Jump to content

Fairey Gannet

Members
  • Posts

    52
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Fairey Gannet

  1. On 8/20/2021 at 4:34 AM, Katyusha454 said:

    I'm having a similar problem.  The moment the car stops, I can't progress through the mission.  I can taxi around the car and go onto the runway, but I don't get any more messages to tell me what to do next.  Nothing is stopping me from operating the aircraft; I can take off and fly around if I want but I don't get any tutorial instructions.

    I can confirm, it happens at random, or at least looks like it. Sometimes leading humvee just stops. And sometimes not. I guess driver is moody as hell.

  2. On 10/14/2021 at 2:03 PM, silverdevil said:

    Good read. I will return the kindness with some more Tiger stuff.

    https://www.the-northrop-f-5-enthusiast-page.info

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  3. Anyway, moving to facts we have - F-5 Upgrade (PBR cockpit and new external model) is listed in roadmap as "on progress 2021+". Granted, this is an unofficial roadmap, but I remember interview with Matt Wagner, where he stated, that they would like to revisit F-5 at some point. We can hope they will put some fixes to suit as well.

    • Like 2
  4. 1 hour ago, Snappy said:

    Some people never cease to amaze me. ED hasn't managed to properly finish and de-bug the basic systems  of the simple old-analog cold war F-5e years after

    its release and you re willing to throw more money at them for another even more sophisticated version that will likely end up even more unfinished and buggy due

    to its complexity..

     

     

    Well, willing to throw money is one thing, and I admit I would be happy to pay for an upgrade, that is for sure. Or downgrade in my case, as I mentioned I would be more happy to see earlier variants, something you actually don't see in DCS that much. Having said that, that will must be met with some nice quality and added value. That is also covering bug fixes. However, this is a misty-eyed conversation on "what if" topic, and I doubt that it will become relevant anyway. I know there will be F-5 lifting, maybe some new liveries, and it would be nice to see some patching to suit. I don't expect more, to be honest... but still it would be fun to see some more F-5's. 😉

    • Like 1
  5. 3 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

     

    The JF-17 is very similar to that, a cold war engine plus a refueling probe and modern avionics ... I'm very happy with it.

    You are right! 🙂 Well, I would pay for new F-5 upgrade full price, no regrets - would it be modernised variant or original A/C Skoshi Tiger. 🙂

    • Like 1
  6. 3 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

    It would be awesome to have a more modern rendition on top of the existing airplane - with a refuelling probe and some upgraded avionics/ weaponry.

    Alternatively, one could go the opposite direction and do an F-5A/C or CF/NF-5 and maybe a two-seater F-5B/ T-38 thingy.

    Kind of a stretch, but certainly cool.

    +1 on F-5A or C. I am not sure if we really need more modern version, as I think it would still be somewhat worse than 4th gens it would probably meet on MP servers. A or C though would be great fit into Cold War ones. But to be honest, just a plain lifting, maybe some liveries added to the mix, and I am happy. 🙂

    • Like 1
  7. I am happy, that Viggen will recive some major update, and I am looking forward to it. But I also understand, that some modules need much more work, that HB is changing their structure to support creating new modules and maintaining older ones faster and better. And Viggen here, despite some bugs here and there, is good, solid piece. So, be it November, December or even early 2022, it still doesn't matter to me that much. I would say, personally, that I am getting fair share of fun already. Every update bringing digital Viggen (or any other plane, from any other team, for that matter) closer to real thing is a solid plus for me. And it is worth waiting for.

  8. On 10/4/2021 at 9:42 AM, LordOrion said:

    The "Macchino" could be the perfect Xmas self-present... any chanche to see it released (even in EA if fine) by the end of this year?

    I even went one step ahead, and already locked away my MB-339 fund. 🙂 

    • Like 1
  9. 34 minutes ago, jojo said:

     

    Thank you for the summary.
    But the my question rather if a country like East Germany was considered close enough to get 9.12 instead of 9.12A ? 😇

    From what I managed to dig out - no. Historically, USSR satellite states were given "internal export" version by a general rule, so the middle shelf goodies. 😉 But there were Soviet bases in those countries anyway, and they were more of an enclave, with Russian personnel, administration, shops and supporting towns sometimes. Some of them were made public in 1992 or 1993 - until then they were not even marked on maps. Such bases could have Soviet-tier equipement, that would compliment more basic models of given satellite state. Also, Ukraine and Belarus for example had status of SSR, but for example Czechoslovakia or Poland - did not. I could not find any specifics on verisons of 29 they did use, but they probably could have something better in Soviet-era. But, that was general rule and there could be exceptions, so I stand to be corrected, and I will be happy if somebody will point out, that my info is low quality! 🙂

    After 1992 however, some of variants, that were not part of Warsaw Pact and non-Warsaw Pact export stock could surface... Myanmar has some 9.13's, more modern variants were sighted in Syria as well. Algieria uses 9.13S version, Peru has 9.13SE, Belarus upgraded recently some up to BM standard... 

