Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Andrew8604

  1. The SAM system of that era was the SA-2...oh, and SA-7 "shoulder fired". But who's to say it must be limited to that era? AAA guns are what's needed. I believe 37mm, 85mm, and 100mm with optional radar directors.
  2. At the end of which month in 2021 would you say you can be 90% certain it will be released by? Even pad it out a month, if you want. That should then be a pretty good aim point we can look forward to? Of course, things can always come up and you get to that month and it isn't quite ready. But which month would you say? Could you say? Beyond that, is there a plan for the next project? Because, if the OH-58 comes out well, as I expect it will...you keep building them and I'll keep buying them! Westland Wessex HAS.1? Westland Sea King HAS.1? These would be nice.
  3. The map offered above by Southernbear should be about 600 nm wide by 500 nm or 600nm tall. You HAVE to include Udorn, Korat and Takhli bases in Thailand. Those are where all the Route Pack V and Route Pack VI A missions of F-105's and F-4C's originated from. Don't necessarily have to have full detail level of vast stretches of land in between, though. Most of that would be overflown at high levels. (Except, of course, by the AI limping back at 500 feet AGL with a smoking plane...argghh) Yes, the AI in DCS needs major attention! It is one of the weakest links in DCS. Particularly in the way AI flies aircraft and goes about missions. "I said attack only the tanks within the zone...and then go home." AI:"Ok, I will fire all my Maverick missiles at unarmored trucks and then go outside the zone and attack SAM and AAA sites. Then, if still alive, come back and attack the tanks with remaining 20mm cannon fire...being sure to fly within kill range of their 12.7mm, dead-on-accurate, hand-guided machine guns. Got it!" Me: "Arrgghhh!!" Unless I just don't understand the way the AI logic is arranged.
  4. I wouldn't get too caught up in which DCS aircraft or versions actually flew there. Remember, we can create scenarios/missions with later or earlier model aircraft, or a mix. But yes, I would purchase each and every one of a good-sized set of aircraft modules for DCS that represent those of the Vietnam era. What is really needed is a new method of producing DCS aircraft and maps. At current rate, I wouldn't expect a Vietnam Map until about 2026, at the earliest. That's too long!! Problem is, there doesn't seem to be a dedicated team working full-time on the modules and maps. It's apparently not a money-making thing. They need "day jobs" to survive. Perhaps there could be a DCS-Fan Funding/Investment scheme. Motivated fans purchase shares in their favorite aircraft to be developed. Perhaps $25 per share. The more you want a particular module, the more shares you purchase in advance (keeping in mind it's a risk and you are purchasing a reduction in time). Once a module's share sales reaches a certain quantity, production would begin, by what I'd hope would be a team of half a dozen or so dedicated, full-time developers. They won't replace or "take away from" the current 3rd party developers. But maybe they could produce two to four aircraft modules per year, depending on complexity. The return to the DCS fan is desired aircraft, sooner. Those who invest 2 or more shares in a module wouldn't have to purchase it when released. It needs more details than this, but maybe this is a good start on the idea. The map itself needs to be about 700 nm wide by 900 nm north-to-south. But at varying levels of detail. Many areas would be just terrain and trees. Some of the flat areas away from the normal flight routes might be "photo" scenery. The F-4 Phantom II has to be the primary aircraft of this Vietnam theater. And I don't think it should be created as only the F-4E. I would prefer a variety...the F-4B, F-4D and F-4E, at least. And there is not a tremendous difference between the C & D, so why not both? I would say the MiG-19P we already have would fit right in, even if it's not the exact version that was used, historically. Leatherneck Simulations should produce a MiG-21PF, since they already have the MiG-21bis. And DCS should produce the MiG-17F, since they already have the MiG-15, which is very similar. The F-8J is already in progress by Leatherneck Simulations, we believe. I think that could represent the Crusader well enough. Unless they want to produce an F-8E, as well, while they're at it. I would hope they would release an Essex-class carrier, too. This would have to be an SCB-27C modernized variant, with angled deck and 2 steam catapults. USS Oriskany would be an ideal example. The Phantom II does not operate from the Essex-class ships. Only the Crusader, Skyhawk, Skyraider, Skywarrior and Corsair II. The A-7E is currently in production by FlyingIron