Jump to content

Rick50

Members
  • Posts

    1408
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Rick50

  1. C-123 Globemaster II B-36 Peacemaker B-47 Stratojet
  2. I'm not sure the cyclic and collectives in the front cockpit might not match those in the rear. Yet a LOT of hats and buttons. And then there's the gunner's station, with two "grips" that aren't sticks, but have an awful lot of hatswitches and buttons on it... the aircrew's workload seems a wee bit intimidating...
  3. Day 1 purchase for me! Yea, as much as I look forward to many other future modules, this one been waiting for since... well, since the late 90's !
  4. Ok yes, the Mig-21BIS is too late for the VN war. However, the BIS is a later version of the '21. The early Mig-21 (not the BIS) did in fact fight over the jungle canopy, I'm certain of it. The first Mig-21's arrived in Vietnam in April of 1966. Thirteen of North Vietnam's Ace pilots shot down their adversaries using the Mig-21, so yea, it WAS in the war. Just not the later BIS variant. So yea... I dont know the differences myself, between the earlier Mig's versus the later BIS variant, but I doubt it's enough to prevent people from flying DCS '21 over a 'Nam-like map!
  5. I like your proposal, and if it could be done, it would indeed be a popular one! The problem these days, is that DCS is limited in map size. Specifically, if the map size and detail get too large, too much detail, it causes huge problems for framerates on the average DCS player's computers. That's the reason the map above mentions dimentions in miles. Another issue is, making maps seems to take forever in DCS. It doesn't happen overnight. A much larger map size, like you propose, might take 4 years to create, and might not even run well on future computers with future RTX-7090TSI cards overclocked to burst into flames at a moment's notice! Buuuuuuttt... there IS hope that all these issues might change. Coding changes may make such map size limits a non-issue. New video cards might come with new advanced features that can crunch gigantic map sizes with no stuttering even for VR at 8k resolution. And map creation might be able to take a shortcut, if perhaps Asobo Studios, or some other company that builds on world-mapping, comes into ED-DCS world as a 3rd party developer. it's all possible. Just don't EXPECT all that to happen. I also would like to see a Korea map, for both the 1950's Korean war with Sabres and Migs, but also a modern version for Vipers and Hornets, and all the future stuff like Kiowas and Fulcrums, Hinds and whatnot. Another map I'd love to see, is that which featured in a certain Eurofighter sim/game from the mid-1990's, which included Norway, Sweden, parts of Finland and a little Russia! But that map would be MASSSSSIVE... and lots of detail just from the mountain terrain alone, before considering cities lakes roads and bridges. But before I die, I wanna fly a virtual Eurofighter once again over the mountains of Norway, but in high resolution!
  6. It seemed to me that while you can load them out, and then once in the air, you can indeed fire them.... they aren't really very practical right now, as you can't really aim them. In a real Specter gunship, they will typically fly around 20-25k feet, orbit, and fire precision shots using the 40mm, the 105mm, or on the newer ones, the 30mm chaingun. In the last 15 years I believe a few have started carrying Hellfire missiles too, and another wpn (the Griffin ?) and can self-designate. There was a story from the Vietnam days, a unit got overun. All died except one. He thought he was a gonner. But all night long, an AC-130 Spooky (early version of Specter) orbited overhead, watching over him. When an enemy got too close for comfort, a single 40mm shell would end that enemy. After a traumatic night, the lone soldier walked out alive, probably picked up by a helicopter at sunrise. They didn't use mass firepower that the Spooky/Specter is known for, they used the planes endurance, specialised optics, and accurate cannons. Another story was that Spooky was sometimes sent to the Ho Chi Min Trail, the main supply route for logistic support of the Vietcong forces. This route was located in both Vietnam and it's neiboring countries, and was little more than a muddy road for trucks to bring munitions. That said, it was of vital strategic importance to the war. The trucks on the trail would start operating more at night, due to daytime aerial attacks. Spooky was sometimes tasked with truck hunting at night time, as it was one of the few night attack assets the USAF had in those days, owing to it's various electroptics, and it's ablity to detect vehicles specifically even when it coudln't see them (electromagnetic fields detection, yea even in the 1960's!! I believe they could detect the EM field from the engine coil when it was operating). And so, same thing, they would wait until they could see a truck in the low light level camera (think early light intensifier, "Starlight scope"), and send 40mm rounds down to it. One night a gunner had a miss on a truck, and the truck driver got very spooked, started driving faster and eratic. So then the gunner fired a close but intentional miss, just to mess with the driver. I guess this went on for a few more shots, until finally, a shell exploded on the side, causing the truck driver to swerve away, right off a cliff. AFAIK the latest Specters may not even have a Gatling on them anymore. I know the earliest Spooky's would have four Gatlings: they had the well known twin 20mm Vulcans, but they also had twin 7.62 miniguns, above the main gear blisters and below the wings. I think those got removed before the end of the Vietnam war. They were likely put there because of the earlier success of the "Puff the Majic Dragon" AC-47 gunship, basically a C-47 Dakota transport, removed three side windows, and mounted 3 minigun pods out the windows. I think the pilots aimed them by pointing the aircraft, but not sure abt that. I seem to think they might have put a fighterplane's gunsight in the cockpit, pointed 90 degrees out a side window. There would be no precision, this was purely an area wpn. I believe it's primary success was to prevent enemy airfield ground attacks, with thousands of enemies in the jungle hills just a few KM from the airfield.
