Cold War 1947 - 1991

[NELLUS]

The Viggen is a brilliant striker, but it takes some dedication to master. Many if us that fly it use it for strike purposes only, and trying to stay away from the lighter 21’s/19’s as much as we can. We have almost twice as much fuel onboard which makes it a clumsy dogfighter, but the fuel helps us to get out of harms way if we need to. 
I still say that server rules with x2 RB24J’s should be applied and warnings first, followed with short term bans if disregarded, for those that break them. 

[Sideburns]

14 hours ago, m4ti140 said:

What "RWR" bugs? This is the first time I've heard of it since the RWR overhaul. If there's a bug report it.

I can make custom lua predicates for different speeds.

As for "unconvincing concerns" - well it's not my problem if your imaginary universe has different laws of physics.

 

Ok, you being unaware of MiG21 this goes someway to explaining your approach this discussion. Having said that I assumed, given your extensive involvement in the discussion, you would be aware of the MiG21 issues. Also generally speaking I consider the whole weapons and aircraft choice to be a "balance of bugs" that unfortunately Alpenwolf has to juggle for his CW server.

 

The bugs are already reported but not yet resolved and relatively fresh / easy to find on the MiG21 subforum. The MiG21 suffers from radar bugs resulting it an overly optimistic radar range (fighter sized targets being picked up at 30km, whereas this is probably an accurate range for bomber size targets based on the technical aspects of the radar and some documentation) and it also does not present correctly on other aircraft's RWR (MiG21 does not appear on an RWR until it the MiG21 has detected the target, MiG21 does not give correct lock indications resulting in targets being unaware they are locked or fired upon).

 

Hopefully you will agree this gives the MiG21 a significant advantage when using the radar and radar weapons, but I suspect you will attempt to "downsplain" it again. Just as you have tried to underplay the significance of the MiG21 emergency AB beyond permitted time limits issue affecting speed when really the advantage it provides, given the MiG21 speed limits, is TW increase and improved acceleration beyond what the jet should be capable of. Somewhat ironically at the same time as bemoaning the Viggen's acceleration situation now the speed situation is hopefully in hand.

 

As before I think the acceleration issues would be non-trivial to solve via scripting, and I personally think people's time (mainly Alpenwolf's time) is probably better spent elsewhere given the impact the acceleration has on Viggen usage (and arguably it also has parity with the MiG21 emergency AB time limit situation). Hence why I find your argument unconvincing to change things further or continue the Rb24 restriction based on the Viggen acceleration situation. Not because of the physics involved, which I am well aware of being a physics graduate and having worked many years in the aviation industry.

 

I sincerely hope you give the blufor jets a go, given the free trials, and review the MiG21 bugs highlighted to get a better perspective on things before commenting in the future.

 

[Alpenwolf]

Server News:

 

- All missions on all maps include the speed limit for the Viggen. Trigger fixed.

- Added FAQ's to the main post of this thread.

[CrazyGman]

Mi-24 guide is out

 

 

Mi-24P Quick Start Manual EN.pdf

[Alpenwolf]

1 minute ago, CrazyGman said:

Mi-24 guide is out

 

 

Mi-24P Quick Start Manual EN.pdf 2.9 MB · 0 downloads

 

Thank you very much!

[Bisch]

Will the Mi24 get the R60M in (some)Cold War Server Missions as soon as they will become available during EA?

[CrazyGman]

 

2 hours ago, Atelophobia said:

Will the Mi24 get the R60M in (some)Cold War Server Missions as soon as they will become available during EA?

I think that would be a little too overpowered, considering you could carry up to at least 4 R60m and also anti-tank missiles if you had just Mi-24s in sufficient numbers they could clear missions possibly a bit too easy. The Mistrel Gazelle is pretty limited in the server because it's quite effective, now add the ability to move faster, and have anit-tank missiles and it's a bit much. Maybe if it could just carry the R60 vanilla but even then I would say only for a mission or 2 at best.

and we have the missile vid out

 

 

just got the Mi-24 Anti-tank missile vid out. Might come out this Wednesday guys

Edited June 15, 2021 by CrazyGman

[Admiral_ZIPANGU]

I saw that on another PvP server, a script has been implemented that will issue a warning if a certain armament exceeds the limit of the number of armaments carried. I thought it might be effective if this could be implemented on this server as well. But that script is not easy to find...

Edited June 15, 2021 by Admiral_ZIPANGU

[Alpenwolf]

8 hours ago, Atelophobia said:

Will the Mi24 get the R60M in (some)Cold War Server Missions as soon as they will become available during EA?

