Jump to content

DarkFire

DCS Ground Crew
  • Posts

    1838
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by DarkFire

  1. This. If you can get inside the OODA loop of your opponent and force them to react instead of act, you're probably going to win. At the very least the odds are stacked heavily in your favour at that point.
  2. Also worth noting that the R-27ET is probably the ultimate tail-chase missile since its engine has such good specific impulse. You essentially get a less maneuverable R-73 with the same seeker head but much longer range and higher speed.
  3. I think the issue here is that the game simulates blast (reduces with distance as 1/r^3) but not fragmentation. Not sure how frag could be simulated in a performance-friendly manner though.
  4. Excellent point. The F-35 is a great replacement for the F-117: precision stealth strike capability that is also capable of self-defence. The "1st day of war" missions that the F-117 did will be a perfect match for the F-35.
  5. 32Gb is good for DCS but I certainly wouldn't go any lower. DCS can easily use ~20Gb of RAM on its own. 64Gb would be good for future-proofing but not necessary at the moment. I think a better choice right now would be to go for 32Gb and put the remaining budget in to the CPU and GPU. Another essential for DCS is to run the game from an SSD or NVME drive - running from a traditional disk is a painful experience, espeically if you want a wider pre-loaded graphics radius.
  6. I agree entirely. I'm sure the F-35 would be very capable in contested airspace but if it's intended to replace the A-10C then it would be a very bad fit for that mission: an A-10C replacement probably doesn't need to be all that stealthy but what it does need is loiter time and air-to-mud carriage capacity, ease of maintenance and high physical robustness, most of which is sacrificed in the F-35 in favour of excellent stealth characteristics. The F-35 and A-10 are meant for entirely different missions, and the former is consequently a poor replacement for the latter.
  7. As far as I'm aware this is correct. What you see is a combiner lens which records footage through the HUD. One lens faces forwards and the other faces down to record what the HUD is showing. When the camera operates, e.g. when the gun is fired, the combiner lens combines the HUD and forward images.
  8. I'm fairly confident that the F-35 will be a useful replacement for the F-16, especially in highly contested airspace, for anti-air, SEAD & light strike missions. What I don't foresee it doing well at all is replacing the A-10. The USAF and probably other NATO air forces need a dedicated CAS & interdiction platform for low intensity / COIN ops. That's a role that the A-10C fulfils very well indeed. If the USAF is serious about replacing it what they need is some sort of modernised A-1 Skyraider rather than a 5th gen stealth platform that has comparatively limited loiter time and, if it wishes to remain stealthy, VERY limited air to mud carriage capacity.
  9. Combat Approved in Syria, episodes 1 & 2. The episodes feature a tour of the Khmeimim base & several sections of footage featuring the VKS aircraft stationed there. In particular the footage shows the Su-34 and what appears to be an Su-35 with R-27ER's, R-77's and what may be K-74M's mounted. Also shows the S-400 and Pantsir S-1 systems.
  10. Agree 100%. Something relevant that I'd like to see would be the ability to change coalitions in-mission. For example, a given country could be neutral but on violating the border they could turn hostile.
  11. Some modules that I'd love to see and that I think would be achievable in terms of available experts / documentation: 1. Su-27SM (my personal dream module). 2. Blackburn Buckaneer. 3. Tornado GR1 / F3. 4. MiG-25 5. SR-71. Modules I'd like to see that may not be achievable: 1. Su-24M2. 2. Tornado GR4. 3. MiG-31.
  12. With respect that's a horrible idea. Pay once and a module is essentially free to use forever. Games-as-a-service is a terrible idea that needs to die. Yes, subscriptions would provide a steady source of income for a dev team but if anything happened to that dev team then every player would potentially instantly lose access to everything they "own" which I think is unacceptable for a game than can 100% be played in single player. The subscription model can work for 100% on-line only games such as iRacing but for anything that has an SP component, no.
  13. I agree, coalitions for the Syria map can be problematic. Something I'd like to see would be an expansion of the "Insurgent" faction, or maybe a dedicated faction called "terrorist forces" or similar.
