Jump to content

Zilch

Members
  • Posts

    413
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Zilch

  1. 16 hours ago, MADLOU1 said:

     

    At least that plane eventually went down. I've shot numerous planes with a lot more ammo at the same or closer ranger and the things keep going like they were barely touched.

     

    Keep in mind the difference between these cases. The Saber and Mustang carried similar weapons, but there are some important differences. 

     

    Number one that comes to mind is bullet dispersion. The Mustang's guns were two groups of three, with each group (SWAG math) around 15 feet apart from one another. This creates an interesting problem if you want to hit a focused area with all six guns, and it gets really complicated at different ranges, bank angles, pitch angles, and so on.

     

    Look at a WWII fighter's gun harmonization diagram, and you see that usually the guns don't all cross paths except at one point, usually around 1100 feet in front. Any closer than that, and your striking power gets gut pretty quick. Chances are good that if you're up that close, you're hitting with only three of those guns, max, while the rest shoot wide. Too far of a shot, and you get the same effect but after the convergence point, and with less kinetic energy in each round as they loose speed and start to drop and tumble. 

     

    The F-86, like the P-38, had all its guns in one cluster, pretty much eliminating this problem. If you hit with one, you usually hit with all six, making the guns far more effective across a broader range, from close in all the way out to max effective range for the M3. 

     

    Two, is that the F-86 was shooting a jet-powered target, with its engine in the back. If you're on his tail, line up the sight, and hit with all six guns, they'll rip right into the engine itself more easily than the P-51 shooting, in the above example, the FW-190 with its engine in the front, which was covered by the entire aircraft and some armor plate. Attacking from above or below may help this a bit, though, but then you have a higher aspect angle, so the aim problem becomes harder. 

     

    Another difference is that the F-86's weapon was similar, but not identical. It carried the M3, versus the M2, which is lighter, has a higher rate of fire, with more accuracy, so total projectile mass on any target hit would be usually higher than you'd see in your average P-51 shot. 

     

    This does not mean there's no problem with DCS's AI with regard to BFM, in particular the MiG-15 is quite a challenge sometimes. However, without track files or even TacView, it's hard to say what a actually is going on. 

     

    I like TacView a lot, you can actually see the bullet dispersion in real time. Often I think I had a good shot, but the baddie flies away merrily, but on watching TacView I see that I scored hits, but the target was flying in the outside edge of my dispersion cone, and only got hit by maybe 10% of the rounds that I fired that burst. He was too far, too close, too far from the center of the cone, you name it, and I'm hitting with one or two guns (17% or 33%) of what I *could* be hitting him with. 

     

    That focal point, 1100 feet in front, at which all six guns are likely to hit, is a very small volume of space when you consider the speeds and angles involved in a dogfight. It's hard enough to get into elbow position, and doing so at a specific range is a real feat of skill. Snap shots? Good luck! You might hit with a lucky round in a vital area, but it's unlikely. That, and in a traditional dogfight against a front-engine aircraft, chances are high that you're not directly hitting the engine from a rear quarter tracking shot, may be causing what you see. And, hey, the FW-190 is built like a work truck. 

     

    Sometimes, usually around 1100 feet, I'll find that the Mustang's guns will rip apart a FW-190 in far under a second. More often, if the range, aspect and whatnot are off just a bit, I have to hose the target down a lot more for the same effect, which also causes the guns to heat up and lose accuracy...it goes on and on, doesn't it? 

    • Like 3
  2. This would be great! Florida and the Caribbean area has tons of traffic and we could explore lots of SAR, contraband interdiction missions aside from the usual force on force stuff we're used to. 

     

    Also, lots of people live in Florida (greetings from Melbourne!) and we'd love to fly DCS over our home turf. It's a lovely spot to look at and we have lots of aviation and space history and landmarks. The Space Center in particular with the Shuttle landing area, launch pads, Patrick AFB (or SFB, as it is now), MCO and MLB airports, FLL and MIA, so many more. TICO airport has the VAC museum, who's F-8 will serve as reference for the upcoming Crusader module. 

     

    It would be a great map but probably pretty resource intensive to create. But, hey, Florida is an easy place to get to. You can include Pensacola for training, even Hurlburt Field! Tampa for MacDill AFB. NAS Key West for F-5 dets! 

