FrozenBullet Posted January 16, 2008 Posted January 16, 2008 Sorry if this has been posted already. What is the scenario in Black Shark going to be? And why are the A-10 and the AH-64A second on the to-do list? Wouldn't it be more fitting for a Caucasus scenario to have more flyable RUSFOR planes included, rather than Western equipment? 1
MBot Posted January 16, 2008 Posted January 16, 2008 So far we know there will be two campaigns, the classic fictious Russia-NATO scenario and a more realistic counter-insurgency campaign. As for the caucasus scenario in the future. I guess this is not set in stone. With a new graphic engine in development for one of the future versions of DCS, there is a good chance that the map and terrain has to be build up from scratch again. In that case ED would be free to model a different scenario if they want. Please note that this is pure speculation on my part tough.
Legolasindar Posted January 16, 2008 Posted January 16, 2008 I suppose because having opposing aircraft will be playing missions encountered online, and because this is pleased to supporters of western and eastern planes. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Cavallers del Cel - Comunintat Catalana de Simulació http://www.cavallersdelcel.cat
CAT_101st Posted January 16, 2008 Posted January 16, 2008 It has to do with making money. I probly wouldent buy the game if I knew there wasn't going to be any western equipment in it. The US market is pretty big to ignore their wants. Home built PC Win 10 Pro 64bit, MB ASUS Z170 WS, 6700K, EVGA 1080Ti Hybrid, 32GB DDR4 3200, Thermaltake 120x360 RAD, Custom built A-10C sim pit, TM WARTHOG HOTAS, Cougar MFD's, 3D printed UFC and Saitek rudders. HTC VIVE VR. https://digitalcombatmercenaries.enjin.com/
nemises Posted January 16, 2008 Posted January 16, 2008 it's funny how exposure to something can change a life time of opinion.. 4 or 5 months ago, I couldn't have given a crap about Russian made hardware...now , after a few months of dreaming about the KA50 and a few weeks (ok.nearly 1 week;) ) of flying the SU-25 , the thought of western gear doesn't seem nearly as interesting as the Russian stuff!
RedTiger Posted January 17, 2008 Posted January 17, 2008 it's funny how exposure to something can change a life time of opinion.. 4 or 5 months ago, I couldn't have given a crap about Russian made hardware...now , after a few months of dreaming about the KA50 and a few weeks (ok.nearly 1 week;) ) of flying the SU-25 , the thought of western gear doesn't seem nearly as interesting as the Russian stuff! This is normal, I think. If you're an American and you're looking at any and all things related to aerial combat, you'll be inundated with F-16s, F-15s, F-14s, F this, F that, etc, etc, etc. An American lay person wouldn't be caught dead in anything Russian since they're the "bad guys" and Western stuff is "always better". After all, thats what Hollywood and the History Channel say. :P When you get a taste of the other side, it feels rather exotic and you'll reach a point that will last for quite a while where the domestic stuff just seems uninteresting no matter how much better it may or may not be. I started backwards and worked my way to the domestic stuff. I played Flanker 2.5 and 2.51 first. I picked it up due to my love of Cold War history and the allure of flying an "enemy" jet. I learned how to fly a fighter jet using Russian-style avionics. I never did any research on relative quality, I just knew that my R-27s were SARH, R-77s were ARH, and R-73s were IR and I didn't care to know anymore. Since then I've done more research and flown more vFighters and now I can firmly say that I prefer the Western or more specifically, American approach to avionics. At first I found it very unintuitive compared to the Russian stuff but now I heavily prefer it. The MiG-29 and Su-27 lines are still two of the most beautiful and aesthetically pleasing aeroplanes ever constructed, IMO. The Zhuravlik will always be my first fighter jet. Russian combat helicopters just look brutish, tough, and mean, which I like. :) 1
CAT_101st Posted January 17, 2008 Posted January 17, 2008 An American lay person wouldn't be caught dead in anything Russian since they're the "bad guys" and Western stuff is "always better". The MiG-29 and Su-27 lines are still two of the most beautiful and aesthetically pleasing aeroplanes ever constructed, As for the best, the Mig 29 to take out the F-15. The Mig 29 is a much better Fighter jet than most. The US had to build a new Jet to deal whith the 29 wala the F-22. The mig had the first head tracking missle lock system to be employed. The down fall that the USSR had was their training was not as good as the US training. And yes thoes migs and SUs are sexy looking arnt they.:P 1 Home built PC Win 10 Pro 64bit, MB ASUS Z170 WS, 6700K, EVGA 1080Ti Hybrid, 32GB DDR4 3200, Thermaltake 120x360 RAD, Custom built A-10C sim pit, TM WARTHOG HOTAS, Cougar MFD's, 3D printed UFC and Saitek rudders. HTC VIVE VR. https://digitalcombatmercenaries.enjin.com/
