Alba57
-
Posts
30 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Alba57
-
-
Problem is, right now there are similar planes to the F-5E, but with better capabilities. Why to buy an F-5E if you can buy the Mirage F1, that has better avionics and more variety in weapons, including Fox 1 missiles? Probably ED haven't sold a single F-5E in months, so they have it almost as "abandonware".
-
1
-
-
The Mirage F1 is a pretty similar aircraft, but with better capabilities A/A. And the future F1M with avionics updated to the 90's level was used mostly as an attack aircraft in Spain, with similar missions.
-
I know is not going to happen, but it would be great to get the F-5E at the level of the ones purchased by the US Navy from the Swiss air force, with INS and ILS. It would be 100% realistic and it would give those birds real IFR capabilities. It would be better if this module were upgraded to the F-5N level (I would even pay a few bucks for that upgrade), but that small upgrade would make this module attractive again. It's really limited right now.
-
2
-
-
I think F/A-18C is a way better module in DCS in terms of fun. Several reasons for that:
1. Can operate both from land and from the carrier. More fun.
2. More variety of weapons/missions. The F/A-18C can perform SEAD missions with HARMs and Maverick missiles, and anti-ship missions with Harpoon missiles. The F-15E can't.
3. The F-15E doesn't "out-tech" the Hornet. Both birds are from the same era (4 generation) and their technological level and avionics are pretty similar, as well as their capabilities.
4. The Hornet is intended for one pilot, the Mudhen for pilot and WSO. So, the best way to fly the Mudhen, as happens with the Tomcat, is with a friend. But not everybody has a mate with the same schedules to fly with online. It seems that the Mudhen will have a AI WSO in the future, but it steals a big amount of the enjoyment, IMO. If you are going to fly solo most of the time because you don't have a mate to fly with regularly, it's better to fly a single-seat plane, again IMO.
5. The F-15E has more fuel and a bigger payload than the F/A-18C, and for sure that's great in real life, because the Mudhen can stay more time in patrol and perform deeper attacks than the Hornet and put a bigger amount of bombs in the target (although that's not so important with guided weapons), but... it's that really important in DCS? How many people actually fly 4-6 hours missions, like in real life? In DCS, most people fly missions that doesn't last more that one hour from take-off to landing. Maybe one and a half hour. Most of us have real-life obligations and usually can't spend more time with this hobby. And I don't think a lot of people perform missions in DCS that include to stay four hours patrolling a CAP or a kill box looking for a scud launcher of waiting for a tank or a fighter to show, like in real life. So much fuel is not really needed, usually. Also, the maps are not big enough to perform really long range strikes, even if someone wants to perform a mission that includes to fly hundreds of miles and several hours until reaching the target, and several hours to RTB.
If anyone is hesitating between buying the Hornet of the Mudhen, I recommend the Hornet.
-
Someone actually got the bird for 24$? I wasn't actually planning to buy this module now (actually, I haven't purchased it), but I saw it so cheap that I tried to buy it. After a few tries got to bring the item to the card, but the price in the card was 56$, although the price in the e-shop was 24. I think that the price never was actually wrong in the E-shop, only the advertisement of the price.
-
Hola a todos. Me gustaría preguntar una duda a ver si alguien me la puede solucionar:
He estado haciendo pruebas con los cazas de FC3 y los misiles, y me ha pasado lo siguiente: volando con el Flanker contra un F-15C, 1vs1, he disparado un R-27ER, y a su vez el F-15C me ha disparado un Sparrow M. Mi misil derriba al F-15C, y el sparrow, en lugar de ponerse en balístico al perder el avión lanzador el blocaje, sigue persiguiéndome durante varios segundos y finalmente me derriba. Esto lo he replicado varias veces, y con otros aviones lanzadores, como el Phantom y el Tomcat. Hasta donde yo sé, el Sparrow es un misil semiactivo, y si el avión lanzador pierde el blocaje (por ejemplo, por ser derribado), el misil se pierde. ¿Se me escapa algo? ¿Hay algún modo en que un Sparrow se guie a su blanco incluso si el avión lanzador ha sido derribado? ¿Quizá hay algún modo en que se guía a las emisiones de ECM del blanco, o algo así? Soy más bien novato, así que no sé si esto es algún "bug" o es que hay algún modo de lanzamiento del Sparrow que no conozco, y permite eso.
