Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Northstar98

  1. It's not. The Mi-24P is from somewhere around the 80s (I want to say mid 80s). Ataka (which we're getting) was integrated from the mid 90s onwards, and the removal of the IR jammer is something more recent (though you can still find examples with them). However take away Ataka and we've got an 80s Hind, just missing the IR jammer (which will only be effective against the SA-9 in DCS AFAIK - missing 1st gen Cold War MANPADS). My god, this argument again. Seriously, the whole point of DCS is that building blocks (the modules, the assets and the maps) are as realistic to their real-world counterparts as possible, but the scenarios you build out of them are up to you. So no, turns out people can complain about the lack of realism in a module but not in a fictional scenario (clues kinda right there isn't it), because that's the whole point of the game. Not only is this the best compromise between realism and sandbox, not only is it DCS mission goal and design, we literally can't do it any other way because nothing fits perfectly together, so you have no choice but to fictionalise the scenarios, in some way shape or form. I mean, case study number 1, the Viggen, what missions am I going to use it in? The only theatre it was present in was the Baltic, which none of our maps go anywhere near, and given that you either compromise and make your mission less realistic, or you don't use it at all. Arguably, the Hind's most famous conflict was the Soviet-Afghan war, so naturally people are going to be interested in it. And rather wait years and years to get an appropriate map, (let alone the rest of the assets) they're making a compromise, which is unrealistic but the only thing they can do. And if you want to go down this route, feel free to ask ED to delete the mission editor, which is what you'd have to do, sounds like it would be a hugely popular decision (not). It's an RuAF Hind from around modern day, though only due to removal of the IR jammer. Ignoring that it's a RuAF version from the mid 90s (only owing to Ataka, when we get it). If you ignore the fact that the IR jammer is removed and don't take Ataka, then it's basically a baseline Soviet version from somewhere around the mid 80s. The pilot's cockpit for one certainly hasn't changed from when the Mi-24P was first introduced. Ladies and gentleman, boys and girls, kin of all phyla, I present to you, the no true scotsman. Where you can only care about realism if you're a fundamentalist purist, I've even heard that if people care about realism they should quit the game if their pilot dies once... No the realism I want, and what the realism the game's core design principles are gunning for, is that the building blocks are as realistic to their RL counterparts as possible, but the scenarios you make are up to you. I find it amazing that so many people pick up this game failing to understand what it's design goals are.
  2. That changelog is fantastic! Fantastic stuff ED! Though we still need to correct that ST-68U and the SA-5.
  3. Did they? I thought it was the Baltic, which would make more sense for the Viggen. But the GIUK gap would be the perfect map for Cold War gone hot with the F-14 (though both our current F-14s are mid 90s at the earliest, and late 90s-early 2000s with LANTIRN) That's certainly one way of putting it Mind you the naval environment as a whole is pretty lacking, and that would probably need to change for such a map, as it is the Cold War naval map. Same, though the area is more to the south than the GIUK gap, though if we include the RAF airbases in Scotland and the Shetland Islands, then the map would at least reach into the North Sea, but not by much.
  4. I like the idea, but personally, I'd prefer the GIUK gap, including Iceland, the Faroe Islands, Jan Mayen, the southern tip of Greenland and at least the Shetland Islands. While we have a fair bit of land area, it's mostly going to be mesh and textures, none of the islands have a huge object density (and it's only really Reykjavik-Keflavik) that would be more populated with objects (nowhere near to the same degree as other cities that we have though). The map would lend itself well to recreating Cold War scenarios, and there's plenty of inspiration from Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising, there are however a few things missing to really flush a map like this out. The main concern would be land-based REDFOR (though SF2:NA managed fine). Just having a map of the UK though would probably be a poor choice, it would only really be useful for sight-seeing in and of itself. At a stretch, I'd try and include the major Scottish airbases (RAF Lossiemouth (maritime strike), Kinloss (maritime patrol) and Leuchars ((where I used to live) interception/QRA) but this adds quite a bit of land area (and while it's not hugely populated, the terrain is pretty complex). What? Is that going to be your answer to any new map that gets poposed? "Well if you want a map that's different to our current ones, fly MSFS2020". So, exactly like the Marianas then? Wonder when the last war was that was over the NTTR... The SoH/PG map is post 2009 and completely misses the areas where Iran-Iraq War (1980 - 1988) the Gulf War (1991) and Iraq War (2003 - 2011) took place. There's only really the confrontation in the Persian Gulf, but we hardly have any assets to support them. It's only really Syria where we have a more realistic map for actual conflicts, but we're again missing assets, plenty of them, our modules aren't the right era and the current coalition system just isn't fit for purpose on the map.
