Jump to content

GGTharos

Members
  • Posts

    33366
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Everything posted by GGTharos

  1. There is a lack of yaw/roll coupling, but this is DCS-wide. This probably affects the amount of stability based on various factors, and is easy to test by applying the auto-roll conditions, you'll see that you cannot produce an auto-roll.
  2. This ^ The thing about having a big warhead is that this is what is recommend against a bomber. DCS doesn't represent this sort of thing too well.
  3. Unfortunately I have no idea. I haven't flown the F-5E for a while now
  4. There's no 'transfer' - the missile seeker is cued to look in that direction and it does it's own work for locking the target. This is why pre-emptive flares should work. This mechanism doesn't really apply to DCS, at least not consistently.
  5. It wasn't the the first ship to get shwacked by an anti-ship missile because they were not expecting it/prepared to face that type of threat for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with what we assume the '5/25/50/m floor' means for a given SAM. The issue of dealing with sea-skimmers in particular has been written about since the 50's. @MBot makes a very good point here, these missiles aren't 'low probability to intercept', they're next to impossible to intercept. This is a DCS missile/SAM thing, not a an Rb04E thing though.
  6. It's 50km at medium-high altitude shot from M0.9 against a head-on (non maneuvering) target with the same parameters and 100km shot from 15000-20000m altitude at mach 2 against a target with similar parameters.
  7. In other words, no you cannot use this mod in integrity-checked servers, so you cannot have a PL-12 there.
  8. Again the math has to be done to demonstrate that something is wrong. Once you reach a certain speed, the drag force is a wall that you cannot break through without enough thrust.
  9. The real answer here is that you have to do the math. Air resistance increases exponentially with speed and the missile's thrust is limited.
  10. 14nm. They hit when the MiG-29's were 8nm away. There aren't a whole lot of documented longer range shots IRL, if any. As for the first missing, I don't recall that. 3 missiles were launched (a single by the wingman) and there's no information about how many hit (obviously two, possibly all three).
  11. I had to re-check myself on the up-engine. So most M2Ks were built with the engine we have in it now, but the initial batch received a previous, slightly weaker version. As for the thing with the MiG-29 turning capability, I trust the person who said it but again it is not something we can model. @F-2 that's some good research.
  12. I'm not out to call anyone a liar. First of all, he did not write the interview himself or give a detailed account of anything that is of substance to us - think about it this way, if you were trying to model an M2K or a MiG-29, what information has he really given you? The answer is nothing. For one, which engine was that M2K packing, do we know? Our M2K in DCS is up-engined. The standard is the aircraft's maneuver charts from the aircraft's flight testing. There is no substitute and basically any such interview like the one you found is only a beginning point investigation and nothing more. The issue we come back to is that we don't have any real charts for the M2K. BTW I heard from a combat pilot a long time ago that MiG-29's have issues with making a good turn for reasons that aren't necessarily the fault of the airframe/flight characteristics, which are things that aren't modeled in DCS at all. He flew exercises against those MiG-29s, so his experience was that of an opponent. My point with mentioning that is that you can hear and read a whole bunch of stuff, but again it's only something to start investigating, not something you can model.
  13. Okay, then ... I am of the opinion that we don't have the real life data for the Mirage 2000C, and that while your unqualified expectations of its performance are a thing we all do about a given aircraft, you need to accept that they are just that: unqualified expectations. A single random interview from somewhere doesn't change anything, and this isn't the first aircraft about which claims are made based on nothing but some interview (we've had several F-15C can't accelerate veritcally but this dude said it can! questions before for example). In DCS you have a climb and min radius advantage in a MiG-29 vs M2K, BFM accordingly and do not play the rate game, play the energy game.
  14. There's nothing wrong with DCS BFM - understand the capabilities of you opponent and deal with it, like you'd have to if you flew real BFM. In any case DCS gunzo scenarios are completely contrived anyway, so they just flat out make no sense with respect to realism.
  15. The real answer is you have to look. Get stable and glance at it. You could also map the 'quicklook' keypad 0 + 3 to help you out.
  16. Thanks. This just seems like 'low hanging fruit', that's all. Add a radio call to control the desired bank angle by the pilot who's refueling. The default should become 30 deg (it halves the turn size which is significant for operating the racetrack) which is going to be a little harder than the current 15 but it is a happy medium in terms of difficulty IMHO. Bonus points like controlling this from the ME (and which is the minimum/maximum bank angle available to the calling player) can be added later.
  17. Bumping. @BIGNEWY, this would be very good as a quality of life enhancement overall - it helps mission design a lot. The main issue as stated above is airspace management.
  18. What sub class? The F-15E airframe with CFTs and and -229s is 9000lbs (about 4000kg) heavier than the F-15C airframe when empty. So yes, they will weigh the same when you put 6000 kg into one and 1700 in the other. You can do the math yourself and then see where the math doesn't add up - maybe I missed something.
  19. It should cause that. It does in the C.
  20. It's subject and correct and wrong at the same time. You're right' the 'weight' isn't there in a light gray, because it is much lighter ... but at the same time, the 'weight' isn't there in a light grey because the CG is different, and this makes a pretty huge difference IMHO. The F-15C is simplified in some ways but not in this way - the beagle has more nice and extended feedback for the 'feel' of the flight though, again IMHO, and of course the beagle models the systems in much more detail - here I refer to hydraulics etc.
  21. An empty C is about 29500lbs, full tank of gas about 13500lbs. That brings it to 43000lbs. An empty beagle weighs in at some 39000lbs, and 17% of 22000lbs internal fuel capacity with CFTs is say 4000lbs, bringing it to 43000lbs. You'll have to break it down into details then. A fully fueled F-15C is 43000lbs, an empty E with -229s and CFTs is close to 39000lbs - they're not the same. So, what do you see that's wrong?
  22. 29500lbs empty, the beagle is close to 39000lbs with pilots, oil, and the -229s. No gas.
  23. It's not a thing in eagles in general.
  24. It is not used by the pilot AFAIK, disengaging the NWS allows the wheel to free-caster which could lead to bad things. It's used for moving the aircraft around physically AFAIK. This may be a thing for RAZBAM to look into. The issues of ground handling may be a problem in general in DCS - but you can also set curves for your rudder to help out. I use a gentle touch of the rudders and it all works out for me, YMMV. Aileron also helps (stick deflection against the wind to keep that wing from getting extra lift)
×
×
  • Create New...