Jump to content

Andrew8604

Members
  • Posts

    202
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Andrew8604

  1. I agree. I wanted to mention that, too. The Scooter cockpit is very small and tight. I've sat in one...with the canopy open only and I thought it was a bit cramped. I also think the canopy/windshield frame is too peaked or pyramidal shaped. I don't think it's too tall, should just be more evenly rounded, but I need to gather pictures from real aircraft to prove it. Such as the actual perspective from the pilot's eye. (I took such pictures in an A-4F ten-or-so years ago, but have to find them). Also, the nose and forward fuselage seem too rounded out, too fat. The black nose tip should be circular or maybe slightly vertically oval when viewed head on. On this 3D model it appears somewhat square-ish and too wide, because the nose shape is too fat, I think. The air intakes are too dark inside. They should be cleaner, whiter (not pure white, though). The tail pipe is much too bright. It should be dark, nearly black and the exhaust-end of the engine just barely visible, if at all. Engine compressor and turbine blades texture is all fouled up--something wrong with it. I think they should just be a motionless blur above about 10-15% RPM, anyway. Engine should take at least 60 seconds to spool down to a stop from idle speed...if possible in DCS. Should coast to a stop from about 5% RPM during the last half of that minute. As fast as it spools down to a stop in DCS would indicate the main bearings are shot, I think, and the engine needs a major overhaul. The compressor blades make a rattling or clattering sound during that last 20 seconds or so...right up until it stops. I think most jet engines with individual blades inserted in a hub do this. But I think it should be particularly noticeable on the A-4 since the pilot sits right in front of the engine. I have not heard a Harrier engine spin to a stop, but I suspect it does the same thing with the pilot right there in front of it. Minor, but it adds to the realism, immersion. An F-4B Phantom II pilot described the J79 engines clanking to a stop in his book. When you hear that sound, you become aware of all the blades in that engine. Wing slats should hang lower and with a small, even gap from the wing from inboard to outboard. The slat tracks should be more curved downward, and thinner laterally. Main gear wheels (not tires) are too large in diameter and the rubber tires should be thicker, radially. There is an A-4C, A-4F, A-4M & TA-4J on display at a museum a few miles from me. I can take a ruler and measure the wheels if you want. The wheels also need a texture touch-up so they look like the wheels on all the real A-4 aircraft. Small, central hub circle and wheel lug bolts visible with a little shading just inside the rim. I wish the rotating beacons could glow and flash like the real thing, but maybe that's not possible outside of SDK. In other words, take a flashlight (one with a reflector) and shining it at yourself, rotate it back and forth. You can see the dim light continuously and when the beam hits your face, you see the flash of brightness. Do not show the projected red light beam on the fuselage or anything when the sun is above the horizon...if possible. Don't take these as criticisms. I just want as realistic an A-4 as possible.
  2. My sincerest condolences to his family and friends.
  3. Here's an illustration of the catapult bridle hookup for launching an A-4 Skyhawk. I found this in the excellent book, Naval Fighters No. 51, by Steve Ginter. Also included a picture of the gap between the wing and the fully extended leading edge slat on a real A-4A vs. the A-4E-C. Too much gap on the A-4E-C slat, especially to the outboard portion and it sits up too high relative to the wing.
  4. assafm25... Yes, this is what clued me in that the picture could be changed. And yours is a good idea. However, are those magnetic variations the values actually in the DCS simulation? Because, when I look on skyvector.com, I see... CA (Caucasus) is about 6 E PG (Persian Gulf) is about 2 E, or maybe as you say, 1.6 E NT (Nevada) area is generally about 12 E, NO (Normandy) is about 1 W --WEST--not East and not 8 E. Per map of historical Magnetic Declination (variation) on the US NOAA website, in 1944, Normandy would have been 10 W. In 2019 it is about 1 W. In 2020 it should be about 0 (or aligned with true North). Back in 1620 it would have been about 8 E. Around 1830 it was as far as 24 W! https://maps.ngdc.noaa.gov/viewers/historical_declination/ But what matters in this sim is what DCS considers the Mag Var for each map to be.