  5. But there isn't really a cost to the game, these modules already exist, just not for WWII. The game loses nothing by including one of these modules. The only cost here is time and development resources, something that applies for literally everything. Well Aviodev/Aerges started off with their trainer, and are making another one down the line... Even so, these aircraft have their merit as is. Since 2.7 the aircraft I've spent the 2nd most time with is the Yak-52, in SP. And flying the trainers made me fly better, it's much easier to start off slow and easy and move up. Not feeling what the instructor is doing isn't the be all and end all, there's a benefit to be had with having real time feedback while being the one doing the flying, with someone there to take over if need be - the other chief benefit. You can argue that there aren't any consequences for failure, but actually learning what you're supposed to do, while receiving real world feedback can be very beneficial, rather than just screwing it up until I improve.
  6. What even is this? C-101EB L-39C Yak-52 Mirage F1BE All dedicated trainer modules (there was a 5th, the BAe Hawk T.1A, but let's not talk about that). You're arguing against something that already exists, it just doesn't exist for WW2... But said real world fighter jet pilot, will fly in 2 seat trainers... The extent of their practical training isn't limited to just simulators, and the OP isn't trying to simulate real world pilots using a simulator. We on the other hand most likely don't have the luxury of having real 2 seat trainers, in fact, not being able to fly real world aircraft in a free environment is probably why this game exists in the first place, and the reason why many of us play it.
  7. +1 We have basic jet trainers (L-39C, C-101EB), a basic flight trainer (Yak-52) and soon to be a trainer of a more mainstream combat aircraft (Mirage F1BE), WW2 is the only one missing one. I would've said TF-51D, but seeing as you can't really do anything from the backseat but spectate, a better one would be the North American T-6/AT-6 Texan, it's probably the most suitable aircraft for the role and it has a huge number of operators.
  8. No, it's right there in the core principles of DCS! It's right there in it's product description, that's why it's "just fine". Where realism is concerned is in the depiction of the building blocks themselves, so modules, assets and maps should be as accurate to their real life counterparts as possible, how you use them is up to you. This isn't difficult, it's the core principle of DCS, and it's right there in it's own product description. You seem to think that this is a contradiction, because you think that realism is all or nothing, when it isn't.
  9. And what happens if you run into a bug that causes weird things to happen if you fly above a certain rated airspeed, and developers in response say "well, don't fly that fast" are you really going to be satisfied with that answer? This isn't even far fetched, it's exactly what the F-14A was doing when it was initially released into the OB. What even is this argument? How do people seriously keep making this point over and over again. It's right there on the front page, clear as day: That's where realism starts and where it ends, in the depiction of the assets themselves, more or less in a vacuum. So the building blocks should be realistic as possible to their RL counterparts (which can be extrapolated to the modules, the assets and the maps), what scenarios you build out of them and how you use them is totally up to you. You want to make a fictional scenario set on the post 2010s Marianas map, where I-16s backed up by Patriots are facing JF-17s, in a mission set before the Wright Flyer? Go right ahead. But that I-16 should be accurate to its RL counterpart, and that JF-17 and Patriot should be too, as well as the Marianas map, at least where possible to do so. That's how much realism I want, and I think that's the perfect balance between realism and sandbox, and it's completely in line with the stated goals right there for everyone to see on the main DCS website. Secondly, let's say that x is unrealistic, why does that justify y being unrealistic too?
