Cold War 1947 - 1991

[F16wannabe]

 

[Alpenwolf]

1 hour ago, Shadow KT said:

@AlpenwolfM60 are drivable now.

Yeah, it's been like that for 3 weeks and I have the tanks in some of my missions already

The new mission I'm working on will have them included against the T-55.

[Alpenwolf]

1 hour ago, F16wannabe said:

 

I remember that one! The MiG-21 pilot was communicating on SRS and saying he's about to take 2 Viggens with one shot
I was doing some bombing myself in the Fishbed.

Good bombing! Just make sure you hit the buildings marked and shown in the briefing images to get the job done.

[irgendjemand]

3 hours ago, ConkersBFD said:

Unofficial CW Discord : https://discord.gg/xSbnr5Py

thanks

[F16wannabe]

1 hour ago, Alpenwolf said:

I remember that one! The MiG-21 pilot was communicating on SRS and saying he's about to take 2 Viggens with one shot
I was doing some bombing myself in the Fishbed.

Good bombing! Just make sure you hit the buildings marked and shown in the briefing images to get the job done.

You're not my real dad, don't tell me what to bomb

[Alpenwolf]

1 minute ago, F16wannabe said:

You're not my real dad, don't tell me what to bomb

My man, Tricky Tricker! I guess, OG's do what they want. You earned it

[rossmum]

On 11/7/2021 at 1:38 AM, =475FG= Dawger said:

Yea, we are well aware.

The airplane is snapping wings at 8.5 G symmetrical, which puts the operational G limit at 5.6 G in clean configuration.

Not much of a fighter.

Someone at ED doesn't know how to read the limitations charts.

From memory it's a 7.33G fighter per documented limits, add a safety factor of ~1.5x to that and you get 11G, which is about where I found it breaking while running some tests the other day. The amount it'll let you pull ingame before it breaks seems to be a function of fuel load only, not suspended stores or anything else, but with 2 Sidewinders and a combat fuel load I was able to have brief excursions beyond 10G twice before the wings finally gave out on a third pull, at a much lower value. If you're losing them at 8.5 it's very possibly because you already burnt that safety margin without realising it earlier, and since the F-5 completely lacks any sort of limiter system it is quite easy to do. These older US fighters have surprisingly low limits, 7.33 seems to have been the norm for a long time.

With that said, the 21 will snap its wings if you pull too abruptly for the ARU to keep up, as will the 19. The Viggen rips even lower, unless HB have adjusted it very recently I was seldom able to even sustain 9 for more than a second without the wings checking out.

[=475FG= Dawger]

23 minutes ago, rossmum said:

From memory it's a 7.33G fighter per documented limits, add a safety factor of ~1.5x to that and you get 11G, which is about where I found it breaking while running some tests the other day. The amount it'll let you pull ingame before it breaks seems to be a function of fuel load only, not suspended stores or anything else, but with 2 Sidewinders and a combat fuel load I was able to have brief excursions beyond 10G twice before the wings finally gave out on a third pull, at a much lower value. If you're losing them at 8.5 it's very possibly because you already burnt that safety margin without realising it earlier, and since the F-5 completely lacks any sort of limiter system it is quite easy to do. These older US fighters have surprisingly low limits, 7.33 seems to have been the norm for a long time.

With that said, the 21 will snap its wings if you pull too abruptly for the ARU to keep up, as will the 19. The Viggen rips even lower, unless HB have adjusted it very recently I was seldom able to even sustain 9 for more than a second without the wings checking out.

Nope.
 

ED has done a couple things. The first is misinterpreted the stores limits as applying to the wing. They don’t. They are pylon limits. So, now you can break the wings off well below 11 G symmetrical due to this error with pylon stores on  

The second is an inexplicable lowering of the failure limit at speeds in excess of 520 KIAS
 

The last error is applying assymetrical G failures far too aggressively. Wings are snapping off at the merest hint of roll when the book limits are 360 degree rolls initiated above 5 G or using full deflection.

Hopefully they will recognize the errors and quietly correct them. 

[F16wannabe]

6 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

Nope.
 

ED has done a couple things. The first is misinterpreted the stores limits as applying to the wing. They don’t. They are pylon limits. So, now you can break the wings off well below 11 G symmetrical due to this error with pylon stores on  

The second is an inexplicable lowering of the failure limit at speeds in excess of 520 KIAS
 

The last error is applying assymetrical G failures far too aggressively. Wings are snapping off at the merest hint of roll when the book limits are 360 degree rolls initiated above 5 G or using full deflection.

