Tengu
-
Posts
57 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Tengu
-
-
2 hours ago, Nealius said:
Without interactive deck crew? The arbritrary selectiveness to which a desire for realism is applied is what I find baffling. On account of lacking interactive deck crew, a simple bridle model/animation that interacts with the present shuttle is good enough.
Fair point.
-
I'd love this map, but I think we need to temper our hopes with some realism about our collective computing power and map-makers' time. Do we really think ED hasn't seen the 470K posts clamoring for Vietnam? Do we really imagine that if such a map was quick to make and easy on our graphics cards, that ED would hold back simply out of malice or the failure of imagination that this map might be a money maker. Come on, guys.
Any Vietnam map worth making would be huge. And if you want F-4E / F-105 bases, you need Thailand which is separated from North Vietnam by a third country, Laos.
TLDR
For context, see my comparison to existing maps in the Middle East. You can probably quibble over my definitions of the existing map edges; I made this before Cyprus. But it doesn't change that Vietnam is bigger than most people realize and certainly bigger than today's maps. Off the bat, you have to drop 90% of South Vietnam.
.
So I toyed around with Google maps to just see what a "minimum" Vietnam Map might look like. I encourage anyone to check / correct my work, but this is what I came up - a 600km x 800km box. I believe this is broadly equivalent, probably a bit larger than the Cyprus-Syria map. (Again, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) I believe South Atlantic will be larger, but then that also has a lot of the... Atlantic.
So let's do edge patrol. Coming down the eastern edge, Blue Air could have the Navy and Marine jets flying from whatever carrier model you parked at Yankee Station or fly from Da Nang. I placed the borders to include these two "bases". Chu Lai was a major Marine A-4 base. I believe Pleiku was more a SAR / FAC base. But, you've got to put the border some place. Other bases like Cam Ranh are way south.
Moving west along the southern edge, you leave Vietnam, cross Laos, and enter Thailand. The map borders shown just include Ubon. If you're thinking F-4s and F-105s, that primarily means Ubon, Korat, and Taklhi. If you look really carefully, there's an unlabelled red dot for Korat at Nakhon Ratchasima. And if you look to the left of the "T" in Thailand, that red dot is Takhli. Col Olds and his 'stache were based at Ubon.
Moving up the western edge, you have Udorn. This was mainly a recce base, but had F-4s for much of the war including 555th. I'm guessing you could fly E models from here during the '72 Easter Offensive. Stretching the map west to Udorn also nets us Dien Bien Phu for our French friends.
I'd argue this is an extremely heavy (graphically intensive) map. Beyond the air bases, you'd need to model the urban areas of Hanoi, Haiphong and Hue. Pretty much anything green corresponds with mountain ranges when you compare relief maps. That white bit around Dien Bien Phu and Son La are also quite mountainous even if they appear white on this map. If you're thinking Laos must be all mountains, well yeah... Half this map by surface area is mountains and highlands. There's also plenty of rain forest, bamboo, sawgrass and the like covering those mountains and valleys. What's the ratio of trees to frame rate?
For multiplayer, I think there might have been an airstrip in Dong Hoi, due west of Yankee Station. If you want air quake, maybe you make Khe Sanh and Dong Hoi your blue-red bases. For "authentic" air missions, your blue and red bases are mainly 500-600km apart. Haifa to Adana / Incirlik is around 470km for reference. Even this "minimum" map to get you a little of everything is huge.
Hopefully, ED gets there one day. Day 1 purchase, right? But to say we're disappointed in ED seems a bit much.
-
13
-
7
-
-
At 0:55, I see tail code JJ 279.
From a ZOTZ decal sheet, this is Wreckin' Crew. 67-0279 Block 34. First flight in June 1968. Transferred to 388th TFW 34th TFS. Based in Korat, Thailand in 1969. Presumed lost to AAA over Laos June 30, 1970.
Photo below looks like it might be from one of the Squadron books. (It's not from the decal sheet I mention above.)
