Cold War 1947 - 1991

[Pathfinder_50]

Really ? I had completely different experience than you because there was nothing even. One team had two - three JTACs and double the numbers, the other had one JTAC who was simultaneously trying to control ground units and save whatever remained of our FARP at that point and mixed asset of 21s and 19s, some of which didnt even participate on comms.

Biggest thanks here goes to Alpen for his continuing effort to not only keep server running but also active participation in the missions.

 

 

So you're actually complaining about the fact that there is more blue player that are playing as a team than on the red side, and you want to remove the rb24j from viggen for that, lol pal, that is not fair play from you, and from the red side in general that formulate 90% of the complain about weapon in this thread

 

__________________

[DEVILS]

Edited July 11, 2020 by Pathfinder_50

[Hiromachi]

I'm contesting the statement that something is EVEN, when the other side has double numerical superiority. It's not "complain", its a fact. Numbers are facts.

As for their teamwork, I wouldnt know. I just know they had Oracle and Kestrel performing JTAC duty, while Aplen was switching between that and ground assets.

 

And where did I say that RB-24J should be removed ? It should be corrected by Heatblur if its performance envelope, as tests by Lazzyseal show, is unrealistic (i.e. close to AIM-9X). I'm sure Lazzyseal knows how to report that and issue will be properly investigated.

 

And I'm not your "dude", pal. Dont twist my words.

[NELLUS]

The ones who benefit the most will always defend status quo. And dont try to appeal to Alpen when you simultaneously make effort to exploit his mission design.

 

Secondly, Lazzyseal is not making complains but valid points about performance of certain systems. Precisely because this is a flight sim! Precisely because recorded performance should be accurately reflected.

Also, nobody is making complains that 21 underperforms or is too hard. 21 has its quirks, its not easy to fly but rewarding. It requires proper treatment. Nobody also complains about the F-5, so Im not sure what you are trying to point out there. Plus, you lie that 21 can bring six missiles. With current rear aspect setup it can bring four at most, which is not feasible for drag and weight penalty. Me and number of guys make compromise and fly with two missiles only. But even assuming everyone would fly with four, two AIM-9P are more effective than four R-13s. 21s missiles are always restricted in boresight shots. Thats how it was in reality, so it is what it is. So no, I dont get your point because you dont have one.

 

We've had one of the best servers for years with F-5s vs 21s combat. Now we dont have many F-5s flying anymore (last night when I entered there were three, when I was leaving and for the past hour there were none) and we have AJS increased numbers that were supposed to be ground strike platform, but are really used as air to air platform cruising at Mach 1.2 on deck with impunity.

 

I also would like to invite you to file a bug report in Mag3 section regarding the damage model if you have evidence showing 21s combat capability being retained after multiple missile hits. In past two months I had one instance when I was hit with AIM-9M from Harrier and I could barely keep control and land 21. In every other instance 21 lost either control, power or pilot was killed. MiG-21bis had faulty damage model and it could fly with no wings in the past. But this was corrected months ago based on users reports. So if you have evidence showing otherwise and you can confirm so also from 21s perspective (i.e. just because pilot doesnt eject instantly, doesnt mean aircraft is flyable) than provide such. I will be happy to forward it to devs.

 

 

 

Really ? I had completely different experience than you because there was nothing even. One team had two - three JTACs and double the numbers, the other had one JTAC who was simultaneously trying to control ground units and save whatever remained of our FARP at that point and mixed asset of 21s and 19s, some of which didnt even participate on comms.

Biggest thanks here goes to Alpen for his continuing effort to not only keep server running but also active participation in the missions.

 

But I found yesterday, flying from around 9 PM CET to 1 - 1:30 AM CET, that nothing was even. Especially last minutes of the mission: "When The Mountains Cry" when bunch of Viggens shot down 21s taking off from Kutaisi. Viggens dropped their landing gear to get canards into "proper" mode and kept making circles over the runway. No air defenses acted because none were positioned to defend the field, no RED aircraft managed to stay in the air.

Even ...

 

Wow.. haha, are you for real?! Take a deep breath buddy and organize your team then. All I hear is this and that, but bottom line is that the Red side has no organization. Organize it then, simple as that. Do you think the Blue Devils happened over night?

 

There is a chunk of wining.. “we want rear missiles only cry outs”, “take away the Viggens long range Mavs”, “take away the Harrier”.. etc. This all happened and was amended.. and you still go on! :D Coooome ooon.. My kid doesn't even complain like you do.

