Richard Dastardly
-
Posts
383 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Richard Dastardly
-
-
I'd much preferred it if ED would create modules of planes that are currently (or still) in service - so that ED could also benefit from military/government contracts to create desktop simulators for official use. We - the player base - would then in turn receive the "de-classified" module for peanuts (as we usually do).
ED have proven themselves with full fidelity modules of modern aircraft ( F-16, F/A-18 ), and I would love to see this trend continue where possible.
So for me personally, I love WWII warbirds, and then there's a large gap of disinterest, until we hit the 1980/1990 and beyond in military aviation.
So you actively want to buy modules for a study sim that you *know* are incorrect? what makes you think anything about a new aircraft would be declassified anyway?
And yeah, old does not mean easy - old just means more involving, imo. Standoff weapons & absurdly sophisticated air defence systems keep you very remote from the task, which might be great if your life is on the line ( I sure as hell would prefer shooting from my side of the border ) but in a game, not the same visceral thrill as dodging AAA at 100ft on a cold-war era run in. We don't have the thrill of flying the aircraft, we have to get it from somewhere.
LGBs and targetting pods are pretty old, certainly way before 1993 - but the old pods were shockingly bad compared to current ones.
-
2
-
-
Well, you're assuming the performance matches the exhaust config :P let's hope we get everything we want.
-
Wait for Vulkan, a lot more things may be possible then.
-
Takeoff assist seems to try and correct swing on takeoff, but all it seems to actually do is fight you while you're taxiing. If someone saves a mission with it on it overrides everyone else's settings in MP, too...
One of the recent GR vids has a whole bunch of spits taking off ok &... most of them landing ok :p I don't think anyone there flies props regularily.
-
There is one problem with focusing post Desert Storm era - it will be impossible to model any Russian ~2000 year full fidelity plane. Even one.
No Su-27SM or Su-30SM3. No MiG-29M. No Su-34.
Focusing on mid 2000s means US planes only. US Air Force vs US Navy.
That's why i prefer air campaigns up to Desert Storm when it is possible to model both sides.
Like WWII, Korea, 6 day war, Vietnam war, Jom Kippur war, Falkland war, Lebanon air campaign, Desert Storm.
There's always Cold War what-if for any part of it, obviously. We did nearly go fiull red vs blue several times ( 1983 was a very very scary year ). GW1 was more or less still cold war, state of the art on the coalition side & a decade or two behind on the other...
-
I use the pinkie button. Works good enough. Wonder if an actual paddle would make a big difference?
I use a hat on my throttle so I can increment/decrement it, but it's a lot more awkward than it needs to be I think. I also bound a toe brake but for some reason it doesn't feel right at all there & I can't get used to it. Keeping the brakes somewhere around half on does make life a bit easier when taxiing around, at least. If my tomcat grip ever shows up I'll have to try the paddle on it.
-
US F-4s could operate off UK carriers - there's a pic of one on Hermes of all things somewhere, that was a rather brave landing ( this is obviously not something done operationally! ). The RAF had a few F-4J as well in the 80s.
First thing first I think there needs to be an API for multicrew designed & implemented, then there's no reinventing the wheel. After that the possibilities are large. Phantom, A-6, Buccaneer, Tornado, F-111, Su-24, Canberra just to throw out a few.
As far as financing goes, I am of the belief the F-16 financed this year's development already, hence no new jets.
-
You get used to the VRS after a while, I tend not to hover when landing until I'm literally about to land, unless I've stopped into a hover for another reason. You can land rolling if it's too big an issue anyway. Haven't noticed the collective being particularily nervous, I use the RH warthog throttle( reversed ) for it. It is a pretty powerful helicopter...
-
Razbam are attempting the Falklands conflict - if you look at all the work they have to do you can see how even something as limited as that is going to take years, I'd hate to think what Korea would take. I agree with the sentiment behind the wish though. Gulf War 1 would be a wonderful sweet spot I reckon.
WW2 asset pack being seperate means servers using it are empty, it's easy to see it happening. Annoying too for those of us who want populated WW2 servers, unfortunately. Trying to persuade people to try the piston fighters and have them buy an asset pack on top is an uphill struggle :(
-
me too. I don't have toe brakes on my pedals so taxiing the spitfire is a dream compared to the other warbirds
The Mossie & the Typhoon ( if it's happening - was in the kickstarter plane list iirc ) should be the same. I think I need to get a stick grip with a spring-loaded paddle, who does one of those?
The Spit ground handling is probably not challenging enough tbh, a lot of reports about how easy it was to overheat it... I can live without that for now, I'm not likely to ever fly a real Spit. Even less likely to taxi one, come to think of it.
-
lack of power?? I think you haven't flown p-51 with 100% fuel
I absolutely have, but not really tried dogfighting in one like that :p yes, it's certainly a hippo at full fuel. The Spit is awesome until someone just runs away from it. We can't have everything though - added weight for bigger engines turned the later Spits into B&Z fighters.
Isnt a seafire almost identical to MkIX?Not really. The originals were Spit V with strengthened fuselage aft, so the handling changed a bit, and there were some engine upgrades ( so *sortof* like a IX ) - then the later ones were Griffon-engined & made up of bits of other versions ( wings & most of fuselage from seafire III which was basically Spit V, tail of the Spit VIII ) and some changes for naval use like different undercarriage.