  10. 6 hours ago, jojo said:

     

    The MiG 29 9.12A was the export variant, supposed to be slightly downgraded.

    I have seen some claims that some export countries received the same stock MiG-29 9.12 as USSR, but I don't know if this is true ? 🤔

    Yes, there is some variety in nomenclature. 9.12A was Warsaw Pact, but non-Soviet version, with downgraded radar (2 out of 5 modes) and IFF, with E-502-20/04 Turkus datalink. NATO called it either Fulcrum-A or Mig-29A to point out first generation of 29's. 9.12 was Soviet wariant with N019 Rubin radar, 5 radar modes and E-502-20 Bierioza datalink. Now, 9.12B was another export version, but it was for non-Warsaw Pact states, lacking IFF, datalink and having downgraded radar. That thing was called MiG-29B, but it was not formal, and in the West only. Instead, Fulcrum-B was pinned on MiG-29UB (9.51), trainer tandem without radar. So yeah, in the West A was used either for 9.12A or for 9.12, 9.12A and 912.B... 

    That is why I referred to 9.12 with (A), just for safety reasons. I am unsure what 29 we will get down the road, but because that law I mentioned I assume it can be 9.12A. If they will happen to lay hands on 9.12 outside of that restrictions... maybe. But it will be Fulcrum-A regardless. 🙂

     

     

  11. On 7/7/2021 at 4:42 PM, USA_Recon said:

    Agree that dynamic campaign could help solve the problem we have with much of DCS which is a lack of era and context.  I doubt ED can truly build the type of DC that the other … did.   We can hope but keep in mind it took this long to get synced clouds and yet they still don’t actually move …

    Please don’t tease Mig29A 🙂 much needed… although I’d rather have the G model! Mirage was a beast in the 80s scenarios

    We will see, but things are moving into the right direction for dynamic campaign. As for the MiG-29G... Well, that was codename for 9.12 (A) used by Germany. Granted, they had an upgrade in the 90's to make them meet NATO standards, and the engines were tuned down to extend their rather short lifespan... But it is the same version. As Russian Federation has a law prohibiting gathering information about military equipement on their soil, all models used by USSR/Federation alone are off the plate. But A variant, as well as G were (and still are) operated abroad, so devs can gather info about them. I don't think I saw G mentioned, sadly, but it is not impossible, technically at least. If it be worth time and effort to put another version in the pack - that is another story. 🙂

     

  12. 2 hours ago, jojo said:

     

    I'm not sure I'm following you here.
    If you are enabling the INS drift (no embedded GPS on Mirage 2000C), you will have to put eyes on target or initial point to be able to attack 😉

    Yeah, you have to reset that piece of... gyros before. But if you can do a fix in some cloud opening, then you are able to deliver goods with an acceptable amount of collateral damage even in the soup. 😉 

    • Like 1
  13. 10 hours ago, jojo said:

    As a summary, there is nothing wrong with wanting a Fox 3 shooter Mirage 2000-5F. It would be a different way to do air defense but still with a Mirage 2000 airframe.

    But the problem for Razbam is access to data.

    Jet fighters aren't designed for our personal entertainment in the first place. These are sensitive matters, and Mirage 2000-5F is still a first line air defense asset for France.

     

    Mirage 2000C is a fine Fox 1 shooter in his own right.

    Yes a Fox 1 shooter is more dependent on team work and this is up to you. Playing lone wolf is more difficult.

     

    On the other hand, the Mirage 2000C has never been intended or put in front of NATO Fox 3 shooters.

    So blame the mission designer if it's the case.

    On some PvP server the M-2000C is put as a substitute to full fidelity red fighters. So you know what you're going into.

     

    I think that PvE are better for historical context missions, and you would probably find that kind of action inside virtual squadrons.

     

    The only way out would be a true dynamic campaign like-the-other-sim-we-are-not-allowed-to-talk-about.

     

    The 2 forces are fighting with what they have, no matter what. And you just jump inside to take a slot and maybe customize mission and payload.

     

    You are on point. I would rather have well-polished, well done 2000C than 2000-5 with a lot less realism due to sensitive information.

