Jump to content

GGTharos

Members
  • Posts

    33366
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Everything posted by GGTharos

  1. The eagle and flanker are definitely subject to repeated stress reducing airframe tolerance.
  2. Yes, it is done if it is necessary - not because of inspection specifically but because hot refueling and rearming is more dangerous - the engines can hurt people and everyone is running around with explosive and flammable things. You're probably also burning more fuel because arming takes time - even air to air missiles are huge and you only have so many people to move them and attach them. Unfortunately I don't have any useful sources for how it's done or why for you
  3. I would imagine it should be able to like any other aircraft, hot refueling and rearming is a 'thing' when necessary.
  4. I agree. Can't have the module without it, if it's not in I'm not buying.
  5. While this is a possible application, it is not reliable for a whole bunch of reasons. One of the things a SARH or ARH missile will do is force the radar return to follow certain parameters. You do not have this with an ARM, and targeting with an ARM may not be quite as precise. Either way as far as longer ranges go, SARH/ARH provide more information for guidance algorithms to fly a more efficient path. Any time you see something you believe is cool, but somehow it's not the primary thing being used (far from it in fact), take a moment and consider that there might be reasons for that
  6. No, it wouldn't be. This is an old topic and there's a lot of misunderstanding and misinterpretation involved with these seekers.
  7. Depends on the distance, but you're not far enough for it to be this huge. On the other hand, like I said, the closer you get to 90 deg the more effective chaff becomes in DCS. As for the R-73, I don't know what to tell you - intermittently this can happen (should it? shouldn't it?) but there's issues with low IR signature things in DCS, including helis.
  8. The A-10 has a low IR signature and in particular is designed to hide it's IR producing parts when launched on from below. In theory this will make countermeasures more effective. You don't need to do a stern conversion, it's not your only option. But that aircraft is definitely set up with robust defense in mind - your RF missiles are dealt with in the notch or near it, where chaff in DCS is most effective, and he's got plenty of flares out while you're shooting IRH.
  9. Poor tactics produce poor results. Both aircraft are shooting from a poor position with countermeasures in the missile's FoV and the target aircraft in the most advantageous position for itself. May have locked onto the 120 momentarily or never locked on. Were you using launch override?
  10. 12.5 for several seconds as recorded by internal sensors.
  11. The MiG-29 can fly patrols as well, but it would certainly seem to be the 'low' part of a high-low mix, with flanker being the 'high'. It's basically the F-16 to an F-15. If doing intercepts, IIRC initially at least it was expected to dash to its target within some 100km, throw all kinds of fireworks around, and then haul tail back to base. That's not necessarily all it can do or what it was specifically designed to do, because it is also a very capable BFM machine and had BVR at a time when F-16s mostly lacked that capability. It's basic characteristics mostly lend it to that type of action though. It also does a reasonable job of delivering air to ground ordnance, so there is that as well. There is a list published by someone (you probably know this better than I do) listing the RCS' of various DCS aircraft. You can probably do some reasonably easy math to determine the detection range according to the radar equation and that RCS Certainly 3rd party modules have now gone beyond this and there is a probabilistic detection game happening. FC3 does not have this, and I don't know if the ED FF birds do.
  12. Yes they do. It's just that the RCS assigned to many aircraft is the same or similar. I really have to wonder how you missed the detection range difference between say, a bomber and a fighter which is far more blatant than a slightly different RCS between fighters. That's because 'high flying targets' are just that, targets that don't know what they're doin beyond heading in some direction to try and catch something and lob a thing at it EOS itself should be plagued with false contacts as well, in particular if any clutter at all is present in the view, including clouds - that's one of them good reasons. The other good reason is that IRL these fights are flown with actual tactics, and no one's going to fly over known enemy territory without having eyes down that (or any) valley, and by eyes I do mean radar. Flying in a valley also means saying goodbye to your comms, including datalink - unless you have some form of a satellite terminal. In general, if you're GCI dependent you need LOS to your GCI and the other guy knows where you are anyway - so you can effectively kiss valley flying 'to be sneaky' goodbye IRL. It's not that you can't do it, but it's not going to be like DCS.
  13. Make certain the DLL is copied into DCS as per instructions. Launch Tobii Experience and Game Hub as administrator, before starting the game. That's what makes it work for me.
