Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TheBigTatanka

  1. Read this a few times until you can visualize it.... If the aspect angle you see is greater than the angle off tail, then the bandit is stuck in lag. If so, keep your rate fight up. If you see lots of the top of his jet, and he is only 20-30 degrees off your tail.... He is stuck in lag. If his aspect angle matches his angle off tail (up to ~45 degrees)... He is in the control zone. He can only threaten you when his intakes are pointed at you (ignoring the HOBS threat for this discussion). But, if his jet rotates to point, you must honor that with the appropriate reaction. Beyond a gun wez, pull it out of AB, flare, and limiter pull to stuff the bandit. Be ready to jink as he approaches gun range with lots of closure. Inside a gun wez, Jink as his nose rotates to lead. Jinking downhill or a full 360 degree tuck-under jink is best. To maximize your rate, keep the bandit 10-20 degrees above the horizon and make a smooth floor transition. Don't 1 circle reverse unless you see a close overshoot to the outside of your turn circle. You will see neck-snapping line of sight, where you have to look over your other shoulder. As others have said, never give up. The goal of defensive BFM is just to stay alive. It's not combat training, it's training to max perform your jet. As soon as you are neutral or in a stalemated fight, end the fight.... You survived, good job. If you ever were in a combat situation maneuvering in relation to a hostile.... You would just have to stay alive defensive for a few seconds while your wingman killed the hostile from out of sight. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
  2. Hello fellow flight simmers, Since the last update I've had many instances of the viper FCR dropping lock while in SAM mode post-shot. It happens when I'm in the crank (bandit 50 degrees off my nose). Of course, because this happens well before A-pole, the missile goes stupid and lofts into space. I've set the AI bandits to not use Chaff/ Flare (and they aren't) -- so that's not a part of it. STT has worked great and maintains lock on shots taken between Raero and Rpi (around 40nm in my scenarios). Has anyone else had this issue? I'd love to hear about it if you have -- and then I'll compile some short tracks and post a bug report -- a quick search of the bug reports hasn't mentioned issues with SAM mode since early July. Cheers
  3. I will say this stuff has changed a lot, from tape to tape. I have some of the current version export guides, and they go up into the 900s. If you look at squadron created materials (I'm thinking of a bombing range card from the B course), the targets are in the 400s. It's got to be tough to nail down exactly what we are "supposed" to have for this version. Not totally steerpoint related, but I was talking to a friend who flew F-16s, and he told me that the software is always changing. For example, if the Israelis shared intel with the US about some SAM system's emissions they detected near Syria, that frequency info would be updated into all F-16s and F-16 sims ASAP. with that capability to change things very rapidly, it's got to be amazingly hard to create a 1:1 with any particular F-16 of any year. That being said, i think we are going to end up with the best all-around F-16, that tries to be as close as it can to a USAF F-16, of any entertainment level flight sim. It's happening pretty quickly now, and this last patch shows great promise in that direction. Here's hoping the road map keeps the course. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
  4. There's so much good news in this thread. If most of these things are achieved, viper sim-pilots will have a viable module for the next decade, at least. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
  5. Godspeed on the work! Let us know if we can help in any way. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
  6. Oh, for sure. Lots of practical reasons to not do it. But being practical is not the test of whether it can work or not. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
  7. Hawkeye is correct here. As for that "SME" that was quoted above on the T connectors; he said this week that the wiring of 4/6 is possible, he just hasn't seen it, and the USAF has no plans for it. To me, given the other evidence, it sounds like at one point it was connected -- kind of like how our DCS Viper once had that capability. :( Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
  8. First of all, let's be clear that we are dealing with a video game, and not a true simulator, regardless of marketing. All modules in DCS are symbols of their class, not 1:1 models of an individual particular machine that existed in the world. If the block 50 viper is capable of carrying smart weapons on 4/6 -- which it is, either in the service of other nations, or with some modification in US service, then it should be represented in the game. We're not going to get MLU Vipers, nor are we likely to get A model vipers -- so whatever ED makes needs to stand in for F-16s both past and future. All the other jets in the game are amalgamations and symbols of a class. Look at the F-15C for example, should its early representation allow the carrying of 120Cs? Or the MiG-29, should it be able to carry three types of missiles the way it now does (it shouldn't). Should the US hornet carry a Spanish TGP? This game is all about compromises, and like any simulation-game, requires a suspension of disbelief to be fun. So we know that what ED is trying to model here could carry and use smart weapons on 4/6 with a wiring modification. We also know that as a symbol of the viper, it gives the most flexibility to players to have the system stand as it was -- and that doesn't interfere with anyone else's enjoyment, and if it did ... That can be limited server / mission side. Part of this issue is guys coming in here asking for options and capabilities to be removed from the viper, when we really need that dev time spent on important system implementations. You don't see guys in other forum sections begging for capability to be removed from other jets for the sake of "realism." Remember, authenticity and realism are moving targets, they change at the same rate they occur. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