  10. I'm not sure why x SAM systems specifically use y search RADAR, that's just what they do. It might be that certain systems were designed to utilise said RADAR and whatever engagement control station is wired up to receive data from a specific RADAR or RADARs. I'm by no means an expert at all, I don't know how it all works. Though it shouldn't be too difficult to use a more crude method of slaving whatever FCR is being used. Though personally, I'd like as many accurate battery components as possible, referencing real world SAM sites, and in the case of the SA-5 (including Syrian ones), the search RADAR present is the 5N84A (or rather the export 5N84AE) which is a transportable variant of the P-14. This RADAR is 2D only so it's paired up with a suitable height-finding RADAR, most commonly the PRV-17 or 13, and as it doesn't have integrated IFF (AFAIK) a seperate IFF system too (like the 1L22 "Parol" - which is pretty ubiquitous). There are SAM systems that have multiple different acquisition RADARs (usually optimised to do certain things), but what your describing is an IADS or Integrated Air Defence System, where you have a network of EWRs and air defences linked together, though typically they will still have a search RADAR located on site for redundancy. And you're right, IADS do use data-links, if you look at this post and scroll to the bottom of it, there's a diagram of a former Czechoslovak SA-5 site at Dobříš (with the spoiler translating the annotations); just south of where the PRV-17 was located was a 5Ya63 "Cycloid" antenna post, which is a microwave link to other air defence sites, though I'm fairly sure there was a wired data-link too, allowing the site to operate as part of a networked system. The 5Ya61/62/63 (only difference being the number of antennae on the post) would be a great unit to have if/when we get IADS functionality, allowing us to disable (at least the wirleless portion) of the data-link, severing the IADS network.
  11. Yes, and it should be listed as an SA-10 specific search RADAR, as that's the system it's actually associated with (with the 5N64S ["Big Bird"] superseding it). So far I've only ever seen the Tin Shield be associated with the SA-10 or used as an EWR. It doesn't really make sense to use it as an acquisition RADAR for the SA-5, seeing as the SA-5 variant we're getting has a maximum engagement range of 240km, but the Tin Shield we have only has a maximum instrumented range of 150km. As for our SA-10, we have the S-300PS [Sa-10b "Grumble"], and AFAIK the Tin Shield most applicable to that is the 5N59S ["Tin Shield B"].
  12. Finally! Okay, so presumably we're getting a Syrian S-200VE Vega-E [SA-5b "Gammon"], which is the export version of the S-200V "Vega". Besides the designations for the system, missile and acquisition RADAR, I'm not sure what the practical differences are. But seriously guys, the SA-5, including Syrian ones, do not use the Tin Shield, they pretty much all use the P-14 (more specifically the 5N84A/AE ["Tall King C"]). Luckily there is another RADAR in development, and that should be the 5N84A/AE, though as mentioned above and in the wishlist thread I made though, this is a 2D RADAR and as such needs to be paired with a height-finder such as the PRV-13 ["Odd Pair"] or a PRV-17 ["Odd Group"], and for IFF, it's paired with a seperate system (such as the pretty ubiquiotous 1L22 "Parol"), as I don't think the RADAR has it's own IFF capability. As for the Syrian SA-5s, I had a look on Google Earth and so far found 4 of the 5 supposedly active S-200 sites, and, all but 1 of them has a P-14 RADAR co-located (or at the very least located very close). The only one that doesn't (though it might be that I just haven't found it yet) is co-located with a Russian S-400 site, with its RADARs present (such as the 96L6E, which has a sufficient range). SA-5 site near Homs, with a P-14. SA-5 site 6.5 nautical miles north of Khalkhalah airbase (159th air defence regiment), with a P-14 and associated height-finder. SA-5 site near Al-Dumayr, this one doesn't have a search RADAR located on site, however, there is an EWR site 3.5 nautical miles to the east-north-east, which includes a P-14 (as well as 2 P-80s and several height-finders (most likely PRV-13 or PRV-17)). SA-5 site north of Masyaf (western, eastern), I can only find an associated height-finder (looks to be a PRV-17), but there is a Russian S-400 system present, with numerous RADARs also present (northern, southern). Syria does operate at least one Tin Shield, but it's further away from the nearest SA-5 (which has a P-14 nearby), it's located at Damascus international airport, and it replaced a JY-27 RADAR that was destroyed in an IDF airstrike, I'm unsure if there are any others. In any case the JY-27 was being used as an EWR, and I'm pretty sure this Tin Shield is too (in all likelihood they're networked together into an IADS). But the point remains - the S-200 is associated with the P-14, specifically the 5N84A/5N84AE (the latter being an export version), and not any version of the Tin Shield - that RADAR is associated with the SA-10 (though has been used as a generic EWR).
  13. It looks like "Viper" is a new callsign, at least according to this:
  14. Yeah, the LOD/visibility of it is pretty appalling, and it makes the NDB on the approach path into Saipan RWY 7 a royal pain.
