Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dragon1-1

  1. You'd be surprised. Sinking a boat is certainly possible, but banging on a hardened armor plate with a 25lb brick (training bombs typically don't weigh 500lbs) would not do as much damage as you might think. Now, it could certainly bend some metal, but modern armor would most likely not be penetrated. Even if you do drop an actual 500lb concrete bomb, what'll happen is that the concrete will shatter on impact. Without a proper penetrator, nailing armored vehicles with training munitions is largely a waste of time. Softskins, by all means, but even relatively wimpy armor would be a significant obstacle to anything softer than it is.
  2. Yeah, another thing about Roceye is that its footprint is generally smaller than that of the CBU-87. This depends on HOF and RPM, of course, but it puts more bomblets into a smaller area, for the exact reason you mention. It's essentially a predecessor to CBU-97, and was intended for use in the same role (that is, stemming the veritable tide of Soviet tanks in Europe).
  3. They should be way more lethal, though. Those were meant for killing tanks and other heavy armor, and as such, even a single one should clear a T-55 formation. Wikipedia quotes the penetration at 190mm of armor, which is way more than most tanks have on top. I'm looking forward to trying out the improved CEM in the next update, it seems like a big step in the right direction.
  4. Are you guys sure it's not a hardware/input issue? Say, radar elevation bound to something it shouldn't be?
  5. Well, we're not getting another update (sans hotfixes) for another month, so more likely the latter, or 3-4 weeks, so to speak.
  6. I wonder, if a ship is wired for 4x HARMs, shouldn't it be able to carry and launch 4x Mavs, too? Now, unlike with HARMs, I have no idea if such a loadout was ever tested, and there might be separation/clearance issues, so maybe not, but I don't know.
  7. Just dropping in to say that the engine response has improved in the latest update. I'm a bit rusty, but I managed to recover (kinda-sorta) and trap from a situation where I got below the glideslope, a situation previously practically unrecoverable. Not a good trap, but not a bolter/ramp strike it would have been, I feel. It's also easier to keep the correct speed and, once configured, the velocity vector where you want it, you only have to anticipate turns with the throttle (correct to how it is IRL). I don't have hard data on this, but it does feel much better than the last time I flew it.
  8. I'd rather see an European location, so to speak. The 80s Germany, complete with the Berlin Wall, would be quite interesting. That's where most of the action would've been in a late Cold War WW3.
  9. We do need more campaigns, however the Hind is in a too raw state for most designers to go for it, not to mention it's been released recently and campaigns take time to make. Patience.
  10. I think that's because they kill your depth perception (quite important when doing AAR), or at least the early models did. Not sure if that's still the case today.
  11. You're not the only one. The director lights are hard to see IRL, too. They're OK at night, during the day they're too dim. When the tanker was designed, the lights were positioned for strategic bombers, I'd expect them to look just fine from a B-52, nobody gave much thought to the fighters back then. Then again, one Phantom driver in 'Nam once topped up with his visor down. He couldn't see the lights at all, I don't know how he kept formation, but he did. As for probe and drogue, lights such as probe light are far better at illuminating things than they are in the sim. That, or NVGs.
  12. Gee, the taxpayers surely appreciate your careful handling of their dollars/roubles... That aside, it'd be nice to see that bug nailed to the wall.
  13. It's also important not to fly in full AB. That tends to make flares less useful, including in DCS. You can see that with the A-10, MANPADS go for flares quite often (especially from the front), and even more for helos from head-on. If you're presenting your tail or a huge AB plume to the launcher, then maneuvering is of little help. And that helps even if a missile has flare rejection, it's never perfect, and the brighter the flare is relative to the engines, the better. The bit transports, especially turboprops, would be affected by this, too.
  14. It's not really hard, just a bunch of numbers and a bunch of (largely sensible) rules to remember. Now, I'm a biophysicist, so I might be a bit biased in terms of how hard RFK is to most people, but in the end, you're flying planes not designing them. If you can do a job that earns enough for you to afford flying lessons, then you can learn these things, too (unless that job is in management ). Interestingly enough, the number of things you absolutely must remember at all times when flying is pretty low and confined to a handful of emergency procedures. For the rest, the first thing a real pilot does is to grab a checklist (including the stuff done regularly), because humans forget things and paper does not. Also, if you're shooting for realism, you'll quickly learn the value of doing a proper preflight. Real pilots learn this stuff for a reason. The sim won't stop you from flying without this knowledge, but learning it still helps (although I really wish civil sims did a better job at AI traffic and ATC).