Simulations. This will be awesome! It would be really awesome to have an A-7D version for the Air Force, as well (difference in air refueling system, for one thing). The A-6A (or A-6E would do) is rumored to be on the list by someone...I haven't seen anything solid on that. The A-4E Skyhawk needs to be made into a full module, by someone. The A-1 Skyraider. The makers of the P-47D Thunderbolt should be well experienced to make the A-1E, A-1H & A-1J Skyraiders...these would play key roles in close air support and downed-pilot rescue missions. The H & J being very similar single-seaters. The E version being a significantly different multi-seater. The KA-3B (or EKA-3B) Skywarrior might be introduced as an AI-only aircraft and serve as ECM and Tanker for the carriers. The Air Force used essentially the same aircraft designated the EB-66 for ECM jamming. Now for the Air Force: The F-105D has to be the primary aircraft, after the "dual-service" Phantom II. The 2-seat F-105F and G models were used, too, as "Wild Weasel" aircraft. But the "D" is the one to concentrate on. And with these go the 3,000-lb, M118 bomb...a much larger cousin of the M117 750-lb bomb we have in DCS. Not to be confused with the Mk-118 bomblet used in Mk-20 Rockeye cluster bombs. In 1972, F-4D's carried a laser-guided version of the M118, known as the GBU-11 (in case anyone wanted to know what preceded the GBU-12 in the numbering system). The F-100D is also an important aircraft for a Vietnam theater. The F-100D "Hun", flew more bombing missions than any other aircraft in Vietnam, I believe. The instrument panel and gunsight of the F-100 is very reminiscent of that of our F-86F Sabre. The F-100D carried 4 of the same, rapid-firing M39 20mm "revolver" cannons as the F-5E, producing a combined rate of fire similar to that of the M-61 Vulcan. But with only 200 rounds per gun, gave about 8 seconds of firing time. Well, that's eight 1-sec bursts. Finally, revert the KC-135R in DCS to a KC-135A, with the old J-57 turbojet engines. I haven't touched on the helicopters, observation and reconnaissance aircraft and the ships and ground vehicles.
  5. Well, the AI A-4E-C's can refuel in flight. I suppose you all knew this, though. Two of them in my mission each took on about 3,400 lbs. Don't anyone get excited, it still doesn't work when you're the pilot. :) It sure looks sweet, though.
  6. I have heard that before. I don't understand why a license can be obtained for an F-18C, an AV-8B, and A-10C (all in active duty) but not an old, obsolete A-4E Skyhawk.
  7. Is the A-4 potentially a future project for IndiaFoxtEcho? I can understand if you will be doing nothing but MB-339 for quite some time. But is it in the realm of possibilities once the MB-339 is complete, long range...no promises?
  8. It doesn't say what hit Kim's A-10. My guess, a single 23mm shell that exploded on contact? But I'm not an expert. It depressurized both hydraulic systems, but did not 'kill' the engines! I am aware of the lethality of being within effective range. Although, the gun mount that got me was a surprise. I had assumed, incorrectly, that the armor group the fire came from was out of action...completely realistic, on that point! It's not so much accuracy but that a visually directed mount like this has a firing solution at all, except by luck. Do these DShK-38's(?) have a range-sensor, like radar, and maybe a lead-computing sight? When I visually direct an M2 50-cal on a humvee, I can't get any hits. Even after firing a few thousand rounds. Because I don't have much of an idea what amount of lead and elevation to apply and whether tracers are going under the target aircraft or over it, in front of it or behind it...just can't see well enough in DCS. Even when firing at an Mi-8 doing 100 kts, it's difficult. But fly a helicopter within range of an AI machine gun and you're dead, practically every time. The AI gunner seems to always know the required elevation and lead to apply. Even after a 500-lb bomb explodes 100 meters away. There seems to be no human factors worked into the AI...sun-glare, sound dislocation, visual acuity, shock waves, shrapnel, smoke and dust obscurations, and plain old shock and panic. Seems like in some way, these factors could be programmed in, even if a bit crudely. The AI gunners never seem to say "I didn't see it." They never get fooled by looking at where the jet sound is coming from. Nonetheless, this thread was about A-10A vulnerability. It couldn't have been more than a few rounds of 12.7mm and it took out both engine, completely. It could happen, sure. But the likelihood? Very rare, I think. Perhaps my gripe is more with the AI and not so much the A-10A's damage model. But I would think the near engine would have shielded the far engine from damage, and I'd have returned to base on one engine...maybe.
