Jump to content

Mad_Shell

Members
  • Posts

    95
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mad_Shell

  1. On 9/6/2021 at 3:36 AM, alvarolage said:

    Has anything been confirmed about robbie tanks?

    The robbie tank appears in the fuel page in a screenshot:InkedIn_Dev_04.06.2021.2_LI.jpg

    In some others screenshots we see the Apache carries 1200 30mm rounds (no robbie tank):

    In_Dev2c.jpg

    So my conclusion is that we will have the option to add or remove the robbie tank.

    • Like 3
  2. 7 minutes ago, kseremak said:

    Some jurnalist woman flies the Apache, i can imagine it has to be super easy

    It doesn't tell much, flying any helicopter is quite easy, you could hand the commands to a non pilot and (s)he could continue to fly it. The real part is taking off, hovering, landing, doing hard manoeuvers...

    • Like 2
  3. 53 minutes ago, Lurker said:

    Apart from the extra challenge, why would you fly night missions in DCS World?

     

    This is a serious question. In RL scenarios, night missions make sense as you are automatically eliminating optical sensors (primarily the Mk1 eyeball) from the equation. I.E. your enemies can't see you.

     

    In DCS World, the AI can see in all weather, during the day and during the night. (Although they should not be able to see through clouds at some point, at least according to ED devs this is supposed to be coming in an incoming patch, let's hope that this is coming sooner rather than later)

    Last time I tried it, AI detection range was very reduced at night. I could fly less than 2 km away from a ZSU 23-2 and it wouldn't see me at all.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  4. 48 minutes ago, Tiramisu said:

    I do not know much about the Apache, but the Mi-24 turned out to be much more fun than I expected. I fear that the Apache is too much computerized for this kind of fun feeling. Maybe I am missing something, but isn't it going to be rather like an American version of the Ka-50? I am just trying to figure out for which kind of virtual pilots the Apache is a good choice.

    Apache systems will be much more complicated than in the Ka-50. If you want a comparison, I think operating the Apache will be pretty similar to operating the A-10C/A-10CII

    • Like 1
  5. I think it's an excellent idea. I know Ate (former Rafale pilot) said that the G effects on the pilot are quite unrealistic currently. In his tournaments he even had to enforce a rule limiting the high G turns on the deck, because you could just pull 7 Gs indefinitely, which is in no way realistic.

    • Like 1
  6. I agree, topics such as Vulkan/multithreading, AI improvements, weather, etc... are big priorities, and imo ED doesn't communicate nearly enough on what is done, being done, and left to be done. Either ED should have not made any announcement at all on those topics, or they should regularly report progress. I understand that ED wants to wait until things are quite advanced before giving more information, but when such important features are announced, more transparency could really help in alleviating some of the frustrations in the community.

    • Like 10
  7. So, 2 bugs in this one:

    - the f-18 AI attacks the helo with a Aim-9L, but a few kilometers away it decides to go almost straight to the ground, then launch its missile and tries to recover, but too late and takes a tree in the face.

    - the helicopter launches flares against the Aim-9L and defeats it, but it keeps wasting all its flares as long as the missille is in the air. It's a bug for all helos and planes AI: the continue to flare, even when the missile is defeated, so they run out of flares very, very quickly for nothing... I guess there is no closure rate check, and the code is something like "IR missile in the surroundings = flares"

    helo_flares_f18_crash.trk

  8. 1 minute ago, Flappie said:

     

    Thx. It is logical after all that a launcher can engage several targets simultaneously, as they use active radar homing missiles. The command post can distribute targets to each missile, then it's fire and forget basically (with mi-course guidance updates).

  9. 1 hour ago, Flappie said:

    You put only one launcher in your mission. Here's a track with 4 of them: they do fire simultaneously at different targets.

    Multiple_NASAMS_launchers.trk 117.81 kB · 0 downloads

     

    Sorry my 1st message wasn't clear, I put only 1 launcher because the problem is that a single launcher should be able to launch at several targets simultaneously, and putting only 1 launcher shows it's not the case in DCS.

  10. The DCS NASAMS site should have the capability to simultaneously launch several missiles at several targets (according to the manufacturer, with a complete battery including 12 launchers, all the 72 missiles can engage 72 targets simultaneously). 

    I join a track, showing that a NASAMS site with  launcher engages 2 targets one after another, and not simultaneously.

    NASAMS.trk

  11. 6 minutes ago, Ramsay said:

    AFAIK the more complex behaviour you are see is because you are testing using a player controlled Avenger and the CA cockpit/UI is taking LOS, aspect and range into account to determine when the player gets a good tone/lock.

     

    IIRC the AI (igla manpads) isn't as sophisticated, I know ED have made some recent improvement with the AI's LOS, so would need to retest.

     

     

    The AI takes the aspect into account as well.

    As for the Ka-50, ED wants to add different IR suppressors with Black Shark 3, as seen in the previews they showed, so I wrongly assumed there was none at the moment.

  12. 9 hours ago, Ramsay said:

    AFAIK DCS aircraft have only 2 IR signatures Normal (parked or engine running) and Afterburner, and as helicopters don't have an AB, they have a single heat signature.

     

    Do you have a track/mission loadout from another module where IR suppressors have an effect on range, perhaps it's being treated like the Su-25T's IR jammer ?

     

     

    IR system is a bit more complicated. For example, the aspect has an effect on the IR signature too. You can lock a rear aspect jet or helicopter from further away than a front aspect one.