     

    You could expand this out to include The Bahamas, Turks and Caicos, Haiti, the D. R., Mexico, Jamaica, Belize (Harrier action, and even ancient temples from which to launch X-wing from!), Guatemala, Honduras... SO MUCH potential for scenarios it's actually making my head spin. 

     

    It's an aviation goldmine. 

    • Like 1
  3. 3 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

    A-6 coming: For people who like paying for the same capablities twice and thrice.

    Resources well spent. Good job. Im anxiously waiting to pay 80$ for the 4th and 5th F-16 variant in 2 years.

     

    Would you believe that some of us just like aircraft? A lot of these machines have distinct features and historical significance and are worth learning about on their own merit? Amazing! 

     

    It's not a damn arms race where you're buying capabilities with your tax dollars. If that were the case we could just buy $10 F-15C and call it good. Best KDR for the money, right? 

     

    We buy this stuff because we love a given aircraft. Maybe you worked on the plane. Maybe you wanted to fly one but couldn't. Maybe your uncle flew one and you want to see through his eyes for a bit. Or you just think it looks cool. Whatever. 

     

    Cripes sake, man. Three comments down after a *beautiful* video and you're already pissing in the soup. 

    If you don't want a module...don't buy it? Why is it not enough to abstain from a purchase? 

     

    • Like 10
    • Thanks 1
  4. On 2/1/2021 at 2:33 AM, Fri13 said:

    IMHO the Harrier inputs are fairly itchy, it is very difficult to get it trimmed or even hold on level flight for longer periods, why the AFC is there to make possible fly long periods for straight and perform the normal flight procedures.

    In the cockpit videos you can see pilot flying aircraft with the trim, but as well using stick. There is still something that makes it question that the Harrier reactions to input is too sensitive.

     

    Keep in mind, too, that by the time a USMC Harrier pilot gets to the Harrier, they've got more flight hours than many professionals. Fleet pilots do this as a full time job, with hundreds and thousands of hours in fight and training, and the training never stops. 

     

    For (most of) us, it's a hobby and we get hours in the dozens, if we're lucky.

     

    Also, they can feel their jet. Any upset or change in attitude can be felt by the seat of the pants, spine, and so on. All we have are visual cues, so we glue our eyes to the cockpit a lot more. 

     

    It's something my CFI pointed out. Students with lots of simulator experience tend to glue eyes to guages more and he had to break that habit for us. 

     

    What you're seeing may not be an issue with sensitivity at all. Cool thing about DCS, too, is you can adjust your axis curves to suit. 

     

    Another thing you'll notice is that unless you build a sim pit, your stick's pivot point is far shorter than theirs, since the real jet's stick pivots from the floor and ours tend to pivot right below our wrist. It may also make it feel like smaller stick deflections do more than what you see in the videos and thus, harder to make those minute adjustments that are so critical in landing, aiming, and AR. Again, mess with the axis curves (or build a sim pit) until it works. 

  5. Gunned everything up to the Foxhound, then smacked the MiG-31 with a missile that didn't kill it, it ran for home and I ended up bingo chasing it down.

     

    DCS World Problems...cant wait for the new damage model and AI behavior. ;)

  6. Man if they go with the Mk. VII Viper, they're just handing over the MP servers to the Cylons. I demand the Mk. II with steam driven instruments!

     

    Sure people are gonna want the glass cockpit and third cannon, but you're just gonna be frakked once that EMP hits.

     

    Besides, the Mk. II is just sexier, anyway.

     

    And, hey, it's totally logical that they make the Raptor full fidleity. Heatblur's AI Raptor is great and all, but I really want multi-crew in that thing!

  7. So in the three years you were a maintainer world war 3 never happened, good to know thanks.

     

    Dude, just...stop.

     

    You're arguing with multiple combat veterans based on what?

     

    What's your real world involmnent with the jet, incidentally?

     

    Stop messing this up for us. We have several people who have real world experience with this stuff and I'd love to keep reading what they have to say.

     

    Your comments are likely to drive them out. You wanna make the forum less informational?

    • Like 1
  8. It's a challenge as old as any niche hobby that becomes popular over time.