 

Yes.

[Sideburns]

The ability to limit payload per pylon can't arrive soon enough, by official utility or mod. The Rb24/aim9b is not a practical weapon and having an Mi24 with many R60m and ATGM seems quite overpowered. The Mi24 is also quite a fast helicopter and should be able to dictate engagements with other helos. Having said that as much I have not pre-ordered (F16 pre-order wounds still not healed) I can't wait to see this most ugly yet beautiful thing in the DCS sky.

[Bisch]

3 hours ago, Alpenwolf said:

 

Yes.

Awesome! Can’t wait try that legend of my childhood on your great server. 
Do you expect a longer downtime of your server when it releases?

9 hours ago, CrazyGman said:

 

I think that would be a little too overpowered, considering you could carry up to at least 4 R60m and also anti-tank missiles if you had just Mi-24s in sufficient numbers they could clear missions possibly a bit too easy. The Mistrel Gazelle is pretty limited in the server because it's quite effective, now add the ability to move faster, and have anit-tank missiles and it's a bit much. Maybe if it could just carry the R60 vanilla but even then I would say only for a mission or 2 at best.

and we have the missile vid out

 

 

just got the Mi-24 Anti-tank missile vid out. Might come out this Wednesday guys

 

I guess Alpenwolf will find a way to keep it balanced. I prefer balancing to simply restricting. Even some unbalanced days in the beginning shouldn’t hurt too much. And it doesn’t replace a bad helo. Taking out the shark also takes away its special advantages. 

[Alpenwolf]

Server News:

 

- There will be 2 more slots for the F-5's than for the MiG-21's in some missions.

- This is due to the fact that Red has MiG-21's and MiG-19's as main fighters/interceptors, while Blue has only the F-5. MiG-15's and F-86's cancel each other out.

- The RB-24J is being added back to the missions so expect the missile back soon over the upcoming days.

- There will be ca. 40 x RB-24J's max. If the first 8 Viggen pilots decide to go with 6 x RB-24J's each that'd be it. Up to them.

- There will be no scripting or additional monitoring of which player is taking how many RB-24J's. The Viggen is consuming most of the mission editing time these days.

- You can spread the word and maybe notifiy Viggen players of that once online. Don't expect much from the casual DCS player though.

Edited June 15, 2021 by Alpenwolf

[NELLUS]

49 minutes ago, Alpenwolf said:

Server News:

 

- There will be 2 more slots for the F-5's than the MiG-21's in some missions.

- This is due to the fact that Red has MiG-21's and MiG-19's as main fighters/interceptors, while Blue has the only F-5. MiG-15's and F-86's cancel each other out.

- The RB-24J is being added back to the missions so expect the missile back soon over the upcoming days.

- There will be ca. 40 x RB-24J's max. If the first 8 Viggen pilots decide to go with 6 x RB-24J's each that'd be it. Up to them.

- There will be no scripting or additional monitoring of which player is taking how many RB-24J's. The Viggen is consuming most of the mission editing time these days.

- You can spread the word and maybe notifiy Viggen players of that once online. Don't expect much from the casual DCS player though.

I hope that the regular Viggen flyers (about 10 of us) will stick with x2 RB24J’s per flight. 

Edited June 15, 2021 by NELLUS

[GeneralMav24]

15 minutes ago, NELLUS said:

I hope that the regular Viggen flyers (about 10 of us) will stick with x2 RB24J’s per flight. 

 

unfortunately theres a couple people I see regularly that dont follow objectives at all with strike loads that Im sure will take 6 24js

[NELLUS]

Here’s two pics showing the RB24 followed by the RB24J. It’s pretty easy to identify them. We can give a heads up about the limited amount available for those that load up with more than two RB24J’s per flight. 

 

Edited June 16, 2021 by NELLUS

[GeneralMav24]

yea it is easy to identify but people listening at all is another problem

[rossmum]

It might be worth getting in the habit of not relying on self-defence anyway (I know, the Viggens have kind of had to do so recently with the 24). Considering the AJ had four weapons pylons, not six, that means any attempt at a period-appropriate Viggen leaves you with two missiles and two other stores, or no missiles for a full load. The AAMs went on the inner pylons only, and if carrying Mavs, it seems (thanks to the manual Sideburns linked) that for whatever reason, one was always on an inner while the other was usually on an outer. Speed and low flight can still help (just less, with the speed restriction) but the main thing is going to be coordination with other flights and actual CAP from fighters. On Open Range the other day, we had F-5s flying with heavy air-to-ground loadouts, no F-14s unlocked, and Viggens being left unescorted to fly strikes alone or at best in pairs. I got to my target on most sorties but rarely got back from it, as red had near total air superiority thanks to our de facto lack of fighters.

