Jump to content

kseremak

Members
  • Posts

    168
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kseremak

  1. And that is just as it have to be. Cold war was only time when Soviet aircrafts (even if worse than western but compensated with greater numbers) were able to challenge western aviation - if you can't make perfectly realistic model of modern plane why do you even want to fly it in realistic simulation? It could be just spaceship from Star Wars as well... If only way to keep modern aviation fans is giving them WT realism than they better go and play WT - what is the point of creating another semisimulation?
  2. Maybe that kind of discussions are common because DCS is a game so it have to give some kind of fun for online players and reality is just cruel and "not fair" - Soviet/Russian fighters were always about ten to fifteen years behind the western counterparts which may not be funny during online gaming but simulation is a simulation there is nothing that can be done to change it without sacrificing realism... And uncompromising realism is the strongest point of DCS, kind of it's trademark so destroying it will be sad end of DCS.
  3. Overall is should be airfield expandable, scrolling for ages right now is painful. It seems to be easy to implement.
  4. This, i hope ED will be able to make full fidelity Soviet 9.12 after all.
  5. Yes, it looks great. If buying Supercarrier module would upgrade Forrestal as well, Supercarrier module would have even more value. Win-win.
  6. I also have the impression some modules cockpits are not scaled properly being smaller or bigger than they should be. ED should spend a few hours to adjust them.
  7. Some jurnalist woman flies the Apache, i can imagine it has to be super easy
  8. Remember with such configuration you can throw supercruise out of the window. Drag index of non semi recessed pylons is big.
  9. Does it mean F-14A and B are too heavy right now in pylon-less configurations, like 4 Sparrows between engines or clean? Or too light in Phoenix and pylons configuration?
  10. Both trailer and aircraft looks fantastic! Thanks for your work.
  11. Why this is even a problem in DCS? Even old or very simplified sims had this implemented. ED has some true magicians in their coding department, they are implementing grossly more complicated things than time delay fuse, i doubt this would be a problem for them.
  12. I don't want to argue or anything, i just wanted to say, regardless of classified systems, even the very existence of more than 1 such MiG-29K in a mission would be a fiction. I like the plane i like also the XB-70 Valkirie, Yak-141, AH-56 Cheyenne but i don't think they should be modeled in DCS because it would be a fiction and alternative history. Even the least historically relevant and closest to prototype aircrafts like Su-25T or Ka-50 were bought by the military even if this were only some 8-10 aircraft series and used i combat in at least one conflict. I just think before the 9-31 or similar it would be better to make full fidelity MiG-29 9.12, MiG-25PD, MiG-27, MiG-21F-13, Su-7, Su-17M, Su-24, Su-25, Su-27S and so on. Non-military prototypes or test aircrafts later when DCS will run out of real, produced, combat used aircrafts options run out.
  13. I have found Yefim Gordon's book "Famous Russian Aircraft MiG-29", there is a quite detailed chapter about the MiG-29K 9-31. A few informations: There were two prototypes built nr 311 and 312, neither was production aircraft, both were different - the first didn't have a weapon control system and the second (nr 312) was grounded after only six flights of the trials. MiG-29K didn't complete its state acceptance trials. (Su-27K completed acceptance trials, it was selected and ordered by the USSR military as the Su-33, entering production in 1989.) MiG-29K didn't manage to reach maturity before the huge budget cuts sealed its fate, it not only didn't take part in any combat but it wasn't even bought by the military, not a single aircraft. The prototype remained property of the MiG company.
  14. I didn't even remember such things existed. Both looks fun to fly. When you think about is British aviation industry was really important even after the WW2, many groundbreaking, very innovative or at least really solid aircrafts like English Electric Lighting interceptor with two engines set one over the other, Avro Vulcan and Victor heavy bombers with advanced aerodynamics, Harrier Jump Jet the first operational VTOL, Tornado GR.1 low level strike aircraft with advanced navigation.
  15. I'm under the impression guys are quoting each other arguing, but i see practically everyone propose more or less the same: full fidelity Cold War / Desert Storm F-15A/C/C+ So what all this argument is about if practically everyone want the same?
