Jump to content

Schmidtfire

Members
  • Posts

    1710
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Schmidtfire

  1. High closure rate, but I doubt that you can replicate a 45 miles AIM-7F shot in DCS. Very interesting since there is a former RIO (I think) on the forums claiming that the AIM-7M is underperforming in DCS.
  2. I think it is important to look at this from a wider perspective. There should be no reason to pick AIM-54A over AIM-54C except for historical reasons. However, in current version of DCS, the AIM-54A is a very viable option and in a lot of cases the MK60 variant is superior. From Department of Defence appropriations from 1985: "This new missile, designated AIM-54C, incorporates state-of-the-art technology, increased missile performance, reliability and readiness. Production commenced in fiscal year 1980." AIM-54A is analog and AIM-54C is digital with upgraded electronics. It can engage anti-ship missiles at low altitudes. AIM-54C also uses an improved warhead over the older 54A version. There used to be a documentary film available that was called AIM-54C: Rebirth of a Missile. Suggesting significant improvements. Now, it seems very strange that an upgrade like AIM-54C would sacrifice kinematics. On the contrary I have read on several webpages (but not confirmed info) that indicates better kinematics (possibly due to better guidance and flight profile). This might be one of the cases when there has to be some guesswork done. If HB are confident that their AIM-54A is on point, they might aswell use that as a segway to all-round increase the performance of the AIM-54C, with better kinematics, tracking and endgame maneuverability compared to the 54A variant.
  3. I talked with one of the people that was affiliated with the original dev team and he said that there was a limit on how much could be done to the module without rippin' everything out and start over. Like you mentioned: MiG-21bis was made a long long time ago, with the tools and knowledge available at the time. Back then, there was no other third party developer except Belsimtek (former ED developers) that knew how to make a module from scratch. My guess it is still why we have a bunch of afterthoughts and band-aids like a checkbox for Realistic ASP and "Experimental Features" for the realistic RWR. Problem with the special option checkboxes is that they are affected by multiplayer. So even if you check the box you might end up with unrealistic ASP when joining a host that has not checked those boxes. So it's not a good solution. I would also like to see a more realistic implementation. Or at least implementing the optional checkboxes fully into the module. But it has been 7 years now... Unless Magnitude 3 really want to fix it, there is little we can do about it.
  4. No need for this discussion to get heated, we all want the same thing. However, some of us here has seen waves and waves of FC3 requests and know that they are usually ignored unless something is broken. Especially when it comes to add a new feature for the system modeling.
  5. Only the dev knows why. But given how many years ED has worked on FC3, the amount of posts and discussions in the russian forums, access to pilots... I would be surprised if they don't know TTI is missing. Im absolutely for a TTI indication, but Im pretty sure It won't happen. Most players don't even know that it is a missing feature.
  6. While it would be nice to have the full symbology, missing TTI is to be expected from FC3. What about the incorrect OLS-27 symbology or the arcade-modeled Schchel-3UM Helmet Mounted Sight? It would be nice if ED went back and remastered the FC3 series. Added and corrected HUD symbology... making parts of the cockpits clickable with all switches and buttons animated. Sort of a step between Full Fidelity and what we have now in FC3.
  7. The Periscope sight is still very much used on the Gazelle (in conjunction with the Viviane). I don't know why Polychop-Simulation decided not to model it. Makes sense to have it from both a historical and current timeline on pretty much all Gazelle variants we have in DCS. Notice the use of Periscope in favour of the screen @ 1:11
  8. Have you tried the SPS-141 ECM/Countermeasure pod? It is not made for jamming aircraft radars, but maybe you can carry more chaff.
  9. In this video you can see several Mi-24's flying with a single missile per side. The two helicopters at 1:40 is a perfect example of this.
  10. Is there a way to release KGMU munitions without getting into the front seat? Did try in multiplayer yesterday, but could not get the dispensers to work.
  11. This is an old issue. Objects appearing and dissapearing at different zoom levels. It really messes with your awareness. We tested this a bit yesterday. A big building was not visible at default level. With the tiniest bit of zoom the building popped into view. Same goes for contrails up in the sky. I can buy that the detail should be way less at distance, but the basic shape of it should be there all the time. Obviously it is performance related, but it needs to work better. This together with the excessive amount of shimmering, flickering and AA are my biggest gripes with the current DCS engine. It even shows on official videos from Wags and in various trailers...
