Jump to content

Xavven

Members
  • Posts

    470
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Xavven

  1. I don't really have a dog in this fight myself because I plan to continue running wing tanks on 4/6, but here are a couple things for ED to consider: The newbies getting confused factor -- if the HARM cannot be launched from stations 4/6 then perhaps adding a note on it would be helpful in the loadout screen. Could I suggest "AGM-88C HARM - High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (Non functional on this station)" or just remove it outright? I think the addition of the little descriptions a couple patches ago was really good. It would have helped me when I was new to DCS and didn't know which bombs were practice bombs, which sidewinders and mavericks were a training/captive version, etc. I just added a player-flyable Israeli F-16CM bl. 50 in the mission editor now. We were just having a discussion about payloads in this thread https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/277761-inner-wing-pylon-payloads/ and someone posted a photograph of an IAF F-16 with GBU-31 on 4/6 (no idea if it's a bl. 50 or a different block though!). I get that the USAF ANG doesn't have the umbilicals for 4/6, but it would be nice to fly the F-16 for other countries in their configurations. Just something to think about.
  2. It does work like this IRL with the ~2007 USAF ANG Viper. However, one could also mount a GBU-31 on station 4/7 and it wouldn't guide when dropped. But I'm not sure that adding non-functional munitions is a good idea given that it would only serve to confuse newbies.
  3. If I've learned one thing from the ED forums, it's that you won't get any progress without posting a track.
  4. But you feel much more immersed, right? /s
  5. Wow! Sidewinders on the wingtips, too! I guess other countries do things a little differently
  6. Here's a thread on it: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/273522-help-with-realistic-cas-loadouts/?tab=comments#comment-4686507 The following is from information gathered on these forums. I am not a primary source of information. The basic gist is: No centerline tank, often ECM 4/6 wing tanks 3/7 see below 2/8 sometimes removed if the air threat is low, otherwise 2x AIM-120, or 1x AIM-120 and 1x AIM-9 1/9 2x AIM-120. There are other threads (many of them) on whether sidewinders are sometimes mounted here. The short version is no. 3/9 AA configs: Usually 1x AIM-120 and 1x AIM-9, or 2x AIM-9. Having a total of 6x AIM-120 is rare for the USAF but is sometimes done by other countries. 3/9 AG configs commonly seen: Mix and match one selection for station 3 and then another for 9. It can be symmetric or asymmetric: LAU-117 with 1x Maverick BRU-57 with 2x GBU-38 TER-9A with 2x GBU-12 or newer LJDAMs which we don't have in DCS yet Rocket pod - nowadays it's LAU-131 IIRC but LAU-3 is all we have in the DCS Viper Occasionally a 2000 lb bomb like the GBU-31 1x CBU 1x HARM 4x Maverick was used in one conflict but is uncommon now. Dumb bombs seem rare now as well. There are also pamphlet dispensers but not implemented in DCS.
  7. Would I be correct in assuming this is why the US almost always has wing tanks on 4/6? If eight GBU-12 makes the plane perform poorly, and four GBU-12 is a reasonable loadout, then why do one each GBU-12 on 3/4/6/7 and a centerline tank when I could do two each GBU-12 on 3/7 and have fuel on 4/6, right?
  8. I'm guessing to ferry munitions from one base to another? I know, real exciting.
  9. For when you really mean it Did column insult OP's mother?
  10. Agreed. And A-G JHMCS integration so I can look at a target of opportunity and mark it.
  11. F-16 CBU-87 vs BMP-2 and BTR-80 - Loose.trkF-16 CBU-87 vs BMP-2 and BTR-80 - Tight.trk @NineLine I don't want to steal Tippis' thunder so I am not making tracks from his missions. Instead I've made my own mission with an F-16 armed with two (but only dropping one) CBU-87 attacking six BMP-2 and four BTR-80 in a tight and a loose formation. Due to some unknown drift I had to move the steerpoint slighly north of center of the target so that the bomblet coverage was a little bit more centered over the group. I am dropping in CCRP on the steerpoint going 340 knots, straight and level, with altitude hold and steerpoint heading hold to reduce sources of human error. My results are not similar to the damage shown in Wags' July 11 video at the end where he attacks a column of BMP-2 and BTR-80 with a JSOW-A, causing 4 of them to be destroyed. I am getting a few of them yellow and red but none destroyed. I realize I'm dropping a CBU-87 with default settings from 3000 ft straight and level, not a JSOW-A, but I don't have a JSOW-A because I don't own the Hornet module. If I'm not mistaken, I can't change HOF or spin rate in the F-16 module.
  12. Yes, doesn't this solve that issue as well? Don't calculate the ballistics on 200 bomblets, just do 40 of them, and when each one impacts the ground, that's when you create 4 more ground-level explosions.
  13. BRAVO! This is 100% in line with my anecdotal experiences. Thank you for putting in the time to get this info. This is a good point. I'm not a developer but aren't there some tricks one could use to fudge this a bit? If we can't model all 200 bomblets without a CPU resource issue, then currently if I'm not mistaken the game simulates fewer bomblets and then just increases their blast damage to compensate. But instead of just increasing blast damage, why not create a few more explosions nearby in a random pattern at just above ground level, without rendering them but only for the purpose of causing damage? Each bomblet suddenly "becomes" 5 bomblets for example but only had to be spawned once, rendered once, ballistically calculated once and only 1 explosion animation with particle effects. This would increase the number of "direct hits" instead of relying on the blast damage model of which some IFVs seem pretty well armored against.