The HB FAQ does say the classical version would be block 36-45 before anyone takes this YT video becomes an admission of an imminent Thailand-Laos-Vietnam map. (Assuming the hype train hasn't already achieved escape velocity.)
-
3
-
-
If you get a Falklands map from Razbam with matching assets (before ED develops any of the 80s era escorts), you could probably use a Type 12 / Type 21 / Type 22 Frigate or County-Class / Type 42 Destroyer. Probably not for the whole battle group, but I wouldn't think 1 or 2 RN vessels mixed into the battle group would be out of sort.
-
On 9/20/2021 at 5:05 PM, Harlikwin said:
Not to bag on spain, since I'm not sure what war they might have fought. In morroco I guess?
In Wikipedia, the Mirage F1's "Spain" entry starts with:
"In June 1975, with tension growing with Morocco, Spain decided to strengthen its Air Force and bought 15 Mirage F1C that were allocated to Albacete AB. In mid-1976 there was still some tension with Morocco and Algerian and Libyan MiG-25 flights on the Mediterranean, which would lead the Spanish Air Force to purchase ten more Mirage F1C and two years later order 48 Mirage F1C and F1E."
As Stratos mentioned, Spain still has some small coastal enclaves on Morocco's northern coast. There's also Western Sahara, formerly Spanish Sahara. Detentions of Spanish fishing vessels. (Link > Four years of Spanish-Moroccan incidents | Spain | THE COUNTRY (elpais.com) And the Ifni war in '57. I had no idea before tonight that was a thing.
In a what-if history, what is Portugal's Carnation Revolution never happened and Franco hung on another decade. Say Spain could have bucked MacMillan's "Wind of Change" and hung on to Cape Juby ('58), Ifni ('69), and Spanish Sahara ('75) past 1975. This might have placed the Spaniards and their brand new F1s in conflict variously with the Polisario, Moroccans and Mauritanians. Spanish F1s probably wouldn't have expended many Exocets on the Polisario Navy though which is what I think started this little sidebar.
The Moroccans also fought the Polisario in Western Sahara from 1975-1991 (including with Mirage F1's of their own). Maybe the Polisario, with Algerian support (see Sand War), partially destabilized Morocco. Pulling in some threads from above, Spanish involvement might first have started with concern about their citizens in Ceuta and Melilla before being pulled in more deeply. Maybe escalating over something like SPS Almirante Ferrandiz getting strafed. (Link > A Spanish destroyer, machine-gunned in Sahara waters by a Moroccan aircraft | Spain | THE COUNTRY (elpais.com)
In these alternate histories, you could ignore the Polisario and pit Spain against Morocco. Or Spain might take on belligerent neutrality in a multi-sided conflict with Morocco and Polisario / Algeria.
Or in a more classical Cold War plot, a proxy war would develop and begin sucking in more and more material support and "advisors" / "volunteers". The East on Algeria's / Polisario's side and the West on Morocco's side. Look up Western Sahara / Polisario SA-6s shooting down Moroccan F1s from Algeria, Cuban interventions in Africa including Algeria, Moroccan-pro-US relations, etc to see real life Cold War elements playing out. Hanging in the balance would be whether the a pro-western or pro-eastern bloc power sets up shop at the Strait of Gibraltar. France would be in an interesting spot having interests in both Morocco and Algeria, the latter despite Algeria's armed independence in 1962. France was also in that half-in / half-out phase of Nato involvement, though I guess things were mending since '66.
In fairness, if something like that flared too hot on NATO's figurative doorstep, they'd stomp that fire out in no time. But we're all entitled to our "facts." Is it any less believable than parking your DCS Supercarrier off of Poti and launching Alpha Strikes on Krasnodar? (Live and let live guys. Except in MP.
)
In a "real life" timeline, once into the 90s, I guess Spanish Mirages might serve as part of a NATO scenario or UN Peacekeeping mission?
-
3
-
-
Alouette III's not my favorite rotorcraft, and she probably isn't the prettiest girl in the room. But she served in multiple smaller conflicts. In addition to Argentina above, Wikipedia claims Pakistan used them in '71 and that Rhodesia and S Africa both used them extensively in their Bush Wars. South Korea apparently sank a spy ship with one.