  9. 100% agree. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
  10. That's true. I was told about a month. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
  11. Because at the direction of the operator, the wiring was removed -- but that's a reversible decision; and not all that difficult in the scheme of things. We're talking about one wiring harness here. And the plane was designed with the ability and intent that this feature be used. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
  12. Right, it should not be a module restriction if the jet is capable of it /was capable of it before 2007 -- it's an operator limitation. I've flown 4 jets in my career, 3 for the USAF -- There are always capabilities or features that are not used procedurally that once were or could be again. If I were making a sim (and I'm glad I'm not, and I'm thankful that others are), i would not tie people's hands behind their backs because of an operator limit. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
  13. It depends. It's an operator limitation vs an aircraft capability limitation. It's not unlike the old discussion that the jet was too fast on the deck -- people wanted ED to take away thrust or otherwise modify the top speed of the jet, because it was exceeding the limit of the canopy glass. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
  14. Perhaps someone will create a mod to enable HARM on 4/6 -- it would be like running the viper with CFTs. The community has proven itself more than capable of fixing mistakes and improvising solutions before ED gets to them. While the 2007 ANG vipers don't have the wiring for HARM, it wouldn't be that difficult to install the wiring; and other partner nations have it. The best thing I read in regards to this is a comparison with the Hornet -- hornet pilots IRL don't use the over-G paddle switch, nor do USN hornets use the Spanish litening TGP -- But there they are in DCS. Maybe those things should be removed for realism. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
  15. It's frustrating, it's technically possible to use smart weapons on 4/6 with a wiring modification; nothing in the design that prevents it. As far as ferrying HARMs on 4/6 -- that would be cool if we were in a whole-world sim and had a totally working INS system and a persistent dynamic campaign with warehouse system. I'm just frustrated by this move to limit one jet for "realism" while allowing complete fantasy in other mods. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
  16. They're talking about noise that could cause deflection of the cursor axis, not stick axis. In SP mode, with TGP as SOI, and in CCRP with a bomb selected, you can TMS Up or TMS Right to stabilize the pod on the ground. Infinitely easier to use a steerpoint though. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
  17. It is indeed a problem on the final 120 off your rail. Thanks for bringing it up. We should probably post a quick track. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
  18. In terms of pitch trim, it is modeled correctly. One click of trim on the stick will adjust your trim by 0.1 Gs. The FLCS uses G demand for anything less than 15 AOA. Applies to the trim as well. So you can let go of the stick, and see that your Gs are 1.3 positive --- 3 clicks nose down will get you back to a 1G jet. I think it's pretty awesome that ED figured out how to code that part of the FLCS. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
  19. Those are all valid questions, and ones that we need to do a better job answering for guys who are new to the module or the hobby. And it's hard to keep up to date, since things change all the time. Luckily.... This sim has a lot of passionate people who really dig into the details of how things work and what that means. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
  20. For sure. Not trying to assign blame, you guys are doing your job and doing it well in an often unnecessarily tough environment. Please don't think that I'm not supportive of the work the mods do around here. I think for those who flew the jet in real life, or have access to the real docs -- it's often easier and safer to just say "go check out how it works there -- it's something like that." It's also said with a belief that ED will get there eventually, and go beyond in terms of realism and functionality (as it already has in a few fields). No one wants to imply that just anything should be a source of data. Some things, however, can be a useful reference when trying to explain a pretty complex world to guys who maybe just entered the world of combat aviation. I'm often thinking of ways to help guys who just got into flight sims navigate the complexities of employing early access modules -- thought and resources have to go into that from the community so that they get hooked the way that so many of us did 20-30 years ago. So, when a