PD. Parece que el sparrow se guía hacia mi tras perderse el blocaje con el avión lanzador con mis emisiones de ECM ¿Es posible eso?
-
I´m not going to buy this or any other new modules until RAZBAM 100% finishes the ones already in the market. :disgust:
-
Please, UGRA, finish 100% your current products before starting another project. Some of us are tired of half-finished products and eternal betas in DCS World. Please, don't be as other developers (won't say names) that don't actually finish the products because they are always jumping from a project to another.
-
1
-
-
I am in the slow process of placing the SAM sites and military targets as per some location maps available online. Nice thing with this map is that the dirt mounds are visible for many of the SA-3 and SA-2 sites
:thumbup:
But that kind of things should be done by the developer of the map, even if the situation of the military objects are not the ones of real life por political reasons or something. They should provide templates for making missions easily, not just wait that eventually the community will do the work.
-
Hi
Is there any chance that the mission files used for the video's with all the populated bases could be shared? Without the hind of course :smilewink:
Im not handy with the editor at all and they seem like great ways to start.
Thanks!
+1
-
Could be possible to create some SimCharts, both visual and instrumental, adapted to the simulator for at least the main airbases of the map? It´s not easy to find real life charts for most of those airbases, and some of the procedures in real life are not possible in DCS World...
Also, it would be great a manual with some documentation about the map: a bit of story of those airbases, planes and squadrons operating from there, historical places, historical battlefields... Planes have manuals, so maps should have too. :thumbup:
-
2
-
-
A few years back it used to be officially allowed when submitting a flight plan to Israeli ATC to file Ramat David (LLRD) as an alternate for TLV Ben Gurion (LLBG) and it is public knowledge that Ramat David Airbase has for many years an active ILS approach for runway 33 and it is classified as CAT 1.
Some years ago this was changed and neither the TACAN nor the ILS of Ramat David is published in the Israeli AIP, however there is a public map on the Israeli Civil Aviation Authority website available for download that lists a VOR at Ramat David using VHF freq 113.70 Mhz
Link for download of map:
I suggest using the following to extrapolate the TACAN channel from the VHF frequency:
https://509tigers.org/confidential/docs/global/01_TACAN_EN.pdf
Using this guide the TACAN channel for Ramat David should be 084X
The ILS frequency is not publicly available so any frequency can be used.
Prevailing winds in the area are mostly from the NW and sometimes from WNW so I suggest adding ILS to runways 33 and 29 at Ramat David.
The GPS fixes that should be added to the NS430 and the A-10C FMS database can be found in the CAAI's AIP website ENR chapters 4 and 6.
https://en.caa.gov.il/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=408&Itemid=272
List is available in the following files:
ENR 4.1 RADIO NAVIGATION AIDS – EN-ROUTE
ENR 4.4 NAME-CODE DESIGNATORS FOR SIGNIFICANT POINTS
ENR 4.5 AERONAUTICAL GROUND LIGHTS – EN-ROUTE
ENR 6.1 ATS Routes Chart
Cheers!
+1 PLEASE. An airbase as big and important as Ramat David and only has a NDB? Please, do the base fully functional for modern jets with TACAN and ILS, even if it's exactly like real life. 99,9999% of as simmers are not going to fly never in real life to Ramat David, so who cares? Some "SimCharts" for procedures, adapted to the sim, would be great too.
-
Hi guys, I’m on the fence of getting this plane on the next sale. But I’m really new to the game, I did try it in 2016 but not too much.
Right now I own the F15 and I’m looking for a A2A plane, I fly mainly multiplayer and I’m still getting wrecked online with the F15.
My question is... should I get the Mirage and will I “get good” in it on multiplayer? Or will I have a worst experience?
Thank you
If your main priority is to kill other guys in multiplayer, buy the JF-17 since it has probably the best FOX-3 missiles in DCS World.
