Jump to content

SuumCuique

Members
  • Posts

    104
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SuumCuique

  1. This is because in DCS JDAMs are classified as bombs rather than missiles. Just the way it is. But as GGTharnossaid, it is mainly a DCSism. Another DCSism that works in favor of the JF is the RCS of the LD-10 (~480) and the interception threshold of the SA-10 (500+) making the SA-10 unable to intercept the LD-10.
  2. As far as the game is concerned, the GB-6 and LS-6 and all other glide bombs are missiles. Missiles can be intercepted by certain SAMs. Same thing happens to the JSOW. Bombs like the Mk.84 have no radar signature at all in the game.
  3. DTOS works great for them in level flight as well.
  4. Single Mk.20 cluster bombs and Mk.82s snakeeyes?
  5. Has there been any vote on Snakeeyes, Mk.20s, and potentially dual ejector racks on the inner pylon?
  6. Pretty much all modern FBW aircraft in the game have similar restrictions, the F-18 changes the control laws in the transsonic region, so does the Mirage and F-16 (I think, I do not own it). G limit gets replaced by an AoA limit for most, if not all, of them.
  7. The RCS of the LD-10 is too small to be intercepted by an SA-10. SA-10s have a minimum RCS that they can engage of 500 (or 0.5, not sure how it is written in the files), the LD-10 is slightly below that value (~480 IIRC) making them impossible to intercept for the SA-10. If you mod the LD-10 to have a bigger RCS, they get intercepted. TORs and Tunguskas can intercept them fine, but right now the LD-10 is by far the fastest making it hard even for those systems to intercept them, but they can and do.
  8. I would also like to know if Deka is considering adding single snake eyes and Mk.20 cluster bombs to the inner pylon. Their omission is weird after the Mk.82 and GBU-12 were added.
  9. 16th of July (after the changes to fuel flow)
  10. You need to lock again, but it is still broken. The "dopplernotch" is always in the middle of the screen, no matter which direction the radar is pointing. To enter the EXP, DBS modes right now, you need to slave the AG radar, or lock something with it, switch to EXP, move the TDC a tiny amount (otherwise you enter FTT) and lock again. Now the picture is created.
  11. Crusing around mach 0.8 at FL 200-250 fuel flow is in the area 2500-3200 pounds per hour, depending your load out of course.
  12. OAP is an offset from a target point, for example a waypoint. The offset can be input in the UFC after pressing the OAP button. The offset defined as a direction and distance from the known position, I think the distance is in feet. DIR is a backup mode. It is a manual bomb mode, you can input the depression of the reticle in an MFD menu, I think it is under data. It might be useful if CCIP and AUTO is failing, yet the jet is still flying. Bombing would be done similar to the F-5 via bombing tables. Fuzing option do not make a difference in DCS afaik. In theory it is useful to let a bomb detonate after penetrating a target like a bunker.
  13. Thanks for the update on the BRM 1-90 pods. Can I ask about the status of the 2 missing 500 pound class bombs, the Mk.82 snakeeye and Mk.20 cluster bomb) on the inner pylons. Are you considering them?
  14. You got any link to the statement? Getting vehicles on the DL page, just from having the radar pointed somehwere in map mode does not sound right to me.
  15. So is that a bug of the DCS module, or just how it works in the real plane? It appears like a weird oversight, if you were unable to manipulate other sensors like the WMD-7 or HSD with a locked target. If this is intended behaviour for the real plane, then it is fine, even if it is weird.
  16. If a target is locked in single target track (STT) S1 left and S1 right stops working. It is not possible to select the left and right MFD anymore. S1 can still be used to switch between the center MFD and the HUD. stt_bug.trk
  17. Can we get any information, if Mk.20 Rockeye cluster bombs and Mk.82 Snakeeye high drag bombs will get implemented for the inner pylons?
  18. No.... just no. I have no idea how someone might get the idea, that Deka is intentionally increased the performance of the JF over the real counterpart. At least not someone, who spend more than 5 Minutes looking into the modeling of the module: It is the only module in DCS, that has a targeting pod with limitations. Every single targeting pod in the game enters a perfect track of any target, as soon as the targeting pod starts rendering the scene. The JF is the only targeting pod in this game that has a limitation build in, beyond ~21nm it is unable to measure distance correctly and unable to enter either point or area track. Did they model realistic limitations of the system to overstate the capabilities of the plane? It is the only modern module that suffers from engine surges due to smoke ingestion or overspeeding. Did Deka introduce this limitation to make the aircraft better? Deka removed the BRM-1 90 rockets from the inner pylons, due to possible exhaust gas getting into the engine and that could lead to an engine surge. Did Deka remove weapons because they wanted to make the JF-17 more powerful than it is? Right now the BRM-1 90 uses the Vikhir control scheme, instead of the one from the laser maverick, for example, removing the ability to use it with an external laser source. It is one of the few modules in DCS that have modeled pilot overheating and freezing. Lost the ECS? Better descend below 10k feet or your pilot will start blacking out due to hypothermia. Meanwhile, the F/A-18C can happily cruise at angels 40 without a canopy. Did Deka model this to overstate the capability of the JF-17? The JF-17 is one of the few modules that is affected by jamming at all in the game. The radar can be jammed and prevent it from IFFing a soft locked target correctly. Sometimes it is necessary to enter STT just to get an IFF response. But I guess that Deka modeled this to inflate the capabilities. The JF-17 is the only model with at least a rudimentary model of an IFF system, no other module needs to worry about entering IFF codes in this game. The JF-17 is one of the few models that have INS drift modeled at all. Even if the amount of drift is overstated right now. Most other modules have perfect INS without any issues. I have literally no idea how anyone, who spends more than 5 Minutes looking into the quality of the modeling, can get the idea that Deka is trying to "inflate the performance". Is it perfect? Of course not. Some issues still remain, that will hopefully get fixed soon. Of course, you can call me biased too, if you want. The JF-17 is by far my favourite module in the game right now. Why? Because it has great system-modeling combined with realistic limitations.
  19. Cap is a biased idiot. Some things were changed on the JF and they were changed for the better. Fuel flow got fixed and now the engine consumes fuel as it should, drag on the SD-10 was adjusted, not it behaves like expected, almost matching Nighthawk's CFD perfectly. The range is still very good. So far there is no reason to be worried about "nerfs" for the sake of balance. A ton of people pick on the JF-17 because it is good without being a NATO aircraft. A ton of people are just biased, Cap is one of them. But with the current history of patches for the JF-17, I see no reason to be worried about anything. It is a good and very capable plane.
  20. Any information on minor things that are missing? I noticed a VIP bombing mode (not selectable), will more weapon delivery modes be added in the future? Are there any MFD pages that are missing and what are their functions?
  21. Still no mention of snakeeyes (they might be included in "Mk.82") or Mk.20 Rockeyes.
  22. Any news if the loadout changes will make it into the next patch? And if so, which ones?
  23. What about unguided Mk.20 cluster bombs?
  24. Deka said, that after implementing surges due to exhaust gas, they might consider changing available loadouts. But we have not heard anything since then (~1 month).
×
×
  • Create New...