  12. Since we are discussing ATGM's... has anyone figured out how to launch them boresighted from the pilot seat?
  13. Gazelle is different, you are basicly sitting in one cockpit. And I wouldn't use it as a reference as the multicrew is busted on that module. You cannot switch seats during multiplayer in L-39, C-101, F-14, Mi-24. It reads every "cockpit" as a separate mp slot.
  14. One thing that really caught me off-guard several times yesterday was the unexpected flip. I guess it is connected to overspeed and collective, but Im not sure. Suddenly the Hind starts to roll sharply, go invert and crash. Easing off on the collective and watching the speed seems to have resolved the issue. But it really surprised me compared to the other helicopters in DCS.
  15. It's on the left wall close to the Doppler Switch. There is one switch labeled "RADAR" that will toggle RWR and the switch to the right of it toggle sound on or off.
  16. Slick Mk-82 has slight variations too. From the first second there is desync. We tried it on a fresh server, no scripts and no units. Ping: 14ms. If on a private server you can test very easily. Ask the Host to pause, go into F2 view and compare the infobar. You will find that not only weapons but player positions will be different. If you have Discord you can also compare streams for visual reference. One interesting thing we found is that when players are close together the sync is nearly perfect (for formation flying), but at longer ranges there is a noticable desync in player position. Now, if this is always a slight problem all the time... Imagine a long range weapon like the SLAM-ER. Harpoon has the same issue. We tried it a few nights ago. On the host computer the missile hit the ship. On the client computer the same missile lofted well over the ship and continued to fly and climb for several minutes! However the client could see the ship burst in flame and a score was given the Host.
  17. I hope that Petrovich can be a bit more automated. For example, the target list that appears. A nice option would be that Petrovich choose a target automatically based on a priority list. Petrovitch Target Priority: (example) 1. Air Defence Units 2. MBT 3. APC 4. Unarmed Vehicles 5. Soldiers That way you won't need to cycle all the way to the ZU-23-4 Shilka when you are engaging an area with lots of other units that may not pose such a threat.
  18. Why not? I would try to burden the AI as much as possible (if he can handle it). Let Petrovitch do his half of the job, It is a two-seat helicopter and the less I need to do the better
  19. Nothing much you can do about the very basic GCI present. I do understand the frustrations. 99% of multiplayer servers don't give Redfor enough advantage to even out the technology difference. Mission makers put the same amount of stuff on both sides and that is fine if the goal is to have a Bluefor advantage at mission start. If you want a fair fight against more advanced Bluefor tech you have to create it yourself. Building missions with Redfor having a tactical advantage and better unit composition against Bluefor. SAM behaviour and jamming of SAM sites can be improved by using Skynet-IADS avalible here: https://github.com/walder/Skynet-IADS Modern Redfor SAM's avalible here: https://github.com/Auranis/HighDigitSAMs
  20. The PAC switch is always turned off. Wouldn't it be better to have it up in the ON position? As I understand it, the PAC is always enabled when in gun master mode on the A-10A.
  21. That's exactly what I was thinking watching the video. I did try a similar attack run with the Ka-50 a while ago. Got totally shredded by vehicle-mounted MG's. We can only hope. It makes no sense that IFV's without any type of radar assistance and with a narrow FOV from gunsight can hit fast flying helicopters and jets without much difficulty. In real life, a fast and low flying helicopter like Mi-24P, won't even be noticed until it is too late.
  22. It would be nice if we get MFI55 and maybe also a cockpit polish, but honestly it might be a little bit much expecting that from FC3 addon. J-11 seems to have a firm fanbase, at least online. But that is most likely due to added R-77 capability compared to the Su-27S.
  23. I have a very annoying issue with my Virpil stick. It disconnects several times every flight, physically reconnecting the USB cable fixes the problem. I checked Windows Power Settings and USB selective suspend setting is Disabled (USB is not going to sleep mode). Anyone else got a similar issue?
  24. It's kind of funny but a bit tragic at the same time... F-5E Tiger II deserves better. Does Eagle Dynamics hate this module or something?
×
×
  • Create New...