The Portuguese used them effectively in their Guerra do Ultramar. The PoAF fielded several versions, "cannibal" troop carriers to insert paratroopers and "big bad wolf" gunships as they experimented with fighting insurgencies on a budget. I wouldn't mind having them alongside IndiaFoxtEcho's coming G-91 Gina.
This post isn't intended to argue it's DCS superiority to any of the other candidates in rkk01's list, only to show that the Alouette III may have done more than people give her credit for.
On 8/24/2021 at 2:25 AM, rkk01 said:Despite Argentine use, the Alouette wouldn’t be high up my list for a Falklands helo…
How about:
Lynx
Wasp
Sea King (WS-61, not S-61)
Wessex
Puma
Scout
Chinook
-
2
-
-
Older photos / examples (late 60s thru early 80s) of Portuguese G-91R4s have a wire aerial from the back of the cockpit to 2/3 of the way up the vertical stabilizer. See preserved example below. (Photo credits to Carlos de Oliveira and Paulo Antunes)
I haven't noticed this aerial on Italian R1s and German R3s, nor have I seen it on any preserved German R4s. Perhaps it's a small thing, but that suggests that at least the radio is different on the Portuguese R4s.
On another note, can anyone identify that 4-tube rocket launcher on the outboard pylons? There are plenty of Angolan theater photos that show it, but I have no idea about manufacturer, diameter, etc.
-
4
-
-
My interests span both DCS and plastic scale modeling, but I'm struggling to find much English-language detail either on the internet or in current print.
How did the Gina evolve over it's service life? From context on some of the modelling sites, it sounds like there was a "flat" canopy and a bulged canopy? (Specifically, I'm talking Romeos, not Yankees or the raised back seats on the Tango.) Maybe changes in the ejection seat over their life. Changes to the aerials. Does anyone have any insight into what those changes were and when they were implemented? How uniform were the three main users' fleets?
And of course, what is being modelled here for DCS?
-
1
-
-
@xvii-Dietrich, thanks for cross-posting.
-
2
-
-
Did you mean the BO-105?
xvii-Dietrich has been gathering up the various MilTech-5 and Razbam Discord news and pasting here in the BO-105 subforum.
-
Historic in the sense that the FBVI flew them, though maybe not historic in a famous / iconic moment sense.
Intruder / Flower / Ranger missions as described in Dave McIntosh's "Terror in the Starboard Seat"
V1 hunting
Train busting
Coastal Command rocket attacks on shipping
Also, didn't several squadrons support the Dieppe Raid as well?
-
@DD_Fenrir, According to 418 Squadron | Royal Canadian Air Force Association (rcafassociation.ca), RCAF 418 was at RAF Ford in Sussex from Mar-43 to Apr-44. The same page claims 418 operated the Mosquito Mk2 from Mar-43 to Nov-44. The FB Mk VI after that.
Reading "Terror in the Starboard Seat" by F/O David McIntosh now on another poster's recommendations. In Chapter 5, McIntosh mentions the Poles flying Mossies out of Ford at the same time as 418.
McIntosh's last OTU training flight was two days before D-Day. He describes stopping at the pub enroute back to 418 and finding (for once) that it wasn't overrun with service members. (They had all had their leave cancelled or were landing on Normandy.) By this date, the squadron had moved to RAF Holmsley South.
-
1
-
-
@L-1011, watch Tactical Pascale's interview of Razbam if you haven't already.
Link: DCS WORLD | South Atlantic Map: Interview with the RAZBAM development team. - YouTube
@ 5:25 - area of map
@ 7:10 - map edge relative to Rio Gallegos (the map above was released after the interview)
@ 9:20 - when will it be released?
