Jump to content

TwanV

Members
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TwanV

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  1. I had a similar issue ; my guess is because I started on stable in the past then moved to OB and so I have a DCS directory in the saved games folder, not a DCS.openbeta directory. fixed by manually pointing to the dcs install directory, clicking the ob button in vaicompro; reset lua; close VA; remove scripts, repair dcs, start VA, copy the directory contents from DCS folder in saved games to the new DCS.openbeta folder there without overwriting anything -> start dcs
  2. Looking forward to that Victory205, I guess I too have to "unlearn what I have learned", I can mask alot of difficiencies in the pattern in the FA18 but having a lot of trouble now finding a controllable pattern with the F14. I can get it on the deck but I feel very ad-hoc with the break.. At the break acc. NATOPS the boards go out but I can't really make that work, I lose airspeed too quickly and if I try to remedy I end up near 2nm abeam the LSO.. What does work for me is letting the plane slow down on drag upto the first 90, dirty up and then go brakes out to get in the on-spe
  3. Hah I had this discussion before. It's a fact that the brits always want to do things differently, but the reason why people fly QNH is simple, suppose you have two airfields fairly close to each other (not a problem in Russia ok) at different altitudes and terrain is a factor on approach. With QNE one would have to have two charts of the surroundings. With QNH, one will suffice, i.e. altitude is equal to height. One can also argue QNH is safer due to the fact that when accidentally interchanged and you assume QNH at all times where you actually have a QFE reading you will survive. the other
  4. Backspace, no need to be offended; I'm not trying to say how you should play the game, I'm just saying that I'm hoping for features that will allow myself to play more "realistically" with my friends and squadron, not a removal of features which will deny your style of play. But without AWACS support I have no other option than to use the current simplified IFF style way of gaining SA. To express a priority is what this thread is all about. My priority would be that. If more people are looking for other features, that's fine, it will come out on the poll results and I would have to wait longer
  5. Basically you're confirming my statement. Flying against FC3-aircraft, no offence, with the Hornet is just not the way to go if you ask me. Just that players in other aircraft can "cheat" this way doesn't mean the Hornet dvelopment should follow the same path.
  6. I would argue that IFF is not that important if AWACS is enabled. Other sims have been going for years without IFF, and to get it implemented realistically is just miles over the hill. Even then, IFF should never be used to ident in hostile territory and so I would argue that most people asking for this feature really are looking for something to reduce the level of realism. This in my mind flies in the face of what the F/A18 in DCS is all about.
  7. Voted for the A2G radar, I would argue to get the basics right first before moving on to systems that were added in later field life. Secondly (not listed), Bullseye and AWACS picture/declare implementation. A low hanging fruit to enable tactical CAPs in the BVR environment. The TGP, Datalink and HARMs are important multirole features too down the line, but the others in my opinion are nice-to-haves to make life easier/more interesting. On A2A radar: STT is absolutely fine at the moment, TWS is only useful if you find yourself outnumbered but that can be accomodated in mission design/
  8. besides.. as pointed out the MLU/CCIP versions are basically a quick-fix for vipers to get to the block 40 level and beyond without having to buy new aircraft, meaning that some leftover features from the initial F16A/B spec are bound to be on board. The cockpit layout will be a little different (different RWR, ECM panel, backup comms, etc. etc. due to this legacy effect and varying (european) contractors, but the functionality remains (about) the same in the end, trying to mimic a USAF block type. With exception of the parachute of course, but that is only a trifle compared to all the other f
  9. TM Cougar with the all conquering Force Controlled Cougar(FCC3) mod.
  10. I agree, BVR has been a touchy subject in the past but it's great to hear efforts are being taken to really get it right. Would like to say the rate of improvements is impressive, a big thumbs up.
  11. nice! So can we conclude they've worked on the aero properties of the missile? Or even better, the guidance algorithm?
  12. thanks backspace, is that DCS behaviour or RL based?
  13. To add, basically the AMRAAM has three phases of guidance: 1. guidance by aircraft FCR. 2. guidance by aircraft leading, AMRAAM radar active (Husky) 3. AMRAAM radar active only (Pitbull) I was curious to learn if this works the same in the Hornet as in USAF jets, the countdown to husky appears first, then the countdown to pitbull. Is there anyone here that can shed a light on this?:thumbup:
  14. Thanks Devs, for putting this in the new open beta update :thumbup:
  15. Also, as far as I'm aware IFF is only used above friendly territory to avoid any (traceable) unwanted emissions. Build SA with AWACS, that's what they're there for :thumbup:
×
×
  • Create New...