RedTiger Posted January 17, 2008 Posted January 17, 2008 As for the best, the Mig 29 to take out the F-15. The Mig 29 is a much better Fighter jet than most. The US had to build a new Jet to deal whith the 29 wala the F-22. The mig had the first head tracking missle lock system to be employed. The down fall that the USSR had was their training was not as good as the US training. And yes thoes migs and SUs are sexy looking arnt they.:P I'm going to beat GGTharos to it! I swear it! The MiG-29 is an excellent fighter WVR. Its BVR where it ain't so hot. Its radar lacked the range needed to be a BVR contender. It was designed for point defense over friendly territory. Take off, use GCI to intercept, shoot missiles, and go home. I don't think the F-22 was designed specifically to take on MiG-29 (correct me if I'm wrong) because realistically, the F-15, F-16, and F-18 would do a good job of it BVR on their own, especially if this is ARH vs. SARH which it most likely would be. It always seems like the MiG-29 got all the infamy and acclaim from the uninformed public all the while the Su-27 was the REAL air to air threat to look out for. YMMV depending if your talking about a Cold War era MiG-29 opponent over the Soviet Union, a Cold War era down-graded export MiG-29 flown by a third-rate airforce, or a more advanced non-production version.
GGTharos Posted January 17, 2008 Posted January 17, 2008 ^^^^ DAMNIT! :D [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
GGTharos Posted January 17, 2008 Posted January 17, 2008 Quite right, and I'll add that the WVR capability of the MiG-29A is again a 'favorite flight regime' issue. If it's caught high and fast it's not going to do as well as an F-15C. It is very very far from being a 'better fighter than most'. It's a great fighter, but there's nothing extraordinary about it. If an F-15C met with a MiG-29A, save for an ambush, there'd be mig-parts raining all over the countrysire -period-. And you can get 'but it can use EOS and keep the radar off ... ' line of thinking right out of your mind. EOS is great if you already know where your opponent is, and he has no chance of detecting you. It works great in HL where radars aren't all they're cracked up to be for the blue side, and the blue side lacks a good AWACS or good volume scanning tactics. But the basic truth is this: THat radar WILL see you first. That F-15 WILL shoot you first. Your MIG-29A WILL go down in a huge fireball. The MiG's a defensive fighter. The F-15, and F-22, are both fighters built to attack attack attack. They are built to take the fight to the enemy, and kill everything that gets in their way. Who said this ... 'The best defense is a good offense' ... and that's why the MIG-29A isn't a 'better fighter than most' ;) Further, I'll add that the MiG-29A was NOT the first to use a helmet mounted sight. The F-4 Phantom was, in Vietnam! That's right, with the sidewinder! I'm going to beat GGTharos to it! I swear it! The MiG-29 is an excellent fighter WVR. Its BVR where it ain't so hot. Its radar lacked the range needed to be a BVR contender. It was designed for point defense over friendly territory. Take off, use GCI to intercept, shoot missiles, and go home. Even a modern version of the MiG-29 is not a contender for the BVR title against an F-15. Only the Su-27 can match it, and while a modern radar and R-77 bring it closer to being a contender, you would STILL see more than one Su-27 shot down per F-15C shot down. The F-22 was developed to ensure that this figure is closer to 50:1 rather than 2:1. The F-22 is not designed to fight MiG-29's ... butit would completely own them if it had to. The F-22 is designed to fight whatever comes AFTER the MiG-29 and Su-27. I don't think the F-22 was designed specifically to take on MiG-29 (correct me if I'm wrong) because realistically, the F-15, F-16, and F-18 would do a good job of it BVR on their own, especially if this is ARH vs. SARH which it most likely would be. It always seems like the MiG-29 got all the infamy and acclaim from the uninformed public all the while the Su-27 was the REAL air to air threat to look out for.Now, I'll say this: A cheap point defense fighter is adequate for the job of point defense so long as it is numerous and has some support. It WILL do its job. This is a good mission for fighters like the MiG-29, the F-16, the F-5 even, and MiG-21. The F-18 is sort of in its own weird class. It has excellent BVR capability electronically, but isn't capable of taking advantage of kinematic performance quite like an F-15C. It will do some nice dogfighting too, and right now, there's nothing the Russians have in service that'll have a leg (or even a hair) up on the AIM-9X or AMRAAM - that alone keeps the F-18's in a league where they have a decent chance of prevailing. YMMV depending if your talking about a Cold War era MiG-29 opponent over the Soviet Union, a Cold War era down-graded export MiG-29 flown by a third-rate airforce, or a more advanced non-production version. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
RedTiger Posted January 17, 2008 Posted January 17, 2008 The F-18 is sort of in its own weird class. It has excellent BVR capability electronically, but isn't capable of taking advantage of kinematic performance quite like an F-15C. Could you explain what you mean by this?