  14. Infinitesimally small, hehe. Right. If you want some measure realism, you need to make a commitment. People will play the way that suits them. That's all there is to it.
  15. They'll do PvP. So no, he doesn't mean just PvE. Aggressors exist for a reason. If you want to just sling sticks without risking having to turn circles in the air without action though then yeah, you might not enjoy those.
  16. He's not saying anything. Don't read into someone's wishes.
  17. We're not getting an SM though.
  18. MiG-29A (9.12, 9.12A) is not the same as a MiG-29 9.13 or MiG-29S (9.13S). While I don't know the difference between 9.12/9.12A, the 9.13 is physically different IIRC, and the 9.13S has a different radar and interface for it, for which there's no real documentation IIRC. The MiG-29G maybe is doable since it's a 9.12 with documented additions, IIRC.
  19. The F-15C we have isn't any particular F-15C. It's kinda-MSIP, like the flanker and MiG are kinda whatever model they are. The radar got about as fixed as it's going to get for FC3, it picks things up at F-15 ranges now. Hmm, admittedly I don't play against people who game the game, but I find that the 7s can be quite threatening. I agree, the AP needs to be looked into a bit deeper. I wonder if there's trouble with the PTC there or if it's something else. The landing gear is rated for 600fpm@36000lbs as per IRL spec and it achieves that last time I tested, which was some time ago. THe only time I've damaged it or suffered any ill effects is if I drove over some hidden problem on the taxiway/ruway, or if I've taxi'd too fast or took turns too fast. That implies you had already damaged them or opposition had damaged them. Ham-fisted flying. Yes, this is bit of a weird issue but I attribute it to the lack of deeper systems modeling and not a huge deal. All radars in DCS that are offered to players kinda suck as far as ECM goes. As for the below, the only thing I'd wonder about is your taxi/runway experience but it's easily explainable.
  20. Should not be possible to land in this condition (at least it would not be risked IRL) ... out of gas = fly to a safe ejection place and eject. The reasons for this (lack of hydraulic power and the resulting control transients) are not modeled in game.
  21. I would not, all the other stuff gives you SA when DL is not available.
  22. I would suggest that there may be something subtle at play here that we ca't really measure (but developers can) ... one semi-educated example could be g-onset. In the vast majority of cases, a more heavily laden aircraft should not be able to reach peak g as easily as a lighter version of itself, and it might not reach certain g loads at all. Because this requires careful examination of the available hydraulic power vs. resistance to the motion created by the airstream, it's a harder problem to analyze so I guess what I am trying to say is, maybe the problem isn't that the aircraft is breaking at those numbers, but that those numbers are reached too easily. Curves may be a potential work-around but they're not a great work-around compared to the physics simulation. There are other aircraft which have a 'lower' g-limit and they're not quite as fragile suggest this could use a more thorough investigation.
  23. This is an issue that everyone has to look at, even just to deal with it on a temporary basis. There are definitely things that RAZBAM can do.
  24. Without even an FF module, let's talk about the 'little things' that you could do, which would also translate to the Su-27 and MiG-29 to some degree, let's start with those: Sensors with more realistic search patterns and time required to execute those patterns (IRST vertical, looking at you) Sensors correctly placing the targets visually in the sensor display as the aircraft turns. Radar channel settings (which could lead to better ECM implementation) - channel settings can be chosen in the ME. Eagle specific: Hot/Cold symbols, cursor and target BRA/BULLS information, correct placement of NCTR data, waypoints on VSD, correct tws submodes using az-bump, and of course correct AACQ modes, including supersearch and GACQ. All of this without a full up FF module. Yes, there wouldn't be settings for anything but that's ok - I suppose no SIT page either, though it would be nice to get that.
  25. Glad to hear you're moving to a single version - that should at least end certain types of arguments. A bit OT, but related: Automated testing is a must. The current problem (and possibly relatively frequent problems) with mission editor triggers and such things for example, are prime candidates for building an automated test harness. You're in good company not having it so far (Maybe you do, but it appears obvious that this is just not a fact at this time) as there are loads of software out there that don't go through test automation and it really is challenging to automate, but I think you really need that automated regression. The quality of the software appears to have increased which is great, but unfortunately such bugs are very impactful, highly visible (at least to certain groups) and should be covered by automation because frankly , relying on humans for this tedium is a bad deal.
×
×
  • Create New...