lmp
-
Posts
1271 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by lmp
-
-
Thanks for all the good info Кош.
-
All of what you mentioned clearly affects the capabilities of the aircraft but does it affect the ease of use? Is the MLA less susceptible to compressor stalls? Are spins more benign? Have the elevons and/or rudder been redesigned to prevent (overpower) this very scary uncommanded roll scenario described in the video? I'm genuinely asking, I'm somewhat familiar with the MF, not so much the later versions.
As for the wing sweep, I agree it shouldn't be a problem most of the time but there are perhaps a few scenarios where this could catch you out - if, say, a high speed bvr develops into a dogfight or you're carrying wing tanks. It's one extra thing to keep track of.
-
2 hours ago, pepin1234 said:
Seem you want to compare Mirage F-1 vs MiG-23
I wanted to try to answer the question posted above: which is easier to fly in combat. I don't know what propaganda and disinformation has to do with anything? I posted a video of a pilot recalling his personal experience in the aircraft, detailing its aerodynamic quirks, and I added what little I know about how the swing wings work in the Flogger and how that complicates the human machine interface. My conclusion is similar to yours - the MiG will probably have a steeper learning curve. I didn't make any statements about how the combat capabilities of these two compare.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Flogger23m said:
I wonder what will be easier to fly in combat, this or the Mirage F1? Waiting on the F-15E to get more polished up as well before buying.
Well, the MiG-23 can be quite quirky:
Besides the above, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand the wing sweep is set entirely manually, unlike in the Tomcat. Additionally, you can't really change it under a lot of Gs, so you're stuck with whatever you had when you started the break unless you're prepared to unload. That's one thing you don't have to worry about in the Mirage.
I have a feeling the Mirage will be easier to fly in the sense that it won't surprise new pilots as much. But whether it'll be easier to win fights in, I don't know.
-
1
-
-
I think it's a lovely livery and it gets me even more excited for this module
.
-
3
-
-
Great job! It shouldn't be long till you can fill her up all the way. Then you'll only need to learn to do it with a full combat load, at different speeds and altitudes, at night, with the tanker turning, with different tankers...
But it looks like you got over the biggest hurdle. It's only this frustrating in the beginning. Once you learn it once, even if you let your skill slip a little over time, it's never that hard to get back into it.
-
1
-
-
On 2/25/2024 at 1:28 AM, ROBYMIG said:
Anyone here found a solution in order to skip the 2 steps in DCS (cover input + switch input)? Any LUA mod or whatever? I need all the covers in the open position please....
Depending on the software solution you use for your home cockpit/button box, you could make it send two different outputs, say, 100ms apart. This way you could program one of the buttons as lift the cap, second to flip the switch. I'm sure DcsBios could be expanded to do something similar.
For stock controllers, some may support macros, but I'm not sure.
-
14 hours ago, Kaktus said:
thanks for all the support, guidelines etc
A few more random tips from me:
1) In case of the probe and drogue system, after you connect, fly a little bit forward and a little higher and try to keep the aircraft there. Don't stay exactly where you connected, the hose will not have any slack and you'll have less room for error.
2) Keep practice sessions frequent but short. It's better to put in 10-15min every day (or however often you can) than 1h every once in a while. Practice for a few minutes and do something fun next.
3) When I was learning, a big milestone for me was being able to connect reliably every time, even if I lost connection quickly. I don't know if you're there yet? If connecting costs you a lot of time and stress, of course you're going to disconnect immediately afterwards, because you're all tense and worried you'll waste this opportunity. So a session where you don't manage to pick up any fuel but you successfully connect a few times is still useful training.
-
4
-
1
-
-
It shouldn't be difficult to code it so that a single switch activation corresponds to three controller impulses. I would say it sounds way easier than the sliding cam solution. But this is coming from a decent coder and rubbish mechanic ;).
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Kaktus said:
So FIRST and FOREMOST ISSUE IS ---- TRIMMING--
As others said, there's no need to trim during AAR. The fact that you are even focusing on that suggests to me that your approach to the problem is wrong.
You shouldn't be trying to find the perfect stick and throttle position that'll keep the aircraft stable behind the tanker. The aircraft will always be drifting or about to start drifting. You should be focusing on spotting any hint of it and correcting it immediately. Prioritise stopping drift early over not overcorrecting. Overcorrecting (within reason) will not make you oscillate, but being slow will. You will always be behind the aircraft if you keep looking for the ideal throttle, pitch and roll. There is none. Identify drift. Stop it. Don't overthink.
It took me a while (I'd say way too long) to truly understand this, even after hearing it so many times. But once you get it, it all becomes so much easier.
Going back to trimming, I don't trim not just the Hornet or Viper for AAR, but even non FBW jets. I will get it trimmed pre contact and throughout the flight of course, but at the tanker I'm flying at a near constant speed so there's no reason to trim. It's that much of a non-issue.
