Jump to content

TLTeo

Members
  • Content Count

    1612
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TLTeo

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. TWS in the AWG-9 it not particularly good at keeping track of a target that's maneuvering heavily, which makes sense seeing as it's the first system of its type and it was completely analogue. In STT you may warn your target that a Phoenix is on the way, but it's much harder for them to avoid that Phoenix.
  2. It does still apply when it comes to BFM alone, but not when it comes to BVR fights. Also, as weapons get more lethal "angles fighters" get an obvious advantage because all they need is use their ITR to point the nose in the general direction of their opponent to take a shot.
  3. He has a point though - RB have announced ~15 modules as being "worked on". That is nowhere near a reasonable number for even ED themselves, never mind a smaller team.
  4. The APG-73 is an upgraded -65 though, so it's not crazy to expect our Hornet to have the same features.
  5. What they are saying is that regardless of the value of the CM resistance, missiles will always interact with chaff in some unrealistic fashion until the current implementation is reworked
  6. Again, if you're inclined to complain about the patch being delayed, please roll back to right after the new lighting was introduced last year, then come back and report on your experience.
  7. The Mig-21 may have nukes, but a) they are not simulated well in DCS anyway, b) they are more of a joke and more importantly c) ED have said they won't allow any more modules to include anything like it again. So yeah, the discussion is kind of pointless. It's not happening.
  8. Fair enough, just wanted to avoid the mods' wrath!
  9. Still much further along the way than anything Razbam though On a serious note, in the original announcement they said the art and FM were done, basic systems were done, but (some?) advanced systems and their interaction in the cockpit were not, and that's for the simpler -C variant, so no MFD, ground attack suite, etc. So yeah to me Q2 sounds optimistic, but 2021 sounds feasible.
  10. Just to be sure - this doesn't break rule 1.16 right?
  11. Uh, I thought they were also cooled from the pylon. Interesting, thanks.
  12. Makes sense. Whoever decided the AIM-4 should store its coolant internally reaaaaally messed up.
  13. Nice post. Out of curiosity, does anyone know for how long the earlier variants can cool their seeker heads? That's the one (small) advantage I can see the early AIM-4 having, but that missile only carried enough coolant for a minute or so. Modern AIM-9s can stay cooled for a couple of hours, but I imagine it took a while to get there.
  14. This is also something mission makers should always do to mitigate the AI's flight model dodginess at higher settings. Unfortunately, many people don't because "the mission should be challenging" - which is honestly meaningless when that challenge is in the form of dumb but physics-defying opposition.
  15. It does, except as I wrote the same exact computer was not dropping this much FPS a few months ago, running the same mission (not that it matters - it drops down to 10fps even in a simple cold start mission). As I wrote, I could easily run time sped up by a factor 15/20 without any issues, not going beyond 3x is pointless. Something's definitely changed since this summer, hence my report.
×
×
  • Create New...