GGTharos Posted January 17, 2008 Posted January 17, 2008 The F-18 has a great radar, RWR, and jammer. In's basically all-around well equipped electronically, especially when it comes to the superhornet. Unfortunately, it always has and always will lackin thrust. Lack of thrust (and fuel efficiency for that matter) means that acceleration is not so good, which in turn means that making a quick dash to mach 1.3 at high altitude for that long-range shot a problem. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
CAT_101st Posted January 17, 2008 Posted January 17, 2008 Further, I'll add that the MiG-29A was NOT the first to use a helmet mounted sight. The F-4 Phantom was, in Vietnam! That's right, with the sidewinder! Ok here is where I have a problem. I personly know a pilot that flew the F4 in Vietnam. I will bring this question up the next time I talk to him. Un less you show me where it says that the F4 had head tracking for the AIM-9. The shoot to hit raito was 11/1 with the AIM-9 in Vietnam. Home built PC Win 10 Pro 64bit, MB ASUS Z170 WS, 6700K, EVGA 1080Ti Hybrid, 32GB DDR4 3200, Thermaltake 120x360 RAD, Custom built A-10C sim pit, TM WARTHOG HOTAS, Cougar MFD's, 3D printed UFC and Saitek rudders. HTC VIVE VR. https://digitalcombatmercenaries.enjin.com/
RedTiger Posted January 17, 2008 Posted January 17, 2008 The F-18 has a great radar, RWR, and jammer. In's basically all-around well equipped electronically, especially when it comes to the superhornet. Unfortunately, it always has and always will lackin thrust. Lack of thrust (and fuel efficiency for that matter) means that acceleration is not so good, which in turn means that making a quick dash to mach 1.3 at high altitude for that long-range shot a problem. Oh you mean "Lockon Syndrome"? :lol: I kid, but yeah, I figured thats what you meant but I didn't know that the F-18 had thrust to weight problems so thats why I wasn't sure. I could imagine the Super lacking since its a huge bastard (literally for both!), but this on the regular one is surprising.
