Cold War 1947 - 1991

[Enigma89]

2 hours ago, Alpenwolf said:

 

Operation Mountain Peaks. Your MiG-19 couldn't carry any R3S missiles because there aren't any. The mission features the early stages of the Cold War, hence the absence of such missiles.

 

Good flying!

Ah yes that is the name. I liked that mission a lot.

[MarkMD]

mission has not spawned any blue vehicles...

 

Thanks,

Mike-Delta

 

[Tavo89]

Mig-19 Red, good flight and thank you.

Apart from looking spectacular. 

 

[Alpenwolf]

8 hours ago, MarkMD said:

mission has not spawned any blue vehicles...

 

Thanks,

Mike-Delta

 

 

What mission?

[QuiGon]

Hey @Alpenwolf, maybe this is a viable alternative for you to restrict available weapons on your server without having to mess around with the warehouses:

 

[rossmum]

22 minutes ago, Alpenwolf said:

What mission?

 

Behind Enemy Lines.

[Alpenwolf]

2 hours ago, QuiGon said:

Hey @Alpenwolf, maybe this is a viable alternative for you to restrict available weapons on your server without having to mess around with the warehouses:

 

 

Yeah, LazzySeal told me about it. And I believe he was behind this feature and argued for it among the ED staff. Top bloke!

 

2 hours ago, rossmum said:

 

Behind Enemy Lines.

 

Shame. That's Mike-Delta's favourite mission.

[QuiGon]

7 minutes ago, Alpenwolf said:

Yeah, LazzySeal told me about it. And I believe he was behind this feature and argued for it among the ED staff. Top bloke!

 

He was not the only one though

 

  

On 10/1/2020 at 12:21 PM, QuiGon said:

Unfortunately, DCS does not offer enough control. It is not possible in multiplayer for mission makers and/or admins to restrict weapons to certain pylons to enforce realistic (= technical possible) loadouts on a server.

 

On 10/6/2020 at 9:18 PM, QuiGon said:

Then at least give mission makers or server admins the ability to restrict loadouts please.

 

 

[Alpenwolf]

An F/A-18C Related Question:

 

If I'm to give Hornets information regarding the whereabouts of various target areas, is assigning waypoints the best/only best way to do it? What if I'm to provide coordinates (longitudes and latitudes) in the briefing and pilots must configure those themselves. Would that be just as good? Also, the mission I'm working on is late 80's so I'm not sure what systems a Hornet had access to.

 

Thanks in advance and please, answer only if you're sure of the information you're providing me with.

[=475FG= Dawger]

21 minutes ago, Alpenwolf said:

An F/A-18C Related Question:

 

If I'm to give Hornets information regarding the whereabouts of various target areas, is assigning waypoints the best/only best way to do it? What if I'm to provide coordinates (longitudes and latitudes) in the briefing and pilots must configure those themselves. Would that be just as good? Also, the mission I'm working on is late 80's so I'm not sure what systems a Hornet had access to.

 

Thanks in advance and please, answer only if you're sure of the information you're providing me with.

The only difference in placing the waypoints in the ME and providing the latitude and longitude is that you are forcing the Hornet pilots to type in the data. Since you are already placing waypoints in the ME for other aircraft, it seems you would just do the same for the Hornets.

 

The Hornet (and many other aircraft)utilizes an Inertial Navigation System. This system is autonomous (not requiring inputs from sources exterior to the aircraft) in order to keep track of the aircraft position. However, INS position will drift over time. The extent of this drift is dependent on many factors but with a high quality INS, it is fairly minor  for a short duration flight (less than 2 hours).

 

In order to minimize the effects of this drift, INS units have the capability to update its position from external sources, essentially correcting the drift back to zero by obtaining an accurate position fix.

 

Prior to GPS availability, INS units had to rely on terrestrial radio navigation aids for position updating. Many of these were line of sight only, so INS drift was a big factor for long oceanic crossings.

 

In the 1980's, GPS would not have been in wide use by the US military. INS systems would have been less accurate than they are with GPS available but still very reliable and accurate as a navigation source for short flights.

[Alpenwolf]

11 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

The only difference in placing the waypoints in the ME and providing the latitude and longitude is that you are forcing the Hornet pilots to type in the data. Since you are already placing waypoints in the ME for other aircraft, it seems you would just do the same for the Hornets.

 

The Hornet (and many other aircraft)utilizes an Inertial Navigation System. This system is autonomous (not requiring inputs from sources exterior to the aircraft) in order to keep track of the aircraft position. However, INS position will drift over time. The extent of this drift is dependent on many factors but with a high quality INS, it is fairly minor  for a short duration flight (less than 2 hours).

 

In order to minimize the effects of this drift, INS units have the capability to update its position from external sources, essentially correcting the drift back to zero by obtaining an accurate position fix.

 

Prior to GPS availability, INS units had to rely on terrestrial radio navigation aids for position updating. Many of these were line of sight only, so INS drift was a big factor for long oceanic crossings.

 

In the 1980's, GPS would not have been in wide use by the US military. INS systems would have been less accurate than they are with GPS available but still very reliable and accurate as a navigation source for short flights.