  9. I did. A lot of those commenters said they would pay for an enhanced A-10A module. Me too. I wish I could have greater insight into how these modules are made...how they do what they do. I'm sure that would improve my assessment of how feasible a clickable cockpit A-10A would be. Since we have a clickable A-10C, could it not be modified to be a clickable A-10A? Take away the UFC and the MFCD's. Add the click-ability for the A-10A's weapons panel. Swap out the CDU for the INS. In other words, dumb-down the A-10C into an A-10A. Then the two modules would seemingly have a lot of code commonality, to ease module debugging and maintenance. I would think the A-10C flight model (currently being tweaked?) would be essentially identical to the A-10A flight model. If the current Flaming Cliffs3 A-10A module is so different from the A-10C module, then no, don't put any more work into it if you can spawn the A-10A off of a current A-10C module. Then they could 'sunset' the FC3 A-10. But I can't assess how feasible that is. It's not just that the A-10C takes so much study just to be able to power it up and enable its weapons. It's that when all is said and done, you have such a computerized monster in the "C". I just have an affection for the less computerized "A", its lesser capabilities, and more rounded instrument panel. Nostalgia, I guess. Imagine all the fun aircraft we'd miss out on if DCS only had currently "real-world" operational modules in it.
  10. Looking at the 80-pages explaining the CDU in the A-10C, I really like "kickin' the tires and lightin' the fires" in the A-10A. But the A-10A is too simplified. NON-CLICKABLE cockpit! I like the "old '80's" look of the A-10A cockpit. I like that simpler to understand armament panel. And just a single "SFMD"...single-function, monochrome display for the Mav's. :) Could DCS either take the A-10C and 'demote and simplify' it back to A-10A model; or upgrade the A-10A? The F-16C is a fun plane to fly. You can get it up and flying pretty quickly...but it doesn't have that GAU-8 gun! For the A-10A module... Phase 1 -- clickable cockpit with most basic panels functioning, and upgrade to the A-10C flight model, if applicable. Aerodynamically, I think they are the same aircraft. Phase 2 -- implement the more complex avionics and targeting/navigation systems...which should be similar to those in the A-10C, but with less capabilities...and therefore, simpler and more fun. Even if they called it the A-10A+ and charged $29.95 for it...I'd purchase it. The A-10C is like the avionics of a Strike Eagle in a Cessna Citation I airframe. :)
  11. I agree. My A-10A was hit by a few rounds of 12.7mm from a BMP-1 (I think it was), at more than 3/4-mile range, off my 4 o'clock, at down around 180 kts, and it took out both engines!! Dead. No throttle response. One on fire. Really? Now, how can they get me with that hand-guided deflection shot? Yet, I try to shoot down MiG-15's with the 12.7mm (50-cal) MG on a Humvee, from a similar range, and I can fire all day and not get any hits! Do I suck that badly at gunnery? Or are the AI gunners in "radar/laser precision" visually-guided, "can't miss" mode? Such gunners are either upper-body exposed on top of a turret firing a hand-guided machine gun, or buttoned down inside a turret firing a MG with very limited vision. If exposed, explosions and rounds hitting nearby should be almost certain to have negative impact on their moving-target marksmanship. But, no. ...and these were the "average" skill-level AI guys in that armored vehicle. It's as if the AI has the exact firing solution and exact aim at all times, only thwarted by pilot maneuvering after rounds are in the air, or by ballistic limits.
  12. I am here because last time I flew the MiG-21 was on June 3rd, this year, and I thought it flew pretty good. That was in the Normandy map (flying there because is looks a little more Vietnam-like). Now, Sept 6th, I fly it again, but in the Nevada map, and v2.5.6.53756. I agree with comments here: Before reading any comments my impression of the MiG-21bis is that it now seems sloppy in pitch and and the pitch trimmer seems overly sensitive, or coarse...difficult to find that "just right" position. Roll seems okay, though. I'm just trying to fly a gentle practice cruise profile, from Nellis, up to 33,000-ish feet/10km, with 800-L centerline tank and 2 R-3S (sidewinders). Went out 250nm and made it back with only about 500-ltrs of fuel. My comments to myself were, "It feels like someone put a big block of lead in the nose." The 800-ltr centerline tank was empty before I could get through 20,000', without using AB and trying to keep speed about 600kmh/M0.72. I used AB from takeoff through 350 kts in a gentle climb. I kept looking to see if the speed brakes were out or flaps or gear or something...like something was holding 'er back. Doesn't seem like a fuel tank and two "Sidewinders" would make that much difference. It sure doesn't on the F-5E, which flies nice, same version, same route, same weather. I could get about 500NM out of it in practically the same config, and get back with 1,100 lbs...and the MiG-21 used to be a 'hotter' jet than the F-5E...not no more. So, something must have messed up the -21 flight model, between June and now. I know my remarks are subjective. It's difficult to be a test pilot and bring back objective results. So updating to .54046 to see if that helps, somehow. Although, by the changelog, it doesn't appear that it should.