CAT_101st Posted January 17, 2008 Posted January 17, 2008 Dam it. Took the time to look up the system and here is what I found. The US Navy were the first to field an operational helmet-mounted sight system in a fighter aircraft, the Visual Target Acquisition System, also known as VTAS. The VTAS interfaced with the Sidewinder Expanded Acquisition Mode (SEAM) installed in US Navy F-4 Phantom II aircraft to exploit the advanced lock-on possibilities in the AIM-9G Sidewinder air-to-air missile. From 1969 the SEAM was incorporated in the F-4J and enabled the missile to be locked on a target off boresight slaving the missile's seeker head to the aircraft radar. The VTAS system allowed the Sidewinder seeker or the aircraft radar to be slaved to the position of the pilot's head using the sight picture displayed on his 'Granny Glass' (VTAS I) or on the inside of his visor (VTAS II). The VTAS system was incorporated in F-4J Block 45 and 46 aircraft and later retrofitted to earlier aircraft. VTAS and SEAM were also incorporated in those F-4B that were updated to F-4N standard from 1970 onwards under the Bee Line programme. It is fairly common knowledge that VTAS helmets came in two versions, VTAS I and VTAS II. Most are unaware, however, that a VTAS III helmet was developed based on the HGU-35/P experimental helmet. At least five HGU-designations have been associated with VTAS helmets, HGU-30/P, HGU-30A/P, HGU-31/P, HGU-37/P, and HGU-46/P. HGU-30/P VTAS I helmet based on APH-6 helmet. Type designation March 18, 1971. Type designation states the helmet is a modified APH-6 for VTAS system manufactured by McDonnell-Douglas. Gentex and Sierra are the helmet manufacturers. HGU-30/P 2nd type designation June 5 1972 VTAS I helmet. Even if it is not confirmed it is is most likely still an APH-6 shell, but with a form fitting liner manufactured by Protection Inc, medium part number 4211-1; large = 4211-2. This is the fitting liner normally referred to by the USAF as the "commercial" liner. Optic infrared sight receiver R-1739/AVG-8, VTAS. HGU-30 A/P (3rd reference May 11,1973). VTAS I helmet based on the PRK-41/P helmet shell (same as PRK-37/P but drilled for VTAS I system). Gentex listed as the manufacturer and the helmet is listed as using the on site form fitting system sizes medium and large. EEK-4/P single visor, PRK-39/P form-fit liner and R-1739/AVG-8 infrared optical receiver (granny glass). HGU-31/P 19 Oct 1971. Nearly identical down to the part numbers Protection Inc but now being called HGU-31/P. HGU-31/P was cancelled June 5 1972: helmet was never procured, stocked or issued. HGU-37/P July 26, 1974. VTAS II helmet based on the PRK-42/P shell (same as PRK-37/P but drilled for VTAS II). Gentex listed as manufacturer. PRK-39/P on site form fit liner. Uses the Honeywell Inc. VTAS II system. Sizes Medium and large. Visor is VRHMU-1826/1825/AVG-8 fiberglass. One piece visor electronics. HGU-46/P (From NAVAIR). VTAS II helmet based on the PRK-37/P helmet shell using special dual visor housing, PRK-39A/P liner (VTEC liner). HGU-?? It is not known which HGU-designation was used for the VTAS III, if any at all. It should be borne in mind that the IHADDS helmet for the AH-64 Apache helicopter does not have an HGU-designation so the VTAS III might not either. :doh::doh::doh::doh: information update in head Home built PC Win 10 Pro 64bit, MB ASUS Z170 WS, 6700K, EVGA 1080Ti Hybrid, 32GB DDR4 3200, Thermaltake 120x360 RAD, Custom built A-10C sim pit, TM WARTHOG HOTAS, Cougar MFD's, 3D printed UFC and Saitek rudders. HTC VIVE VR. https://digitalcombatmercenaries.enjin.com/
GGTharos Posted January 18, 2008 Posted January 18, 2008 Oh ye of little faith ;) And you shouldn'tbe surprised that 1st and 2nd gen missiles had pretty crappy Pks. They were new weapons; you'd sort of expect anything newer to do better ;) Right now the modern AIM-9 has a Pk of 0.8, and that AIM-9X promises to be nastier. Un less you show me where it says that the F4 had head tracking for the AIM-9. The shoot to hit raito was 11/1 with the AIM-9 in Vietnam. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
GGTharos Posted January 18, 2008 Posted January 18, 2008 I'm not entirely certain, but I think it has a 0.68 TWR or something along those lines. For sure it's no monster like the F-15's 1:1 or better TWR. EDIT: Man, did I get that wrong of what. The superbug in A2A configuration is just under a 1:1 TWR. The problem is more likely the inlets then. The F-15C recovers significant pressure using the moving inlets to allow it to develop greater thrust at altitude than an aircraft without variable inlets. Long shots require speed and altitude ... so, like the MiG-29 and F-16, the F-18 likes the low, slow fight. It REALLY likes the slow fight, that thing is a high-alpha monster that will happily put the mig to shame. Oh you mean "Lockon Syndrome"? :lol: I kid, but yeah, I figured thats what you meant but I didn't know that the F-18 had thrust to weight problems so thats why I wasn't sure. I could imagine the Super lacking since its a huge bastard (literally for both!), but this on the regular one is surprising. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