  5. Possible alternate pictures for the photo of the lady in the cockpit? ...or maybe not! :)
  6. Merker, I've been a fan and observer of A-4 Skyhawks for decades...just for my own fun. I'm just giddy excited about discovering this mod!! It's fantastic! It blew up twice at ramp start-up (I start in flight now until that's fixed), something to do with Master Arm switch changing state at startup, maybe? But I can't help but see some things that look just a little bit off. If I may point them out...I don't want to be too critical. I say again, it's a great mod. [it should be an official mod. It's far better than a certain BAE trainer that didn't pan out.] Nose shape: It seems a bit too wide. The side profile seems right on, but from the top view it seems a bit too wide, or maybe "over inflated". A clue might be the black nose. When looking at it dead on from the front, it looks a bit square-ish and wider than tall. I think it should be circular. I'm trying to find photos of real A-4's to back up my claim. Canopy/windshield bow: It looks a little too peaked at the top. I think the real ones on the A-4's are more rounded. Somewhere, I have photos I took of the forward view while sitting in the ejection seat of an A-4F at the Flying Leathernecks Museum at MCAS Miramar. I'll have to find them. Barricade catchers on the wing leading edge: Look too thick. Slats: They seem to stick out too far at the outer portions of the wing and seem to stand a bit too high above the wing, in general. Intakes should be white inside and exhaust tail-pipe should be pretty dark black inside, from what I've seen of the real planes. You don't ever really get a view of the aft end of the engine up there unless you take a flash picture into the pipe or shine a bright flood light in there. Main gear struts look too dirty. But I suppose their detail level will get improved eventually. I hope you all will continue to perfect this mod. Main gear wheels would look better with visible bolts, I think. And they might be just a bit too wide in diameter. The tires are probably the correct diameter but the wheels look a bit too large. More rubber, less wheel. Or, it might be an optical illusion because looking at most real A-4's, they seem to have a visible rim or flange with the lug nuts visible inside the diameter of that rim. It looks pretty darn good in flight, though. :)
  7. Couldn't the launch bridle be displayed as a type of external store object or such that is simply automatically jettisoned at the end of the catapult thrust force? I love this A-4E-C mod, though. :) Lots of great things...many external stores to choose from! I can see some nose and windscreen/canopy shaping that seems a little off. But, for the price, I can't complain...just like to make it the best it can be. :) It should be an official mod (I think).
  8. The A-4 Skyhawks never had launch bars. They used a launch cable called the "bridle". Each end of the cable was looped and connected to hooks inside the main wheel bays. The middle of bridle was hooked by the catapult shuttle. At the end of the launch stroke, the cable was discarded and attempted to be caught in a net off the edge of the deck. The F-4 Phantom II and F-8 Crusader also used the bridle system...and all prior Navy carrier aircraft going back at least to WWII. The A-6 and A-7 were the first to use the Launch bar, I believe. Even the big A-3 Skywarrior and A-5 Vigilante used the bridle system.
  9. I'm seeing this sort of texture error or corruption on many of the aircraft I fly. I've added aircraft skins from the User Files of the DCS web page. Now there are many such errors like I see on your H-60. For instance, the UH-1H has blocky or patch-work looking fuselage textures on the top surfaces. Sometimes the pilot's helmets are the same texture shown on your H-60 main rotor blades here. But not all are User File skins. Some of the skins that are packaged with the aircraft have this 'patchwork' effect, mainly on the upper surfaces. Some more noticeable than others. I've only ever noticed this since version 2.5.4.27314...or since downloading and placing skins in livery folders for various aircraft.
