Jump to content

Xavven

Members
  • Posts

    470
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Xavven

  1. 2 hours ago, WobblyFlops said:

    The A2G radar in the DCS Hornet is a vital primary sensor for a vast array of missions. Now, based on pilot input that isn't how it works in real life but the in game radar is incredibly useful, especially the GMT and the SEA modes. The mapping modes have some core limitations and bugs at the moment but if it gets fixed, at the current level of fidelity it will be vital in a lot of situations.

     

    As for the Viper, the biggest things are the HSD cursor, DTOS mode, fully finished HMD, markpoints, proper bullseye support and the CRUS page. 

     

    +1

     

    and also HTS is another conspicuously missing one, but it's been teased in a couple of recent screenshots.

    • Thanks 1
  2. 2 hours ago, Glide said:

    I love all the math.  I especially love it when others do the math.  Those of us who have detents on our throttles will have noticed that full Mil power has gone from ~11000 pph to ~14500 pph.  What remains the same, however, is that in full Mil power the jet still falls out of the sky in a turning fight.  This means you need to stay in AB if you want to sustain the rate, and it shortens the time you can spend in a turning fight.  If this is close to perfection, then I will be resetting my expectations and learning to lean on the throttle more. 

     

    In ACM I'm in full afterburner unless in specific circumstances:

    1. to avoid going over ~500 knots when already pulling max G
    2. in anticipation of a descending turn that I'm beginning at high speed already, which would lead to me going over 500 knots near the bottom of the turn
    3. to avoid GLOC if pilot is near it
    4. to avoid a 3/9 overshoot when in or near the control zone of the hostile aircraft
    5. to avoid ground collision in a descending turn close to the ground
    6. when defending an IR guided missile

    Otherwise, instead of MIL power, consider staying in afterburner and pulling more G.

     

    Any dogfighting experts feel free to correct me. I'm always looking for advice and improvement.

    • Like 3
  3. I agree with @Wizard_03

     

    Also, the loadouts you have present a very strange situation indeed. You have missiles but your opponent does not? How did you get into a situation where your opponent is in your control zone in the first place, then? They should have taken a sidewinder long before that could happen. At least take those missiles off your rails if you are practicing defensive gun-only BFM.

    • Like 1
  4. There's a real risk of this just being confirmation of my expectations, so at the risk of public internet embarrassment if my mind is playing tricks, I'm going to go out on a limb and say I think the FM changes this patch are really amazing.

     

    I seem to have more G available at higher speeds and medium altitude. Pre-patch at ~10,000 ft I'd be in the 3.5-6.0 G range to sustain airspeed, and now post-patch I'm more like 5.0-7.5 G give or take. Rate fights seem easier.

     

    It seems much smoother at lower speeds as well. For example if the hostile reverses the turn and I pull as hard as possible around 350 knots to switch to a 1C fight, there used to be way more shaking and buffeting. Now the F-16 seems really compliant. It just slots itself right where I want it to go.

     

    So it seems like a more competent dogfighter compared to before. What does everyone else think?

    • Like 1
  5. image.png

     

    No worries. We'll have to live with what we've got. Thanks!

     

    I think in the end it helps me decide personally whether I will put HARMs on 4 & 6, since in the next patch we will have the option to restrict or allow such a loadout. I don't care how others play DCS. But it's a treat when we get what info we can from SMEs on the ED forums.

  6. @Scrape I had to slowly and carefully re-read your post a couple times along with another certain one from 9/28/2020 where you talk about the video line being capped for the inboard stations on that T-connector. Is that what you're referring to when you say it's the show stopper?

     

    In other words, you are certain that no US vipers have a 1553 bus or video line to 4 & 6, and that is at odds therefore with whatever proof ED has and cannot share with us? If so, this would mean ED's proof is erroneous. Am I interpreting that correctly?

     

    Well, that, or ED's allowing us to decide to allow HARMs on 4 & 6 to simulate a non-USA F-16, which is a whole other can of worms because of the whole "this is an ANG circa 2007" thing. Or maybe it's to end HARMgate because it's a tiresome hill to die on. Haha!

  7. I don't think we can come to IRL conclusions from DCS screenshots, so take this as you will, but here are some screenshots I took while in the mission editor. As some have pointed out, apparently rockets can have plugs in the engine bells to protect them, and they get blown backwards when the rocket motor fires. Some seem to have more clearance issues than others, just eyeballing it.

     

    HARM on station 6

     

    image.png

     

     

    That 3rd Maverick on station 7

     

     

    image.png

     

     

    Hydra Rockets, LAU-3 on Station 4

    Not sure if these have plugs

     

    image.png

    • Like 1
  8. 2 minutes ago, Roman_Actual said:

    Does this mean we are getting the LAU-131?

     

    As an aside, can we also get APKWS or do we need to wait for the DCS Viper II?

     

    APKWS won't be added. See https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/253106-not-going-to-happen-not-accurate-for-year-apkws-on-viper/page/3/?tab=comments#comment-4487253

     

    ED's reasoning is that it's not accurate for a 2007 viper. I have my own feeling about this but let's not derail the thread, especially since ED has already made their decision.

    • Like 1
  9. 50 minutes ago, Gierasimov said:

    I don't know, just reading stuff https://www.milstd1553.com/applications/ I thought of asking Crew Chief.

     

    I'm a layman here so take this with a grain of salt, but I think a laser guided bomb doesn't need targeting info, it's just a dumb bomb as QuiGon said, but then it has a laser seeker on the front controlling fins on the back.

     

    LJDAMs aka dual mode laser guided bombs do have GPS guidance and so would need targeting info (possibly over the 1553 bus?) just like a JDAM would. I have seen some LJDAMs referred to as Paveways, for example the "Paveway IV" is a dual mode LGB and that explains why "paveway" is listed in your link.