     

    And i think that 2000C will get some buddies to play along with - there will be MiG-23MLA and full MiG-29A at some point also. So there will be, along with MiG-21, some more red jets that are in the same time bracket. Since dynamic campaign is being worked on, that can also help. But even the weather update changed a lot. Suddenly dropping bombs on INS waypoints is very useful in IFR, feature that wasn't so much prominent before.  

  14. 8 hours ago, =36=Witcher said:

    You're absolutely right in all your points. People want -5 so desperately to increase their kill counts in a Mirage. Nothing wrong with that, but I find the attitude of keeping on asking for it just like it was the only smart thing in the world RAZBAM can do really disrespectful to them. People really think RAZBAM don't want to do more money if they could? They think they're just lazy, incapable, or plain cruel? No, it's either that the time effort could be too much because it's not like changinc a couple of textures, or because they simply don't have enough data available. I am a simple RAZBAM fan of course, but this attitude really drives me crazy, and also hurts the quality of the conversation in the Discord channel.

     

     

    DCS is a great sim, and you are getting good, solid airframe simulation out of it. However, and this is where it fails, planes by capability and design are fulfilling the role in doctrine. That doctrine is not modelled right now, so many planes are used outside of their original purpouse. I have to stress it though, it is MP we are talking about, SP missions can be tailored to airframe capabilities.

    But I keep my hopes up for dynamic campaign in the servers. Right now we have kill-counting score fest. That is fun and we all know there are good servers, with nice missions and setting. In dynamic servers, I presume, it will be more important to fill the objectives, and that doesn't have to mean kills. Posturing shots from an escort can keep interceptors away from ground pounders, and you don't have to actually score a hit. Ground attack delivering payload unharassed is the goal, and keeping enemy at range is more than enough. There is ton of actions without lethal outcome, that can be a success or failure, and I hope that there would be a formula to count and award rather operational success, than personal score. After all the latter is usually a byproduct of the former.

     

    • Like 1
  15. If I could buy 2000-5, of course I would, because I love Mirage planes. F1 is on my list as well. But I think I know why C can be sometimes a bit frustrating at the first glance. DCS, as a simulation, fails in some aspects to recreate the bigger picture. Yes, 2000C lacks in A2G, but in reality SEPECAT Jaguar would do the heavy lifting in ground pounding, 2000C would be cover and support to a degree. But we don't have Jags... Radar is not that flashy, but the GCI would do vectoring to intercept, putting 2000's in best position to attack. Same as MiG-19's and 21's in that respect. We don't have complex vectoring... And main enemy 2000C would tangle with at that time was MiG-27 and early variants of 29 like 9.12. So there is some pairity, but not many birds from 1977-1990 right now. I mean - not many variants, using F-16 Bloc 50 without some weapons is not equivalent of F-16 Bloc 5.

     

    I think F-16's, 18's and other modules people consider to be more capable are actually less context-sensitive. You can do more with the airframe yourself, and you don't need to rely on external features. And some of those features are lacking at the moment. I know there will be overhaul of those implemented, but as it is now, M2k can't be utilised to its full potential, as well as other dedicated interceptors. Not to mention, that actual work they should do is clipping bombers, and servers are rarely including such scenarios. Not to mention, only thing that matters in most servers is kill count, not objective completion. You don't get points for stopping bombers or forcing them to drop and bug out - and that would be an operational success. I know that also can change with dynamic campaign. And I hope for that! 🙂

    • Like 4
  16. On 1/19/2021 at 12:03 PM, KL0083 said:

     

     

    No, there was no help in creating Ki-100,I'm sure the latter is simply a temporary measure when Japanese DB engine no longer available. 😼

     

    There was no direct help, but studies of the FW-190 contributed to Ki-100 developement. Japanese were not so kin on the airframe itself (other than being a yardstick for their own project), but they studied closely engine mounting solutions. They also didn't had intention of simply making a copy of that piece, they just examined it and used as a reference to save their time on researching something, that was potentially already solved. Also, they did a lot of cross-referencing their own designs with other nations, and that practice was established well in the mid-war, so it was just fitting in their way of comparing their solutions.

    • Like 2
  17. Well, good I reserved some cash for F1 and MB-339A. Otherwise... I mean food is overrated anyway, who needs that. I will call that "Mirage diet - kilograms disappearing like a mirage." 🙂

    • Like 4
  18. Great! I love Mirage, and I am very happy to see it being developed and refined. It is great, that she is still being pushed to be as close to original Baguette, as we can get. 😉 

  19. Fast alignment was a nice option to have in multiplayer, that is for sure. But I actually didn't used it anyway too much - in nice weather I used low accuracy alignment, and it worked for me in VFR. I like to go all the steps anyway, as real pilot would. I like Mirage, it fits me, and I don't mind waiting those few minutes. 😉

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...