Jump to content

bies

Members
  • Content Count

    764
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

2 Followers

About bies

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 06/07/1987

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS, IL-2: BOX, MSFS, XPlane 11, Steel Beasts
  • Location
    Europe

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. When it comes to Air to Air nearly all kills of the Cold War, were within visual range. Even at the very end during Desert Storm nearly all F-15 kills were within 10 miles very much within visual range. People read too much Wikipedia, reality was Sparrow, R-27, R-24 etc. we're useless outside of 10-15nm. Even at the very end of the Cold War US cutting edge technology F-15C MSIP, with support of the whole technology and war machine and NCTR radar IFF, still had to dogfight Iraqi MiG-25s and MiG-29s, turning and burning, shooting from very close range - this made it so attractive to
  2. So in this situation 1980s with declassified realistically modeled avionics and weapon systems and functionality, historical planeset for both sides and shorter developement time is the best. And it looks like it's really the direction of the DCS. I've analyzed modules in developement and nearly all of them are 1970s / 1980s cold war. Mi-24P Hind, Mirage F.1, A-7E Corsair II, A-6E Intruder, F-8J Crusader, MiG-17 Fresco, MiG-23MLA Flogger, MiG-29A Fulcrum, Bo-105, F-4E Phantom, Mirage III, EE Lighting, Sea Harrier, IA 58 Pucara, Fiat Go.91, Su-17 Fitter Plus current F-14 T
  3. I agree with nearly all of that, except for one detail: I.e. F/A-18A or C form 1980s Cold War would be virtual the same as 2004 except the need to model the most complicated and work-hours heavy systems - some DDI pages, GPS weapon integration JDAM, JSOW, SLAM-ER, Link16, AMRAAM, JHMCS, AIM-9X, some radar submodes, guidance algorithms of most modern smart weapons, towed decoy etc. - half of the work. Hornet with FM, graphics, Sparrows, Sidewinders, dumb bombs and unguided rockets, basic navigation etc. was basically ready in EA, some 2 years ago. It would take s
  4. Moving map with doppler sensor is better because it is less capable. It's more fun since it is not so perfect, requiring some attention, observation of environment, corrections - actual things to do. GPS would be perfectly accurate and you wouldn't have to do anything.
  5. Apache, F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29, Su-27, Mirage 2000 etc. are all 1970s/1980s cold war airframes. The only reason some of them were still in service in ~2010 is fall of the Soviets and lack of any symmetrical wars or even possibly of such wars since 1991.
  6. Even JA-37 Viggen, Gripen's predecessor, is impossible to model being classified, Heatblur tried. Rafale will never be in DCS as full fidelity module. The heart of Rafale is strictly classified AESA radar and even more classified Spectra EW suite. ED stated EF is possible only because exEF pilot is making it - ED said they would never be able to negotiate the license.
  7. The true difference is Ka-50 was, depending on variant, basically a prototype or a low serie production due to fall of the Soviets = lack of resources. Mi-24 was a helicopter build in, literally, thousands by the Soviets and used in many real life wars since 1980s. One of most important and most iconic Soviet aircrafts.
  8. 2000s modern AMRAAM with guidance unit algorithms, R-77, ECM, ECCM, radar algorithms, discrimination, SAM systems like S-400, Patriot PAC-3, AEGIS, RL datalinks functions, modern ground AESA radars and many more, shortly - the whole environment - all of that will never be modeled in a realistic way because this are strictly classified closely guarded military secrets. It would be both - impossible to find the data and illegal to model. On the other hand with enough effort and passion they clearly have ED can model environment up to Desert Storm or late Cold War in reasonably realis
  9. It's all theoretical chit-chat. I fly both 1980 Cold war and 2000s servers for years and truth is on 2000s server air combat is very shallow, it's all about AMRAAM and it's current parameters, it's also very easy to learn for beginners - fire AMRAAM right before MAR, slice and run. Very repetitive. With little skill involved. Air combat on 1980s servers is all about close visual maneuver air combat with very rudimentary and limited BVR possible only in specific conditions adding another layer, it's way harder to learn and master, having way more depth, with all weapon systems usefu
  10. True, MiG-29 is faster high up because F-16 doesn't have regulated air intake. When it comes to fuel efficiency early lightweight F-16A from 1980s with F100 engine had stunning performance being able to wait out every fighter, even full fueled F-14, still having fuel. Sometimes it fought mock dogfights against two adversaries one after another when they run out of fuel. It was perfectly balanced for dogfight. But it's long gone. Later models like Block 50 had to receive more powerful engine to compensate for big airframe mass increase and it burns through internal tank
  11. If it will be AH-64D with Fire Control Radar you technically don't even need another guy to destroy 16 enemy tanks, FCR computer makes up for the gunner: park behind some obstacle showing only FCR -> release 16 automatic guided Hellfire missiles to 16 targets detected identified and prioritized by FCR visible on your MFD -> RTB There are good interviews with RL Apache pilots on YT. AH-64D has avionics designed the way every guy can do everything with some small exceptions, especially when ORT has been replaced by digital display. Mi-24 - or Desert Stor
  12. This time-frames are great idea, i saw many similar posts in the past. There is one problem with post 2000 period: it doesn't feel authentic at all. It's all about AMRAAM and AMRAAM is not realistic, and it will never be realistically modeled in open software because it's strictly classified, especially guidance unit with it's code and algorithms, ECCM etc. And when AMRAAM is fiction all post Cold War air combat is fictional. Some arbitrary numbers. Another problem is there will be no Russian or Chinese realistically modeled "modern" fighter. Not at all or total made up unreal
  13. bies

    F-16A

    The very definition of exciting, attractive, engaging close air combat, only visual dogfight with guns and heat seekers. Air superiority concept of John Boyd, Pierre Sprey and fighter mafia. It worked great in the Middle East 1980s when Israeli lightweight F-16s with guns and heat seekers and F-15s decimated MiG-23s and 21s. All F-16 kills were achieved in close visual dogfights. Why DCS tournaments organized by ED or YT community guys or exRL pilots are close dogfights with guns or hear seekers? Because that's the core of exciting air combat, not some AMRAAM tennis which
  14. According to Su-27SK manual 9G with 100% fuel is way, way above the limit. From my head: Su-27SK was allowed to squeeze 9G only below Ma=0.85 and only with 20% internal fuel + 2xR-73 and 2xR-27. Structural damage at 9,5G with full fuel supersonic is already really big safety factor. Su-27SK for normal takeoff weight 60% fuel + 4AAM: Notice transonic region is considered more stressful than supersonic. In case of Su-27 everything above 60% internal fuel is considered as "internal drop tank", it was the reason of some considerable scuffle between
  15. Which K variant exactly? The one from late 1980s named 9.31 tested on Tbilisi cruiser along with Su-27K in the last years of the Soviet Union? I guess i could be possible in the future if ED will really be able to model 9.12. Especially AI doesn't have to be as detailed as full fidelity module. Or the new totally classified MiG-29K which Russian Navy just received, 24 pieces in 2016 with completely new airframe, two-crew canopy, AESA radar and so on, with absolutely no data available and zero subject matter experts input (way more modern and recent than our retired F/A-18C)? T
×
×
  • Create New...