Edited July 11, 2020 by NELLUS

[rossmum]

For months, red have had organisation, just a looser kind between players and GCIs. For months, some of us who mostly play red (but play both teams when needed) have tried to have advantages taken away because it felt unfair on blue or just wasn't creating an interesting environment. It came to a head several sessions where blue were almost unable to leave the airspace over their own airfield, because red had plenty of players on SRS listening to GCI and talking amongst each other, while every time I went blue... silence, and a total lack of understanding about the capabilities red's aircraft had, especially under the older version of the 'rear aspect only' restrictions.

 

The MiG afterburner heat signature bug, which made the older AIM-9/RB 24 models unable to lock it when the AB was lit - fixed because of red players reporting it. The previously unfair weapon set where blue had no missiles that could engage from the frontal aspect and we had the R-60 - fixed because we pointed out that we had an advantage. We pushed back against the people trying to claim the unstallable FM bug a few months ago was 'better' because we knew it was unrealistic. If you'd like the 'rear aspect' weapon set to return to the days where all a MiG pilot had to do to win any engagement was force a head-on merge and fire a close range R-60 while neither Viggen nor F-5 can even get tone, then be my guest. I brought up rear-aspect missiles with the idea it might be interesting in a few missions to give the MiG-19 some semblance of relevance, and Alpen decided to implement it fully of his own accord. While I do find it has brought about much more intense fights, if you think I wanted to kiss my R-60s goodbye because I thought it'd somehow make things easier for someone like me who mostly flies the 21 on red and knows not to go head-on with it while on blue, I don't know what to tell you.

 

The Viggen's Mavs had been used, albeit infrequently, as wake-homing A2A weapons. If you'd like to tell me that's realistic or even remotely logical behaviour, be my guest. You still have the other Mavs and from what I've seen, they worked fine. You had (and seem to have again, on some missions) the BK 90, which red has no counterpart to (let alone no counterpart to the Viggen itself, in a strike role). We tolerated it for a long time despite this, hell I learnt how to use the things while on blue, waiting for the MiG's FM to get fixed. However, it is a weapon that falls outside the Cold War time period. The Harrier was being used almost purely as an air to air platform because it had far more modern missiles than anything else, and a very tanky DM - I haven't seen a Harrier used to perform an actual strike mission in months. Maybe if this is acceptable to you, we could have the Su-25T back with its R-73?

 

It's interesting how, for a team with "no organisation", any time we have more than one person in JTAC slots people trot out complaints about how we supposedly have 4 GCIs, or how every time they get into a fight it's not with one MiG but two or three or four. Really impressive how any time certain people want things made nice and easy for them they ask for it and get it, while apparently red players are only allowed to ask for changes that benefit blue, and still that isn't enough. And then people wonder why we've stopped playing both teams, like anyone would want to deal day to day with the double standards or condescending attitudes that fill the thread.

 

So yeah, perhaps let's have our R-60Ms back, I guess, and our Su-25T/R-73 while we're at it.

 

----

 

 

EDIT - the 21 can occasionally tank missiles and remain flying, but generally is not combat effective, which you would know if you flew it more. It absorbs 20mm like a champion (and it shouldn't, though I suspect this is a problem with cannon damage values in the game in general rather than any one module) but any close prox det or direct hit by a missile will either partially or fully destroy the electrical system. As anyone who regularly flies the 21 is aware, this means you can't even jettison your missiles, let alone fire them - if you're going to continue fighting it is going to be with your gun only, and most likely without a gunsight either. By comparison, we have the Viggen, which for at least nine months now has been fully capable of firing missiles off of wings that have been physically blown off of the aircraft. Let's not play little games of intellectual dishonesty by claiming this equates to a 21 sometimes limping home and crash-landing either in a farmer's field or alongside the runway. I have seen this and caught it on stream numerous times, both as the MiG who's trying to kill the Viggen and as the Viggen who's just had their plane blown in half yet still has enough control to put the seeker FoV over a MiG and blow him away.

 

I didn't bring the issue up previously, because the MiG was also sometimes capable of flying effectively (but not firing back) with no wings. That has since been fixed and the aircraft is no longer controllable with a wing gone - the best you can do is limp very awkwardly until the fuel leak runs you empty or the fire burns the whole aircraft down.

 

You're not talking to some tribalistic luddites here who only play red aircraft. Many of us own and fly blue aircraft as well, we know what works and what doesn't.