  15. Flying is relatively easy, but since aircraft are so expensive and carry so many people, you need to train for years to make sure you can fly safely, anywhere and everywhere, on a daily basis. That's what those 5-figure paychecks are for. That's also why we aren't going to replace pilots with computers anytime soon, despite the fact modern airliners can fly on autopilot from takeoff to landing. If you're entrusting two people with the lives of 200+, who could all die because of one switch left in wrong position (and such thing happened in the past), you make damn sure those two people know exactly which switches to flip, and what to do when one of them suddenly decides not to switch the thing that it should. I suspect that for IFR, sim pilots might actually be better than beginners coming from VFR, especially those inducted into the old-timer "fly with by the seat of your pants" school of piloting that some pilots say still lingers in certain circles. In instrument conditions, you can't rely on your feeling of balance, and in fact, they'll usually betray you. In a sim, you don't have these cues in first place, so you naturally fly by your instruments first. Another thing about simmers is that they tend to have a lot of hours, since you don't have to pay for the gas in order to fly in a sim, and you don't have to wait for weather, either.
  16. What you think is irrelevant. What is relevant is how the simulation engine was designed back when it started out. They are not going to rework something they don't have to. It can be extremely difficult to revisit code that was put there at the start, so much that it isn't worth the time and effort. This is because other features are built on the old ones, and code pertaining to engines is usually quite fundamental. If it was not designed with future 4-engined aircraft in mind, then it might be very very hard to retrofit that capability.
  17. The sim had been coded with the intention of flying fighters, which generally have one or two engines. There might be technical issues with more than that. I hoped there won't be, but if there are, a 4-engine aircraft would potentially require a lot of recoding.
  18. I wasn't aware of there being an issue with more than two engines, but if that's the case, then DC-3 seems like the only option. There are modern cargo planes with just two engines (Transall C-160, CASA C-295), but they're non-US planes.
  19. If it's WWII, then it's DC-3. I mean, what else could it be? Plus, it also fits, lets see... every era we have in DCS. It's still flying in 2021, and not only as a heritage aircraft! You probably wouldn't see it flying around the modern Persian Gulf very much, but North Korea still uses them, and they're still around in civilian use in less affluent countries. If modern, probably the C-130. Ubiquitous (if not quite to the level of DC-3), small enough not to be a total hog, and it even has an option to turn it into an armed AC-130 somewhere down the road, opening up combat missions.
  20. Yeah, MANPADS are easy to avoid, but they can be quite deadly if they surprise you. The big deal about them is that the launcher can literally be anywhere. A guy with a tube is notoriously hard to spot from the air. The reason they're mostly used against helos and slower aircraft like A-10 is that they're flying low. An F-16 or F-18 has, IRL, very little reason to go below the MANPADS' ceiling, and it doesn't stay there long if it does get below it. Another good spot for them is shooting at aircraft coming in to land or taking off. This is the primary limitation, not tracking or damage.
  21. Yeah, we've been spoiled by the old hitpoint system for too long. Now we'll actually have to aim at something more specific than "the other plane" to cause crippling damage. I'm really looking forward to it coming to modern jets, too. US ones generally output such a hail of 20mm shells that precise aiming is less important, we'd likely see damage from slower-firing cannons make more sense.
  22. I suspect that people who claim it doesn't work aren't actually hitting the Anton. Shooting from beyond convergence range will do that. Any plane with wing guns is somewhat tricky to consistently hit the target with, and even if you do, depending on a plane you won't do much if you just make 12.7mm sized holes in wings. You usually need to make those holes in the engine or the pilot to bring the plane down, unless you can manage to set off the fuel and/or ammo, which is not currently modeled. The new DM means that you actually have to land hits where it counts. Adjusting convergence distance is the answer. For me, for example, it's definitely too long, I like to get a lot closer than it's currently set.
  23. The F-100 would be a really close match, but it's not likely except by a 3rd party. Fun fact: we've got at least one Vietnam-era Hun driver on the forum.
  24. Yeah, no subscriptions please. It's a horrible business model that nobody wants. Kudos for ED for saying no to it. The poll says it all, I think. Individual purchases are where it's at, if you want to support ED, buy the merch or gift an expensive module to someone less fortunate.
  25. I never had this issue on Steam, for what it's worth. That said, I don't have a DCS account (only a forum account) as I don't do MP, so maybe it's that. I'd say, that would be pretty annoying, possibly causing me to jump ship to Steam before buying any modules. Stutter is sometimes caused by hot plugging being enabled. For some reason, it seems to sometimes "detach and reattach" something it thinks is TrackIR, not every 15 seconds, but it does cause a lag spike when it happens.
  • Create New...