Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About cailean_556

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 05/02/1985

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    FSX Steam Edition
    DCS World - Steam
  • Location
    Land Down Under
  • Interests
    Flight Sims, Combat Flight Sims, RTS, RPG
  1. My hope for the next Heatblur module is the F-4... Why? Although "Next Generation" could also indicate a new 4th Gen aircraft, such as potentially a Saab Gripen (given their Viggen module) or even the Draken (in which case "Next Generation", considering the aircraft already in DCS, makes less sense), I believe "Next Generation" in this instance refers to the technology, scope and ambition required of their next module. Considering the initial "Cold War" influence on aircraft developed for DCS, I fear the continual push for the addition of bleeding edge (with the last 2-3 decades) a
  2. In addition to everything else you're doing to improve the base sim, I'd like to request that the JTACs/FACs gain the ability to target static objects/structures placed by the user in the ME. This includes static buildings, ammo/fuel depots and static vehicles, e.g. a line of parked Tu-95s or B-52s. Example Mission: User aircraft is assigned to support a SOF HVT neutralisation mission by dropping a GBU-12 on a specific (placed) building within a town. The SOF team, in radio contact with the aircraft above, designate the target with laser, allowing a non-self designation capable aircr
  3. This is something I could get behind. If a pilot successfully ejects and lands in water, the model changes to that of a pilot in a life raft. For the purpose of the sim, the life raft/pilot object could be sling loadable (or a winch system will need to be developed/added - but sling loading as an interim measure would be great). A SAR chopper has to hover over the raft, sling load/winch it up and then they can fly back to base. As for pilot penalties, it would have to be an optional setting, but perhaps they do indeed sit there in external view waiting to a SAR bird to come get them and the
  4. Simply put, for our variant of the F-5, Wikipedia is wrong. Later versions of the F-5, upgraded with modern avionics and systems, can indeed carry 4 AIM-9s, or 4 AIM-120s or 4 AGM-65s or variations of. However the variant of F-5 that Belsimtek have simulated, the F-5E-3, has none of those modern systems. It's an aggressor aircraft, in USAF service, and as such it didn't require any expensive modern avionics or weapons - it's there to provide a real time aggressor aircraft for pilots to fly against in training - so the USAF didn't upgrade them. Your argument would have made much more sens
  5. I've discovered a potential AI pathing issue in vicinity of Mashiz (south of Kerman). Rough cords: 30-4-10 N, 56-44-33 E. AI placed offroad, with waypoints set to get them on the road (set to On Road - which locks the point to the road). Second waypoint placed short distance south of Waypoint 1, however AI pathing indicates the vehicles going north (opposite direction than intended), doing a significantly large loop. Intent: To get the vehicles moving south towards Mashiz as part of an offensive action as part of a campaign. Outcome: Vehicle pathing indicates the AI will head north befor
  6. I'd like to see (eventually) an F-4 variant series. Start off with the F-4E (arguably the most numerous version) but then add the carrier-capable (mainly US) F-4J/N and then add the UK F-4K Phantom FG.1/FGR.2 (preferably both but either/or is still welcome, also with a RN carrier though the UK F-4s could land/take off from US carriers). This does a number of things: 1. It adds at least 1 variant almost everyone is familiar with or has a loyalty to, as well as opens up a number of historical scenarios. 2. It aids in fleshing out the air forces of quite a few nations represented in DCS (in
  7. The earlier Tranche of aircraft (Tranche is similar to 'Block') used a mechanical pulse-doppler radar - Captor or Captive or some such. Fancy acronym for something. Too lazy to google it right now. So a Tranche 1 aircraft is likely the only version we'd ever get to see in DCS if Germany, Austria, Italy, Spain or the UK were courteous enough to provide technical data. I believe Tranche 1 aircraft are being, or have been, phased out of service either by being replaced by newer Tranche 3/4 aircraft or by being upgraded to Tranche 2 or better. I'm not even sure what weapons systems the older Tranc
  8. I put forward the request that Australia, in DCS, be given the Oliver Hazzard Perry-class (OHP) guided missile frigate (FFG) as a naval asset. The Royal Australian Navy operated 6 Adelaide-class FFGs which were, for all intents and purposes, externally identical to the OHP-class (save the distinctive 'Red Rat' painted on the sides of the forward superstructure - Red Rat being an affectionate term for the red Kangaroo motif painted on most Australian vehicles as well as being part of the RAAF roundel). While the Adelaide-class was eventually upgraded to feature a 21-cell VLMS mounted forward
  9. Hey Netsk, yeah I know the problem isn't with the runway - the comment about runway length was basically to highlight the capabilities of aircraft. An airport that has a runway of (x) length should be coded to allow for larger aircraft - especially international airports and major airbases. I've noticed that, for larger aircraft, they will land at airfields that don't support their parking and despawn off the runway. At least BIGNEWY has said they'll look at tweaking it - that's all we can ask.