EDIT: I just now realised you're talking about the F-14 rather than the Hornet. We're in the Hornet forum section and it seems everyone assumed that's what you fly. The point about not trimming is still valid though, regardless of what you fly. Trim it before you connect and don't touch it. You can additionally consider putting the wings in bomb mode so they don't move when you're in the middle of it. Or so I'm told, I don't fly that aircraft much.
-
2
-
-
I think it's a real possibility that we won't see major updates to this module (sadly), but OTOH the older Ka-50 and A-10C got their updates. Something similar might be possible. Refresh the old F-5, sell a new version with, say, Maverick support and/or INS to recoup some of the costs. I don't expect to see that, but I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
-
1
-
-
I'd love to hear about the radar overhaul as well.
-
4
-
-
3 minutes ago, bfr said:
Yeah, no different than when the Tomcat came along and many of us realised quite quickly that the wings not only swing but are detachable if you pull on the stick hard enough
Hell, i've even managed to make a Viggen disassemble itself before now.
I remember all the crazy stalls in the MiG-21, flying the MiG-15 into the ground after I oversped it or stalling on final because the engine takes an eternity to spool up from idle, the L-39 rolling over when I pulled a little too much AoA after a strafe run... Good times.
-
3
-
-
14 hours ago, Kalasnkova74 said:
For the open-minded, anyway. I suspect the 4th Gen ’Lift Vector on Bandit & PULL’ club will chime in with “hurr durr it spun when I one-circled a Viper, Phantom sux.”
There have been plenty of quirky aircraft in DCS, I don't see why the F-4E should get any more hate than the others. Also the "4th gen club" isn't a bunch of ignorant fools. Give the community some credit.
-
6
-
-
I think the sooner ED sits down with all the interested third parties and comes up with a common system that everyone switches to the better. To me realistic sensor implementation is now the thing that separates the good modules from the great ones. I'm sure not everyone feels the way I do, but for the most part the FMs in different modules seem pretty believable to me. But after seeing how the Phantom's radar will be modelled and what for example RAZBAM does, and then comparing it to what we had in the F-5E and the MiG-21... It's hard to go back to the old planes. I want to see the same, high level of quality in all the aircrafts' sensors and IFF is a part of that as well.
-
5
-
-
To me the most obvious simplification is that all aircraft, regardless of reality, have a magical transponder that works with every interrogator. Even planes that shouldn't have a transponder at all. It's great to simulate system and user errors, false positives due to a friendly along a similar azimuth etc., but right now we're missing much simpler and more obvious stuff.
I think the key is that getting the AI to work in an unreliable IFF environment is a much bigger job than creating the unreliable IFF environment in the first place. We would need a comprehensive set of RoE options for the AI, including air defences, and we would need to explore the possibility of friendly AI shooting us down in error.
-
2
-
-
On 1/22/2024 at 2:40 PM, WHOGX5 said:
I mean... It'd be pretty dope to have the actual AVTR implemented. The ability to record HUD/HMD as well as both MFDs for both BDA and debriefing using the switches in the cockpit. That'd be extremely useful.
This would be awesome and should be done for all modules as appropriate. It would be a very cool debriefing tool.
-
2
-
-
Since we're dealing with a fictional cold-war-gone-hot scenario, I don't think it would be much of a stretch to extend the customary 1989 end date into the early 90s (fall of the SU, Georgian independence). Then the RDI equipped Mirage 2000C fits in just fine. And really, in terms of capabilities and role, it's the closest match we have. The Tomcat is in a different weight class and it's older than the Mirage is newer (if that makes sense). So if you want a very "fair" scenario, then it's the Mirage. Of course, in reality, war isn't fair and you see modern, more capable planes fighting along side older, less capable ones. You can balance it with numbers and skill. Consider that if MiG-29s started rolling off the production line in, what, 1983, then you would still need years to train instructors, then regular crews, develop new tactics... By the time the wall fell I expect the MiG-29 units were only beginning to become truly proficient with their machines. It's realistic that the guys flying older jets are better trained and more experienced.
For a late 80s/early 90s "realistic" (rather than "fair") scenario, I think the F-5, F-4, both Mirages, MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-29 of course, entire FC3 lineup, and Tomcats are all viable. I probably missed some - my rule of thumb is "could it/did it fly in Desert Storm?". Balance them with numbers, weapons, appropriate missions, skill and you're golden.
-
2
-
-
I disagree. MiG-21bis contemporaries include the F-5E, the Mirage F1 or the Phantom and it's competitive against all of them. And what's perhaps more important, we actually have those contemporaries in the game. Which of the F-13 contemporaries do we have in DCS? In practice, a MiG-21F-13 would end up fighting the same Western fighters that the MiG-21bis faces now, but without the superior T/W ratio, missiles worth a damn or even a decent gun. I fail to see the incredible mileage we're missing.
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, exhausted said:
The F-13 wouldn't at all be out of place, since it was in continuous use all over the world. Especially in any Asian map, it has a home. At least as much as our WWII stuff.
