Dudikoff Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 Which aircraft with A-G radar did I miss? There is actually no Russian aircraft that fit these requirements. The A-7 would make a whole lot of sense, but it is alerady planned by RAZBAM. Then on the other hand, no aircraft for DCS is supposed to be exclusive. Super Etendard? A-7E would be great out of those you mention. i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg. DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?). Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!
MBot Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 Super Etendard? Right, and of course also some Mirage F1 variants (Exocet ASM).
Dudikoff Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) Right, and of course also some Mirage F1 variants (Exocet ASM). But these are added afterwards in some modernizations, right? If we go that way, there could be more planes to fit the bill (like e.g. updated Kfirs, MiG-21 Bison maybe, etc.), but I thought we're limited to main operational variants during their relevant time (e.g. up to the end of Cold War). Edited March 18, 2015 by Dudikoff i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg. DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?). Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!
MBot Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 But these are added afterwards in some modernizations, right? If we go that way, there could be more planes to fit the bill (like e.g. updated Kfirs, MiG-21 Bison maybe, etc.), but I thought we're limited to main operational variants during their relevant time (e.g. up to the end of Cold War). I don't think the French F1C had A-G radar modes (if we ignore the post-Cold War F1CR and F1CT upgrades), but Iraqi F1EQ-5 and -6 were built Exocet capable.
Dudikoff Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) I don't think the French F1C had A-G radar modes (if we ignore the post-Cold War F1CR and F1CT upgrades), but Iraqi F1EQ-5 and -6 were built Exocet capable. OK, true. My point was that it is not the representative variant - like, I don't imagine LN announcing the "Mirage F1" and then saying that the chosen variant is the Iraqi one (though, with the new Persian Gulf map, it would make sense ;) ). But, I think they have the same radar as Super Etendard (Agave) and I only see those mentioned in Exocet-like context so I don't know if they support ground mapping and thus fit the air to ground radar bill we expect? Edited March 18, 2015 by Dudikoff i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg. DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?). Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!
WildBillKelsoe Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 I bet its the CeeJay.. AWAITING ED NEW DAMAGE MODEL IMPLEMENTATION FOR WW2 BIRDS Fat T is above, thin T is below. Long T is faster, Short T is slower. Open triangle is AWACS, closed triangle is your own sensors. Double dash is friendly, Single dash is enemy. Circle is friendly. Strobe is jammer. Strobe to dash is under 35 km. HDD is 7 times range key. Radar to 160 km, IRST to 10 km. Stay low, but never slow.
MBot Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 Whether ground radar could also mean an air-sea radar is up to interpretation :) Anyhow, the F1 is rather unlikely anyway I guess, as there are hints that it is already in development by AvioDev. And while 3rd party aircraft are not exlusive, it would be pretty unwise to develop the same plane in parallel (the RAZBAM A-7 is different I think, as it is merely planned). I just mentioned the F1 for completeness sake.
OnlyforDCS Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 Could it be the Su-24? The ground radar could be a ground 'clearance' radar. It was called the "Relyef". Current specs: Windows 10 Home 64bit, i5-9600K @ 3.7 Ghz, 32GB DDR4 RAM, 1TB Samsung EVO 860 M.2 SSD, GAINWARD RTX2060 6GB, Oculus Rift S, MS FFB2 Sidewinder + Warthog Throttle Quadrant, Saitek Pro rudder pedals.
Dudikoff Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 Whether ground radar could also mean an air-sea radar is up to interpretation :) Anyhow, the F1 is rather unlikely anyway I guess, as there are hints that it is already in development by AvioDev. And while 3rd party aircraft are not exlusive, it would be pretty unwise to develop the same plane in parallel (the RAZBAM A-7 is different I think, as it is merely planned). I just mentioned the F1 for completeness sake. Yes, definitely. I'm just stating that an air-to-sea radar functionality doesn't seem like something to particularly brag about in the LN newsletter :) Again, A-7E seems like a likely option as it would fit well with the Tomcat and it's not overly complex. IMHO, it would certainly be a fun air to ground pounder. i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg. DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?). Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!
malcheus Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 could it be a bomber? like a Vulcan or a Tu-95? Woul be the first real bomber for DCS....