  10. I think the F-15C is the most rewarding for least investment of $, fewest systems to learn (in this DCS version, that is...it's a bit simplified, not so hard core), has great performance, lots of missiles, lots of fuel, and the all important HUD with a displayed velocity vector that tells you where the aircraft is flying to...makes landings so much easier...if you understand how fighter jets fly. Plus it's in English, the only language I know. :) Only thing...it does not have a clickable cockpit. So you have to take a little time and set up some buttons on your joystick and throttle to quickly change radar modes and weapon selected (but you want to do that with any of them). The F-15C is Air-to-air-only, no bombs. The A-10A is the easiest of all to fly because it's slower and has the HUD, but not good for dogfighting because of its lack of speed and power. It's a ground pounder plane. You get them both with Flaming Cliffs 3. You also get Su-27 & 33 and MiG-29's and more. I have never flown them, amazingly. :) ...someday. But don't get too cocky in that F-15C, because, yes, an AI MiG-15 can and will shoot you down if you get too close in front of them...and not so close as you'd think. :) That was my first ride on the nylon elevator. Others will probably swear by the Mirage 2000. I don't have that one, so can't say. A lot of real dogfights have been flown (or avoided) with "the wrong plane". I started with the F-5E-3 a couple years back. Because I've always been fascinated with that plane for decades. But I had a hell of a time trying to fly it. Crashed on takeoff so many times. And then I realized you have to extend the nose strut for takeoff!! Read the manual. :) Also, pay attention to the proper airspeed for takeoff...don't try to get airborne too soon or too late on the takeoff run. I also thought, "I'll fly against an easy AI MiG-15. Easy victory." Wrong. I set up my own simple mission in the Mission Editor...no complications, just two planes. I found myself in afterburner trying to keep the MiG in front of me...and my airspeed was below 200 kts. The MiG was flying circles around me and shooting me as I inevitably descended to low altitude and ran out of fuel. "What the heck!?" Each model airplane does its best stuff at its own particular speeds, and altitudes. It takes a while to even get minimally proficient at any of these planes...I'm not there yet. Not just anyone can be a real life fighter pilot...for very good reason. Unfortunately, there's no easy, quick answer. DCS is realistic enough, it takes some real study to get good at any plane. But I think it's rewarding to do so. Several times I could have sworn the programmers at DCS got it wrong...but it was just me needing to learn how to fly THAT plane. I still need to learn the MiG-21...I hate crashing and burning. :) It just takes time! I only have 217 flight hours in DCS 2.5 and 470 takeoffs and landings amongst 9 different aircraft, including the Huey. I'm a master of none. There is game mode for DCS, too. I've never tried it. I want as real as I can get without risking my real neck. :) Game mode might make it easier and more fun for you. You can also set up a MiG-21 "target drone", I call it...where you have it fly a straight course at 500 Kts ground speed and no weapons. And set its "Reaction to Threat" to "No Action". That way you can practice intercepts and use of radar and missiles...intercepts are not as easy as you'd think. It's easy to wind up in a tail pursuit and having to use a lot of afterburner to close the distance for a AIM-7F or AIM-9 shot. I like the old stuff. The problem with dogfights is "lose sight, lose the fight"...it's so hard to maintain sight when the world is only in a 42" monitor, even at 4K resolution (I gave up HD over a year ago).
  11. I found a livery for the prototype F-15A (intended for the F-15C) that seems to work and look just fine. It is located in the DCS website Downloads under User Files, filtered for Game: DCS World 1.5. It was uploaded by "8117devin". I don't know how to contact that person to request a modification. The livery of subject here seems to be a neutral light gray with somewhat faded day-glow orange. It looks really good, except that the gray should really be a slightly faded tone of Air Superiority Blue FS 35450. Is there anyone here that can modify that livery (skin) to change the gray to Air Superiority Blue [maybe just slightly faded]? And if so, can you also make a livery without the orange in the 'Air Superiority Blue' scheme...such as 73-090 of the 555th TFTS at Luke AFB with the white "LA" tail code, from the late 1970's?