Edited July 11, 2020 by rossmum

[Pathfinder_50]

For months, red have had organisation, just a looser kind between players and GCIs. For months, some of us who mostly play red (but play both teams when needed) have tried to have advantages taken away because it felt unfair on blue or just wasn't creating an interesting environment. It came to a head several sessions where blue were almost unable to leave the airspace over their own airfield, because red had plenty of players on SRS listening to GCI and talking amongst each other, while every time I went blue... silence, and a total lack of understanding about the capabilities red's aircraft had, especially under the older version of the 'rear aspect only' restrictions.

 

The MiG afterburner heat signature bug, which made the older AIM-9/RB 24 models unable to lock it when the AB was lit - fixed because of red players reporting it. The previously unfair weapon set where blue had no missiles that could engage from the frontal aspect and we had the R-60 - fixed because we pointed out that we had an advantage. We pushed back against the people trying to claim the unstallable FM bug a few months ago was 'better' because we knew it was unrealistic. If you'd like the 'rear aspect' weapon set to return to the days where all a MiG pilot had to do to win any engagement was force a head-on merge and fire a close range R-60 while neither Viggen nor F-5 can even get tone, then be my guest. I brought up rear-aspect missiles with the idea it might be interesting in a few missions to give the MiG-19 some semblance of relevance, and Alpen decided to implement it fully of his own accord. While I do find it has brought about much more intense fights, if you think I wanted to kiss my R-60s goodbye because I thought it'd somehow make things easier for someone like me who mostly flies the 21 on red and knows not to go head-on with it while on blue, I don't know what to tell you.

 

The Viggen's Mavs had been used, albeit infrequently, as wake-homing A2A weapons. If you'd like to tell me that's realistic or even remotely logical behaviour, be my guest. You still have the other Mavs and from what I've seen, they worked fine. You had (and seem to have again, on some missions) the BK 90, which red has no counterpart to (let alone no counterpart to the Viggen itself, in a strike role). We tolerated it for a long time despite this, hell I learnt how to use the things while on blue, waiting for the MiG's FM to get fixed. However, it is a weapon that falls outside the Cold War time period. The Harrier was being used almost purely as an air to air platform because it had far more modern missiles than anything else, and a very tanky DM - I haven't seen a Harrier used to perform an actual strike mission in months. Maybe if this is acceptable to you, we could have the Su-25T back with its R-73?

 

It's interesting how, for a team with "no organisation", any time we have more than one person in JTAC slots people trot out complaints about how we supposedly have 4 GCIs, or how every time they get into a fight it's not with one MiG but two or three or four. Really impressive how any time certain people want things made nice and easy for them they ask for it and get it, while apparently red players are only allowed to ask for changes that benefit blue, and still that isn't enough. And then people wonder why we've stopped playing both teams, like anyone would want to deal day to day with the double standards or condescending attitudes that fill the thread.

 

So yeah, perhaps let's have our R-60Ms back, I guess, and our Su-25T/R-73 while we're at it.

 

The Bk-90 is totally ****ed up on the viggen, cuz the waypoint system doesn't work well, you're talking about the mav used as AA missile, so we should talk about the Vikrh too no ? and the harrier are always doing A/G cuz they don't have any AA missiles

Edited July 11, 2020 by Pathfinder_50

[NELLUS]

There have been some great dogfights since the all aspect missiles been taken away. The 19 has become a great adversary suddenly, and air combat has become a Merge and dogfight.. instead of Merge and fire head to head all aspect missiles hoping for a frontal impact. I have seen flyers trying to Merge kill with a rear aspect missile.. seriously, it is about time to adapt. Unless you can get a mig21 radar lock on the opponent which works.

 

All, time to start flying and stop whining..

[NELLUS]

BK90 sucks, no one I know is using them, and I know a chunk of blue aviators.

 

Also, no one of us is using Mav’s for air to air. Please provide Tacview of the blue flyers that do that and we can all deal with them.

[rossmum]

The BK 90 worked flawlessly about two or three months ago when I was using it to annoy the crap out of red's FARPs. If even I can set it up, I don't understand why anyone else can't. Then again, I hear that even loading the data cartridge into the CK 37 can be too much for some.

 

There must've been 'nobody' on the server the other day, when some were lobbed at our FARP and Ras Al Khaimah on the Prince of Persia mission.