     

    Remember when computers were new, and the only people who used them were enthusiasts who made the hobby better for no other reason than the love of the craft?

     

    The trend is this.

     

    The truly devoted spend resources trying to make a hobby better, more user friendly and/or attractive. This benefit attracts new followers, with maybe less love of the craft but they still appreciate what they have and contribute to make it better.

     

    As the hobby gets better and barriers to entry drop, people join in. The newer folks may or may not appreciate the history of the hobby. They may even get a feeling of entitlement, expectations of how things should be, and since larger numbers bring increasing anonymity, behavior gets worse.

     

    It has happened with video games. It has happened with PC's. It has happened with phones. It has happened in online communities. It may be happening here, too.

     

    Unfortunately, with all the benefits to us and ED that MAC may bring, we all may face the reality that with increased popularity and ease of access also for increased risk of toxic behavior from people who have recently arrived to the community and may not appreciate the trials and work the older members went through to get the hobby in its current state.

     

    MAC is a boon to the hobby, for sure. However, I'm worried that if it works and more people come on board, we may see more toxic behavior like this.

     

    It's just a numbers game. We can have, I dunno, 50,000 members. If only one percent of them are toxic, that's 500 toxic people. They can do a lot of damage.

     

    I'm not sure what to do about this. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. The community will only grow, and that's a good thing. It'll bring in more talent, interest and revenue for ED and the 3rd Parties to keep cranking out the product we love.

     

    However, we need better ways to make sure our online haunts are civil, and I'm not what those may be.

  9. Hey guys,

     

    Congrats on the release! What a nice surprise today.

     

    Unfortunately, I can't try your plane, since every time I start a mission in it, I am sent to the F10 map and can't get into the plane itself. Video of the problem below. If you need any more information, I'll be happy to provide.

     

    Good luck and congrats again. I can't wait to try this thing out!

     

    https://youtu.be/QPt2nicWwxY

     

    Edit: The link should work now.

  10. The F-5E, in my opinion, has very high value because of its unique mix of performance and limitations. It is fantastic, not in spite of its lack of digital nav systems and sophisticated guidance weapons that lighten your work load, but because of these limits.

     

    The F-5E as it is now will make you better. Whether you're flying BFM, CAS, or strike, or even trying to nullify someone else's BVR advantage to get in close, the F-5 demands that you adapt your skills to overcome odds stacked against you.

     

    So, I love the F-5 as-is and have learned a ton because of it.

     

    HOWEVER, COMMA...

     

    The airframe itself had a huge potential that was unfortunately never realized, mostly its well-known under-powered engines and simple avionics. Unleashing this beast's final form, seeing what it should have been, would be a great addition to DCS. So, despite many people only wanting combat-proven aircraft, I think DCS would be a great sandbox platform to realize some great designs that absolutely should have been produced.

     

    The F-20 Tigershark is a batshit awesome aircraft that really harnessed the full potential of the F-5's basic design, remedied the thrust problem and added (among other things) full BVR and Maverick capabilities, INS nav system, digital displays, and ease of use. Just top notch.

     

    So, if you're talking upgrades to the F-5 (though the Tigershark was really a new airplane,) I think the F-20 is the ultimate incarnation of it.

     

    Fat chance of it happening, though...

  11. Hey, folks.

     

    A couple of mission ago I was flying the CAS mission, #2 of Hornet 1989.

     

    I had the default CBU-99's selected, set to CCIP, INST and VT with default HOF.

     

    Unfortunately, no matter how low or fast I flew or how steep gbc dive was, the CCIP impact reticle never raised above my nose and into FOV. This prevented my attack from doing anything.

     

    While dodging SA-6 and -8, carrying eight CBU-99's and a belly tank, this was already a challenging attack run...somehow my systems got borked. So I can avoid this in my next attempt, has anyone else had this issue, and how did it start?

     

    Thanks, duders.

  12. I will do very dirty, morally questionable things for this.

     

    But seriously, I have some more free time coming down the pipes in the next few months. I'd love to help in some way. What kinds of skills are you looking for?

     

    I'm curious if anyone who lives near Los Angeles could take a trip to the California Science Center to get footage of the only surviving example. It's dangling from the roof next to its T-38 cousin.