  13. I like adding Fallon and China Lake to Nevada Map. But how about extending the detailed area of the Nevada Map southward over the deserts to MCAS Yuma and then straight west over San Diego to include about a 1976-1990 version of NAS Miramar -- "Fightertown USA", Top Gun? And then extend the map over the Pacific Ocean out about 250 NM, to include San Nicolas, San Clemente and Santa Catalina Islands. This would make a good long stretch of Map to fly long missions in requiring inflight refueling...from 200 NM off shore San Diego to NAS Fallon in northern Nevada. That should be some 700 NM. Don't include high details north of about 30 NM north of Miramar, to save drive space. So just a rough satellite image of the Los Angeles basin, not really meant to be flown over at low altitudes. Make NAS Miramar a very detailed air base with animated ground vehicles and personnel, so that we can operate F-14's, A-4's, F-5E's and F-18's just like they belonged there. Visiting F-15's, F-16's, A-10's and AV-8B's would fit right in, too. And future F-4 Phantoms and F-8 Crusaders, as well as A-7 Corsair II's and A-6 Intruders would be right at home there, as well. And tie-up a couple moderately-detailed supercarriers to North Island, in San Diego Bay, containing NAS North Island. Can somewhat minimize the details of San Diego suburban areas to save on drive space. The details would be concentrated around NAS Miramar, NAS North Island, and Lindbergh Field. This would all go great with Supercarrier. And, of course, Nellis AFB is right in the middle of it.
  14. I wish they would also allow removal of fuel tank pylons. Seems rare to see F-14's with the pylons without fuel tanks on them. I'd imagine that also has already been pointed out?
  15. In a nutshell -- I contend that real F-14 Nav/Position lights flashed in unison with Anti-collision lights, most of the time. (As well as on the F-4B/N and F-4J/S Phantoms) Living near NAS Miramar "Fightertown USA", I observed a lot of F-14's from about 1976 to 1987 (most likely all F-14A's). I was a fanatic! (before Tom Cruise) I watched a lot of them at night, through a 40x , 60mm, f/15 refractor telescope, with image erector...believe it or not. I was good at manual acquisition and tracking. I could resolve the split nav lights on the wing gloves from about 4 miles. I could quickly recognize an F-14 at night by its lights because they were so distinguishable. I could see them turning in their PAR patterns while listening on a UHF radio to Approach Controllers giving them vectors and their short responses with noticeable engine whine in the background. Wingtip and glove lights told very well how they were banking in their turns. And then the Final Controller would come on frequency and give glide-path and course status/corrections with no need for pilot responses. I could see the color of the approach lights...amber, red, green (sort of bluish-green). Now, it was a long time ago, but I'm pretty sure I remember seeing all lights blink off-n-on in unison, except landing/taxi light, approach lights (usually) and formation lights (green strips). They seemed to be illuminated longer than off when flashing...assuming a flash rate of 1 cycle per second, they seemed to be on for about 70% of that second...and their illumination didn't cut instantly off like modern LED lights, it faded down to off in like a 1/10th of a second and came back on with about the same delay. So not 50/50, on/off, but more like 70/30. Those were incandescent bulbs. The lights on this Heatblur F-14B seem just as I remember as far as positions, I'm sure they got them exactly right. But I'd swear I remember seeing all Nav/Position lights, including wing glove lights, flashing in unison with the nose and tail anti-collision lights. When the F-14 would make its high speed descent for the overhead break, at night, I could see a 'slanted' line of three, evenly spaced red lights flashing in unison, viewed from the port side. That had to be the nose light, wing glove lights, and left vertical tail red light. I can't replicate this distinguishable feature in the Heatblur F-14B. Not to mention that the DCS graphics engine does not seem to be able to display lights properly from a distance in DCS. It seemingly tries to draw them real size with limited contrast, when human visual acuity sees them larger than they really are due to their intensity against the black sky from a distance at night. They need to be 'artificially' brightened and enlarged just a bit at a distance. But that may be difficult when dealing with the limited number of pixels in our displays.
