 to the system used by most western aircraft, where the aircraft symbol itself is rigid and the horizon moves in the background? Regards, Snappy.

Spider, re "Is the distinction still appropriate for jets with missiles?" & But when your opponent has guided medium range missiles ..." again, I can only tell from my personal non-professional opinion , so take my answer with a warbird-sized grain of salt : I think this "classification" stems mostly from the eras of close-in guns only fights , BFM , and maybe into the rear - aspect IR missiles. And even then, maybe it was more of an informal , broad classification for fighter pilots when they talked about aircrafts and fights or instructed . With nowadays all-aspect missiles and HOBS Helmet cueing , things have likely become much much more complex in regards to threat analysis. Probably a lot of time is spent going over EM diagramms and other intelligence on expected adversary aircraft strength/weaknesses, and coming up with possible gameplans against individual threats , besides of course the actual training fights / excercises themselves. I'm not sure, if such a simple angles/energy classification, which in itself highly depends on various factors, makes much sense anymore in front of that background. Except maybe in very asymmetric situations, like having an A-4 Skyhawk face off against an F-16 or so. Well , just noticed, I couldn't really answer your question and rambled around a bit too long. Sorry. Maybe you 're lucky and Victory or one of the other RW pilots chimes in. Have a good day anyway, Snappy.

Same, I noticed this as well, its more obvious with the target at high aspect . With the pipper directly on aircraft centermass / middle of enemy plane and in the lower part of the gun range, the bullets tend to pass aft of the target. Of course you can aim in front of the aircraft or just on the tip of its nose to make sure you get hits, but would be nice if heatblur could take a look at it. KInd regards, Snappy.

My take on that: It depends on what airframe you’re fighting. The F-14 is certainly no slouch in either area ( with a reasonable loadout and fuel load) but look at what airframe you’re facing and then decide which way you want to fight. It may even change within the duration of a single fight with changing energy states. I think this “ energy vs angle fighter” thing isn’t as clear cut anymore as it (maybe) used to be with 3rd gen or older fighters, like the F-104 , F-4 or Mig-17 . But even then it depended. Extreme (unrealistic in many ways) example, but just to illustrate: Take The F-4 , which you likely would classify as an energy fighter. Now put it in a fight against the SR-71 ( as I said highly unrealistic) . The F-4 likely wins the angle fight every time. Anyway thats my view on things, more knowledgeable people can probably tell you more or better how to employ the F-14. regards, Snappy

It will be very interesting to see what changes to the Hornet FM will result from its announced complete FM review. However I wouldn’t expect too much, actually I wouldn’t be surprised at all if it got even stronger. Not that this would be realistic , when even its current FM seems overpowered or underdraggy in regards to sustained turn rate & vertical capabilities. But unfortunately contrary to the F-16 theres a lot less data available for the Hornet variant to check against, except for that GAO report, which I wouldn’t consider sufficient or objective, so its up to ED and their interpretation of the data they have. Regards Snappy

Are you talking about DCS or reality? I really don’t think it works that way, neither in reality or DCS. Maybe (and thats a big IF) you can cue the older missiles via radar lock onto non rear aspect targets or head on targets, but there is no real sense in that, because once the missile leaves the rail , its still just an old rear aspect missile and can’t keep track of the target because its simply outside of its seekerheads capabilities. Since the Harrier variant in DCS doesnt have a radar and so can’t even cue its own more advanced missiles I highly doubt it can somehow “enhance” a -P Sidewinder. That is also my experience in the Viggen which can carry both all-aspect and rear aspect swedish variants of the Aim-9. One will pick up head on targets, the other one won’t.So even in DCS its not defined by aircraft. The only thing, which might work in DCS and I think it does also in reality is, depending on which rear aspect variant we re talking about, is, you might use an aircraft’s radar to speed up the acquisition process on a rear aspect target somewhere in the fwd quarter of your aircraft by having the radar tell the seekerhead where to look. But even that would still be limited to the seekerhead cone and tracking capability. kind regards, Snappy