  12. I could see having an OPTION in the simulation to chose "snap" range of the basket as a "cheat" to make inflight refueling easier. But you have to be able to STAY in formation, too. Snap range could maybe be selectable between 0 and about 2 meters, maybe (0 - 6 feet). Right now, I think it is about 1 or 2 feet, fixed. I'm happy with it. I understand the desire for a cheat with this. It is REALLY difficult, at first. I nearly gave up and resigned to the fact that I must be just a hopeless "whiskey-delta". LOL But then I tried and tried again. And then it happened!! The probe went in the basket! It came right out again and I got no fuel...because I looked full-on at the probe in the basket! But I was there. It was an improvement. Practice, practice. Get lined up behind the tanker. Match your speed. Always making "tiny" adjustments to throttle to stay matched with the tanker. Use pitch trim to trim for your new airspeed. Find visual references between the tanker and the HUD symbols...don't look directly at the basket or you will turn to salt! ha ha Just keep slightly aware of the basket in your peripheral vision. And, of course, a mental image of where your probe is. Make "tiny" corrections with the stick--and use the rudder a little. Anticipate the corrections that will be needed. Be a step ahead of the airplane. Make small corrections in pitch, roll, yaw and speed (like +/- 1 knot)...practice, practice and you will get it. I have the Thrustmaster Warthog stick. It has stiff springs. But it responds to mere pressure on the stick, without flexing the spring. That kind of tiny movements. Hope that helps some. I'm just above whiskey-delta...I seem to be able to get some fuel in the tanks before they run dry...but by no means to the sierra-hotel level, yet. :) I continue to improve. A stick or yoke with noisy "pots" (analog potentiometers that don't hold a steady value or smooth response) can make it more difficult. My old analog stick had about 250 digits of response. The Warthog has about 64,000 (I think, or maybe 16,000). But when I center the stick, its axes read 0-x and 0-y, every time, with no fluttering. I think that makes some difference, too. I don't know that DCS sim reads all that resolution, though.
  13. It shouldn't. Only CHANGES in wind speed and direction can make a difference--that's called turbulence. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but all that matters is the "relative wind". That is, the wind from the point-of-view of the aircraft surfaces. You and the tanker aircraft could be flying into a 200-knot jetstream. The only difference it makes (disregarding any possibly included turbulence in a strong jetstream) is how fast the terrain slides underneath you. The air mass you fly in may be moving over the ground at 200 knots (wind) but your aircraft only cares about how fast it is moving through the air mass...or more accurately, how MUCH air is moving over the wings, control surfaces and through the engines. The clouds should be moving with the air mass, too. If you are flying through a cloud at 300 knots true airspeed, you pass through it in the same amount of time as you would if the air mass you and the cloud are in is moving over the ground against your direction at 100 knots, with you at 100 knots or not moving at all. Wind is air mass movement in relation to the ground. Airspeed is aircraft movement in relation to the air mass.
  14. The Philippine Sea Area -- from about 300 miles to the east of the Marianas Islands (Guam, Saipan) to about 800nm to the west, to include Yap, Ulithi and Truk islands to the south. Huge area of open Pacific Ocean for the ultimate WWII carrier battle in June 1944 that fell short of its potential of greatest sea battle of all time, but became the famed "Marianas Turkey Shoot". Imperial Japan lost about 315 aircraft in one day, June 19th, to the US Navy's loss of 20. They just didn't have the trained flight crews they had in 1941-43. About 130-deg East to 155-deg East longitude, and 5-deg North to about 20-deg North latitude. About 1500nm x 900nm. The Midway Islands open ocean battle area for the legendary Battle of Midway of June 1942. Maybe about 600nm x 500nm to include the Midway Islands...practically nothing but ocean and a few moving specks called aircraft carriers...and their 1 to 2 dozen escorts. And, perhaps, several prowling submarines. --These open ocean area modules might be about $10 and should be fairly quick and easy to produce...99.9% ocean...so put them out already. The real work would be making the aircraft and the ships. Yorktown-class and Essex-class carriers, Fletcher-class destroyers and Brooklyn and Cleveland-class cruisers, to start. And a couple classes of Imperial Japanese carriers, cruisers and destroyers. About 9 models of WWII USN and IJN carrier planes. Place a group of ships in a general area of ocean at random...such as within 100nm of a lat/lon. Then the attack force of planes know nothing but, "fly heading 250 for 300 NM and then just search." Of course, we can place modern ships in these vast open areas, too...and even potentially conduct submarine and anti-submarine action. Lots of searching. Lots of maximum range flights. Boring? Sure. But you have to keep your eyes open, and watch the radar scope if you have one. Blue water ops. A real need for in-flight refueling and carrier landing skills for the modern jets. Throw in something new...realistic tropical weather systems and storms, and the possibility to fly over or around them to avoid their turbulence. Add 3D modeled towering cumulus and cumulonimbus clouds...giant clouds that could stretch from 2000 feet to 50,000 feet MSL! The aircraft: USN - F4F Wildcat (AI), F6F Hellcat, SBD Dauntless, TBF Avenger (AI), TBD Devastator(AI). IJN - A6M2 "Zeke" fighters and fighter-bombers (AI), A6M5 "Zeke" fighters, D3A "Val" bomber (AI), B5N "Kate" attack-bombers (torpedo), D4Y "Judy" dive-bombers(AI). AI aircraft might come in a $40 package with the ships.