  13. Looking at the webpage https://www.metasimulations.aero/ ... Why would they put DCS product on front page if they would not want to continue with it's development.

     

    Until we will get a clear answer what the acquisition means for real we can only guess and my guess is that they want to produce modules on both sides like ED. Primarily for professional simulators and then convert what will be possible to the consumer part. If it will be DCS... well we can hope.

     

    That is very much like how we ended up with some of the best modules in the ED side of things. A-10C, L-39, Yak-52. Bigger customers than us finance something, and we get a cool module out of it.

     

    Let's hope.

  14. Can someone ELI5?

     

    The consensus seems to be that this is great for HB. My complete lack of business knowledge, though, does not help me understand what your means for us as DCS consumers.

     

    Without specifics, of course, does this indicate that the Heatblur we know and love gets better and is able to do more within DCS, or does it mean that Heatblur moves beyond DCS into bigger projects?

  15. i hate the f-16

    its the ar-15 of the airplane world

     

    but nothing made me love the f-16 more than the fa-18 with its sorry excuse for a hotas control

    please deliver me from having to push mfd buttons already

     

    The lovely F-86 module has no MFD's and may suit you very well. ;)

  16. No, what I want to say is that the F-5 is not competitive.

     

    Except, it is.

     

    The F-5E is fully capable of challenging and defeating any other aircraft in DCS. I'm far from the hottest ace around, and I've done it more than once with favorable KDR over time against Mirages, Flankers and Eagles, if that means anything.

     

    Maybe we have a different definition of "competitive," but I find that the F-5 is capable of threatening anything else in DCS' skies. I'd say that makes it "competitive." I would not say "dominant" or anything, but "competitive" in that it *can and does compete*, absolutely.

     

    You have to be on your game if you're fighting any 4th generation aircraft, but there's a reason the F-5 has been frustrating BFM students for so long. It's tiny, agile, and hard to see. No radar system is perfect, ditto for BVR missiles. WVR with AIM-9P-5's and guns, and good tactics, you can make anyone else poop their pants.

     

    If I was flying in actual combat, sure, I'd be scared shitless if flying our F-5 against a Flanker or similar. However, in DCS, which of what we're talking about, my experience has been that the F-5 can compete just fine with newer jets, but *only* with practice, good tactics, and preferably a good team.

     

    Biggest problem I have with the F-5 is its well-known low engine power and lack of IFF interrogator...combined with the difficulty in DCS of spotting and identifying planes, you really are at a disadvantage in that respect. As you close to WVR to make a kill, setting up your attack and not even knowing if your contact is hostile or not, well, that sucks. Hence, teamwork.

     

    If we're just going to compare stats and decide a winner, we don't even need to fly to decide the contest. Flying, though, as much as we do in DCS, there's too many variables to say. It's different every time.

  17. Fair point, but with the stuff we'll have in DCS for the foreseeable future, the F-5 is going to be viable. If it can compete with Eagles, Hornets, Mirage and Flankers when flown very well, you're already hanging with the most capable A2A designs DCS will have for some time.

     

    For now, we don't need to worry about Raptors running 40:0 KDR's on public servers. :)

  18. every time there's a sale i'm tempted to get the f-5 but then i remember it only has 2 rear-aspect sidewinders and would be useless in most servers. shame.

     

    Suit yourself, but you're missing out.

     

    I've bagged more foes with the F-5's AIM-9P-5 than anything else. It is an all-aspect seeker from the - 9M on the - 9P body and motor. It tracks well enough from front or rear quarter shots. If made MiG-21 kills at higher than 45 degrees AOT. Just pull lead and uncage that seeker.

     

    Besides, there's a LOT more to an engagement than the number of missiles. I've bagged Flankers in the F-5. You have to plan and practice.

     

    It's the kind of plane that demands more of you as a player instead of relying on the plane's stats, weapons or fancy sensors to win.

     

    Besides, flying the F-5 will make you better at BFM when flying any other jet. Practice in the F-5 and get better to overcome its limitations. Then, go back to your Hornet or whatever you have...you'll dominate.

     

    The F-5 is all about the plot inside. Don't worry about the "only" two missiles. The gun works really well, also.

×
×
  • Create New...