 

My suggestion for the F-5 guys, at least those who read this thread (maybe GCIs can "gently suggest" over SRS for those who don't) is that they do not fly air-to-ground sorties unless we have enough fighters to provide some kind of challenge to the enemy over the front. At the same time, the Viggens will be more effective flying in at least pairs, not only to give them some safety in numbers but also to work over a target quicker. 2-4 Viggens carpet bombing a ground installation in a single pass is a hell of a lot more effective than a single rusty MiG pilot flying like 8 sorties against the same target because he can only half-remember how to set up for a nav bombing high-drag run

[Alpenwolf]

Just to be clear about the Viggen, Viggen pilots should enjoy themselves as much as the rest of players flying all kinds of aircraft. And it's a shame that some players will always take things to the extreme resulting in forcing restrictions on everybody. I guess, it's the way with everything.

Viggen pilots can fly as they like while keeping in mind the objective they are assigned for. The thing is, when you take 6 x RB-24J's you're literally limiting other Viggen's. I can only ask players to take 2 or maybe 4 missiles max. Even the F-5, the MiG-19 and some MiG-21 players can't/don't take more than 2/4 missiles. We know it's the AJ that'd be more suitable but it's the AJS we have and that's why these kinds of restrictions. Pretty much the same story we had with the Harrier: No AIM-9M's and some AG weapons were also not available to have players use it as a striker only due to its way too modern systems. That's all. No other reasons for limiting the Viggen like that. And then it has bugs?! That makes things only more difficult for me.

Edited June 16, 2021 by Alpenwolf

[Sideburns]

12 hours ago, rossmum said:

It might be worth getting in the habit of not relying on self-defence anyway (I know, the Viggens have kind of had to do so recently with the 24). Considering the AJ had four weapons pylons, not six, that means any attempt at a period-appropriate Viggen leaves you with two missiles and two other stores, or no missiles for a full load. The AAMs went on the inner pylons only, and if carrying Mavs, it seems (thanks to the manual Sideburns linked) that for whatever reason, one was always on an inner while the other was usually on an outer. Speed and low flight can still help (just less, with the speed restriction) but the main thing is going to be coordination with other flights and actual CAP from fighters. On Open Range the other day, we had F-5s flying with heavy air-to-ground loadouts, no F-14s unlocked, and Viggens being left unescorted to fly strikes alone or at best in pairs. I got to my target on most sorties but rarely got back from it, as red had near total air superiority thanks to our de facto lack of fighters.

 

My suggestion for the F-5 guys, at least those who read this thread (maybe GCIs can "gently suggest" over SRS for those who don't) is that they do not fly air-to-ground sorties unless we have enough fighters to provide some kind of challenge to the enemy over the front. At the same time, the Viggens will be more effective flying in at least pairs, not only to give them some safety in numbers but also to work over a target quicker. 2-4 Viggens carpet bombing a ground installation in a single pass is a hell of a lot more effective than a single rusty MiG pilot flying like 8 sorties against the same target because he can only half-remember how to set up for a nav bombing high-drag run

 

So just to clarify on this point, perhaps for people who have seen the AJ37 Viggen has seven* hardpoints, and also respectfully challenge the "not relying on self defence" suggestion:

• The outermost two wing pylons on the AJ37 were wired for the Rb28 Falcon only. Given that this weapon was not taken forward by the Swedish air force for the AJ37, due to poor weapon performance, the outer two AJ37 wing pylons were unused but physically present. This is why why they appear empty on some diagrams for AJ37, or don't appear at all, until the AJS-37 upgrade. The AJS37 upgrade enabled all six weapons pylons to carry Rb24/24j/74 if desired.**
• The AJ37 "smart" weapon carriage appears to have been a function of computer weapon handling capacity and wiring, hence some diagrams indicating two Rb24 or Rb75 only in specific locations. 
• It appears from Swedish air force documentation, https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8bCDRcq9BVeY0gycWRrMXVIdTA/view?resourcekey=0-oFS9Xlxr5xkcifaQ000kBA page 8,that permitted weapon loadouts changed over time (perhaps the air force figured out they could split the wiring for weapons between nearby pylons) and asymmetric loadouts were feasible. I would recommend considering these if you want some more flexibility in self defence (i.e. single Rb24/24j and/or countermeasure pod) at the expense of a little imbalance of the airframe. i.e. CM pod, Rb75, X-tank, Rb24j, Rb75 is quite a flexible loadout for contested airspace anti armour while being period correct. Conversely four Rb75 (AJ37 computer can only handle two at a time) with two Rb24/24j (outer wing pylons Rb28 only) would not be correct for an AJ37.
• As per documentation, and the designation of the Viggen, the AJ37 was a strike fighter with an airspace defence / fighter role if required. Gunpod, CM pod, dual Rb24j and an X-tank is a valid AJ37 loadout.
• Speed and extending from a bad situation still very much a valid tactic for the AJ37 being as it is among the fastest fighters at low level. Remember to eject stores to have the full 1400kph available currently.
• As always pairing up and flying sensible formations providing mutual support will make you much more effective and survivable in any airframe.

