Cold War 1947 - 1991

[Grisleybear]

Also, will the Pucará and Kiowa be added in future?

 

If the modules are in a good state on release of course.

 

Thanks,

[NELLUS]

Part of the reason that the Mi-8 is more popular might be that it seems easier to do true slinging with - I've watched far more competent whirlybird wranglers than me have endless problems with swinging loads and crates falling off the rope in the Huey, while my first ever attempt to sling went off almost without a hitch (right up to the point I noticed the VRS too late and went into the ground). The crate barely swung at all and I was able to build quite a lot more speed than I'd been told was safe, no problems.

 

Alpenwolf, any chance on skipping the slining all together and stick to the 5s hover above the cargo for cabin transport instead?

 

I’m pretty sure more rotor flyers will come back since the sling cargo might be a deal breaker for them.

[Alpenwolf]

Also, will the Pucará and Kiowa be added in future?

 

If the modules are in a good state on release of course.

 

Thanks,

Pucará?! Is it being developed by anyone?

Depends on how modern the Kiowa we're getting is. However, it doesn't really have much firepower so that might be the argument. Not sure still.

 

Alpenwolf, any chance on skipping the slining all together and stick to the 5s hover above the cargo for cabin transport instead?

 

I’m pretty sure more rotor flyers will come back since the sling cargo might be a deal breaker for them.

The simulated 5 seconds hover is what you need to complete the main objectives; capturing airfields and FARP's, setting up SAM sites, etc. The actual sling loading is for secondary objectives mainly. Which means, you don't have to do it to finish the job. And I've seen both Mi-8's and UH-1's activating the MiG-29A and the M-2000C quite a few times. So not sure why it is a problem.

If I had the chance to have actual sling loading for all crates I'd do it. What's the point in a simulator if it shouldn't simulate real features? The last thing I'd ever do is make things easier just to have more players online. It's not a competition to me of which server has the highest numbers. Which is why for instance I never used the F-10 map as a navigating tool. Either players know how to navigate or they don't. But I'm not going to change that just to attract more players as well as other features and options.

 

Hope you understand, but you don't have to agree :smilewink:

[rossmum]

Alpenwolf, any chance on skipping the slining all together and stick to the 5s hover above the cargo for cabin transport instead?

 

I’m pretty sure more rotor flyers will come back since the sling cargo might be a deal breaker for them.

 

I'll be honest, at that point I'd probably quit flying the Mi-8. I far prefer the slinging over CTLD internal loading (not least because I'm rubbish at hovering), and to be honest I kind of feel like if you're going to do something, you may as well do it right. The Huey seems (from an observer's viewpoint) to be a bit less easy to sling with, but it isn't impossible.

 

@ Alpen - server seems down? Is it updating or something? Itching to get back into my MiG now it's no longer a UFO :D

[Alpenwolf]

Server's updating right now. Missions too. Be back online shortly!

[rossmum]

Awesome, thanks!

[NELLUS]

Itching to get back into my MiG now it's no longer a UFO :D

 

I saw there were some internal developers notes to happen, but nothing on the announced list by ED.. What’s new?

[NELLUS]

The simulated 5 seconds hover is what you need to complete the main objectives; capturing airfields and FARP's, setting up SAM sites, etc. The actual sling loading is for secondary objectives mainly. Which means, you don't have to do it to finish the job. And I've seen both Mi-8's and UH-1's activating the MiG-29A and the M-2000C quite a few times. So not sure why it is a problem.

If I had the chance to have actual sling loading for all crates I'd do it. What's the point in a simulator if it shouldn't simulate real features? The last thing I'd ever do is make things easier just to have more players online. It's not a competition to me of which server has the highest numbers. Which is why for instance I never used the F-10 map as a navigating tool. Either players know how to navigate or they don't. But I'm not going to change that just to attract more players as well as other features and options.

 

Hope you understand, but you don't have to agree :smilewink:

 

I fully agree, thanks for explaining :thumbup:

[rossmum]

FM is back to normal, basically as it was before the DCS gods magicked away its ability to stall. It's a little less wobbly than it used to be though, so maybe that'll sate the "it's too hard to fly" crowd a bit, now even I can manage to fly form with it. I think the S-24 crash has been fixed as well. There are some new lighting bugs (white flood won't go out once turned on, red flood control is inverted, console lights won't go fully out once on, console and instrument lights cause faint pink glow from within the A/C) but overall it seems a lot better than it was.

