Pocket Sized Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 Nobody is saying the AIM-54 should be nerfed. Read the OP of this thread please. Thank you for your time. 1 DCS modules are built up to a spec, not down to a schedule. In order to utilize a system to your advantage, you must know how it works.
DestroCrimson Posted December 1, 2016 Posted December 1, 2016 From what I found historically, the f-14 was the apex predator of fighter planes for decades.
Robert31178 Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 The AIM-54 doesn't have to be nerfed. In practice the missile was amazing, operationally it had some misses. What is there to balance?
probad Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 (edited) read the op, its about giving redfor a phoenix-esque option which imo is unnecessary, because: 1) mig31 data and permission will literally be impossible to obtain 2) a simpler solution already exists as iranian tomcats 3) the time required to code another complex module would mean we'd still be stuck with only the phoenix for the forseeable future regardless imo anyone who insists on 1:1 equivalent combat is just a baddie who is afraid of getting challenged, in reality pilots dont get a choice about what aircraft they're going up in and what aircraft they're going to fight. they have to make the best of what they have which is the real exercise of combat. Edited December 2, 2016 by probad too many 2s
SinusoidDelta Posted December 4, 2016 Posted December 4, 2016 If anyone's interested, the paper linked below has several subsonic/supersonic trajectories and more importantly at several launch angles: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20060004771.pdf
Reflected Posted December 4, 2016 Posted December 4, 2016 If anyone's interested, the paper linked below has several subsonic/supersonic trajectories and more importantly at several launch angles: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20060004771.pdf Really interesting to see how launch angle can affect the range of the missile. Launching the Phoenix at an angle of 45 degrees can triple its performance! :smartass: Facebook Instagram YouTube Discord
MaxDamage Posted December 4, 2016 Posted December 4, 2016 (edited) Mig31 would make pretty much any plane obsolete. It was the plane that made SR71 obsolete. Its like half plane half space ship. regarding F14, if those large missiles are going to be as bad as r27 at hitting things which is reasonable for a large missle, then they mgiht not be such a big deal after all. Tbh i dont believe this huge missile can take out fighters with any sort of reliability IRL. And when you run out of your missiles you re stuck with a rather un maneuverable and slow F14 in a dogfight. Ps f14 is largely overrated. I think it is a step below su27 and f15t. Edited December 4, 2016 by MaxDamage
Tirak Posted December 4, 2016 Posted December 4, 2016 Mig31 would make pretty much any plane obsolete. It was the plane that made SR71 obsolete.
GGTharos Posted December 4, 2016 Posted December 4, 2016 Mig31 would make pretty much any plane obsolete. It was the plane that made SR71 obsolete. Satellite imaging made the SR-71 obsolete. Tbh i dont believe this huge missile can take out fighters with any sort of reliability IRL. They were tested against fighter-like targets doing fighter-like maneuvers IRL. It would do ok. And when you run out of your missiles you re stuck with a rather un maneuverable and slow F14 in a dogfight. Ps f14 is largely overrated. I think it is a step below su27 and f15t. The F-14 is maneuverable and fast. The F-14As with the TF-30 were under-powered, but F-14A+/Bs with the new engines would make you cry hax ;) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Pocket Sized Posted December 4, 2016 Posted December 4, 2016 Not to mention the swept wings... did somebody say coefficient of lift? DCS modules are built up to a spec, not down to a schedule. In order to utilize a system to your advantage, you must know how it works.
microvax Posted December 4, 2016 Posted December 4, 2016 Big missiles cant hit maneuvering targets. Mim104 does not agree. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] *unexpected flight behaviour* Oh shiii*** ! What ? Why ? What is happening ?
Revelation Posted December 4, 2016 Posted December 4, 2016 Big missiles cant hit maneuvering targets. Mim104 does not agree. They can and they do. Win 10 Pro 64Bit | 49" UWHD AOC 5120x1440p | AMD 5900x | 64Gb DDR4 | RX 6900XT
Xenovia Posted December 4, 2016 Posted December 4, 2016 The F-14As with the TF-30 were under-powered, but F-14A+/Bs with the new engines would make you cry hax ;) Can't wait to see it in DCS so i can see people cry hax ;) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Jarlerus Posted December 6, 2016 Posted December 6, 2016 Ps f14 is largely overrated. I think it is a step below su27 and f15t. It's not overrated :P It's designed for different purposes. In short, the F-14 was designed (performance wise) with fuel economy i mind. Something the designers of the F-15 (and probably Su-27) didn't have to. So yes, of course there's differences as they fill different roles. Jarl at YouTube DCS Service Span and Wishlist Spreadsheet Forum post for discussion of above spreadsheet Retro Electro Playlist on Spotify
addde Posted December 6, 2016 Posted December 6, 2016 It's not overrated :P It's designed for different purposes. In short, the F-14 was designed (performance wise) with fuel economy i mind. Something the designers of the F-15 (and probably Su-27) didn't have to. So yes, of course there's differences as they fill different roles. The difference being that two of them (f15 & su27) are gona get their asses kicked!:thumbup:
Fer_Fer Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 I don't get why this is an issue in the first place. if LN models the radar correctly, and with some decent mission design, the F-14 will not be a hammer of god that murders everything in the sky. For Reference, the Mirage 2000 is undergunned compared to both the Flanker and the F-15 and still does pretty well online. Same goes against the F-14.