I didn't say it would be out of place. I said it would be more out of place than the bis. The maps we have and are getting in the future support the bis at least as well as the F-13, the other modules support it better and the aircraft itself was built in larger quantities and longer than the MiG-21F-13. Explain to me how the bis is "sort of a crutch variant that really doesn't do a great job of representing the MiG-21 in DCS alone, at all" and the F-13 isn't.
-
I'd buy a well done F-13 or PFM, but for anybody who isn't a huge MiG-21 fan they would be a tough sell. The bis is heavier but it also has a much more powerful engine (ridiculously so with the second stage AB). The PFM has only two missile pylons and it can't carry any of the good stuff. Forget about R-60s, R-3Rs, R-13s. You're stuck with just the earliest R-3S and RS-2US missiles. You can either have a gunpod or a fuel tank. You don't even get a gyro gunsight, just a fixed reflector sight. If the bis didn't have the Kh-66, then a PFM would have that going for it - being the only PGM capable Russian full fidelity plane. A poor man's fighter bomber. But that's not the case and capabilitywise it's just a worse bis. And for anyone who isn't a MiG buff this will matter.
The F-13 is perhaps a little more desirable. More of a pure dogfighter, lighter, internal gun, better visibility, better looking... The improvements of the second generation versions focused on all weather bomber interceptions. For the type of flying most of us are interested in these just weigh it down. But on the other hand the F-13 is just an early cold war dogfighter, it's not really good for much else. Once there are some Western jets of the early supersonic era, it'll make more sense, but at the moment it would have no opponents and would exist alongside another MiG from the same era with the same armaments.
5 hours ago, exhausted said:The MiG-21F-13 is a huge appeal, and the bis is sort of a crutch variant that really doesn't do a great job of representing the MiG-21 in DCS alone, at all.
It represents the MiG-21 well in the context of our other Cold War planes. We have a late variant of the F-5, the Mirage F1, a late F-4, a late MiG-23... Everything from the seventies. The F-13 would be more out of place in this company than the bis.
-
1
-
-
The version you're probably thinking of is the F-13, not the F. The F was a guns only variant built in very limited numbers. The F-13 could employ two K-13/R-3S missiles, but lost one of the two NR-30 guns. This was the first widely exported (and copied) MiG-21 version that saw a lot of combat.
One "problem" with the F-13 and the later RP-21 equipped MiG-21s is that the ingame MiG-19P and MiG-21bis already do what would make the earlier 21 variants interesting and unique. Even though they (mostly) shouldn't.
For example, you mentioned the Kh-66 and RS-2US beam riders. Those don't go on the bis, the radar (RP-22) is incompatible. If the MiG-21bis developers hadn't included those missiles, it would make, let's say, a MiG-21PFM more viable. Different radar (despite a similar designation, the conical scan RP-21 is quite different from the monopulse RP-22), different missiles, no internal gun, completely different cockpit... That's worth a full price tag in my book. But because the bis already has those weapons, even though it shouldn't, the PFM would just be a worse bis in just about every way. Most players simply don't know or care that the beam riders are unrealistic on the bis.
The MiG-19P developers "stole" some appeal of the MiG-21F-13 by including the R-3S missiles. From what I understand this isn't strictly unrealistic, but was something added late and in a limited way. Most users never had heaters on their MiG-19Ps. And again, most people won't know or care - they see R-3S on MiG-19s as "standard".
Now, I'm not saying if that didn't happen we'd have two or three generations of MiG-21s to choose from. Chances are we wouldn't. And I understand why the developers did what they did. Those early jets have limited gameplay potential so every bit helps. After all, don't like it, don't use it. But because they did do it, I think the unlikely prospect that we'll get another MiG-21 became even less likely.
-
2
-
-
35 minutes ago, artao said:
And ... The frequencies are hard-coded in the MiG-21? <sigh> And here I've been trying to figure out what I've been doing wrong.
Not the frequencies, the entire beacons. The MiG doesn't use the nav aids that are on the maps. Instead, for any selected RSBN, PRMG or ARK channel, it has it's own set of coordinates in a config file, that it points to instead. It's one of my biggest gripes with this module.
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, draconus said:
What's that?
That, sir, is a typo. I meant the R-73 that we all know and love.
I fixed it now in my original post, thanks for noticing.
-
1
-
F-4 BVR Tactics
in DCS: F-4 Phantom
Posted
There are a lot of factors that can influence how you (and your enemies) fight. Aircraft capabilities are one thing, but the mission objectives, presence of other threats (SAMS?) and assets (AWACS?), weather, time of day or range requirements may push the fight up or down. Going low might help your enemy become harder or even impossible to engage at BVR ranges, but at the same time it limits their endurance, missile kinematics and speed. Also, while some other 3rd gen fighters may have better LDSD capabilities, I wouldn't exactly call them stellar. I'm expecting that after the Mirage F1 gets its radar overhaul engaging low flying targets in it should become interesting. The Flogger also shouldn't be able to see very far down low.
That said, I expect to see a lot more WVR fights than we do in the AMRAAM era. Certainly the Fishbed and Tiger drivers will want to exploit the weaknesses of the Phantom's radar and get in close.