King_Hrothgar Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 The problem with something like a Tu-95 is all the 3d modeling that would have to be done. I don't think there is a lick of difference from a FM programming standpoint between a Tu-95 and an F4U, but there is a massive difference in terms of all that cockpit art that has to be made. Given their other 3d modeling projects (AI units, maps), I don't think that's something they'd want to get bogged down on at this time. I'm betting a single seater or a heavily duplicated (or spartan) 2 seater. The A-7 is an interesting option. Hell, it even fits a lot of the old F-14 clues as to what's next. It's a plane you'd expect the USMC to have flown yet never did and may have one or two engines. :P But it does fall short on the something for everyone category. As I've said numerous times, three USN planes in a row is most definitely not something for everyone even if they are spread across periods and roles.
kazereal Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 The problem with something like a Tu-95 is all the 3d modeling that would have to be done. I don't think there is a lick of difference from a FM programming standpoint between a Tu-95 and an F4U, but there is a massive difference in terms of all that cockpit art that has to be made. Aside from the fact that other has four engines and the other just one? And the whole twin-prop thing does not seem different? There do come all kinds of interesting things with multiple engines like what if two engines are idling and associated drag and so on. Also all the systems required would be much MUCH more work in a four-engine airplane, starting from fuel transfer between different tanks and engines and things like pitch control of a twin-prop propeller. Yes, there would be large amounts of 3D modelling required but do not underestimate the complexity of code needed as well. "I would have written a shorter post, but I did not have the time."
ED Team NineLine Posted March 23, 2015 ED Team Posted March 23, 2015 I don't think there is a lick of difference from a FM programming standpoint between a Tu-95 and an F4U... :shocking: Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**
Raven68 Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 I don't think there is a lick of difference from a FM programming standpoint between a Tu-95 and an F4U... :shocking: I'm here for you Sith! :D Intel i5-9600K @ 3.7GHz; Gigabyte Z370XP SLI Mobo; G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 64GB (4 x 16GB) 288-Pin DDR4 GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 4080 16GB 256-Bit GDDR6; Thermaltake Water 3.0 Certified Liquid Cooling System Windows 11 Professional HP Reverb G2 /TrackIR 5 in case VR dies; Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog w/ Thrustmaster T-Flight Rudder Pedals
msalama Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 between a Tu-95 and an F4UUmmm, no. A Tu-95 has 4 engines, whereas a Corsair has just 1. That's quite a difference from a programmer's / designers viewpoint as well, because you can't just copy-paste 1 powerplant four times and call it done. A multi-engined plane is a complex whole, where not only the individual powerplants, but the powerplants and the rest of the plane, interact on many levels. So you can't just compare them like that, IMHO, because modelling a multi-engine AC is altogether a much more arduous job. EDIT: schnyped many times over :D The DCS Mi-8MTV2. The best aviational BBW experience you could ever dream of.
CoBlue Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 The next monthly update will be before the middle of March – to compensate you for your long wait. By then, it'll be a whole different conversation. Errh ? where's the monthly update, wasn't it supposed to be out last week, with the announcement of the next release ? 1 i7 8700k@4.7, 1080ti, DDR4 32GB, 2x SSD , HD 2TB, W10, ASUS 27", TrackIr5, TMWH, X-56, GProR.
MBot Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 I have settled with the conclusion that the two planes are the Corsair and Corsair II. Mark my words :)
King_Hrothgar Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 Ummm, no. A Tu-95 has 4 engines, whereas a Corsair has just 1. That's quite a difference from a programmer's / designers viewpoint as well, because you can't just copy-paste 1 powerplant four times and call it done. A multi-engined plane is a complex whole, where not only the individual powerplants, but the powerplants and the rest of the plane, interact on many levels. So you can't just compare them like that, IMHO, because modelling a multi-engine AC is altogether a much more arduous job. EDIT: schnyped many times over :D Yes and no. The F4U comparison was an exaggeration yes. But it also isn't what you and others are making it out to be. Whether an engine is mounted on the wingtip or centerline has absolutely zero impact on complexity from a programming standpoint. The physics of it must be calculated either way and the equations are identical. Some values within them change, but the process does not. Unless you enjoy making your life needlessly difficult, you'd write a program to perform all calculations for you (that aren't done live in game). These can then be repeated any number of times for however many engines are present. So no, not quite copy paste but not massively more difficult either. It's a question of iteration, not complexity. LNS mentioned in a newsletter that they developed precisely this type of system after the MiG-21 to make FM prototyping faster. In any case, I think there is agreement it isn't going to be a horribly complex plane like a Tu-95. It will be something relatively simple, likely making use of assets used in either the MiG-21 or the other two new projects.