 

The Vikhr has an actual air-to-air function as an emergency capability. Personally I would like to see both the Ka-50 and the Su-25T removed from the server, but then we would be down to the Su-25's laser-guided missiles while blue would still have Mavericks, and the Mi-24 still hasn't arrived. Once it has, I very much hope those two aircraft disappear. The difference is that the Viggen's Maverick, when locked onto an aircraft, will follow it until it hits - you can't run it out of energy, it will either match your turns or loop back and reacquire you, it can be fired from the ground, it even lofts sometimes. This is not some emergency capability, because it defies the laws of physics to score the hit. This is a bug. During one session of The Desert Has Eyes a month or two ago I watched some absolute genius in a Viggen misidentify another Viggen in a furball ahead of him, lock the guy, fire a Mav... which then lofted, flew over to him, followed all his turns and killed him. I've seen it done a couple of times on the server (and even more on Tacviews saved from others). Just because you are not using them (and as I've seen so far, nobody who posts in this thread is) it does not mean that nobody is using them that way. I'll have to dig through my old ones to find which mission I saw it on, and there were other instances earlier in the year which happened within the 10 min window that Tacview doesn't record.

 

Let's have all the changes red players asked for recently reversed, and see what happens. After all, we were the ones asking for R-60s to be taken out of the rear aspect weapon set, we were the ones who got the MiG afterburner bug fixed so it was no longer immune to RB 24s/GAR-8s/9Ps while in full burner, etc...

Edited July 11, 2020 by rossmum

[Hiromachi]

The Bk-90 is totally ****ed up on the viggen, cuz the waypoint system doesn't work well, you're talking about the mav used as AA missile, so we should talk about the Vikrh too no ? and the harrier are always doing A/G cuz they don't have any AA missiles

"Always"

[Pathfinder_50]

"Always"

 

date maybe ?

[BonerCat]

But AIM-9M's arent a thing anymore on this server for a long while now. The harrier only has dumb munitions as of right now, not even mavs

[NELLUS]

"Always"[/img]

 

Always complaining :l

[rossmum]

Incidentally, when it comes to learning to use one's plane properly - I'm guessing that would include not egressing from a strike run despite being below bingo fuel, waiting for a fighter to scramble, then dropping undercarriage to force the canard flaps down (while narrowly avoiding compressor stalling too hard and killing the engine, which takes some pretty serious precision actually) in order to outrate and outradius someone in a circle fight that was neutral up to that point?

 

It was certainly fun, don't get me wrong, but I don't think that's how SAAB intended their plane to be used... so seems a bit funny to try write everything off as red not knowing how to properly employ their planes, surely?

[Pathfinder_50]

Incidentally, when it comes to learning to use one's plane properly - I'm guessing that would include not egressing from a strike run despite being below bingo fuel, waiting for a fighter to scramble, then dropping undercarriage to force the canard flaps down (while narrowly avoiding compressor stalling too hard and killing the engine, which takes some pretty serious precision actually) in order to outrate and outradius someone in a circle fight that was neutral up to that point?

 

It was certainly fun, don't get me wrong, but I don't think that's how SAAB intended their plane to be used... so seems a bit funny to try write everything off as red not knowing how to properly employ their planes, surely?

 

 

:megalol::megalol::megalol::megalol::megalol::megalol: Welcome to DCS, if you want to fly exactly as in reality you should have tried to be a fighter pilot the best tactic is not always the one in the manual :smilewink:

[rossmum]

But isn't that what we just got told we should do? What we were told is stopping us from winning (even though we still do, or the mission ends in a neutral state when the server finally empties out)? Or are we continuing this thing where it only applies to certain people and not others?

[Hiromachi]

date maybe ?

Well, you've said always. So what difference does date make ?

But to be fair and transparent, this was taken on June 14, 2020. Of course now, according to Alpen rules, this should not happen anymore :thumbup:

 

Always complaining :l

If pointing facts is considered complaining, than I will happily continue doing so. And you can keep patronizing other users, especially with those references to your son.

 

:megalol::megalol::megalol::megalol::megalol::megalol: Welcome to DCS, if you want to fly exactly as in reality you should have tried to be a fighter pilot the best tactic is not always the one in the manual :smilewink:

Are you by any chance suggesting that exploits are fine ?

[Pathfinder_50]

Well, you've said always. So what difference does date make ?

But to be fair and transparent, this was taken on June 14, 2020. Of course now, according to Alpen rules, this should not happen anymore :thumbup:

 

 

If pointing facts is considered complaining, than I will happily continue doing so. And you can keep patronizing other users, especially with those references to your son.

 

 

Are you by any chance suggesting that exploits are fine ?

 

 

None of the devils are actually using this to outurn the enemy so i actually don't care about this ,i'm not telling that its a good tactic but try to keep in mind that not everyone is playing like us

Edited July 11, 2020 by Pathfinder_50

[Pathfinder_50]

Well, you've said always. So what difference does date make ?