britgliderpilot Posted January 18, 2008 Posted January 18, 2008 I'm not entirely certain, but I think it has a 0.68 TWR or something along those lines. For sure it's no monster like the F-15's 1:1 or better TWR. EDIT: Man, did I get that wrong of what. The superbug in A2A configuration is just under a 1:1 TWR. The problem is more likely the inlets then. The F-15C recovers significant pressure using the moving inlets to allow it to develop greater thrust at altitude than an aircraft without variable inlets. Long shots require speed and altitude ... so, like the MiG-29 and F-16, the F-18 likes the low, slow fight. It REALLY likes the slow fight, that thing is a high-alpha monster that will happily put the mig to shame. The Super Hornet does suffer from aerodynamic problems as well . . . . The scale-up from the F/A-18 wasn't quite as thoroughly researched as it could have been, and at flight test they had big problems with sudden wing drop. Fixing that took a while, was very expensive, and didn't do a great deal for the aerodynamics. IIRC one of the tweaks was to deliberately misalign the pylons with oncoming airflow. I leave to your imagination the havoc that would wreak on supersonic performance . . . http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v121/britgliderpilot/BS2Britgliderpilot-1.jpg
Silver_Dragon Posted January 18, 2008 Posted January 18, 2008 DSC has dinamic campaing Falcon style or old premade fixed mission style Lomac? For Work/Gaming: 28" Philips 246E Monitor - Ryzen 7 1800X - 32 GB DDR4 - nVidia RTX1080 - SSD 860 EVO 1 TB / 860 QVO 1 TB / 860 QVO 2 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Warthog / TPR / MDF
GGTharos Posted January 18, 2008 Posted January 18, 2008 It has neither. It is not dynamic like falcon's, but it is also not fixed like LOMACs. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Silver_Dragon Posted January 18, 2008 Posted January 18, 2008 opss... move to new post For Work/Gaming: 28" Philips 246E Monitor - Ryzen 7 1800X - 32 GB DDR4 - nVidia RTX1080 - SSD 860 EVO 1 TB / 860 QVO 1 TB / 860 QVO 2 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Warthog / TPR / MDF
GGTharos Posted January 18, 2008 Posted January 18, 2008 Um. Yes and no. I would love to tell you more but I'm not sure how much I can tell you right now ... here, I'll give it a shot: AI has been worked on and somewhat improved from FC. It is now more dangerous for a number of reasons, but it is not as clever as you think it should be. Some people might claim they see no difference. This is because they suck so bad that they get shot down by farmers with rifles ;) *lights another fire* As for random placement - it is not automatic, but it is possible in some ways via triggers. I don't think any sort of intelligent placement of AAA can be done with a dynamic campaign - completely random placement is useless. However the mission designer can assign several AAA formations and create triggers that would make them randomly exist or not exist in a mission (or, it might not be random at all, it might depend on something you, the player, do ;) ) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
RedTiger Posted January 18, 2008 Posted January 18, 2008 so, like the MiG-29 and F-16, the F-18 likes the low, slow fight. The F-16 likes the slow fight? I'm taking it that you're comparing this relative to the F-15C? If Falcon's FM is believable (isn't it based on real EM charts?) under 300 knots you start to really lose turn capability and under 200 you're a wallowing pig, porked and ready to be eaten. Corner speed is given as 440 knots in the manual. I've always been suspicious of this lack of control at low speeds, however.
RedTiger Posted January 18, 2008 Posted January 18, 2008 The Super Hornet does suffer from aerodynamic problems as well . . . . The scale-up from the F/A-18 wasn't quite as thoroughly researched as it could have been, and at flight test they had big problems with sudden wing drop. Fixing that took a while, was very expensive, and didn't do a great deal for the aerodynamics. IIRC one of the tweaks was to deliberately misalign the pylons with oncoming airflow. I leave to your imagination the havoc that would wreak on supersonic performance . . . *Sigh* And Lockon players AND F4AF players are both chomping at the bit to have that monstrosity modeled in a sim. :huh: I wouldn't have such a problem with the regular F-18, but I have mixed feelings on naval aviation. Carrier landings done correctly would be challenging, but I'm more of a land-based warfare guy.
Recommended Posts