 

Very much appreciated!

[QuiGon]

4 hours ago, Alpenwolf said:

An F/A-18C Related Question:

 

If I'm to give Hornets information regarding the whereabouts of various target areas, is assigning waypoints the best/only best way to do it? What if I'm to provide coordinates (longitudes and latitudes) in the briefing and pilots must configure those themselves. Would that be just as good? Also, the mission I'm working on is late 80's so I'm not sure what systems a Hornet had access to.

 

Thanks in advance and please, answer only if you're sure of the information you're providing me with.

 

Personally I would prefer to only use predefined waypoints for actual navigation instead of having multiple pre-defined target waypoints on a single island. I would much rather just have the target coordinates in the briefing, so I can insert them into the INS the way I like them. It would also further encourage people to actually read the briefing!

 

There is also one additional option to do this, at least for AA units: You can make them visible on the Hornet's MFD through the mission editor (applies also to F-16C, Ka-50 and AH-64D) by unchecking the "HIDDEN ON MFD" option. That way they will be shown on the Hornet's SA page (a map display with tactical information) along with threat circles around them. This is not some magic DL stuff or so, but simulates pre-planned threats that are known beforehand through intel and have then been incorporated by the pilot into his flight plan which he loads onto his aircraft.

 

Edited September 10, 2021 by QuiGon

[Alpenwolf]

52 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

 

Personally I would prefer to only use predefined waypoints for actual navigation instead of having multiple pre-defined target waypoints on a single island. I would much rather just have the target coordinates in the briefing, so I can insert them into the INS the way I like them. It would also further encourage people to actually read the briefing!

 

There is also one additional option to do this, at least for AA units: You can make them visible on the Hornet's MFD through the mission editor (applies also to F-16C, Ka-50 and AH-64D) by unchecking the "HIDDEN ON MFD" option. That way they will be shown on the Hornet's SA page (a map display with tactical information) along with threat circles around them. This is not some magic DL stuff or so, but simulates pre-planned threats that are known beforehand through intel and have then been incorporated by the pilot into his flight plan which he loads onto his aircraft.

 

 

 

I'm aware of this, which is why I keep things hidden on the MFD in missions featuring the Ka-50.

I'd also rather have players take whatever coordinates from the briefing and briefing images and do their homework, so I can still give the Hornets waypoints that show them the flight path instead of TA's. The problem is, your average DCS player wouldn't like that much of work and things could go very bad for Blue. The latter is what worries me, which we've witnessed 3 times so far in the mission Allied Assault, despite all ground units being shown on MFD's and waypoints placed exactly over the TA's.

[QuiGon]

3 minutes ago, Alpenwolf said:

I'm aware of this, which is why I keep things hidden on the MFD in missions featuring the Ka-50.

I'd also rather have players take whatever coordinates from the briefing and briefing images and do their homework, so I can still give the Hornets waypoints that show them the flight path instead of TA's. The problem is, your average DCS player wouldn't like that much of work and things could go very bad for Blue. The latter is what worries me, which we've witnessed 3 times so far in the mission Allied Assault, despite all ground units being shown on MFD's and waypoints placed exactly over the TA's.

 

If your target group are average DCS players then this might be an issue indeed...

[Alpenwolf]

1 hour ago, QuiGon said:

 

If your target group are average DCS players then this might be an issue indeed...

 

That's not exactly my "target group", but that's the available one

 

Some weeks ago, I've talked about lacking a big enough community for the Cold War server, to dare put a password on it and lock it up for only those who want to experience their modules, and the game itself, a bit more than the usual. However, I'm planning something in that regard now that I've mentioned it. It's still just an idea though, not really a plan yet.

[muffler]

 

[Tavo89]

F-14, F-18, Mig-29.... F-16 etc.

 

The f-18 is very good in close combat, it can easily overcome the Mig-21 and R60 missiles, will you include something more powerful for the red side or will you let the Hornet dominate?

Edited September 10, 2021 by Tavo89

[Zachrix]

5 hours ago, Tavo89 said:

F-14, F-18, Mig-29.... F-16 etc.

 

The f-18 is very good in close combat, it can easily overcome the Mig-21 and R60 missiles, will you include something more powerful for the red side or will you let the Hornet dominate?

 

Where is there only a mission between f18 and the 21?

[Tavo89]

Who says there is a mission only for the Mig-21 and the F-18?

Edited September 11, 2021 by Tavo89

[Zachrix]

2 hours ago, Tavo89 said:

Who says there is a mission only for the Mig-21 and the F-18?

 

Your question was framed weirdly lol

[rossmum]

Guys, please IFF before shooting. Someone who has posted on this page blasted two (!) R-3Rs, a burst of guns, and then R-60 at my Su-25 over an enemy ground objective in When The Mountains Cry today, and killed me. Going through a Tacview of the mission before (Open Range), one Tomcat teamkilled an F-5 with an AIM-7M, and a regular F-5 player nearly scored a teamkill on Dawger because his missile wasn't looking at the target he thought (nose was pointed at a MiG-21 at point of launch, but seeker had been uncaged seconds earlier while Dawger was in front of it). Someone also got what I can only guess was revenge-for-a-previous-mission teamkilled on takeoff in a limited airframe, although said person was teamkilling in a Tomcat the other day so I guess it was seen as 'damage control'.