But to be fair and transparent, this was taken on June 14, 2020. Of course now, according to Alpen rules, this should not happen anymore :thumbup:

 

 

If pointing facts is considered complaining, than I will happily continue doing so. And you can keep patronizing other users, especially with those references to your son.

 

 

Are you by any chance suggesting that exploits are fine ?

 

and it makes a difference cuz my always was referring to the period after the removal of AA in the harrier

[Pathfinder_50]

But isn't that what we just got told we should do? What we were told is stopping us from winning (even though we still do, or the mission ends in a neutral state when the server finally empties out)? Or are we continuing this thing where it only applies to certain people and not others?

 

we are not forcing you to change your tactics, it's just an advice, cuz you're complaining about the fact that the viggen is better than the 21 in term of turn rate

[Hiromachi]

None of the devils are actually using this to outurn the enemy so i actually don't care about this

What devils got to do with anything ? It doesn't either change the nature of the exploit whether it's used by some or all pilots.

[Pathfinder_50]

What devils got to do with anything ? It doesn't either change the nature of the exploit whether it's used by some or all pilots.

 

i'm not telling that its a good tactic but try to keep in mind that not everyone is playing like us ( in a realistic way )

[rossmum]

None of the devils are actually using this to outurn the enemy so i actually don't care about this ,i'm not telling that its a good tactic but try to keep in mind that not everyone is playing like us

 

You might want to ask Nellus about that, unless some mysterious bug caused his wheels to be very visibly down at the moment he finally began out-rating me, while the fight was being watched by about 40 people :)

 

we are not forcing you to change your tactics, it's just an advice, cuz you're complaining about the fact that the viggen is better than the 21 in term of turn rate

 

It's not advice, it's condescending. Nor was I complaining about the Viggen being better in turn rate (I only brought it up to point out the ridiculousness of the "advice", and the Viggen can't sustain such a turn for long, especially when it enters the fight willingly with no fuel). My own flying has been pretty sloppy for a few weeks now, but that's on me. When flown well the 21 can hold with or out-turn a Viggen... until it drops its canard flaps by lowering the gear. I know this from being both aircraft in this scenario, though I didn't lower my gear when I was in the Viggen, on the server. I noticed the effect it had by watching others do it, and tested it offline to confirm.

 

Dropping the gear is a clever ploy but it doesn't universally work (someone else tried it against me a few months ago but didn't really 'do anything' with it) and it takes a lot of precision to get the best possible performance without killing the Viggen's engine. Like I said, and without a shred of irony - it isn't easy to do, and that's why it's usually a desperation move.

 

I was pointing out how ridiculous it is to tell us that we need to learn to use our planes how they were meant to be used, while then responding to any criticism (or even simple acknowledgement of something being done, without direct criticism) with "it's only a game, don't play if you don't like it". The same attitude, time and time again. We ask for a change that helps blue, like our missiles being restricted? Nobody says a word. Blue asks for a change that helps them? Fine. Blue asks for a change and we take issue with it? We're whining. We ask for something that helps ourselves? We're whining. At this point even asking for the changes we requested in the first place to be reversed is somehow 'whining'.

 

This is supposed to be a server people come on to have fun, and yes, to try and win on - but not a PR stunt.

Edited July 11, 2020 by rossmum

[NELLUS]

If pointing facts is considered complaining, than I will happily continue doing so. And you can keep patronizing other users, especially with those references to your son.

 

What I said was that my daughter complains less than you.

 

I think that if you spend half of the time hovering on the forum and focused that time on Red team building.. you would be way better of.

[NELLUS]

You might want to ask Nellus about that, unless some mysterious bug caused his wheels to be very visibly down at the moment he finally began out-rating me, while the fight was being watched by about 40 people :)

 

Bud, tell you “Fan Club” I ran out of fuel and took out the wheels to land the plane on the road.

 

Your wheels down increased turn rate theory is actually funny, it makes no sense what so ever :megalol:

Edited July 11, 2020 by NELLUS

[Veritech]

:megalol::megalol::megalol::megalol::megalol::megalol: Welcome to DCS, if you want to fly exactly as in reality you should have tried to be a fighter pilot the best tactic is not always the one in the manual :smilewink:

 

Landing gear usage while dogfighting is an exploit. Period.

 

For the ones who like things as real as possible (note, the S in DCS is for Simulator), this is not acceptable. If you don't want to fly in a "realistic" way, you can always try Ace Combat: it is fun! :)