Jump to content

WinterH

Members
  • Content Count

    1914
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

About WinterH

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 09/04/1983

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS, BMS, IL-2 GB, IL-2 CloD Blitz
  • Occupation
    Freelancer in software development and photography
  1. Ataka is available as both radio command or laser guided SACLOS as far as I know. In radio command guise, it is mostly compatible with the same guidance that was used for Shturm. The chartacteristic "carrot" on the Mi-28's nose is for the guidance antenna for Atakas, again as far as I know. The latest variant omitted it, probably because they've mostly switched to laser guidance. Anyway, there really isn't much to read into sighting and guidance system in Mi-24 :). An optical sight (a periscope to be precise) that is stabilized, but has no automatic tracking or built in rangefinding capabil
  2. WinterH

    Welcome!

    Welcome aboard! Looking forward to MB 339 becoming even more awesome in future.
  3. I am probably one of the greatest flight model and system realism snobs, and I use auto start. Used to not, but that was in a period when I did not have one full time and one part time job, as well as personal projects, other hobbies, and almost every aircraft module. It doesn't defeat the purpose indeed. The purpose of having aircraft with as realistic flight models, systems, and where applicable also weapons as possible remains very much intact.
  4. First off, I don't think F-14A and B are VERY similar, but that's just a tangent, so quickly back to topic: Mi-24P and V are quite similar as far as I know. Perhaps ED will later think about including it as well, we'll see. Mi-35 was just the export model for a while, but nowadays it also means the latest variant Russian military operates, and it is very, very different compared to Mi-24P. Shturm and Ataka are more similar than different, but I think Hind used Shturm as the primary armament for quite a while from 80s to 90s, probably also some of 2000s. I think they could be guided by
  5. As you may have read in my message, I do get that,nor do I think it needs to developed for free. And yet it doesn't change my stance on it. I do think that ED needs to consider some way to make core development more affordable. But that is quite off topic, so I won't go there here. The fact of the matter is, unlike the likes of Supercarrier and (arguably) WWII units, EW simulation is not optional, and is very much core to the simulating a digital battlefield.
  6. This looks quite sensible :thumbup:, and I can vote yes now. Wow... I've just found something NineLine posted to be agreeable, 2020 truly is a strange year :P EDIT: Well, except the "Basics of Electronic Warfare – different types of jamming and its effects (simulation). Given the overwhelming complexity of the topic, we are considering to do it as a separate module. More info will follow." Part. This is just no-bueno, regardless of the complexity or the cost of it, which I understand both, this is something CORE, full stop. I'd be willing to take part in an optional subscription with ben
  7. I did not vote, as I'm kind of conflicted. Is it something I find highly important and interesting? Hell yes. And it is from a 3rd party, I'm all for new specialist 3rd parties coming into the scene, improving DCS in novel ways. I also see this would be a lot of development effort, and would need some RoI. And yet, can't help the feeling that it feels like what should be a core update, or perhaps a CA improvement (though probably not really fitting for the latter, they are different enough). So can't really bring myself to vote either option.
  8. Probably the servers you are looking for are hosting Open Beta, and hence aren't visible on Stable, that would be my guess. I don't think DCS has, or ever had region related server listing.
  9. Everytime someone from ED speaks about MAC, whether it's a DCS add-on or a standalone seems to be getting flipped around :P Personally, I'd rather hope it'll be a separate entitiy. But I guess we'll eventually find out one of these days.
  10. If we had more the current ones actually finished, then yes, like hell yes! Though, it is becoming a thing with older, complete modules, with Ka-50 and A-10C both getting a different, more upgraded block in near future. I'd love seeing more MiG-21 versions, if we get F-4, you just can't have enough versions of that one, and I'd love more Bf-109 and Spitfire variants.
  11. I really, really, REEAAALLY want the original late-ish 80s upgraded F-4E they were doing. As long as that is in, the more variants, the merrier!
  12. There should be flare dispensers yes, I think they were available even on older variants.
  13. What needs to happen is: - Allow more aircraft to start from ground like Harrier and helicopters can. - Allow ATC, refueling/rearming, perhaps also repairing to be possible from areas that aren't bases or FARPs. This way we can have lots of properly functioning little runways and/or roadbases.
  14. Not only a thread necromance, but a planeswalker too! Would love to hear about your journeys between the universes! :P
  15. As someone who would love to get many, many more red aircraft, this would be such a shame to see... low fidelity renditions of aircraft that can only have questionable accuracy.
×
×
  • Create New...