Hopefully they will recognize the errors and quietly correct them. 

Honestly I would write this and show documentation and screenshots of your sources in order for things to be changed and post in the F-5 forum.  I wouldn't assume they know about it.

[Foka1]

On 11/6/2021 at 5:38 PM, =475FG= Dawger said:

Yea, we are well aware.

The airplane is snapping wings at 8.5 G symmetrical, which puts the operational G limit at 5.6 G in clean configuration.

Not much of a fighter.

Someone at ED doesn't know how to read the limitations charts.

 

it is modeled for 7.3 G limit with clean configuration as documented. (as far as I know).  5.6G limit would be for a loaded plane in this case. So something not checks out.

If you want to report case you need to provide at least track. Just saying that ED  "doesn't know how to read limitation charts" is not creating a constructive discussion.

If you know how it should be do a track where it breaks before, of what you would expect be right, then provide explanation where it should have been different. Something is needed as reference point and it is usually track file when you report something to ED.

[Foka1]

1 hour ago, F16wannabe said:

Honestly I would write this and show documentation and screenshots of your sources in order for things to be changed and post in the F-5 forum.  I wouldn't assume they know about it.

That too

[rossmum]

I'm doing some more testing now. My first round was mostly around 500kts so I didn't encounter the lower limit beyond that. With full internal fuel I'm losing the wings around 8.5-9, and 11 below that speed. Forgive me as I've skimmed the manual here and gone straight for operational limitations, but it says +6.5 with more than 2200lbs fuel and that multiplied by 1.5 puts us over the usual safety factor, as long as we're below 500kts. Above that, I don't know what's going on there, obviously it's a pretty significant drop and sure enough I'm not seeing anything in the manual that suggests that the limit should change based on speed - sounds like something ED do need to address. On a closer look, the shift in limit is based on speed specifically in this condition. 7.33 -> 6.5 above M 0.95 while fuel is more than 2200lbs, on an otherwise clean aircraft. No limit shift specified for below 2200lbs.

Cutting the fuel down to just below 2200lbs and keeping my speed below 500kts, I'm able to pull just on the north side of 11G repeatedly, I'm literally seesawing the thing +11 through to -3 to get my speed back and I brushed just past 12G on the fourth cycle. The plane finally broke on the fifth cycle as I pulled at around 450kts. Pulling from 600kts, I got past 11G with no issues, and broke on the second pull at around 11.5.

e/ Above for symmetrical, for clarity.

Edited November 9, 2021 by rossmum
reading is still hard

[Get_Lo]

I think I can live with the 10G limit on full fuel but the 8.4G ripping in barrels roles (no prior stress) is a bit, weird
Also im late to the MiG-21 radar discussion, but I would like to point out there have been times in the 21 in which I kept lock on a person who I merged with, and they flew behind me. to my surprise when I came back around on them I still had the lock. quite bizarre. 

[CrazyGman]

 

[Alpenwolf]

5 hours ago, Get_Lo said:

I think I can live with the 10G limit on full fuel but the 8.4G ripping in barrels roles (no prior stress) is a bit, weird
Also im late to the MiG-21 radar discussion, but I would like to point out there have been times in the 21 in which I kept lock on a person who I merged with, and they flew behind me. to my surprise when I came back around on them I still had the lock. quite bizarre. 

I've never ever experienced that in the MiG-21 and I have tons of hours in it. Very weird.

3 hours ago, CrazyGman said:

 

Very much appreciated! GCI operators are very vital in my missions as you know. I wrap the mission design around them to help make things very dynamic. That means, without GCI operators the missions might be boring, but if a GCI operator is there it's a blast!

Check out the following in the briefing under frequencies:

"GCI operators focus mainly on aircraft operating on 124 MHz. MiG-15 pilots will have to stick with their EWR mainly and contact the GCI operator via teamchat and hope he manages to provide BRAA's for them on their frequency.
Working on 2 different frequencies can be stressing for the GCI operator, so MiG-15's shouldn't expect him to reply. It's up to the operator."

[Alpenwolf]

Viggen's Radar:

What's the range on its radar in AG(sea) mode and AA mode? How good is tracking? Over performing like the MiG-21's? And how good can it "see"? For instance, the MiG-21's radar's search cone is +17° upwards, -1.5° downwards, +30° to the right, and -30° to the left. That's what I mean by cone. I need this information for a mission I'm working on.

Thanks in advance!