karambiatos Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 I don't get why this is an issue in the first place. if LN models the radar correctly, and with some decent mission design, the F-14 will not be a hammer of god that murders everything in the sky. For Reference, the Mirage 2000 is undergunned compared to both the Flanker and the F-15 and still does pretty well online. Same goes against the F-14. That's because the mirage is severely over modeled, engine performance wise, flight model wise, and damage model wise. A 1000 flights, a 1000 crashes, perfect record. =&arrFilter_pf[gameversion]=&arrFilter_pf[filelang]=&arrFilter_pf[aircraft]=&arrFilter_DATE_CREATE_1_DAYS_TO_BACK=&sort_by_order=TIMESTAMP_X_DESC"] Check out my random mods and things
Jarlerus Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 That's because the mirage is severely over modeled, engine performance wise, flight model wise, and damage model wise. With "over modeled", do you perhaps mean 'over performing'? Harsh accusations. "French bias"? :P Jarl at YouTube DCS Service Span and Wishlist Spreadsheet Forum post for discussion of above spreadsheet Retro Electro Playlist on Spotify
ENERG1A Posted December 8, 2016 Author Posted December 8, 2016 read the op, its about giving redfor a phoenix-esque option which imo is unnecessary, because: "1) mig31 data and permission will literally be impossible to obtain" I don't see how it would be hard to get permission to model an aircraft that entered service over 30 years ago. "2) a simpler solution already exists as Iranian tomcats" And Russia misses out again? There are too many western aircraft in game and development, we need to have a balance, quota, something or no one will be playing Russia anymore and it will be reduced to some aggressor force which no one will play because they will constantly be outmatched, you can if course make the best of the situation but not everyone has the same mindset as you ;) "3) the time required to code another complex module would mean we'd still be stuck with only the phoenix for the forseeable future regardless" Then use Iranian Tomcats as a placeholder "imo anyone who insists on 1:1 equivalent combat is just a baddie who is afraid of getting challenged, in reality pilots dont get a choice about what aircraft they're going up in and what aircraft they're going to fight. they have to make the best of what they have which is the real exercise of combat." Not sure if this is bait but i'll bite Exactly, they don't have a choice so of course they have to make the best of a situation, are you saying if a WW2 squadron had a choice between upgrading from P-40s to P-51s would they opt for Kittyhawks? No, they would choose the plane that's more likely to get them home safely.
SFC Tako Posted December 9, 2016 Posted December 9, 2016 DCS is a flightsim, balancing is for the Battlefield-series. My Semi-Pro Youtube Channel
Silver_Dragon Posted December 9, 2016 Posted December 9, 2016 I don't see how it would be hard to get permission to model an aircraft that entered service over 30 years ago. The main problem has get the authorisation from the russian military stament the necessary approval to build a module, remember the ban with the military secret law by the "Official Secrets Act of the Russian Federation" without military and government catalogue you a traitor send to jail by reveal secret military info. For Work/Gaming: 28" Philips 246E Monitor - Ryzen 7 1800X - 32 GB DDR4 - nVidia RTX1080 - SSD 860 EVO 1 TB / 860 QVO 1 TB / 860 QVO 2 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Warthog / TPR / MDF
lunaticfringe Posted December 9, 2016 Posted December 9, 2016 I don't see how it would be hard to get permission to model an aircraft that entered service over 30 years ago. If it were easy, ED wouldn't be legally boxed in on systems modelling for the Su-27 baseline standard or the MiG-29A as discussed previously on this forum at great length, and reiterated by Dragon. Everything is conceptually simple until you actually go out and attempt to do it- then you run into reality. 1
Hummingbird Posted December 11, 2016 Posted December 11, 2016 It's definitely hard to get permission to do these things, eventhough it honestly shouldn't be for most technology over 30 years old. But that's simply the paranoia stricken world we live in.
Fer_Fer Posted December 11, 2016 Posted December 11, 2016 The main problem has get the authorisation from the russian military stament the necessary approval to build a module, remember the ban with the military secret law by the "Official Secrets Act of the Russian Federation" without military and government catalogue you a traitor send to jail by reveal secret military info. couldn't they legally obtain permission of MIG design bureau and base it on the Kazachstan Mig 31?
Recommended Posts