  14. Updated red air is an old discussion by now. I certainly don't have any inside or special information but from browsing this forum (and previous ones) for years, along with ED youtube videos etc, the following appear to be pertinent points: 1. Either now or in the past, there were or are valid legal concerns around availability of information. Not so much permission, after all we have the KA-50 which has official Kamov authorisation, but getting sufficient accurate and verifiable information to make a module to "DCS" standards is another matter. 2. There is also an economic argument against. Fact is, the number of people who want DCS-standard red air modules is comparatively small. I am one of them. A much larger proportion of the user base wants NATO jets. Like any company ED need to keep the lights on and pay staff. If there isn't an economic argument in favour of a certain module, it's unlikely to be made. 3. ED have publicly said many times that they do not want to produce any more FC3-level modules. MAC is something of an anomaly in this regard and personally I think that "game" level avionics & flight modelling, already in DCS World, provides enough accessibility. My personal viewpoint is that more FC3 level aircraft are unlikely to be made. Combined Arms is purely for ground based units so I don't see that aircraft would be a good fit there. Much better would be a proper AWACS module, similar to LotATC but that could also work in SP missions. I say this as someone who would pay literally anything for a DCS: Su-27SM module. It's my personal dream module, but unfortunately I doubt it will happen for the foreseeable future.
  15. That's also very good to know, all the more reason to make use of the TACAN system.
  16. There we go, I didn't even know that page existed. Much more learning to be done. Thanks all for the information
  17. What a great tool! Thanks very much for developing this
  18. I decided to put some time in to the F/A-18 while I patiently wait for the Tiffy to be released. I'm brand new at the Hornet and am still learning the very basics around how it handles. I know that this is dependent on loadout (drag), meterological conditions and altitude, but is there a ballpark figure for what is a good cruise throttle setting that's reasonably fuel efficient but that also allows for decent progress? I'm used to using 88-92% RPM in my Flanker for example so I'm wondering if there's a general equivalent engine RPM for the Hornet.
  19. Multiple variants each at full price would be a very tough sell for me. I like to buy modules to support ED and the 3rd party developers but $40 - $80 per variant would be really pushing the budget for me. On the other hand if the "basic" variant was something like an F4-J and then a further quite different variant was sold at a significantly reduced cost for owners of the "basic" variant, that might be a different matter.
  20. I'd forgotten about LOTATC! That's exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of.
  21. Does anyone remember playing the AWACS missions in Total Air Way back in the day? Having a realistic radar picture then acting as a fighter controler vectoring various flights on various tasks, and best of all being able to drop in to any individual flyable aircraft to complete that individual mission, or simply drop in to the cockpit for 10 minutes to ensure that bombs end up on target, then swap out to an intercept to make sure enemy bombers don't get through. For those who have no idea what Total Air War was, the AWACS missions were essentially what we have in DCS Combined Arms, but for air combat. Vector CAP or interceptors to identify unknown contacts or engage incoming enemy aircraft. Vector fighters to escort friendly units or assign strike missions to on-call CAS. Sadly I can't find any video footage showing how the AWACS mode worked in TAW but those who played it will know. Something else I loved from TAW and which I think would add tremedously to immersion in DCS is background radio chatter. In TAW the background radio chatter was generated based on what was actually going on in the world around you. It'd be great to have background radio chatter in DCS.
  22. *Cries in R-27* On a serious note, whenever the Typhoon will be released I'm really looking forwards to taking it for a ride. This is probably the only aircraft in DCS which will prise me out of my Su-27 cockpit. This and maybe the mud hen.
  23. What I'd recommend depends entirely on what sort of thing you enjoy doing. If you prefer air to air then either the Su-27, MiG-29 variants or the F-15C would all be good options. If you prefer air to ground then the Su-25 or A-10A would both be good choices. The closest you'll get to multi-role in this list is probably the Su-33. While it can't use A2G PGMs it has a wide variety of available ordnance, also does well in A2A and is also carrier capable so that will also give you a taste of carrier ops. All that being said, neither the Su-27 nor the -33 is particularly user friendly. Both have features that when used in the right circumstances will give you an edge but that can easily end your day very early if used incorrectly. Both also require trimming. Finally, if you're used to NATO-style avionics then there will be an extra hurdle to cross.
×
×
  • Create New...