  16. Yep, I agree. As well, for jets. People want the F-4 Phantom. Mostly used in combat in Vietnam. But then want the F-4E, which was only used near the end of the Vietnam war. Whereas, the F-4B and J and F-4C and D did most of work. So I would want the F-4B Phantom, with all the limitations it had. So, for the F4F Wildcat, I'd want the F4F-3 and F4F-4. Already pointed out here that the difference is the F4F-4 was to have powered folding wings and six 50-cal guns. That was too heavy so they made the wings non-powered where the flight deck crew had to fold them and unfold them (and I think limited the ammo). Then the FM-1 was made by GM as identical to the F4F-4 but with only four 50-cal guns...I believe while Grumman started building the F6F. The F4F-3/4 and FM-1 had the Pratt & Whitney R-1830 (14-cyl) with two-speed supercharger (not turbo) for use at high altitude (like the P-51D in DCS has a 2-speed supercharger, non-turbo. In contrast, the P-47D has a turbocharger and a 1-speed supercharger). Later, the FM-2 was made for use on the smaller escort carriers, having the more powerful Wright R-1820, single-row (9-cyl) engine with 1-speed supercharger for low altitude, close air support and ASW work. It was more powerful until it got up to 15,000 feet or so, I believe. BTW: escort carriers were generally intended to escort slow amphibious task force ships and could only do about 19 knots. The old slow battleships where assigned to the amphibious forces. In contrast, the light carriers were fast ships (31.5 knots) and could serve in the fast carrier task forces, escorted by fast battleships when North Carolina arrived. And so, light carriers and Essex carriers (and surviving Enterprise) received F6F Hellcats while escort carriers got the FM-2, in '44. We really need two versions of the Wildcat in DCS: The F4F-4 (and very similar F4F-3 and FM-1) and the significantly different FM-2. I think the best known battle of the Pacific was the Battle of Midway. I think there should be a Pacific Map for that. Very little land...it's a carrier-battle map. That was fought mainly with the F4F-4, TBD-1, and SBD (not sure which version of the SBD), and one class of carrier, the 3 Yorktown's. I'd love to fly the TBD-1 Devastator. (while others would insist on using F-18's with Harpoon missiles) I'd like to see those, along with the appropriate Imperial Japanese ships and planes. The Yamato was part of this battle's forces, I believe. I'm sure people would want to bring that ship into action in user-created scenarios in such a map. That was June '42. Thereafter, the F4F-3's and -4's made Navy and Marine Corps aces over Guadalcanal and the Solomon's, in '42-43. Sure the Wildcat isn't the best fighter...the F-22 is much, much better. :smilewink: But it was the best the US had to do that job at that place and time. Good pilots made it work. And so, we want to re-create and experience (and experiment with) the planes of that time and place. ...not use F8F Bearcats and mop it up! Although, the neat thing about DCS, is that you could use Bearcats and F4U-1D Corsairs in the Battle of Midway, if you wished. :) (once we get all that)
  17. Can there be some anomalous propagation bending of the radar beam around the surface of the Earth?
  18. The question is really: How big can a DCS map be? And how large is the memory footprint of a 500km x 500km map that has no land at all, just sea, with a flat sea bottom at about 1km depth? Would it be less than 1 GB? I would think so. If that's the case, why not make an arctic map? Or a generic ocean-only map where you choose the Lat-Lon and wind and weather. Just for carrier aviation, surface and sub-surface naval vessels. Oh, but the ice would have to be essentially like barren land surface. So, lets see...nuclear submarine below the ice, aircraft above the ice...never to interact with each other. Ok! WTF? LOL What are "winter speed trees"? Now, an Aleutian Islands map might be good. How about a frozen Falklands map? Are we ever getting a Falklands map?