-
It is more common for GA that the Garmin GPS unit is placed at the current position. Probably as it does not obstruct view and it is a rather clunky piece of kit. Not small like a car GPS.
BUT I think it should be added to L-39ZA the same same way as C-101CC :)
Makes sense. GPS with no gunsight L-39C, GPS with gunsight L-39ZA
So, you want that we have to buy another GPS for the ZA in order of being able of using the weapons with the GPS? Do you work for ED, by chance? :megalol:
This is not a civilian simulator. The L-39C is not a simulation of a GA aircraft in DCS, but a military trainer and light attack aircraft. 15 years ago, when GPS wasn't so common as today, it could happen that civilian GPS, or even just car navigators where mounted in older military jets as "field modifications" or something like that. And that's what could be simulated here with this NS-430, not a GA plane. If it's a GA plane what they are simulating, they well could remove the old ex-soviet militar equipment and upgrade the L-39C with modern radios, autopilot and other civilian equipment that usually is seen in GA L-39's.
-
Well, at least it can be easily fixed by hand.
Sadly I don't think there is a way to fix by hand the other mayor bug, the artifacts in the cockpit of the ZA.
-
Certainly the glamour-fighters are popular. However, to paraphrase from the helicopter community... "most DCS helicopter pilots will have all DCS helicopters".
And, although smaller, the "trainer/acrobatics" community will do the same. I have got all trainer aircraft (L39,Yak52,TF51D,C101,Hawk) and will get others too. But I really like trainers and light-attack-aircraft. And those others that I know of similar mind, have done the same. :)
Depends what you're looking for, sure. It probably won't be for everyone. I didn't buy the F-16 or JF-17 because they offered nothing new over the F/A18 and AV8B. But I know lots of people would scream sacrilege at me for that! On the other hand, I have both the FW190D9 and FW190A8... even though others think "meh, the A8 is worse version of the same plane, why bother?".
For those who really appreciate the training aircraft for what they offer, there will be enough of a difference from the others to warrant the purchase. If not, the free mod is still there.
Hahaha, this is "wish list" and we are trying to convince those guys to make the "C" model after the A/PAN. If you are so into trainers, why are you trying to sabotage it? :lol::lol::lol: :doh: You should be saying to the guys of IndiaFoxEcho "Yes, yes, you make it, please" :thumbup:
Anyway, seriously, the announcement of a fighter-bomber is the "train of hype" at full speed for 99% of simmers, but another trainer is just "meh, it's OK" for most of the people. Since there are already 2 of them, they should try to give something different. Modern avionics could be one, a campaign of training as realistic as possible made by an actual pilot (I think there are two of them into this project) with the plane could be another...
Are there people that will buy everything? Yes, of course. But not everybody has the money to buy every single module, and not everybody has the time to learn the plane's systems and fly it. Most of us already have several modules collecting dust into our virtual hangars.
-
Yes, it is true, in DCS World there are already two similar traininers (C-101 and L-39), as indeed there are already several multirole aircrafts with similar weapon capabilities and performances, but this cannot stop the production of modules.
Well, It's true that the F/A-18, the F-16 and the JF-17 are pretty similar, but it's true that most of the people find more "sexy" those kind of planes than the C-101 and the MB-339. I think most of the people would like to find time to learn and fly several fighter-bombers, but would not several trainers, I´m afraid.
My case: I like a lot the free MB-339. I think it´s a brilliant free mod. And I'm sure that you are going to do a great job with it as a payware. But I already own the C-101 and the L-39. Well, the L-39 is a ex-soviet plane, different avionics, weapons and systems... but the C-101 is almost the same plane from a simmer's point of view (not talking about real life, obviously). I don't think I´m going to buy the MB-339 if doesn't gives me something different, like modern avionics, for example.
-
Current GPS placement on L-39C makes sense if you look at videos of GA flying. More options would be nice, but there is a reason behind why it is placed like it is.