  16. Classic Soviet 9-12, concave upper fuselage blended in one line with the back of the canopy, the best slick look Late Soviet 9-13, small humpback, broken canopy-fuselage line, still ok look Russian SMT 9-17, humpback, ugly
  17. I would say that's the reason i want the classic 9.12 (and maybe 9.13 in the future if they would have a full documentation) and not more modern "prototypes". In my humble opinion 9.12 with concave upper fuselage looks perfect and it's by far the most relevant all over the world all different wars.
  18. There was very similar topic some time ago, conclusion was, overall Russian aircraft is now even less possible than it was a year ago due to the new and even more restrictive Russian law. 9.31 was the older type tested in 1988-89, not the 2010-2014 new MiG-29K with 2 seat canopy? There were only TWO prototypes built... Soviets would have to develop the aircraft substantially to make it combat ready fully operational jets. They didn't even finish the tests when the USSR collapsed and the Russian military ordered only Su-33. So many systems and avionics would have to be unrealistic or plain fiction. How many pilots were flying this 2 prototypes? One or two? Good luck trying to find them and to convince them to cooperate. Did someone even see any pilot manual for this 9.31? But ED want to model original MiG-29 9.12 after the Hind if everything is going according to plan.
  19. I've seen an interview with US Navy pilot flying in Aggressor Squadron on the F-16C Block 30 mimicking Soviet Su-27 and MiG-29 fighters. He said the F-16 had very substantial advantage in BFM and there was very hard for the F-14 pilots to hold their own. But this were Cold War light F-16 versions, with gun removed. Later F-16 were much heavier and F-16 lost it's BFM edge. What is more their purpose in Aggressor Squadron was to push the F-14 guys really hard to teach them, not to win to score the point.
  20. I don't have such problems playing VR Reverb. Of course DCS engine has been created before the VR practical implementation and some things are far from perfect, but i appreciate what ED did and what i have. There is a room for improvement, but i'm sure ED is working on that. Many ED nad 3rd party developers use mostly VR in DCS. In example F-14 or Mi-24 look outstanding in VR.
  21. I share this sentiment, "War on Terror" era was boring, old planes modernised endlessly, practically zero interesting warfare or air combat with aircraft of both sides being shoot down. I can't wait for my dream Forrestal carrier deck with F-14A fighters, A-6E Intruder Bombers and A-7E Corsair attackers, it's coming. Or slightly earlier with F-8 Crusaders and F-4 Phantoms instead of Tomcats. Late Vietnam. Maybe also slightly later with F/A-18A instead of A-7E. Not the Toyota Prius Station Vagon like someone said.
  22. Also A-6 Intruder by Heatblur, Bolkov 105 and Sea Harrier by Razbam, MiG-29A by ED, probably Su-17 by other developer.
  23. I agree. And there is a lot more than that to model AIM-120 even is semi realistic way (semi realistic = using only declassified data). Like MPR / HPR radar modes, dynami lofting, way more parameters and shoot cues, more sophisticated (classified) guidance logic, autopilot, mid course update and so on. Right now firing an AMRAAM is like throwing a dart, maybe it's going to hit in such conditions, maybe it 's going to miss, who knows? Maybe i should remember at least MAR in every conditions? Another thing is we should remember this are all strictly classified systems, it can be done better and more in depth then it is right now in DCS (and i assume the developers plan to do some rework), but it will never be possible to model as realistic as let's say AIM-7 Sparrow, for obvious reasons. There is an old tutorial and even this is not realistic, it shows ONLY non-classified elements. Removed other sim reference - bignewy ( But it may be possible the developers are obliged not to disclose even non classified elements and it will never br possible to represent AMRAAM even in semi realistic way. I don't know.) EDIT: a propos Phoenixes and Meteors. Phoenix is being reworked to use the new missile API and it will be way less effective and way more realistic and in depth Meteor, i don't think it will be in DCS and even if, i don't believe it will have capabilities even close to the real missile, it could be just a longer legs AMRAAM
  24. Agree. '50s, a period when military aviation jumped from Subsonic F-86 and MiG-15, through supersonic F-100 and MiG-19 to Mach2 F-104, F-106 and MiG-21. Fascinatig aircrafts, challenging to fly.
  25. I would say the F-14 is everything F/A-18 isn't. If you didn't like the F/A-18 there is a significant chance you will like the F-14. Anaglog avionics vs Digital avionics Manual FC vs FBW Emphasis on flying vs emphasis on system management Very high flight performance vs medicore flight performance Cold War vs 2000s 2 seat wit RIO vs single seat
×
×
  • Create New...