@ 10:20 - what time does the map depict
@ 12:00 - devs thoughts on scenarios that could be created
@ 22:24 - list of naval assets
@ 23:05 - list of vehicles
@ 23:30 - some cool statistics about the development
@ 25:25 - modeling cities in DCS
@ 40:40 - some airfields actually mentioned (Stanley, MPA, Port San Carlos, Rio Gallegos, Rio Grande, Ushuaia)
@ 42:30 - processing power vs map detail
@ 44:45 - F-15E Strike Eagle (Pascale tried)
-
2
-
1
-
-
Early Cold War?
F4D-1 Skyray - a notable, if slightly obscure, early supersonic carrier-borne fighter
F11F Tiger - like the Skyray, it was quickly surpassed by the Crusader and others, but I think it's beautiful aircraft; had a long career with the Blue Angels
F6 / FGA9 Hunter - I think a more marketable selection (but the Skyray's still my pick)
-
1
-
-
I think most Phantom phans can rationalize two versions, presumably one naval version and one land-based version. And ideally, the more commonality there is between versions, the easier a time any developer would have.
But when you read up, it's crazy how many variations there are in various Phantom versions, even while staying within a Navy path or a AF path. If you look at the E model, it's obvious that it has a gun and a different radar in the nose. But I had forgotten how many more subtle airframe differences there were.
B/N's had thin wings. USAF C/D/E's and USN J/S's had bulged wings to accommodate fatter tires.
B's through D's had inboard leading edge flaps that E's and J/S's lacked. Apparently the N's had them fixed closed. These changes aren't to be confused with the leading edge slats that late E's and S's got.
Apparently late B's through the Navy line had slotted LE's on their stabilators for slow speed handling back to the deck. The USAF models wouldn't have needed these as much, though the E model appears to have them. I think there's even another variation with the stiffeners / double plates halfway back the airfoil.
The E's and J's picked up a #7 fuel cell, I believe at the rear end of the spine. That apparently helped maintain the center of gravity with the E's longer nose and the weight of the gun. I'm not sure what the J did with the added weight vs COG.
The UK K & M variants started life as J's, but the larger Spey engines required changes to the fuselage. If you look at the "waterline" created by wing, the Spey-engined Phantoms draw a deeper "draft". The inlets are apparently larger and deeper to accommodate more mass flow, though I can't admit to having noticed it before. The Spey-powered jets were faster accelerating than J79-powered variants, but had slower max speeds despite having ~15% more thrust. I'm guessing from the extra drag? The UK versions had auxiliary inlet doors on the sides to allow more air while taxiing. I'm not sure if these replaced or were in addition to the auxiliary doors found on the belly of J-79 Phantoms. Finally, there was that crazy long nosewheel strut on the K's.
There are other mechanical differences between the US and USAF versions like basket vs boom refuelling, the inboard pylons or the catapult bridle hooks at the wing root. That doesn't even get into the "bumps and bulges" for your various ECM and RHAW antenna.
A lot of people have talked about the different avionics, and yeah... that's major even staying within type like early, mid, and late E. But even the "easy" stuff like the 3D models and the FM's will have significant differences depending on what versions you're talking about.
-
What "essential" F-4 functions can only be performed in the back seat? Supposedly, in the F-15E and in merc-flown Mi-24s, the pilot can do it all. Certainly in all of the early marks of the F-4, the RIO / WSO was necessary to run the radar and weapon systems. As more upgrades were rolled out, did that ever change? IIRC, I think Belsimtek was thinking a block 55, plus or minus.
What about other nations' upgrades? ICE, Kurnass, Kai, Peace Icarus, et al. Many of them included more modern radars and partial glass cockpits.
-
Miles, out of curiosity, what were the issues with C101 and rockets? (You said only guns and Mk82s.)
Also, what about P-47 as a better stand-in for A-1 and T-28 Trojan?
-
Nicely done, guys.
-
1
-
-
Easy guys. It looks like multiple, apparently archived sections were dredged up with the replatforming of the Forums. Maybe since F-15E is in development, they've decided to leave it open. But as someone pointed out, the majority of the posts are years old.