[Sideburns]

32 minutes ago, Alpenwolf said:

Viggen's Radar:

What's the range on its radar in AG(sea) mode and AA mode? How good is tracking? Over performing like the MiG-21's? And how good can it "see"? For instance, the MiG-21's radar's search cone is +17° upwards, -1.5° downwards, +30° to the right, and -30° to the left. That's what I mean by cone. I need this information for a mission I'm working on.

Thanks in advance!

Chuck's guide might be a helpful illustration on Viggen radar capabilities. A2G (p149-169) and A2A modes (p168/357) https://www.mudspike.com/wp-content/uploads/guides/DCS AJS-37 Viggen Guide.pdf

The radar doesn't really track things, but it allows radar fixes for navigation or deploying A2G weapons, and primitive search and radar ranging for A2A mode within visual range (0-30km). The radar scope basically gives a raw return and is optimised for ground / ship returns.

Max range scale is 120km, but in my experience ships usually appear 50-90km depending on size. Scan azimuth up to 123 degrees, 3.6 degree arc and +- 10 degree elevation change possible depending on pilot control or radar mode (as per Chuck's guide). I honestly don't have much experience of the A2A radar mode as it is a pain to use.

I don't recall any bug or complaints the Viggen radar is overperforming, but also unsure if anyone has looked into it in detail.

Edit: Ship ranges quoted are for a typical low altitude pop up at 500m to acquire target. It is possible ships are visible further out from higher altitudes. It is also feasible to pickup out ground installations (i.e. airfields, cities, harbours) from 30-60km and individual ground targets as pixel or blob returns <30km.

Edited November 10, 2021 by Sideburns

[=475FG= Dawger]

22 hours ago, rossmum said:

On a closer look, the shift in limit is based on speed specifically in this condition. 7.33 -> 6.5 above M 0.95 while fuel is more than 2200lbs, on an otherwise clean aircraft. No limit shift specified for below 2200lbs.

 

 

This is a good example of reading unknowns into operating limitations. The wing does not magically become weaker at Mach .95. So why the limitation? There could be any number of reasons. The most probable is the increased pitch sensitivity due to movement aft of the center of pressure during transonic and supersonic flight may cause undesirable characteristics between 6.5 and 7.33 G. Those characteristics should be discovered and modeled instead of arbitrarily moving the breaking point of the wing.

However, the symmetrical wing limits can be worked around. Personally, I put a giant curve in my pitch axis for the F-5 and treat it like glass when above 360 knots and generally don't pull the wings off symmetrically after this change.

Its the asymetrical G limits that are severely limiting the jet now. Any roll input in the unknown danger zone results in ripping wings off. It is a serious misinterpretation of the roll entry G limits. 

Edited November 10, 2021 by =475FG= Dawger

[Ian Boys UK]

1 hour ago, Alpenwolf said:

Viggen's Radar:

What's the range on its radar in AG(sea) mode and AA mode? 

It has no AA mode.

[Knock-Knock]

27 minutes ago, Ian Boys UK said:

It has no AA mode.

It does, just have to be in IR mode (missile selected) with your radar on. But you are not gonna see anything except a flying barn at maybe 15-20km absolute max, if lucky in a look up. You will spot them before detecting with radar anyway, and a fighter sized target is very hard to see, and nearly impossible against any ground clutter.

So unless you try to align with a bomber at night or in a cloud, its not really useful for A2A.

[Sideburns]

35 minutes ago, Knock-Knock said:

It does, just have to be in IR mode (missile selected) with your radar on. But you are not gonna see anything except a flying barn at maybe 15-20km absolute max, if lucky in a look up. You will spot them before detecting with radar anyway, and a fighter sized target is very hard to see, and nearly impossible against any ground clutter.

So unless you try to align with a bomber at night or in a cloud, its not really useful for A2A.

Agreed, my limited experience of the A2A radar down low is not positive, it may be able to pickup a high flying bomber at 20-30km. Down low it has significant clutter and fighter size targets tend to be spotted visually before you can make them out on radar. It also points the radar up by 1.5 degrees in A2A mode. I might give it another go but I rarely use it.

[MarkMD]

!!GBU Bombing!!

Well as the title says, GBU 12's bombing on the enemy farp is a real blast.  With the aid of air support and a ground JTAC (Player Driven) you can cause chaos for those all around it. I have a collection of video's for you to watch to enjoy the fun we had making this happen.

Only one negative point. We were accused of camping.  I'm not sure how they could say this, the name of the game is to either destroy thy enemy or suppress it, to put them on the back foot as they say.  That's what we did, don't get upset, get even.  You can always team up with others and suppress our CAP making it impossible for us to use CAS.  (Rant over)!