  7. I suspect that originally, the nickname "flying tank" was less about it's armor, and more about it's ability to kill enemy tanks and give close support to friendly ground forces. "it's like having tank support, but it flies!". Over time, the thought behind it gets forgotten, until the average person thinks the Hind is a flying T-72, and the Apache is an M1A2 Abrams with rotors or something. It's funny, but in the wake of the Gulf War (1991), I was suddenly confronted with an article and series of pics of many Western aircraft that had taken damage and managed to limp home. A Hornet had a wrecked engine, it had been hit with a heater of some kind, but it limped home on the second engine. A Tornado had similar. I don't recall the others, but there was several surprises for me. But ulimtately, even the "armored" aircraft like Hinds, Apaches, Hogs and Frogs, they are still aircraft and still vulnerable. What armor they do have just gives the aircrew a fighting chance of getting back to base alive, really. And it gets even sillier once you consider that even full blown modern MBT's are themselves vulnerable to so so many battlefield threats, they are very far from invulnerable. But the newer the generation of tank, the better the chance of an enemy hit causing damage, but you and your crew have a better chance of surviving the day. Whether it's a M-60E3 compared to a WW2 tank, or an Armata T-14 compared to a Leopard 2A1, which is itself a vastly more survivable tank than the M-60E3.
  8. just IMO, think that without the springs, then add the longest extension you can find, should be good. The extension would help to be more precise in your movements, seemingly important for quality hovering control. Then add rudder pedals (either without or remove the centering spring if you can). Then find a "USB parking brake", these are sold for racing simulations and games that feature either "Drift" driving or pro-rally. The most common type can be modified to remove the spring, and add a bit of position holding. These typically cost about maybe $100, and they offer 14-bit resolution for your heli collective. There's a bit of info on this from a couple of people on this board who've built either simple or complex collectives using these "USB brake" as a starting point.
  9. Yea... this is the single biggest reason I don't come here often since the new forum changes. I don't want to navigate... I much prefered the old forum where I would click "new posts", and it would give me 20 pages of topics to browse through. And if I checked later in the day, maybe I have more time to check the forum, it would give me another 20 pages of topics to rapidly browse through (even if most are the same, maybe I'll check topics that I passed over on the earlier visit). Why did I like this? Because it checked for activity from anywhere in the entire forum, places that I wouldn't nessisarily visit on my own. It was a very fast way of checking the status of... well DCS itself and it's products, the community. It made it super easy to see significant news quickly. But now I might get a few topics, maybe a couple pages, and if I don't check them fast enough, they're gone in a short time, won't see them in a search until someone posts in that thread yet again....
  10. Interesting! I bet I wasn't the only one that didn't realize this. This does highlight an issue we'll see in the aerospace world: despite same/similar designations, there are often differences between products sold to this country or that, and the public rarely discovers all these differences. The basics might be exactly the same, but the details, where one might have one type of RWR, another might have a TWS, and the third army might not have any warning system installed at all, thanks to budget limitations, or tech export restrictions. Maybe they don't get the greatest latest missile either. Recently I wondered why the F-5 module didn't offer two extra rails for sidewinders, as I've seen pics of F-5's with four heaters... turns out, that was not on offer for the F-5E as originally sold.
  11. Yea I'd agree, probably 2 years earliest for an Early Access, if they do that. Probably more like 3 years to complete an Apache from now. Remember, they still have to finish the Hind, which might finish/release in Q1 of 2021. Maybe then they can focus on Apaches. Originally we all thought it'd be a A Apache, laser only. But then Wags pointed out during a video, a radar equiped Longbow during one of the Syria map video previews... which caused myself and others to speculate they may be trying to do an AH-64D Longbow. But that's probably reading too much into the hint given! But regardless, I think it's safe to say that we won't be flying Apaches in DCS in 2021, though I'd love to be wrong about that! But soon we'll have Kiowas and Hinds, that should be awesome while we wait for flying Apaches or Longbows!