Finally if we are discussing period correct airframes and weapons focus should the discussion now focus be on the Su25t, Ka-50 and Vikhr missile (prototypes, limited availability for combat or not available in this timeframe) and also the MiG21 being able to deploy the Grom (this has been questioned, limited evidence to suggest it should be capable). Will we also see similar restrictions or removal for these systems? . At the moment it seems blufor have been quite restricted whereas redfor get minimal restrictions. Appreciate Ka-50 soon to go due to Mi-24, but that should be with similar considerations towards period correct weapons.

 

* Sources also indicate an additional two wing pylons could be configured for a total of nine! But this was so rarely used it is not worth considering for DCS. Limited information on what these could carry but I would assume it is additional dumb weapons i.e. rockets and bombs.

 

** Carriage on the outer pylon was initially frowned upon by Saab engineers due to the increase weight of later Sidewinders impacting fatigue life of the wing. Eventually the air force and Saab came to an agreement on fatigue life expectations and the carriage was permitted (note this is a long term, over many years fatigue life issue, not the wing snaps immediately if outer pylon used issue).

Edited June 16, 2021 by Sideburns
Correct none to nine, lol.

[Admiral_ZIPANGU]

On 5/31/2021 at 7:38 PM, BIGNEWY said:

DCS: Mi-24P Early access date

 

Hello all, 

 

We plan to release the DCS: Mi-24P to open beta today the 16th of June 2021

 

Thank you for your support and patience. 

 

The ED Team

Good news. Alpenwolf's work will increase dramatically.

[Alpenwolf]

6 minutes ago, Admiral_ZIPANGU said:

Good news. Alpenwolf's work will increase dramatically.

 

Yeah! Rubbing my hands already!

 

Some good updates for the Syria map by the way. Maybe it becomes more flyable for some players now. It wouldn't feel right not to fly the Hind in Syria.

 

On a side note, it always amuses me how many fixes the C-101 receives almost every update. I can only salute them for taking care of their baby that much, or even more than other developers regarding their more popular modules! Just sayin'

[GeneralMav24]

would love to see some syria missions going again, always love flying helicopters there.

[Sideburns]

1 hour ago, Sideburns said:

 

Appreciate Ka-50 soon to go due to Mi-24, but that should be with similar considerations towards period correct weapons.

 

 

36 minutes ago, LoneS said:

 

He said he always made a little exception when talking about helicopters for reasons he mentioned some days ago....... just check out his last posts am I the only one who reads everything here before talking? At least read his posts

 

I am aware of the situation and do read the posts, did you read my post? Relevant content quoted above for absolute clarity.

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

I seem to remember being in a server a while back where you could load as many Phoenix missiles as she would hold even though the “rules”said only so many of a certain type.  As soon as you got off the ground and away from the airport the plane went into a death spiral. Can’t this logic be applied to the aforementioned problem?  

[Sideburns]

1 hour ago, Sideburns said:

 

Finally if we are discussing period correct airframes and weapons focus should the discussion now focus be on the Su25t, Ka-50 and Vikhr missile (prototypes, limited availability for combat or not available in this timeframe) and also the MiG21 being able to deploy the Grom (this has been questioned, limited evidence to suggest it should be capable). Will we also see similar restrictions or removal for these systems? . At the moment it seems blufor have been quite restricted whereas redfor get minimal restrictions. Appreciate Ka-50 soon to go due to Mi-24, but that should be with similar considerations towards period correct weapons.

 

 

12 minutes ago, LoneS said:

 

Then why write this then:

" <- the discussion now focus be on the Su25t, Ka-50 and Vikhr missile (prototypes, limited availability for combat or not available in this timeframe) -> "

 

Missing the preceding word which frames the sentence as a question to the audience of the post, as intended, attempting instead to make it look like I made an absolute statement or demand?