  15. P-51D's artificial horizon is working correctly...at least as of v. 2.5.3.23954...and I expect the same on the current version. The horizon line should match the angle of the horizon you see out the window. That is: If your aircraft is banked 45-deg left, you will see the out-the-window horizon as appearing in the upper left of your screen and running down to the lower right of your screen. The horizon line of the instrument will also run from the upper left of the instrument face down to the lower right. The airplane symbol of the instrument remains fixed in a position which is parallel to your aircraft's wings. Works that way on all American aircraft since at least as far back as the 1930's, I would say. As the others have said, I too seldom uncage that instrument as I fly in visual daylight conditions and just look out the window for attitude reference. You only need it at night or in poor visibility, such as in clouds...or maybe if engine oil covers your windscreen...in which case you may be bailing out anyway.
  16. The A-6A!! Vietnam! Read the book, "Flight of the Intruder" [Do not watch the crappy Hollywood movie of the same name with Willem Dafoe. The book is far, far superior.] The Intruder will need a "Jester" or a 2nd Player to operate the DIANE (radar/attack/nav computer system). 450kts, down on the deck! It is not a slow plane as it may appear, but it is subsonic. Big bomb load.
  17. I like the idea of the T-6 as a "tail dragger" trainer that might be a little less frustrating to learn than the "what the hell just happened? This plane sucks!" reaction to not knowing how to fly the P-51, Spitfire, Bf-109, Fw-190, P-47, P-40, F4U, etc. But, I like the idea of the Fairchild PT-19 better. Much simpler systems...just pure learning to fly a tail dragger. The PT-19 is used in this 1943 training video, "Combat Aerobatics" --
  18. 1. Vietnam -- 660nm x 600nm or so, to cover most of Vietnam, Laos and Thailand. c. 1968 2. Philippine Sea -- from the Marianas Islands (Guam, Saipan) to about 800nm to the west, to include Yap, Ulithi and Truk islands to the south. Huge area of open Pacific Ocean for the ultimate WWII carrier battle in June 1944 that never really developed, but became the famed "Marianas Turkey Shoot". Imperial Japan lost about 315 aircraft in one day, June 19th, to the US Navy's loss of 20. About 130-deg East to 155-deg East longitude, and 5-deg North to about 20-deg North latitude. About 1500nm x 900nm. 3. Midway Islands open ocean battle area for the legendary Battle of Midway of June 1942. Maybe about 600nm x 500nm to include the Midway Islands...practically nothing but ocean and a few moving specks called aircraft carriers. --These open ocean areas should be about $7 and be quick and easy to produce...so put them out already. The real deal would be making the aircraft and the ships. Yorktown-class and Essex-class carriers, Fletcher-class destroyers and Cleveland-class cruisers, to start. And a couple classes of Imperial Japanese carriers, cruisers and destroyers. About 9 models of WWII USN and IJN carrier planes. Place a group of ships in a general area of ocean at random...such as within 100nm of a lat/lon. Then the attack force of planes know nothing but say, "fly heading 250 for 300 NM and then just search." Of course, we can place modern ships in these vast open areas, too...and even potentially conduct submarine and anti-submarine action. Lots of searching. Lots of maximum range flights. Boring? Sure. But you have to keep your eyes open, and watch the radar scope if you have one. Blue water ops. A real need for in-flight refueling and carrier landing skills for the modern jets. Throw in something new...realistic tropical weather systems and storms, and the possibility to fly over or around them. Add 3D modeled towering cumulus and cumulonimbus clouds...giant clouds that could stretch from 2000 feet to 50,000 feet MSL! 4. Korean Peninsula map, c.1951.