  12. sure, but will the extension allow the adapter for TM style grips? I'm guessing it does, but I'm not wanting to guess, I'm looking for true confirmation, either the company employees, or someone who's put a TM Warthog or Hornet onto a VKB Gunfighter2 with extension using the TM adapter.
  13. if I get a Gunfighter2 base, can I install a TM Hornet grip onto an 200 mm Stick Extension? I'm not very familiar with these products, and I think I'd need to buy an adapter to allow the TM to connect... but I don't know if my ideal setup with an extension, on a GF2 base would work ? Have a line on a Kosmosima with Gunfighter2 base, thinking strongly about getting it, but wishing for the option of upgrading to a true Hornet and extension later on. Not sure I'll spend that much money, but wondering if it's possible.
  14. I'm not going to comment on the product or company as I don't have it. Nor am I going to criticise the poster. However, I will point out that in this day and age, our lives, our tech, our jobs and studdies, our relationships with coworkers, spouces, family, and strangers at a drinking establishment... has a tendency to require us to be patient, and at least somewhat forgiving. A long time ago I started to notice when I'd get pissed off, and would conciously decide to take a step back before reacting, take a "cool down lap", think about the situation as others might see things, before reacting or stating. It's very difficult, but it's saved me and others a world of grief and stress, on many many occasions! Looking at my complaint that was made when angry, often looks silly and immature four hours later when I'm calmed and looking at it with fresh eyes. I may have still had a point to be unhappy... but also see that often I needed to temper my response, that the initial complaint was... rash and overly emotional, with no empathy towards the people I'm complaining to. See a problem, and it gets you upset? Instead of blasting away in the forum, write it on paper, go take a break maybe go for a run, walk the dog. Take an hour. Or a day. Then look what you wrote, consider the content and the tone, and then maybe re-write it and post. Just a modest suggestion, nothing more.
  15. Wow! This is so cool! thanks for your efforts!!!
  16. Keep in mind that we who like military based/war simulations, will likely be targeted at some point in future, just as the "GamerGATE" brought anger and hate. We will likely be accused of some nasty things, accused of many "isms" that just aren't true. It won't matter to the haters that on this forum we have so so many people from all walks of life, from all places on the planet, all points of view, all sorts of experiences.... that we all get along well together and are just having fun playing virtual war. They'll still accuse us. Without evidence. And we'll find ourselves on the defensive. It's happened before, a few times already, but each time it's MUCH more serious and consequential than the last time. I believe the last time, it may have cost a handful of lives, not game "lives" but ended the lives of a handful of human beings. I don't know how we ought to prepare for that, and such a discussion doesn't belong in hardware discussion, but sooner than later, it's comming, and I'd rather be ready than not. If someone needs more clarification, PM me and I could explain in a bit more detail.
  17. Totally agree. It's nice to look forward to eventually getting Strike Beagles, Tucanos and very old Mirage III's, and a new map of islands.... it's nicer to eventually get those products knowing that earlier products got finished "properly"!
  18. So there's been a new generation of joystick, it was at least partly or fully crowdfunded. It features 6 degrees of freedom.... if you pull the stick straight up, that's a VERY uncommon function for joysticks, among others. Now... I don't think anyone's gonna put their Warthogs and Virpils up for sale, if they are using DCS, for this stick. It's quite a different set of buttons, not sure how well or poor it would line up with the 80's fly by wire jets, for button functions. Also, it's apparently quite easy for one intended move, to end up causing a different move to be registered at the same time, because... well, since it's got 6 degrees, an imprecise move of the hand will still be detected, where a normal stick with 2 or 3 degrees of freedom simply don't register that extra imprecise movement. But I did think that this would still be worthy of mentioning as news, as a point of discussion about joystick theory, and the fact that some of us DCS users may see this as useful for a different game/sim/display software, for instance they talk about using it while 3d designing or displaying, They mention possible drone piloting... I'm skeptical, but maybe to help move cameras for in-game video creation? Maybe some space-oriented games or simulations might benefit. If nothing else, it's an interesting and creative design worthy of attenting!
  19. Nuke only. No normal conventional bombs. It did do a little recon photo missions. Soooo... it's a cool jet. It's a BEAUTIFUL jet. But I'm not convinced it would sell big in DCS. Documentation abt systems and workstations, might be hard to find, not due to secrecy but due to limited unit numbers and how long ago they were removed from service. I do remember flying a Hustler in FS2004, it was quite nice for freeware. Maybe someone will do something like that for the newer civlian flight sims?
×
×
  • Create New...