    As for examples, here are a bunch of tests I did, some with tracks:

     

    Distance at which an Avenger can lock with its stinger missiles:

    mi-8 front aspect no suppressor: 2.5 km
    mi-8 front aspect suppressor: 1.5 km
    mi-24 front aspect no suppressor: 2.1 km
    mi-24 front aspect suppressor: 1.5 km
    Ka-50 front aspect (no suppressor): 1.5 km
    Gazelle front aspect no suppressor: 1.5 km
    Gazelle front aspect suppressor: 1.5 km
    Mi-28N front aspect (suppressor): 1.5 km


    mi-8 rear aspect no suppressor: 6.5 km
    mi-8 rear aspect suppressor: 3.5 km
    mi-24 rear aspect no suppressor: 5.5 km
    mi-24 rear aspect suppressor: 3.0 km
    Ka-50 rear aspect (no suppressor): 3.5 km
    Gazelle rear aspect no suppressor: 2.5 km
    Gazelle rear aspect suppressor: 2.5 km
    Mi-28N rear aspect (suppressor): 3.5 km

     

    Also @BIGNEWY , seeing the results above, the Ka-50 seems... strange. It's like it has already IR suppressors.

    Gazelle_Front_IR_cover.trk Gazelle_Front_no_IR_cover.trk Mi_8_Front_IR_cover.trk Mi_8_Front_no_IR_cover.trk Mi_8_Rear_IR_cover.trk Mi_8_Rear_no_IR_cover.trk Mi_24_Front_IR_cover.trk Mi_24_Front_no_IR_cover.trk

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  13. Contrary to all others helicopters able to equip an IR suppressor, the one on the Gazelle has zero effect on the distance at which an IR missile can lock. 

    So while it's not fixed, PSA to all Gazelle players: don't equip it, it adds weight for nothing...

     

    Attached: 2 tracks (one Gazelle with IR suppressor, one without) where you can see that I can lock at the same distance in both cases with an Avenger.

    Gazelle_no_IR_cover.trk Gazelle_IR_cover.trk

    • Like 1
  14. While trees and buildings block ground units radars, aircraft radars can see through them. As a helicopter player this makes it basically impossible to hide from jets or break locks by flying NOE behind tree lines or cities. I would consider it a priority bug, as it can severely affect the survivability of helicopters and negatively impact the gameplay.

    No track, but Grim Reapers made a video about it, and 100% reproducible:

     

    I get it that it may use more CPU cycles, but I hope it'll be corrected once Vulkan gives more CPU room for it.

     

    • Like 1
  15. 5 years later here we are. I love DCS and appreciate the incredible work ED is doing, but reported 5 years ago... This is getting ridiculous for a bug that I would consider quite important since it can ruin a whole mission, especially for helicopters players. If even new clouds and Hind can't get this fixed, I wonder what will...

  16. Yeah, this one is driving me nuts. It has existed FOREVER, and can be a real annoyance when flying helicopters, yet it seems so simple to fix. I mean, There are plenty of objects with cables which render correctly in front of the clouds, I can't see why powerlines would be that hard to fix. But what do i know...

    • Like 1
  17. The MIM 72G missile (derived from the AIM-9D) used in the Chaparral SAM seems to be considerably underperforming:

    - in DCS it has no proximity fuse, contrary to IRL.

    - its acceleration and maneuvrability are very poor. It can't even turn fast enough to follow a plane flying at 1000m when fired almost vertically. Compare in game maneuverability with this video: https://youtu.be/WNmdB97-oBk?t=86 

     

    Here are 2 tracks showing Chaparral needing to use a large number of missiles to shoot down a non maneuvering, non flaring M2000-C at 1000m altitude.

     

    useless_chaparral.trk useless_chaparral_2.trk

    • Like 1
  18. Yeah this is ridiculous... A proximity fuse HE fragmentation warhead going through any MBT front armor, how to say...  As for intercepting AGMs, the SA-19 has a FCR and missiles similar to the ones used by the CIWS Kashtan, so it wouldn't surprise me if it could intercept some missiles.

  19. 2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

    Which, if you check out the drawing on the very page you took your "quick" (and unnecessary, given the link) explanation from, is exactly what I said it is. The only difference is, the "BC" part gives it better ballistics than plain old APHE. It's an APHE in a pointy hat, so to speak. A full-caliber 57mm round will not reliably punch through a modern MBT's armor, rear or otherwise. 

     

    You're also forgetting that in your example, thickness of armor is equivalent thickness. Yes, about 100mm RHA is plausible penetration value for the 57mm round at a sensible range. Nobody uses actual RHA any more. The T-72 has 80mm of armor on the sides of its engine compartment, but the equivalent RHA thickness is between 170 and 230mm. No way a 57mm round can punch through that, except maybe with a lucky shot. Turret rear armor might be a little weaker, but still not that weak. You could kill a WWII tank with that, or the Armata (because its turret is very lightly armored), but not a T-72.

    If you notice in the OP video, he's not at any sensible distance from the MBTs. At this distance the rounds will easily have 120 mm RHA penetration. Also, when he's shooting at the Abrams he's aiming at a very specific spot, where the armor is weaker. Do the test yourself: aim anywhere else on the Abrams side, and it won't penetrate. For the Leclerc, the all around protection is against 30 mm rounds only. So it's not a stretch to imagine there are quite a few weak spots on the sides and the rear against 57 mm rounds, especially when those are fired at point blank range.

×
×
  • Create New...