  10. 18 minutes ago, Dannyvandelft said:

    Omg just chill. It's just a game. For fun. Relax. You want uber realism? Toggle the option to only fire 2 HARMS. Want to have your cake and eat it too? Toggle it so you can fire 4. It's THAT simple. Don't like carrying 6 Mavs "because realism"? Carry 4. People need to relax and stop trying to force what they think is right onto others. We can all now choose for ourselves.@BIGNEWY would it be possible to do a similar option like the HARMS selection switch, for drag chutes? Since there were some F-16C's that had them?

    Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


     

     

    You know what... you're right.

     

    If anything, I feel bad for ED. This is how we thank them. They say you can please some of the people all of the time, and please all of the people some off the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time. But they'd be wrong.

     

    At first ED allowed HARMs on 4/6.

    Then ED disallowed HARMs on 4/6.

    Then ED gave us the option to choose whether or not to disable HARMs on 4/6.

     

    In all cases, they got community uproar. So the truth is that, when it comes to the DCS community, you're pissing someone off no matter what you do.

     

    I guess we get to wear that badge now. Not with pride, though.

    • Like 7
  11.  

    31 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

    I don't think so, apparently we don't need evidence anymore. You can't prove to me that we can't rivet things to the jet. 

     

     

    14 minutes ago, Wing said:

    I think accountability is healthy in this dev environment, if anything developers should appreciate some accountability.

    As shown earlier in this thread, it is frustrating and confusing at this point when "documentation proof" is stated as reasoning for this gameplay change, yet there actually is no legitmate USAF Tech Order proof that 4&6 can launch. For something this technical, and maintenance related - there should blatantly be tech data on those stations and the HARMS muns capability. There is none.

     

    With that said, for gameplay sake, glad everyone is happy with this medium.

     

     

     

    I get where you both are coming from. I agree there needs to be evidence for ED to implement a weapon on a particular station. But let's look at an extremely recent interaction with BIGNEWY on this thread:

     

     

    8 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

     

    Unlike the HARM in which we have documents and SMEs to support carriage on 4 and 6, We have not seen such evidence for Mavericks on 4 and 6. If you have evidence please PM me. 

     

    The payload restriction feature is not going to be used to allow unrealistic loadouts, but it does give more choice for the mission designer.

     

    thank you

     

     

     

     

    It's clear ED is not going to implement Mavs of 4/6 without evidence, so ironic claims about rivet guns and "anything goes" are not an accurate read of ED's modus operandi at all.  ED had previously made HARMs inoperable on 4/6 based earlier research before this recent change, and they explained why they made this recent change. That explanation is not "because whiny community members wanted it for game balance", the reasoning is in fact documents and SMEs. And finally, they are not at liberty to reveal their sources, probably because they want to keep their jobs. Does that sum it up?

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1
  12. 1 minute ago, Frederf said:

    Can you link that? I've never heard of any USAF F-16 capable of any weapon link on 4/6.

     

    Are you referring to this? https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/209147-viper-mini-updates/page/3/#comments

     

    "I am posting this here as we hope this will be a good solution for “HARMgate”. Based on further research, it comes down to a “it depends” situation. While some Viper units have had their HARM shooters wired for STA 4 and 6, other did not. This explains the conflicting SME feedback and mass-consternation and confusion."

     

    Or are you asking for the source of their research? In which case, BIGNEWY gave you the answer, which is, they can't answer.

     

  13. 42 minutes ago, Wing said:

    Unable to cite the Tech Order title that this decision was made from. Copy.

     

    Ya'll know I'm no ally of the ED forum mods, but seriously, BIGNEWY is probably not allowed to give you the source. Maybe they didn't get it from a T.O., maybe they got it after consulting with one or more SMEs they know to be trustworthy.

     

    Do you really want to argue that HARMs on 4/6 should be disabled again? After ED is giving us the ability to disable them ourselves?

    • Like 3
  14. I don't remember where I read this, but IIRC mavericks have some kind of plug on the back that gets blown off and away by the rocket motor when launching, and this debris can hit the horizontal stab on the F-16 if fired from stations 4/6.  If the HARM is cleared for 4/6 then I would guess it doesn't have such a debris issue? Don't quote me on this, I'm a layman here.

  15. Just now, CybrSlydr said:

    Yes, it is. It's only that way because the ANG disabled it to reduce maintenance. It's still perfectly able to do so. If in an actual conflict, the capability would be easily restored - and what do we simulate in DCS?

    Still get 3 mavericks though.

    Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk
     

     

    Let's not debate this again. The whole community has hashed it out in the now-closed thread (closed for a good reason I imagine) here. Read to your hearts content: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/245426-4-harms-for-the-viper

     

    • Like 3
  16. 10 hours ago, SCPanda said:

    Wow really? What's wrong of complaining an underperforming & buggy flight model? ED confirmed the problems with the current FM and they are working on it. It's a fact. 

     

    Or are you just so proud that you beat an ace level AI F-14 with pylons and missiles so you think you can start saying insulting words to people in this forum? Should we call you the GOD OF DOGFIGHTING? 

     

     

     

    I tested this for myself over my lunch break and my conclusion is the F-14B Ace AI is fairly tame. I will say that the F-16C handles like a wallowing pig if you keep 4x AIM-120 and 2x AIM-9X on it, compared to clean. The added weight and drag prolonged the fight but the result was always the same -- the F-14B Ace AI loses in both 1C and 2C flow.

     

    This isn't meant as a dig at anyone, just that I agree that beating the AI says nothing about whether DCS's F-16C's flight model is correct or not.

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...