 

e/

 

Pucara is a longish term Razbam project to go with their Falklands stuff, will be flyable (or at any rate they're making a cockpit for it). Probably years away though. Kiowa we're getting is fairly modern, I think the most recent update before it was retired.

Edited May 21, 2020 by rossmum

[Alpenwolf]

Server's back up!

[Lovcar]

)

[Lovcar]

У тебя прекрасный сервер!Я щаслив летать на нём! После починки МиГ 21 это вобщё красота!Но Скоро начнется миго пад)Я про тех кто только недавно купил МиГ21,и попробовал его с старой фм,у тебя на сервере)

[Alpenwolf]

Server News:

 

* Server has been updated to the latest Open Beta update.

 

 

Operation Elbrus:

- Added to the server's rotation.

- CTLD script updated.

- Sling loading optimised.

- Briefing images updated.

- Warehouses optimised.

- The number of the available aircraft adjusted to match the mission's scenario.

- AWACS planes are available - no EWR's, but might replace the AWACS planes in the future.

- FARP's fixed.

 

* You can check out the briefing of the mission on the second post of this thread. Mission number 12:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3515115&postcount=2

 

* The mission will go online tonight after the current mission When The Mountains Cry.

[Alpenwolf]

У тебя прекрасный сервер!Я щаслив летать на нём! После починки МиГ 21 это вобщё красота!Но Скоро начнется миго пад)Я про тех кто только недавно купил МиГ21,и попробовал его с старой фм,у тебя на сервере)

спасибо мой русский брат

[Lovcar]

Круто!Спасибо друг!

[Sideburns]

Was there a plan to go back to rear aspect IR only?

[Alpenwolf]

Was there a plan to go back to rear aspect IR only?

No, why?

[Sideburns]

No, why?

 

I wondered, that period with the Aim9p and R60 being the best heaters was fun.

[rossmum]

Maybe if you fly red. The R-60 in DCS has limited all-aspect capability while the AIM-9P and RB-24J have none. The MiG would win a head-on merge every single time, because it will get tone and you won't, and the R-60 turns just sharply enough to connect. Couple this with the fact that a well-flown MiG has far better turn performance than either F-5 or Viggen, and you have a recipe for trouble - even as a chiefly red player I used to hate this, because it meant that I would win almost every merge, and if the first R-60 didn't make the turn, my far better instantaneous turn performance meant I had a far better setup coming back. Even if I couldn't land a hit on him with a missile, there was no way in hell a 9P or 24J could even come close to hitting me either. There are only so many times you can swat someone in the first pass before it gets boring, now there's enough threat of him returning the favour that have I try to avoid head-ons.

 

Aside from that, taking away the R-3R wiped out the MiG-21's signature weapon and a fairly useful part of its arsenal.

 

The only way you could make rear-aspect-only work is by taking out the R-60, so the MiG pilots are down to R-13Ms... but then the Su-25 either doesn't have an AAM, or has the R-60 still, which risks the "mooooom, why can HE have it but I can't" effect :D

Edited May 22, 2020 by rossmum

[Brown Floyd]

Aside from that, taking away the R-3R wiped out the MiG-21's signature weapon and a fairly useful part of its arsenal.

 

The only way you could make rear-aspect-only work is by taking out the R-60, so the MiG pilots are down to R-13Ms... but then the Su-25 either doesn't have an AAM, or has the R-60 still, which risks the "mooooom, why can HE have it but I can't" effect :D

 

I think it would be interesting to someday try taking the weapons restrictions back even further, to the previous generation of weapons, around 1965. Then for air-to-air Red would only have the R-3S/K-13 and the RS-2US/K-5 (the first generation, rear-aspect anti-bomber SARH missile) and Blue would only have the GAR-8/AIM-9B and RB-24. For air-to-ground, only unguided weapons would be available: iron bombs, rockets, and cannons. (Maybe leave the Grom and the RB-05 in for anti-ship missions.)

 

For simplicity's sake, we would just ignore the fact that most of our aircraft makes and models weren't flying in 1965 (but we already do that) and that many of the ground units and surface-to-air units are from later eras. But the point would be to get some experience with the types of dogfighting and ground strikes that the pilots in that era had to deal with.