ED Team NineLine Posted March 23, 2015 ED Team Posted March 23, 2015 Whether an engine is mounted on the wingtip or centerline has absolutely zero impact on complexity from a programming standpoint. You are right, the postion of the engine on the model would have little to do with the complexity of the programming (although still some actually), it also wasnt stated to be the reason for the complexity of the systems and FM of a 4 Engine bomber like the Tu-95 would be to program, I really think you are over your head on this one... Your statement was that there wouldnt be a lick of difference iin programming them... I think you just need to stop while you are behind ;) Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**
Lib Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) Whether an engine is mounted on the wingtip or centerline has absolutely zero impact on complexity from a programming standpoint. The effect of the torque of one powerfull engine mounted in centerline is absolutely different of 4th less (or not) powerfull engines but distributed on wingtips... and This has an enormous impact... also they have to develop the behavior of the aircraft with 1... 2.... 3... and 4 engines ! Edited March 23, 2015 by Lib
VincentLaw Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) The effect of the torque of one powerfull engine mounted in centerline is absolutely different of 4th less (or not) powerfull engines but distributed on wingtips... and This has an enormous impact...Torque from engine placement has an enormous impact but a simple solution using the parallel axis theorem. That is a very easy problem to solve (once you have a system for determining the torque in the first place). This is easy to expand to any number of engines. A more difficult problem encountered from engine placement is the effect of of turbulent ("dirty") air entering or leaving the engine and the interaction with the aerodynamics of other parts of the airplane. Edited March 23, 2015 by VincentLaw [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
ChoSeungWan Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 Can we pleeeeease at the very least get a super-cryptic riddle about the next module to hold us over? :helpsmilie:
kazereal Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 The physics of it must be calculated either way and the equations are identical. Some values within them change, but the process does not. Unless you enjoy making your life needlessly difficult, you'd write a program to perform all calculations for you (that aren't done live in game). Let's put other things aside for a while but there's one big flaw in this: because you need to calculate a lot of things in real-time in a short time-frame you can't usually calculate everything at that precision in each frame. In single-engine warbirds you have just one engine with roll momentum around longitudinal axis due to engine torque, in four-engine bomber that is less apparent and instead rotational force around vertical axis needs to be calculated. You do need to calculate thrust/drag from each engine, but repeating calculations identically for each engine would need four times as much CPU time to simulate a single aircraft (disregarding all other systems and aerodynamic effects here now). So roughly if you had F4U simulated at 80 frames per second you would simulate Tu-95 at 20 frames per second at most (since there's all the other complexity involved as well). And that is the IDEAL case, in WORST case it might be exponential increase in computations required, not linear increase. In real world we have limited CPU time available for such simulations and we do need to adjust to these things. "I would have written a shorter post, but I did not have the time."
Roadrunner Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) The effect of the torque of one powerfull engine mounted in centerline is absolutely different of 4th less (or not) powerfull engines but distributed on wingtips... and This has an enormous impact... also they have to develop the behavior of the aircraft with 1... 2.... 3... and 4 engines ! not only that, but think about 1,2 and 4 running and diffrent behaviour if 2,3 and 4 are running. 4 engines give 16 diffrent situations i think. Edited March 25, 2015 by Roadrunner [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] "There's nothing to be gained by second guessing yourself. You can't remake the past, so look ahead... or risk being left behind." Noli Timere Messorem "No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always been there first, and is waiting for it." Terry Pratchett
lmp Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 So roughly if you had F4U simulated at 80 frames per second you would simulate Tu-95 at 20 frames per second at most (since there's all the other complexity involved as well). And that is the IDEAL case, in WORST case it might be exponential increase in computations required, not linear increase. This is only true if the engine calculations are the single most resource intensive thing in the entire game and all the other things, such as avionics, physical calculations unrelated to engines, AI, rendering etc. cost you virtually no resources in comparison. I'm sure you'll agree it's a far fetched assumption ;).
Recommended Posts