  19. Are we not allowed to know what the maximum map dimensions can be? I haven't seen anywhere how large a map of nothing but ocean can possibly be and what the limiting factors are. I wonder if it has something to do with curvature of the Earth and the current DCS terrain model or coordinate system may be flat-Earthed? Also, I think ocean area should be contoured where depth is less than 500 feet and textured where depth is less than maybe 100 feet, putting a flat floor at maybe 2000 to 3000'. Much of the Pacific ocean is on the order of 8,000 to 12,000 feet deep, I think. Practically bottomless. Nothing goes down there, as far as I know...or if it does, it doesn't come back. I think WWII Balao-class submarines could dive to about 500-feet before things started breaking. Wikipedia says Test Depth 400 feet. But in the book about the USS Tang, the captain said he took it down to where something finally sprung a leak and that was around 500 feet. Only the crew of that sub knew how deep they went. They did not tell anyone else, not even brass. Although, the engineers that built it, probably had an idea. It was a closely guarded secret. I know this is a "flight simulator" but being able to command submarines and surface ships would be a whole new ballgame for DCS. That would be pretty danged cool. It should take less computing power than simulating an aircraft. Although, sub patrols are lots of boredom getting into a firing solution. Not much in the way of scenery when submerged...like absolutely none below periscope depth. :) I very high fidelity sonar simulation might be cool. And being able to move to all the various compartments in the boat would be a cool thing, too. Not a thing for the arcade-minded, blow-it-up-again-and-again DCS flyers. :)
  20. Are we all like fat kids in a candy factory? Our pockets stuffed with all sorts of candy, holding a half-melted, half-eaten chocolate bar with chocolate smeared on our faces. "I can't wait for them to make that new candy bar!!" Never satisfied. LOL When a new aircraft will be released in early access might be like looking into the fog of the future. Maybe they could say in terms of Not Earlier Than... My guess (I said a guess!!) would be NET February 2021. But I would think they (developers) could give a much more accurate NET time. Are most aircraft module developers doing the work more or less as a hobby in their spare time? Because development can't pay them enough by itself? If they could afford to spend full time, 40 hours a week, working on these modules, how long would it take? A few months? How much would modules have to cost each of us, in that case? I think what we need to do, as customers, is "invest" some accelerator money. But then modules will cost us about $300 per license, or more, I'm afraid. Or maybe the modules could be annual licenses. You'd have to pay something like $70 initially and then $35 per year to keep using it. So, all we can do is wait...and wait...and wait. It might be nice to have some standard status indicators. Every month each developer can report something like, "Development active, but slow." or "Development picked up this month. Things looking good. here's some pictures." or "Development stopped. Several months before it will resume." or the dreaded "Development side-lined, indefinitely. Changing projects." Would be much better than receiving nothing but static.
  21. I use similar curves on pitch and roll axes on all my DCS aircraft. Just my preference. Seems easier to fly steady and in formation like that. Others insist, "Oh, no-no-no, you must keep linear. Using a curve is a crutch". I ignore them. :) I only add a curve. About 17 to 25 in both pitch and roll. Sometimes I put a slight curve on wheel brake response, too. Whatever feels right to me for the aircraft. In the image here, the pitch axis appears 'truncated'. I wouldn't do that. I'd keep it full throw capable. Just the response curve to where near center, the response is less. I think this is making up for our "short" joysticks with spring resistance. I think most real aircraft have longer sticks that are mechanically connected to a hydraulic input system or cables and/or push rods and levers. Like doodenkoff said, here, a balance of trim and power. Often I'll set a desired power setting and chase level flight with the trim, gradually smoothing out to the right trim for the right airspeed for a given power setting. Whether you hold trim and adjust power or hold power and adjust trim, it should eventually dampen out. If you are adjusting both, you're probably chasing it all over the sky. And flying in formation is constant work of fine adjustments. Also, I think it helps to have something like the Thrustmaster Warthog which uses Hall effect sensors and has no 'flutter' or 'noise'. When I let go of the stick, it always reads a steady 0 on the X and Y axes (or if not zero, a steady, consistent number). Plus it has something like 16,000 points of resolution which seems to allow for very fine control inputs. There may be some other quality joysticks that do this, too. But those that use potentiometers instead of Hall effect are noisy and low resolution...like only 512 or 1024 points of resolution. Then you need to add 'dead' zone to cover the 'noise' of a centered stick (noisy pot). However, if the stick (pot) is noisy at center, it's probably noisy at all other points, too. If you often see flight control surfaces, or the stick, slightly fluttering when you aren't touching it, your stick probably has potentiometers. Real aircraft have approximately infinite points of resolution. The pitch trim on the L-39C seems maybe slightly too coarse. Might need more points of resolution, or a slower response speed. Then again, the real flight controls of a real aircraft aren't always that "self-zeroing". I had trouble holding altitude in a real Cessna 150, too. While my flight instructor seemed to have "the perfect touch". Just practice and experience. Keep working at it and remember to relax your grip of you are too tense. :) Hope that helps. And on pretty much all DCS modules, it seems like once you touch the roll trim, you can never get it back to a perfect center. Always causes you to hold slight control pressure either left or right for the rest of the mission. That's my experience.