There are videos of GA L-39 with a commercial GPS fixed to the plexiglass of the canopy with a sucker. They could have put it anywhere. They could have put it in the right panel, as it's in LOTUS's L-39 for FXS, for example. I think what makes sense is not stripping away the weapons capability of a plane IN A MILITARY SIM for a GPS. We should not have to choose between a GPS and the use of weapons in a sim like DCS World.
-
Te lo agradezco mucho. Llevaba algún tiempo detrás de estos documentos y no había forma. Por supuesto cualquier otro documento que puedas compartir (sin que se enfade nadie de ningún escuadrón virtual, se entiende), será muy bienvenido.
-
He visto en internet que la gente del Escuadrón 111 tradujo hace tiempo tanto el manual del M-2000C como la guía de Chuck, pero todos los enlaces de descarga que he encontrado están muertos.
¿Por casualidad alguien tiene por ahí esas traducciones, y querría compartirlas? Incluso si el manual está un poco desactualizado, sería interesante.
Gracias de antemano :thumbup:
-
It got an F-18 in real life. I’m trying to be respectful to the pilot that was flying that day, but he was shot down by an R-40TD. It may have low G limits, but if you can surprise someone especially with a missile that doesn’t give RWR warning and an IRST to back it up, a lot of asymmetrical scenarios become possible.
It did it in real life, so I see no evidence to say it’s only good against SR-71. It got F-4s and F-5s also, obviously the F-18 shot down was no fluke but a pilot taking advantage of a good opportunity.
Hell this is DCS where people fly MiG-21s against Hornets and still get kills sometime, I’ve seen MiG-15s take out Hornets. I have no reason to doubt that event in 1991 and successes throughout the Iran Iraq war.
I’m not saying it will win, but there is real life precedent in the form of confirmed victories for its use against fighters, and no evidence that it’s only good for SR-71. When it’s been used successfully in real life against even fourth gen fighters flown by the US Navy, I don’t know how you can argue that such a scenario isn’t possible in DCS as well:dunno:
As for defending against a Phoenix, with a SPO-15 Beryoza, it’s just a matter of positioning and reading it right, using your speed and notching when you have to. It may be hard and was actually killed by a Phoenix once in real life, but there’s no reason for a good 25 pilot to think it’s hopeless against Phoenix when MiG-29s and Su-27s manage it with the same RWR and less speed, with Beryoza and using its speed I think a lot is possible for a good pilot, just like almost any other airframe matchup in DCS.
Mig-25 would not work in DCS World. It´s a long range, high speed interceptor, so it needs way much bigger maps and a way much better ground control to make its mission. Also the mission with a Mig-25 it's only one: take off, go as fast and as high as possible, follow Ground Control orders to intercept B-52 or B-1, lock them with your radar, launch missiles, and run away before the enemy escort fighters get you... Most people prefer multirole planes because, at the end of the day, this is a game, and multirole is more interesting than just always the same mission. It´s like the F-111 or the Mirage IV: cool planes, but would not work in DCS World.
-
Could be possible to move the NS-430 in the cockpit of the L-39C in order of being able to use it with the gunsight, like the C-101?
I don't know why you have to choose between the GPS and the gunsight. It seems to me an error of design of the module from the beginning. And I don't think is a matter of "realism" since this GPS is not a standard equipment for the L-39 and you can put it where you want, even taped somewhere in the cockpit like added in the field by the pilot himself or something.
-
I have heard that before. I don't understand why a license can be obtained for an F-18C, an AV-8B, and A-10C (all in active duty) but not an old, obsolete A-4E Skyhawk.
I don't know. But I suppose that, if Boeing sells the license for a plane, the buyer has is in exclusive, and maybe they don't want to sell it to a new and small 3er company. Maybe they want to wait for a better offer, sell it to a bigger developer like ED itself, or something like that. Or maybe it's just that a huge company like Boeing doesn´t care about getting a few bucks by selling licenses for videogames.
-
F15E Shop - Should it still be onsale?
in F-15E
Posted
This already happened with the Hawk module a few years ago, and I think ED said that the had changed the terms of the contract with the 3er parties to avoid the same situation twice, but not sure about that.