 

On the other hand, it turns out that it actually wasn't my rogue missile that wiped one of the 475th guys chasing a crippled MiG the other day - said MiG somehow got an R-3R away without anyone noticing.

[rossmum]

21 hours ago, Alpenwolf said:

An F/A-18C Related Question:

 

If I'm to give Hornets information regarding the whereabouts of various target areas, is assigning waypoints the best/only best way to do it? What if I'm to provide coordinates (longitudes and latitudes) in the briefing and pilots must configure those themselves. Would that be just as good? Also, the mission I'm working on is late 80's so I'm not sure what systems a Hornet had access to.

 

Thanks in advance and please, answer only if you're sure of the information you're providing me with.

 

Worse engines for a start. Our F-18C is a later lot with uprated engines, with about 10% better static thrust, cca. early to mid 90s (our jet specifically is ~mid 2000s). No JHMCS (you can force-mount the NVGs and then remove JHMCS from warehouses I think? Pretty sure this is how BF 80s does it). No self-designate ability or ability to hit targets lased by other aircraft. If you want to go pre-87ish: worse radar, no Mav, no Harpoon, no ASPJ, far worse air/ground radar functions including mapping, the original top row MFDs were monochrome (not something you can change in DCS). I don't even know if they originally had the colour moving map. I also don't know exactly when Link 16 became a thing, but I'd put good money on it falling outside the desired time period.

 

I've sent off a message to my bug-crazed mate, so it may be a day or two before he gets back to me, but basically: the Hornet we have in DCS is so fundamentally different to a Cold War Hornet as to be a completely different aircraft, same deal as the F-16 and A-10C. Even if there was a way to disable the offending avionics, you're still sitting on a substantial thrust upgrade and a number of quality of life things that didn't exist in the original jet.

Edited September 11, 2021 by rossmum

[Alpenwolf]

13 minutes ago, rossmum said:

 

Worse engines for a start. Our F-18C is a later lot with uprated engines, with about 10% better static thrust, cca. early to mid 90s (our jet specifically is ~mid 2000s). No JHMCS (you can force-mount the NVGs and then remove JHMCS from warehouses I think? Pretty sure this is how BF 80s does it). No self-designate ability or ability to hit targets lased by other aircraft. If you want to go pre-87ish: worse radar, no Mav, no Harpoon, no ASPJ, far worse air/ground radar functions including mapping, the original top row MFDs were monochrome (not something you can change in DCS). I don't even know if they originally had the colour moving map. I also don't know exactly when Link 16 became a thing, but I'd put good money on it falling outside the desired time period.

 

I've sent off a message to my bug-crazed mate, so it may be a day or two before he gets back to me, but basically: the Hornet we have in DCS is so fundamentally different to a Cold War Hornet as to be a completely different aircraft, same deal as the F-16 and A-10C. Even if there was a way to disable the offending avionics, you're still sitting on a substantial thrust upgrade and a number of quality of life things that didn't exist in the original jet.

 

 

I'm aware of all the above. Marking the TA's was my issue. The Hornets will be doing SEAD in the mission I'm designing. No doubt, they can carry AIM-7M's, but SEAD is their objective.

 

The JHMCS is disabled through the mission editor.

[goAdA]

10 minutes ago, Alpenwolf said:

 

I'm aware of all the above. Marking the TA's was my issue. The Hornets will be doing SEAD in the mission I'm designing. No doubt, they can carry AIM-7M's, but SEAD is their objective.

 

The JHMCS is disabled through the mission editor.

the threat ring is indeed a feature from the original hornet; however, only static sam systems (SA2, SA3, SA5, S300) should have those, SA6/8/11/13/15/19 should NOT have threat ring and they should be hidden in mission editor since they are mobile sams (they are assumed to move every now and then). Apart from that, although the original hornet does not have link16, it did have link4 which has about the same quality as F14. Since in game we cannot pick which link to use, one way to do this is to set up EWR for general blue aircraft, while F14 can receive datalink contact from ships (if applicable), and hornet will be stuck with general MIDS (which is in the original hornet too). 

[Alpenwolf]

3 hours ago, goAdA said:

the threat ring is indeed a feature from the original hornet; however, only static sam systems (SA2, SA3, SA5, S300) should have those, SA6/8/11/13/15/19 should NOT have threat ring and they should be hidden in mission editor since they are mobile sams (they are assumed to move every now and then). Apart from that, although the original hornet does not have link16, it did have link4 which has about the same quality as F14. Since in game we cannot pick which link to use, one way to do this is to set up EWR for general blue aircraft, while F14 can receive datalink contact from ships (if applicable), and hornet will be stuck with general MIDS (which is in the original hornet too). 

 

Which is why I put EWR for Blue and no AWACS in the mission I'm working on