 

Edit: The RS-2US/K-5 is a beam rider, not SARH, missile.

Edited May 22, 2020 by Brown Floyd

[Alpenwolf]

I think it would be interesting to someday try taking the weapons restrictions back even further, to the previous generation of weapons, around 1965. Then for air-to-air Red would only have the R-3S/K-13 and the RS-2US/K-5 (the first generation, rear-aspect anti-bomber SARH missile) and Blue would only have the GAR-8/AIM-9B and RB-24. For air-to-ground, only unguided weapons would be available: iron bombs, rockets, and cannons. (Maybe leave the Grom and the RB-05 in for anti-ship missions.)

 

For simplicity's sake, we would just ignore the fact that most of our aircraft makes and models weren't flying in 1965 (but we already do that) and that many of the ground units and surface-to-air units are from later eras. But the point would be to get some experience with the types of dogfighting and ground strikes that the pilots in that era had to deal with.

 

Edit: The RS-2US/K-5 is a beam rider, not SARH, missile.

Sounds good!

[rossmum]

If only there was a way to lockwire the emergency AB switch to simulate the older engines on the MiG. I think you can induce failures with the ME when placing aircraft, but I don't know if there's a specific ability to disable the emergency AB.

[HR-Crumble]

Sounds good!

Could be fun as an experiment but shouldn't we be opening up the cold war server more because weve for new cold war jets coming just around the corner - Corsair and Flogger.

 

 

These will naturally start to leave the 19/21 behind.

 

We are not far off the point of needing a second cold war server - 50s-60s and 60s-80s.

 

As long as we don't have BVR and spamraam going on we are good.

 

Lots of exciting directions and gameplay to come on Alpens server

 

Sent from my IN2013 using Tapatalk

[Sideburns]

Maybe if you fly red. The R-60 in DCS has limited all-aspect capability while the AIM-9P and RB-24J have none. The MiG would win a head-on merge every single time, because it will get tone and you won't, and the R-60 turns just sharply enough to connect. Couple this with the fact that a well-flown MiG has far better turn performance than either F-5 or Viggen, and you have a recipe for trouble - even as a chiefly red player I used to hate this, because it meant that I would win almost every merge, and if the first R-60 didn't make the turn, my far better instantaneous turn performance meant I had a far better setup coming back. Even if I couldn't land a hit on him with a missile, there was no way in hell a 9P or 24J could even come close to hitting me either. There are only so many times you can swat someone in the first pass before it gets boring, now there's enough threat of him returning the favour that have I try to avoid head-ons.

 

Aside from that, taking away the R-3R wiped out the MiG-21's signature weapon and a fairly useful part of its arsenal.

 

The only way you could make rear-aspect-only work is by taking out the R-60, so the MiG pilots are down to R-13Ms... but then the Su-25 either doesn't have an AAM, or has the R-60 still, which risks the "mooooom, why can HE have it but I can't" effect :D

 

Limited all aspect capability is not a reliable hit against a competent opponent who flares, granted it could put them on the back foot if you get tone. Atm the situation with the aim9m is a return to a much bigger disparity imo. Despite enjoying the Harrier I feel similarly about its capability at the moment.

 

Edit: Realised in my original post I mentioned aim9p, i had meant this to mean the aim9p series i.e. the aim9p and aim9p5 but appreciate this was not clear.

Edited May 22, 2020 by Sideburns
Clarification

[Skyracer]

I think it would be interesting to someday try taking the weapons restrictions back even further, to the previous generation of weapons, around 1965. Then for air-to-air Red would only have the R-3S/K-13 and the RS-2US/K-5 (the first generation, rear-aspect anti-bomber SARH missile) and Blue would only have the GAR-8/AIM-9B and RB-24. For air-to-ground, only unguided weapons would be available: iron bombs, rockets, and cannons. (Maybe leave the Grom and the RB-05 in for anti-ship missions.)

 

For simplicity's sake, we would just ignore the fact that most of our aircraft makes and models weren't flying in 1965 (but we already do that) and that many of the ground units and surface-to-air units are from later eras. But the point would be to get some experience with the types of dogfighting and ground strikes that the pilots in that era had to deal with.

 

Edit: The RS-2US/K-5 is a beam rider, not SARH, missile.

 

I would go even further and disable all weapons, and just have a big BBQ party. Even if its war we need to have som R&R.