  15. The other really noticeable ones are the NDB towers, and other towers that share the same model which start basically invisible and then suddenly pop-in from about 1km away (though for the NDBs, the current gigantic towers look nothing like the actual NDB antenna).
  16. Well, arguably it doesn't, the removal of Lipa is more of a modern thing, though I'm being a bit pedantic, apart from that (and Ataka integration sometime during the 90s) it's still basically the exact same helicopter, with the same non-NVG compatible cockpit from around the mid 80s.
  17. For one thing C:MO has a far superior coalition set-up, which is far more flexibile and is essentially perfect IMO, when I get around to making a wishlist thread for the system I think I will. I'm drifting off topic here, but I'll put a breakdown in the spoiler below: Here though, it's mostly the fact that it groups unit types together, so anything that is airborne goes in one category "aircraft", everything on the ground goes into one category "facilities" (though "ground units would be a better name, personally). I still think we should have the separate buttons for different types of units however. Well here, I'm only really interested in the groupings, and for 2 main reasons: It means everything is in the same place It means that static objects and ground units can be placed in the same group/template. Regarding the latter, if DCS offered mixed unit types as part of the same template, it wouldn't be an issue. That would be the idea, though there is a trigger to turn the AI off, which more-or-less accomplishes the same thing. I mean, there is a "contact report radio usage" advanced waypoint action under "options" which allows you to filter out different unit types that you don't want the AI to report contact, though it would also be good to be able to filter out individual units though. That's my biggest worry too. Right, back on track.
  18. Doesn't seem to be a heck of a lot of difference in length, but the Nimitz definely has a fair bit more area.
  19. Bear in mind too that the damage model for the Hind is in a very early state, expect it to be improved in the future.
  20. The Fi 103R had a pilot, but the overwhelming majority of V-1s and the V-1s everybody thinks of (Fi 103) were unmanned, only have a simplistic autopilot. Agreed, 400mph is fairly fast for prop aircraft.
  21. The overwhelming majority of V-1s and the V-1 we have in DCS were unmanned, they didn't have a pilot, and they only had a simplistic autopilot.
  22. Also to bear in mind is that DCS is a little funny with the particular kind of MANPADs your using. In DCS there are 2 Igla systems: MANPADS SA-18 Igla "Grouse" MANPADS SA-18 Igla-S "Grouse" The thing is though, both systems fire the same missile, called "Igla-S" according to the in-game info bar (presumably referring to the 9M342 missile that the Igla-S uses), so treat both of them as being the Igla-S' As a side note, I'm unsure what the first system is supposed to be, the 9K38 "Igla" [SA-18 "Grouse"] (which should fire the 9M39 missile) or the 9K310E "Igla-1E" [SA-16 "Gimlet"] (which should fire the 9M313 missile), the mission editor says it's the former, but tacview says it's the latter. Though in light of the Igla and Igla-S firing the same "Igla-S" missile, it doesn't really matter, whichever it's supposed to be, it's treated as an Igla-S system as far as DCS is concerned, owing to the missile. EDIT: Gah! It gets even more confusing! The missile the in-game info bar refers to as the "Igla-S" has 9M39 written on it - the missile for the 9K38 Igla, and is called "9M39 Igla" in the encyclopedia! Which missile is it supposed to be? According to wiki, the 9K35M3 "Strela-10M3" [SA-13 "Gopher"] that you used for comparion is from 1981, though there's a bit of contradictory information on what missile it should fire, wiki says the 9M35M and ausairpower says the 9M333 (though wiki says that's a 1989 missile belonging to the 9K35M4 "Strela-10M4") the 9K38 Igla is from 1983, the 9K310E Igla-1E from 1981 and the 9K338 Igla-S from 2004. If the missile used is in fact the 9M342, I'd expect it to have higher countermeasure resistance than the Strela-10M3. And as another side note, DCS gets the US DoD and NATO reporting name wrong for the Igla-S, which is actually referred to as the SA-24 "Grinch", and not the SA-18 "Grouse" as with the Igla. The GRAU and native designation being 9K338 "Igla-S".
  23. The black plug on the rocket motor. This plug is actually there on the 3D model of the HARM in DCS, you don't see it shoot backwards or fragment, but it does disappear so to speak, you can just about see the difference before firing and after burn-out.
  • Create New...