poster, like the OP here, asks about a switchology issue or had a switchology problem, i think it's often a context-problem with situating the jet within the broader arena of theater level air war. So, when people here write something like "go check out how this stuff works in this other thing".... It's really the difference between how you can develop tactics and employ an aircraft that is early access vs one that isn't. Perhaps I should make an informative video showing some of the tactical uses that the current version of the jet is great at, as well as mission sets that are limited by the current EA state. To get this back on topic to the OP -- One's expectations of the jet have to be adjusted to the current capabilities of the module. You really won't get frustrated with the module or the TGP, of you build your tactics and missions around the current capabilities of the jet. Sorry for the long post, 9 years of graduate school broke my ability to be brief. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
  21. It's not untrue. Fysa, moderators on this forum can be pretty sensitive to any comparison with other sims / will say the thread is off topic and lock it. It's their forum, so we can't really complain. It doesn't always adhere to the standards of civil discourse we are used to in our culture. As far as ease of use of the TGP (or any other sensor) -- i really think the issue is that aside from the HTS, the viper isn't the best tool for dynamic targeting where it has to generate coordinates from the pilot's eyeballs. A more realistic dynamic targeting scenario would be where you get a message from a controlling agency that such and such a drone or sensor has detected some activity at X coordinates or bullseye location, and asks you to go take a look. You could then punch in the cords and go look. A more recent version of the software (not sure if this existed in 07) has a PRE page in the DED where you can punch in a "threat" by bullseye location, set the size of the ring to display, and label it. Theoretically you could then hook that on the HSD and slave your sensors there. Maybe just slaving your HSD cursor there and making a mark point would be easier -- I'm not sure what's the best answer -- i fly big airplanes and probably over complicate things. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
  22. No, it won't take them currently on a stored heading alignment. Whatever you type in will be kicked out, and the location where the jet started will be displayed again. You can re-enter your current position if you do a full INS alignment. The -1 has a procedure for shutting down the jet where it will be ready for a stored heading alignment the next time you start -- but it doesn't take in DCS. If memory serves me right (which it probably doesn't) -- you are supposed to cock the alignment by going from NAV to Stored Heading for 10 seconds and then to off. I honestly don't remember, but i spent a few attempts doing the checklist procedure from the -1, and DCS always replaces where you should be with where the jet started in the mission. Not sure if it's a "Bug" or another half-implemented system. I'm holding off on making a bug report until the team starts really working on the avionics. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
  23. What would be great is if we could cock the jet for a future stored heading alignment in the same session. Right now, If you shut down using the stored heading alignment, and then start the jet back up, the stored heading coordinates revert to where the jet was when you started the mission. So.... What you can't do is fly across the map, shut down, and then fire back up after eating lunch to fly back across the map using a stored heading alignment. It would be nice to see that modeled. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
  24. Right now, the viper works great as a strike fighter. Set a steerpoint in your target area if you don't have the exact target coordinate, and use the TGP as you approach the target from medium altitude, or use it in your pop from low-altitude to fine tune the target location for weapons employment. It also works great in dynamic CAS with a JTAC who gives you coordinates that you can punch in. Both of these things require a little bit of mission planning and in the case of CAS, some friends to JTAC for you. When it comes to single player, just roaming around a kill box looking for things to blow up isn't the viper's strong suit. But, if you think about the design philosophy of the aircraft.... It makes sense that it wouldn't be. Dynamic targeting is complex, and we don't have the network of resources that would make it more viable in DCS. Now, If you could get a lat/long to check out from some other agency -- that would be different. FREDERF knows what he's talking about, he is very well read when it comes to this skill set. It will get easier when it is further along -- and if, for now, you always use the jet in relation to steer points, it's a beautiful system. That air to air TGP stuff sounds awesome -- approaching a poor man's sensor fusion. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
  25. It would seem it depends on when we are talking about, and which partner. What I wrote above is correct for most USAF jets in at least the last few years -- but recent avionics pubs from other nations show other things. And i don't have the US pub for the 2007 time-frame software that DCS is trying to replicate. Time to Impact on the TGP is helpful though when coordinating simultaneous attacks. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
  • Create New...