  22. Agreed: Remove those reflections mentioned. May have been a reasonable effect in 2D. But in the 3D world of VR, looks like an image etched or printed on the sight reflector glass plate. Fun flying this jet.
  23. BUMMER! I only just became aware of this project...now over a year on long-term, indefinite-sounding hold. :( Like...I don't ever expect to see it. I would have paid $60+ for this plane...hint, hint, ED and other 3rd parties!! Skyraiders typically carried 4 times the ordnance load of F4U-4 Corsairs or P-51D's, BTW. A-1H Skyraiders actually shot down 2 MiG-17's over Vietnam in 1965 & 66...in the right situations, I suppose. MiG-17's shot down plenty of F-4 Phantoms and such, though. AD-1 = (A-1A) AD-1Q (2-seat, radar countermeasures) AD-2 = (A-1B) AD-2Q (2-seat) AD-3 = (A-1C) AD-3N (3-seat, night attack) AD-3Q (2-seat) AD-3W (3-seat, airborne early-warning, belly radome) AD-4 = (A-1D) - now with autopilot AD-4B (1-seat, now four 20mm cannon and ability to carry tactical nukes) AD-4N (3-seat) AD-4Q (2-seat) AD-4W (3-seat, belly radome) ---all aircraft AD-1 thru AD-4 were out of service before 1962, when AD-5 and later versions were renamed to various A-1 Skyraiders ---- AD-5 = A-1E (the big-cockpit Skyraiders -- originally to have been for anti-submarine) --- A-1E's came with conversion kits to allow them to be 12-seat transports, cargo or air ambulance. AD-5N = A-1G AD-5Q = EA-1F (were from 54 modified AD-5N's) AD-5W = EA-1E (with belly radome) AD-6 = A-1H (1-seat, was an AD-4B with LABS and jettisonable canopy, plus new bomb racks). AD-7 = A-1J (1-seat, AD-6 with more powerful R-3350-26WB engine and stronger gear -- final version) Seems like when whoever makes the A-1H, they might as well concurrently make the AD-4B for Korean era and the A-1E to go with the A-1H for Vietnam era. A-1E would be an extensively different plane, though. And if an A-1E, might as well make at least an EA-1E as an AI version for Airborne Early Warning and Control.
  24. One of my dreams about WWII-era flying, too. Inspired by old movies like, "Air Force" (1943). Although, I had never heard of the YE-ZB until now. B-17's, PBY's and other patrol aircraft going out several hundreds of miles to sea in search of enemy ships. The navigator's desk and radio operator's station aboard these larger planes. So far not a part of DCS's short-range tactical air combat. I think HF radio would be interesting in DCS, and MW and SW radio. If there could be a radio spectrum simulation associated with scenery maps where broadcast stations of the era could be received with realistic attenuation and interference from various sources, such as thunderstorms and ionosphere. I imagine being able to tune in vintage radio programs and vintage music while flying in the DCS map (ability to load your own mp3 files and have them sound like they are coming over the airwaves from long distance). Would one be able to tune in broadcasts from Hawaii or Australia from locations like the Mariannas or the Solomons? And that's not to mention sending and receiving key coded radio messages. I don't think they used Morse code, but we could use that, as well as an optional Morse code to text and text-to-code conversion tool in-game. Sometimes interference would make the coded message difficult to receive where only a partial message could be understood. And so forth. That would really help with immersion in the sim/game, especially on long flights over the Pacific. Imagine being able to send a key-coded message from a patrol aircraft on location of enemy ships, and then AI carrier battle group would "understand" message and launch planes on an airstrike. Way beyond the short attention span of most DCS players, I know, but it's a cool dream, I think...if we are entertaining the idea of WWII aviation at all.
  • Create New...