I remember also seeing an A-7 section under Razbam (immediately after the migration) even though I haven't seen that for the last two years coming here and furthermore with FlyingIron being announced as developing it earlier this year. I think there was also a "MilSim" 3rd party pitching a F-104 as well. Looked like some of the guys who are now IndiaFoxtrotEcho, and again, years old.
-
myHelljumper, when you look at aviation photo sites like Jetphotos.com and Airliners.net, you do find lots of M2000s with exhausts as you've shown. But you also find photos of much darker exhausts and shiny ones as well. The Brazilian jet's exhaust is extremely dark. Both AdA jet's exhaust look dark and shiny to my eye. And the HAF jet's exhaust is very bright, but I showed since it's quite shiny. It seems all the exhausts (yours and these here) all look quite different depending on age, maintenance, light, and even photographer's Adobe Lightroom edits.
Either way, hope we can all enjoy the Mirage eye-candy. :)
All credits to the respective photographers.
-
Thanks for the update Specter. I wouldn't have known to check the original post for the photos.
Also, back in October, you mentioned that "the ocean is not free." Can you elaborate on what about the ocean is consuming resources? Moreso than topography, vegetation, cities, etc?
-
With respect, PC's FB post was apparently sent on Saturday. That post shared the photo of the week and news of the setback. Social media being what it is, word traveled to the the second poster, within three hours apparently. And within a few more hours of the initial FB post, PC had issued a further message on FB to calm down an put the pitchforks away.
If you look at the time stamps, it seems likely to me that PC clocked in Monday morning, posted their appeal for calm in this thread and then seven minutes later, posted the latest photo of the week. PC has been posting those photos of the week in this forum for three months now. It seems pretty likely to me that if not Saturday, then Monday... when they were "back at the office"... that they'd post here.
Is it really that egregious that that PC didn't post here on the Forums until Monday morning? It's not as if a school, the police, or a hospital had news about your child being in an accident and simply chose not to contact you. As crazy as we all are for DCS, the the news of the setbacks aren't the same level of urgency. If this comment comes off as ugly, it's not meant to be.
But genuinely, I wonder at what our expectations are and what we feel entitled to know and when.
-
I was reading about the Sea Harrier this week and it prompted me to check out the Harrier Special Interest Group website. (I have a couple unbuilt plastic Harrier kits in the stash.)
http://www.harriersig.org.uk/index.htm?LMCL=yWNy8i
Under the modelling section, these was an attachment showing Gen 1 Harrier Ordnance. The chart shows that for both the GR3 and the FRS1, the British 1000 lb bomb can be carried by all four wing pylons and also on the centerline pylon. But the Paveway LGB 1000 lb bomb is only carried on the outer wing pylons.
Why is that? Is that a matter of aerodynamics at release (like QuiGon mentioned)? Is it a dimensional incompatibility (eg USN A-4s, A-6s, A-7s etc all have different tail fin configurations for the common Douglas 300/400 gallon tanks because one config or the other interferes with the flaps, strikes the ground, or limits access to a particular access panel)? Or was it due to wiring and systems integration, etc?
I know the Harrier's a bit off topic, but I think the question posed here relates to the original post?
-
Mirage III
in RAZBAM
@Baco, did you see this post from =DECOY= ?
https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4485250#post4485250
All those Falklands / Malvinas relevant 3D models shown off by Razbam would appear to be AI assets for their South Atlantic Map first.
So... if you're trying not to get your hopes up, multiply by two and add three.
Eg, when my friends would ask when I'm leaving the office for Happy Hour, "just 5 more minutes" usually turned into 13 minutes. Two weeks in DCS World is more like 7 weeks. And if I think that new module should realistically be 24 months of effort, I plan on at least 51 months. :thumbup:
Helps me manage expectations. :D
What other modifications/variants will we get?
in DCS: F-4E Phantom
Posted
@Bremspropeller, what is aileron-droop and how is it different from on the other models? Is that something to do with spoilers & “flaperons”?
I do love many of the RAF liveries. Maybe my second favorite library of F-4 paint schemes after the JASDF.