kseremak
-
Posts
171 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by kseremak
-
-
Agree with historical maps. Flying Sabre over skyscreapers and modern infrastructure feels wrong and kills immersion. WW2 has its own maps, cold war should have something as well.
-
3
-
-
For me original Swedish cold war JA37 Viggen as well. I don't care about classified modern D with modern avionics and weapons. In '80s enviroment it would be dangerous fighter, in '00 it would be outmatched and outdated.
-
7
-
-
Overall is should be airfield expandable, scrolling for ages right now is painful. It seems to be easy to implement.
-
2
-
-
Yes, it looks great. If buying Supercarrier module would upgrade Forrestal as well, Supercarrier module would have even more value. Win-win.
-
2
-
-
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.
-
2
-
-
Some jurnalist woman flies the Apache, i can imagine it has to be super easy
-
5
-
-
Remember with such configuration you can throw supercruise out of the window. Drag index of non semi recessed pylons is big.
-
1
-
-
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?
-
Both trailer and aircraft looks fantastic! Thanks for your work.
-
2
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
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?
-
1
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, KIllshot0597 said:
@upyr1If you didn't know there is a G.91 module being developed by Inda Foxt Echo, Leatherneck's F-8J, Flying Iron Simulation's A-7E, Mig-23 by Razbam, Mirage F.1 by Aegres. Pretty good and diverse roster of early to to mid cold-war era modules under development!
Also of note is a Mig-17 by Red Star simulations. With Red Star Simulations they are aspiring to be a 3rd party and aren't official yet, so at the very least treat their Mig-17 project as a mod as of now.Also A-6 Intruder by Heatblur, Bolkov 105 and Sea Harrier by Razbam, MiG-29A by ED, probably Su-17 by other developer.
-
1
-
2
-
-
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
-
1
-
-
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.
-
2
-
-
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
-
13 hours ago, SharpeXB said:
Since the AGM-154 is supposed to be a stand-off weapon meant to attack from outside the range of air defenses, does it make sense that the bomb itself can be targeted and destroyed by enemy SAMs?
Before this stand-off weapons there were dedicated low level strike aircrafts like A-6 Intruder, Tornado GR.1, F-111, Su-24 for the same mission. Ground strike deep into the enemy territory, at all weather and at night. They fly at minimum altitude using terrain following radars and inertial navigation, there were hard to detect and attack during the late cold war, but it were not impossible to target with systems of the era in right circumstances.
They have been replaced by stand-off weapon using very similar flight profile having smaller RCS but they were still possible to detect and attack in right circumstances due to the technological progress.
Another thing is JSOW, SLAM-ER and similar are quite modern systems and we will never know if radars of that era were able to reliably detect them, from what distance, angle and so on. It's simplified. Developers have chosen to make them possible to detect from some distance and we should accept that because we will never find the real data.
-
1
-
-
AWACS will require some singificant overall rework. ED probably has this on their list, but since they have their resources streched thin already, working hard on many different things at this moment i thing we will have to wait some time.
-
On 8/3/2021 at 4:01 PM, Lurker said:
What is the typical engagement range of the Apache? Several km's away when using Hellfires? What about when it's being used in a close air support role against infantry? I really have no idea, I'm genuinely curious at how the Apache is used in it's close air support role, considering that it's cannon is mostly an area suppression weapon.
In low intensitiy conflict Apache can simply orbit even at 6,000-10,000ft and "rain hate with impunity", without any risk, but i doubt it's exciting at all.
In more interesting scenario with at least partially organized military, like second Gulf War, against mixed threats, like raid at Karbala, things are way more interesting and less obvious. Apache had to fly low not to get taken by SAM, being constantly shoot at with small caliber weapon from different directions and it was not possible to simply chose and dictate the engagement distance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala
-
3
-
-
Mi-24P is operational since early '80s. Mi-28N since around 2010, 30 years later, this was the first production Mi-28 version. I doubt it's even remotely possible. It would be way more recent than AH-64D which is in development.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Mainstay said:
I really hope Heatblur picks up the MiG-25 and 29
ED initially anounced unofficially the MiG-29 9.12, they want to make it after the Hind, they are eager to work on this one, they have real life MiG-29 pilots to cooperate, it's going to be a great and realistic module. We need to wait for the official announcment, probably after the well-deserved holidays guys have after the Hind release.
I have to admit Heatblur's MiG-25PD would be outstanding. They are working on the 2 unannounced modules to be released before EF and A-6. MiG-25 might be one of them.
-
1
-
1
-
-
52 minutes ago, upyr1 said:
That's my point the available tech level should have been determined by Russian and Chinese law. However that ship sailed long ago. I want the early version c.
F-15C MSIP from 1985, counterpart of our Su-27S from 1985 would be the best. It was used in first Guld War achieving more than 30 kills. It was the last variant used by USAF in real combat.
-
2
-
1
-
Unified co-pilot AI for all DCS helicopters.
in DCS Core Wish List
Posted
Agree!