Thanks to Hades 2 for CAS and Ocean 2 for CAP.

Enjoy!!

https://www.twitch.tv/collections/kZJLkzA3thbxuQ

[Alpenwolf]

12 minutes ago, MarkMD said:

!!GBU Bombing!!

Well as the title says, GBU 12's bombing on the enemy farp is a real blast.  With the aid of air support and a ground JTAC (Player Driven) you can cause chaos for those all around it. I have a collection of video's for you to watch to enjoy the fun we had making this happen.

Only one negative point. We were accused of camping.  I'm not sure how they could say this, the name of the game is to either destroy thy enemy or suppress it, to put them on the back foot as they say.  That's what we did, don't get upset, get even.  You can always team up with others and suppress our CAP making it impossible for us to use CAS.  (Rant over)!

Thanks to Hades 2 for CAS and Ocean 2 for CAP.

Enjoy!!

https://www.twitch.tv/collections/kZJLkzA3thbxuQ

Good strike!

Attack the enemy anyway you see fit to keep him away from completing his objectives. The only exception I was forced to make is forbidding the attacking of main airbases (airbases at which almost the entire airforce of the enemy operates from/spawns at). Attacking secondary airbases however (where less aircraft operate from/spawn at), especially in missions where attacking and capturing those is the objective, is allowed. Operation Last Man Standing is the only exception where attacking all airbases is the objective. Why was I forced into making that rule of never attacking main airbases? Well, it was allowed in the first 1-2 years of hosting, but like players always are, they just can't enjoy the freedom of doing almost anything that comes to mind without keeping on pushing and exploiting things to the extent it becomes not enjoyable any more. In other words, they push you and punch it out of you to make any rule in the first place.

There were literally ZERO rules when I started. Things like, "Never leave in the middle of a fight", "Don't teamkill", "Use comms", etc. were simply inevitable enough. You know, the usual stuff, "Be kind to everyone", "Don't insult", etc. I mean, come on, really?! Do I have to write all that?! What am I a kindergarten teacher here?! Ridiculous. I don't mind players swearing at each other, or breaking any of the rules I have. You'd think we're all grownups here and we all know where the boundaries are regarding anything, but most aren't or simply tend to exploit. Therefore, I was forced to make all the rules you know of.
If you think about it, it's pretty much like every rule in life. People do something, a trend kicks off, then it becomes too much, and the authorities are forced to react. Then people be like: "Remember when we were used to do that? No consequences no nothing, right? Damn people, man, they had to push and wanted more until they made things more restrictive. Life was better back then I tell you, Bob". Bob: "Yup. You nailed it right there!". Yet Bob and his stupid friend forgot they were pushing just like everyone else, but it's rather more convenient blaming others. My two cents...

Take Phone Booth for example (almost 7 years old): The objective is to attack the enemy's secondary airbase, then a new TA pops up when that's complete, and then enemy tanks start sneaking up on the secondary airbase of the enemy you've already captured. So, three objectives that come one at a time. Attacking main airbases wasn't forbidden back then, and at some point players thought it was fun to strafe the enemy on the ground which is FUN! But when players stop doing anything except for that, players start complaining, and players start leaving the server for exactly that reason resulting in almost emptying the server and ruining the night for everyone, I simply had to react. I wouldn't mind it if the outnumbered side would do that to weaken the overwhelming enemy a bit, until maybe more players join. I wouldn't mind it if the enemy has only one objective to finish, so you want to keep him on the ground for as long as possible until you maybe catch up with finishing your own objectives. I wouldn't mind any similar scenario in that regard. Now, good luck putting that in the hands of players hoping for them to be sensible enough to know when to do it or not. And the last thing I need is to write a book of rules to include all types of potential situations for players to know what to do in those circumstances. It'd be a revolution if players would at least read the objectives, let alone the briefing. Never mind a bloody holy book of server rules or something. So, the easiest way for me is simply forbidding the attacking of main airbases. Headache cured.

[F16wannabe]

 

9 hours ago, CrazyGman said:

 

Good work 

[Alpenwolf]

@VR Users:

How good/bad is it in raining conditions? Is it like when the fog is enabled and spotting things becomes a pain in the ass? Run a quick mission, put the clouds at an altitude of 4600m, 360m thick, density at 9 or 10, and let me know how it is for you using VR, please. Make sure it's the Persian Gulf map and fly around mountains against AI aircraft maybe. There you go, that's the setup for the new mission I'm working on, except for the AI aircraft part. I can only hope the rain doesn't make things too difficult.