Jump to content

Snappy

Members
  • Posts

    569
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Snappy

  1. Hi , first off, Im sorry for my snarky initial reply, I just reflected on that.Thats was unwarranted.Will edit it. As for your maximum speed question, I cannot answer that. I do not know what makes that the maximum at SL, whether the canopy starts to melt or the engine can’t take it and how long it would take in reality for adverse effects to set in. DCS is not simulating these effects. But maybe someone more knowledgeable can tell you. Kind regards&have a nice day. Snappy
  2. There might differences in other areas ,like different drag , different engine inlet construction etc..
  3. How should ED determine the limits for any of their aircraft?
  4. @DSplayer , @bonesvf103, ok to get back to this, I think I found the video / point in it about the option to send an go active command to an inflight phoenix. Unfortunately Ward Carroll doesn't explicitly name the switch, but to me it definitely sounds like there was a way to make a phoenix go active. Though its a bit confusing. It was in this video in his interview with the two guys from vVF-161 at 1:28:49 onwards.(dont know how to do a direct timestamp in the link, sorry) He talks about launching fox 3, then the enemy aircraft go into notch , ( making the missile go dumb, I would say he means from loss of radar guidance) and then goes on talking about going active to see if the phoenix is able to aquire the targets on its own . At least to me it seems like he is not talking about a phoenix that was launched active off the rail, because then it would make not sense to make it go active, as it already would've been active from the get-go. Like I said, its not proof, but at least to me, it sounds like this sort of functionality was available in some way at some point. But Im no expert on the weapon systems. Maybe you can have a look at it and share your opinion. Thanks and regards, Snappy
  5. @IronMike, could this also be please be looked at with some priority. Cobra already wanted to highlight this, but there is still no fix to this old and annoying bug. Kind regards, Snappy
  6. Not exactly proof, as he might have misremembered , but I think in one of the recent of Ward Carrols videos (probably either his BVR timeline vid or that other with the Q&A of those two virtual squadron members) he mentioned this too if I understood him correctly. I.e. pushing a switch in order to send a signal to the already launched phoenixes to go active and allow the aircraft to turn away.I might be mistaken though. Don’t have the time right now to look it up, if I get around to it, I can look for a time stamp. regards, Snappy
  7. well in part you have my understanding for the resource realities , but at the same time I find this very disappointing, especially the part that heatblur is basically really unable to keep even a basic developer presence in the Viggen forums. And honestly, while I appreciate you trying to keep at least a low level track of things, PMing you is in my opinion a less than ideal solution, especially since I remember from a few threads related to this in the tomcat forums, that you can’t keep up with your inbox and stuff gets lost in there as well.( No criticism meant here to you in this regard, I can only imagine the number of PMs you get each day) I definitely agree with QuiGon , as of now I really don’t see the Viggen at a point where it entered a sort of maintenance mode and can get less attention as an older module and constantly draw the short straw in regards to updates. In fact on the contrary , the near constant lack of decent-sized bug fixing has now led to the point where many bugs, some of them have piled up, in the Viggen , plus tons of unanswered reports in the forums. So instead of basic occasional maintenance it actually needs a lot of concentrated bug fixing. regards, Snappy
  8. I would say it depends, if you have a personal affinity to it, or to cold war era aircraft or are specifically looking for something thats easy to operate systems-wise, then you can consider it. However, me personally I don‘t buy into the “trainer” role in DCS as a sort of step up to more complex aircraft .This makes sense in the real world, but not in DCS. I would just go straight to the end-goal aircraft you’re interested in, if you have one that is. Also , again, just my personal position, given the state of the F-5 and the way ED treats the F-5 customers in regards to fixing bugs, I would not give them my money for this product. regards, Snappy
  9. I know what Cobra wrote , I followed this thread closely , I’m not even talking about major texture or sound overhauls or features, it would be just simply be awesome if the Viggen at least got a decent amount of fixing of the many existing bugs in each update, similar to the Tomcat. Look at change log, the ratio is like 5:1 if you eyeball it and this seems to me to be the standard for many of the updates in the past months, not to say year. Anyway I’m looking what the november update brings but excuse me if I remain pessimistic about this, especially with the big Tomcat / Forrestal update happening just one month before with the potential for lots of additional fixing afterwards..
  10. Looks like once again the Viggen got the short straw compared to the F-14..
  11. Not too happy with the way Viggen development is handled either. Way too many big claims and announcements on priority (as desert fox impressively summarized) and far too little of actual substance in updates and bug fixing. Developer presence in the forums is still hovering near zero , only interspersed with Cobra popping in with the next big update announcement. What annoys me are the claims of “Viggen is priority now, we are pushing ressouces into the final stretch bla bla” only to find out via changelog the Tomcat again and again gets the updates , while Viggen draws the short straw. Regards, Snappy
  12. Not so sure about that. It actually seems that the very point of upgrading from CBU 97 to CBU-105 was to significantly increase its accuracy and bringing it to precision guided munitions status by adding the WCMD and GPS guidance. The weapon itself may not have it, the GPS for it apparently was planned but dropped, but only because the delivery aircraft are fitted with GPS and it gets a final accurate position from that aircraft GPS just before launch. I don't think the VIggen would get anywhere near that GPS accuracy for release , because a) its ADR system is accumulating much larger errors over time and b) the TERNAV system that's used to update it/reduce errors would not work at the release altitudes that you proposed, because it is based on radar altimeter data and that becomes unusable at such altitudes, radar alt normally works reliably only until up to approx 2500-3000 ft . So in order to get a decent base accuracy for the BK-90 release the Viggen most likely has to stay low . Plus the CBU-105 entered service quite a bit later (in 98 I think) so its onboard processors for the flight path computation in the WCMD kit are probably more capable in regards to navigational calculations and drift compensation. ---- Yea, I read that part too about the supposed fail-proof - leave behind submunition in the Bk-90, which supposedly can't explode later. Not sure how much of that is marketing and whether I buy into that . Even if its true, it didn't make it significantly more political / ethical acceptable in reality.