Eric Brown considered the XIV the best Spit, but then he was a crazy test pilot :) others called it overpowered & somewhat hard to keep hold of. I like the sound of that though.
-
Ground effect should just make you floaty, I'd say that's turbulence. The Hornet does do the opposite of "floaty" at really low level though, in my experience...
-
I find it an absolute joy in the air - combat wise the only issue is lack of power for much of the time - got used to it's ground handling somewhat but I'd not say it's something I enjoy taxiing around. I do have a Virpil base & some Crosswind rudder pedals though.
Anyone complaining about the IX is going to have a shock if we ever get a XIV...
-
Does this version of Hind Mi-24 have guided ATGM's ? I ask because if I understand the wiki page, this version might be using the 9K114 Shturm (AT-6 spiral) guided ATGM... does that sound right? Any idea how many it would carry?
I would think four or eight, they go on the tips or the outboard stations(?) - it's not reaaaaaly it's job, which is why the Havoc exists. We're getting a P model, which is one of the later versions. I'm curious if you can use older pods with it, ie everything you can throw on a Mi-8 like the MG pods.
-
MK 14 Griffon Spitfire, then i can smack the 109s that outclimb, out dive and out speed everything.
Not only enormously fast but the most demonic sound I've heared from a piston fighter -
( and looks awesome too ).Me 262
You're in luck, I believe it's been in the pipeline of the ETO project all along. Can't wait to set it on fire with overenthusiastic throttle, over and over and over...
-
1
-
-
"next helicopter for DCS World" implies it's more ready than the Kiowa, which we've seen flying around... I'm not sure I believe that statement 100% :p I mean, I'd love it if it was 100% true...
-
All right there on WikiP, apparently - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harrier_Jump_Jet_family_losses - suggests the USMC loss rate was better than the RAF rate for early models ( although the RAF were training in near-live conditions in Germany at the time ).
IIRC you don't do anything special to hover a F35B, just slow down to stop & it'll do it all for you.
Looks like a loss rate of 37/90 for Yak-38, from brief search. Ouch.
-
Keep one eye on the hud when you're trying to formate level, that way you can keep your velocity vector on the horizon line which will do wonders to reduce PIO. After a while you'll get the muscle memory to not overreact, but until then use it as an aid.
Unless you're trying to formate in a Spit, then you'll be ok until you randomly start oscillating all over the sky...
Formation flying while turning without any depth perception is horrible, not found a decent trick for that yet.
-
Does the rumour I heared that there's Sikorsky licensing issues have any truth to it?
The Seahawk is quite different to the Blackhawk, is it not?
-
Corsair for me. Others have mentioned it, but i want it so I can play the Bah Bah Blacksheep theme song every time I take it out for a spin! :) The siren, the snare drum, love it!
-
For sure things have moved on - on the other hand if you check the loss ratio of *any* cold war aircraft they look high by modern standards, mostly because of the crazily intense training. I grew up with so many combat jets doing high speed low level runs over my town ( I grew up in a training area ) that I stopped noticing them. I live in another training area now & there's hardly anything.
The F35's FBW is something the Harrier designers could only dream about - super sure they'd have fitted that if they could! same with any other Gen 3. I'd put money on that being the safety enhancement rather than the airframe design...
Out of curiosity I looked up the RAF Harrier losses - http://www.ukserials.com/losses_xref.htm - seems an awful lot of those were Harrier II, & rather fewer Harrier I than I expected. Is there some record of AV8A ( and Yak! ) losses around?
-
I'd expect a V-1, not really sure where a Stuka would fit with everything else we have - cannon fodder at this point. Lanc would be great but seems a little unlikely ( and why didn't they do a B-24 instead of a B-17... ). We are a bit short of runnable LW night fighters, unfortunately.
Maybe one day they'll do a central Med map, can use practically anything then, think what you could sell for it!
-
Skyraider.
Not realy a fighter, but:
- almost made it into WW2
- served in the Korean war
- served in Vietnam
- only aircraft that is said to have dropped a toilet in anger*
- carrier capable
- much more reasons
happy flying,
RR
Well, that's not a fighter *or* a WW2 aircraft, so that's rather ruled itself out of this thread. I mean, would be a great thing to have ( I'd fly the heck out of it ), but it doesn't fit 1944-45 Western Europe :)
Ugh now I've watched a ton of Griffon Spit vids I don't know if I want a late Seafire, a Spit 14, or previous choices....
-
The Seafire was a bit more than a Spit with a hook - the reinforcement for the rear fuselage changed the weight balance & they had longer undercarriage ( at least in the properly developed ones ) as well as folding wings - and the wartime ones were developed from the V originally, and then turned into a distinctly unique Griffon-powered version, so we're quite a long way away with our IX. A Seafire 15 or 17 would be awesome, but it'd be rather like the 190 Dora vs Anton.
I like the mannable towers, that surely shouldn't be difficult. Maybe we could have a usable gun there for fun.
DCS: Mi-24P - What we know + Discussion
in DCS: Mi-24P Hind
Posted
I stopped the video to look at it :p loadouts should be something we have in game already, though?