  10. An ongoing issue with the Persian Gulf map has been the inability to enable larger aircraft (C-130s and larger) to start from the ramp at some airports/airbases in the Persian Gulf. When C-130s (or larger) are set to start from ramp on certain airfields, they default to Kerman, Shiraz or the major airports/airbases in the UAE depending on what (appears) is closer. After doing some research, I have come up with the following information regarding aircraft capabilities at certain airfields and measured some of the airbases in the Persian Gulf by using the available tool in the DCS mission edi
  11. I've discovered that I am unable to pick up F-5Es on radar in the Hornet despite being at comparable altitudes. I was able to lock up TGT 1 and 2 with Boresight, TGT 3 using Vertical Scan as I overshot while testing a different radar setting as discussed on the DCS Discord. This mission was originally against MiG-15s and, without doing anything special, I was able to detect the MiGs out to 70nm+, yet when I change them to F-5Es I am unable to detect them on radar at any range. Track attached. FA-18C_Stealth Tiger.trk
  12. Deka is doing amazing work, as are all the third party developers. I intend to support Deka further when they release the JF-17 so they can continue developing quality assets and aircraft modules. I was not aware of Heatblur's intent to improve Sweden in DCS, but that's certainly interesting - is it tied to any particular module? Mag3 is developing the F-8, and I'm led to believe it's a US Navy F-8. I'm also VERY aware that the F-4E module on hold/in development is the land-based variant used by the USAF and a number of other countries around the world. We will get there, eventually,
  13. You raise a good point there, sirrah. I suppose, on an MP server, you would be able to see said asset but you wouldn't be able to utilise them in the Mission Editor unless you had the requisite module. Somewhat similar to how the WW2 assets pack is handled, although with that one - if you don't have it, you can't access missions or servers that include those assets. At least from what I understand. I suspect that's how the South Atlantic map will also work. Happy to be proven wrong, but I was under the impression that the assets being developed for the South Atlantic map were only going
  14. Who's complaining? Nothing about my post was a complaint. I wasn't complaining, I was suggesting that ED make Nation modules for DCS that fill out their ORBATs with assets applicable to a time period - it's a way for them to develop extra assets while also getting paid for them. People are almost literally demanding this, that and the other be put into DCS. I believe you yourself were demanding that ED flesh out Italy some time back. I said nothing about improved AI, unless you mean "improved' as in they have access to applicable weapons, platforms and equipment.
  15. I'd support a full-fidelity anything 'REDFOR' but seeing as the Su-25T is DCS World's 'intro' module, perhaps not that particular variant. The original Su-25 is an FC3-level aircraft and I believe that should not change. A full fidelity module should be a different variant, though granted there aren't many more variants to go with. Potentially there's scope for an Su-25M1 (Ukranian) which is an upgraded base-model Su-25 though I don't know the extent of the differences. But that could satisfy that full-fidelity itch for an Su-25...one day.
  • Create New...