  14. Agreed. I think this thread started out as a discussion and then was moved by a moderator to the bugs section, and now we are being told this isn't a proper bug report. I don't think it was ever meant to be a bug report in the first place.
  15. Looks like it's up It does seem to be a fairly direct response to threads like this one, and a particular one on reddit.
  16. Your sentiment is echoed on the reddit forums. As you pointed out, this is not really a JSOW problem as that's just the delivery vehicle, but really a BLU-97 issue, and maybe it's connected to the way area of effect damage is handled in DCS in general. I also wonder if the tank treads of heavy armor would be vulnerable to a CEM in real life. I would love for DCS to implement maneuverability kill.
  17. I realize this may not be helpful to you because I'm on 2.7.3.8494 open beta, not stable, but I just tested HAS in single player against an SA-11 site and it worked fine. Details: Used the template in the mission editor for the SA-11 site with its accompanying command, support, and search radar vehicles. Started at 30,000 ft with 2 wing tanks, 2 HARM (so the HARMS are on pylons 3 and 7), and some AMRAAMs AG-mode, HAS mode, TBL 1, removed everything except 11 from search table, set search to Center. Flew directly toward the site as indicated by RWR, full afterburner, speed 350 on the HUD Locked the 11A symbol when it appeared and launched from 10nm or less range (not sure what the slant range was -- I made this measurement from the F-10 map). Did this twice in quick succession HARMs flew straight toward the target Observed HARMs in F6 view hit near the TEL. They both missed by about 20 feet more or less, but between the two of them it took the TEL down.
  18. If I'm interpreting what Frederf said correctly, we should wait until the F-16 is finished before making that judgment. It may be that a boresight mode on the TGP is unnecessary because there are even better ways to get sensors on target. For example DTOS or making a markpoint with your JHMCS, which I'm imagining is similar to the DCS A-10C II module today with the scorpion HMCS. In the meantime, for a target of opportunity where there's no steerpoint nearby, my go-to is to use snowplow mode on the TGP followed by an immediate TMS-right. You're now free to slew the TGP and you have a target designation cursor on the HUD, so now you can put the thing on the thing.
  19. What map is the track for? It's not showing up in the folder when I open Replay. I only have Caucasus, Marianas, and Nevada.
  20. Okay, I was able to reproduce the problem by entering in the incorrect number of ripple pulses. When you are in PAIR mode, you should divide the ripple pulses in half. For example, if I have 6 Mk-82 bombs, I could do either Single, ripple 6 OR Pair, ripple 3 If I do Pair, ripple 6, then the jet is expecting 12 bombs and 6 impact points, and attempting to bracket the target between the first 3 and last 3 impact points. Since I only have 6 bombs, I end up with 3 impact points and they are all short of the target. Does that explain your problem, @darkman222? EDIT: Okay yeah, I just watched your pair 500 ft track. You have 12 mk-82s total and you did pair, ripple 9. The aircraft is expecting 18 bombs, or put another way, 9 pairs, but you only have 6 pairs, so there are 3 pairs missing that would have fallen past the target. Fix this by setting to pair ripple 6. Each ripple "pulse" releases a pair, so 6 pulses x2 pairs = 12 bombs.
  21. Looks like a good bug report to me! Very thorough testing. Nice work, @darkman222 I'll see if I can reproduce the problem. EDIT: For clarity, I am not a dev. Just a player.
  22. @darkman222 can you post a track? Impact point can be affected by wind, yaw, G, etc.
  23. I confirm this. I'm playing a DCS Liberation campaign and the "Workshop A" is a common factory target. It takes two GBU-31(V)1/B with the GND setting to destroy it. If left on AIR the building will not be destroyed.
  24. FWIW I agree with @Bukkwild The ED forums are moderated a bit too harshly. I get @NineLine's justifications, because the forum rules are there, but real life isn't black and white. An analogy would be that police tend not to cite drivers exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or less. I've been on the F-16 forums for only a few months, but in that time I've seen threads that criticize the development get moved to "chit chat" or straight up deleted when I personally didn't judge them to be over the line, trolling, overly ranting, etc. It makes me question whether the moderation is actually for the good of the community (rotten apples do need to be taken out let's be honest), or whether the motive is more defensive in nature. To me, well it makes me suspect ED is abusing the forum rules as an excuse to remove negative reviews or mentions of "that other sim" (we all know which one) because frankly it would cause a loss of sales if people came to the DCS F-16 forums and saw encouragement from the posters here to try "that other sim" instead. It's fine to close a topic when it becomes a flame war between a couple of users though like we've seen recently. The mods have made some good calls too. I just wish they would ease up a little on moving and closing topics that are more borderline.
×
×
  • Create New...