  19. Viet Nam. Most definitely. If nothing more than for the F-105 missions from Thailand to North Vietnam. It's a huge area, about 660 by 600 NM. But there were a great variety of aircraft flown here and a great variety of all sorts of missions--both carrier based and land based. Rolling Thunder, Arc Light, Linebacker I & II. Combat search and rescue. Close air support. But, of course, we would have the option and freedom of flying whatever we want there. Yes, we'll need more aircraft. F-105D, F-100D&F, F-4B, C, D, & J...forget the F-4E...well, it looks like we'll already have it, though. A-4F, A-6A, A-7B, A-1E, A-1J, F-8E, F-111A. Helicopters--UH-1D (pretty close to an H, I think), H-34, H-3, H-46, H-47 and AH-1G. And the KC-135A and B-52D. I'm sure I'm missing some. Just the F-105D and KC-135A(AI) would be a start.
  20. I would purchase a C-130 Module. Which version? Probably the USMC KC-130J. Also the USAF AC-130A/E/H. There has to be at least two or maybe three variants. I'd buy all three. Lot's of potential for multi-crew. Lots of potential for the pure joy of just hauling cargo from A to B...don't knock it. That can be a fun relief from endless blasting. Or challenging if B is a hot airstrip under fire.
  21. NAS Fallon and NWS China Lake are Naval Air Stations that are visible on the NTTR map, but only at lower resolution satellite imagery--no details--can't land there. Fallon in the extreme northwest and China Lake in the far southwest. I think they would make useful distant airbases for longer range missions. China Lake has some target ranges like the NTTR ranges. I'd also like to have Wendover airport, just across the border from Nevada at the edge of Utah's Great Salt Lake basin -- way up to the northeast, off the map right now. It has long runways and a good sized ramp. It would make a great distant base for the map, I think.
  22. I wish this was listed in a Known Bug List somewhere and officially addressed with a statement similar to this, at least, "We are working on these multiple night lighting issues. Will take extra coding and time." At least then we'd know we've been heard. The sunlight is shadowed so well. I don't see why multiple light sources cannot also be shadowed appropriately when the Sun is not shining. I find it most annoying in the Huey with nav lights set to flash and beacon on. They flash inside the cockpit when the light source, the beacon and the nav lights, are in positions (exterior) where they should not be able to illuminate the cockpit/cabin.
  23. Thank you, Cobra and the rest of the Heatblur Team. It is really nice to see--and hear--the real people making these modules. I hope you'll share more behind-the-scenes info. I think it gets us in a happier mood when we see what you guys are working on and see your efforts. I know everyone here wants to get their hands on the most accurate and impressive F-14 possible, ASAP, and I think they want to help improve and perfect the module if there's any way they can. I sure do. But, for me, up until I saw this video, the people who make these modules has been a frustrating mystery...I've felt in the dark. It is so good to see and hear from you and see that you obviously really care about putting all you can into this module, and getting it right. I hope you will accept feedback from us about any problems or bugs (if any arise) and fix them quickly. Because, from my point of view, there has been a pattern amongst all modules of bugs being found and reported and seemingly never being fixed (waiting a year or more feels like never). I don't mind getting a product early and finding and reporting bugs. I don't think others do, either. What's tough is when the effort to report them seems to go no where, or not even noticed. As well, I don't know the proper procedure for reporting them...and no easy way to see what has already been reported. Please, at least try to let us know why they can't be fixed or can't be for so long. But I'll keep positive (because I don't intend to be negative at all). It sounds like for the F-14, here, you intend to release it as nearly bug free as possible. Thanks! It looks like it will be utterly awesome! I'm pre-purchased and waiting for the day.
  24. I hope you can incorporate this idea of having an option for tone of language to suit the different tastes of us users here. Something of 1, 2 or 3 in excitement levels. Preferences are always nice.
×
×
  • Create New...