  13. Well, of course I'm not qualified to say whether or not the real weapon would be capable of such a feat in theory. I would think heatblur modelled the HUD symbology correctly. I could imagine though , one possible reason for why they (the swedes) didn't implement or didn't want to do high alt & long range stand off releases with that weapon: The higher and farther away you release, the greater the possible navigational error of the weapon enroute to target is going to be. Plus , at higher altitudes in reality you get usually/often significantly stronger winds than down low , so those might either further degrade the accuracy or worse push the weapon out of its envelope, make it impossible to reach the intended target. Plus the winds might change a lot on the way down in direction and intensity. Consider the development background time too, the early 90s, that means GPS was either still exclusive US military use or even if it was after it was made publicly available, that was initially in its less accurate mode. So you don't get that accuracy. So I'd guess the weapon guides on inertial only. I don't know how good or accurate the system in it was and how accurate the data it was fed from the aircraft was on average under actual battlefield conditions. So given all of the above, and also the general political /ethical image of cluster ammunition, I can easily imagine the swedes wanting to keep the possibility of their submunitions landing somewhere else and not on target as low as possible, even if it was deemed a necessary weapon for them. Could be totally wrong though, As for DCS, at lot of things there are modelled too perfect , so I'm not surprised that the weapon functions well from further away, but many factors are probaby not simulated that affect the real weapons, as well as a lacking weather / wind simulation. Snappy
  14. And what exactly would be the benefit of you posting it? It will not make the modules release faster or whatever. DCS has enough overblown hypetrains already. Maybe just leave it to Heatblur to announce when they want to announce and in the way they want to announce.
  15. This is almost certainly not true. The latest official statement from ED was, ( I think in the Hind developer FAQ/Interview) that LTE is presently not modelled in any of the helicopter flight model in DCS, due to the complexity of the calculations involved to model it accurately. Snappy
  16. Maybe I was imagening things, I'll pay closer attention, next time I fly it.
  17. Not sure about that. Might depend on selected aircraft type for opponent, as I have see them use the vertical in the other sim too. Plus there at least they use the same FM as the player. Regarding DCS AI, my experience is, that the AI seems to start its looping once you reach an offensive position. Then it seems like "oh I have no other ideas, lets start looping until the player shoots me down".
  18. Completely agree, AI behaviour and their flight modelling are by far the weakest area of DCS. Which is unfortunately very immersion breaking since it’s an integral part of any combat flight simulation. Hearing Nineline say that he and Nick Grey think it’s actually not too bad in the Air Combat Sim podcast interview didn’t really go down well with me personally. I mean sure they’re entitled to their own opinion, but it left the feeling of not being able to accept justified criticism. DCS does a lot of things well, but AI and their FM are really bad.
  19. No you haven’t.Going 400plus kts in 1 circle isn’t very good idea in my opinion either, certainly not with fox 2 and even guns only you’re just making it easier for your opponent to get into offensive position, not just against an F-14, but just about against anything semi -capable. That way he can go slightly slower than you and still get easily inside your radius while still keeping reasonably high speed /energy for follow on maneuvering. Exception to this might be if you merge head-on at medium-to high alt and both pull up straight into a vertical 1circle, but even then I’d try to check his pre-merge speed to get an idea for his possible next move. I mean, if he’s zipping by at 500+kts and then pulls up, sure then go vertical 1circle at 400-450 with your T/W, but otherwise I agree with you, I wouldn’t go that fast for 1 circle either. regards, Snappy
  20. The entire thread is pointless.There are way too many variables (for starters OAT, air pressure ,exact aircraft specs and I don’t mean loadout and many more..)involved in the video/real world example which you simply cannot know and therefore not replicate , plus others you may think you know but can’t replicate accurately enough . All these affect aircraft performance and make these comparisons completely void for any meaningful performance assessment of the FM. Edit: HWasp partly beat me to it while I was typing
  21. Depends on what you wanna do with it. If you can’t effectively turn with the easy-to-fly Hornet which is actually performing suspiciously well in that regard , then you maybe won’t have fun in the F-14 in a close in fight. system-wise it’s somewhat more analogue and hands-on, getting good situational awareness in it requires some mental work, not sure if that appeals to you or not. regards, Snappy
  22. Interesting, thank you. I honestly don't know why he is saying that . Maybe he was referring to that they didn't get them directly from the US included with the F-14 deliveries. Even while he is talking, the picture in the background shows the F-14 of the IIAF with Aim-9 and Aim-7 , not that it means much. Or maybe not all units got them. But I am wondering. I have read several times that they indeed had both missiles and if you look up the air to air statistics you will see that there were several listed with Aim-9 and Aim-7 by the F-14. I don't know why there is this discrepancy. Regards, Snappy Edit: It is really a bit confusing. Here is an interview with another iranian F-14 pilot and he mentions that Iran originally ordered Aim-7 and Aim-9 for the F-14 but the deal fell throug with the hostage crisis and he goes on to say that there were compatibility issues with the variants of the Aim-7/9 carried by their F-4s. But then again later , in the question about the kill ratio , he explicitly mentions them as well. Nevertheless interesting & detailed interview if you haven't read it already: https://hushkit.net/2020/04/07/interview-with-the-greatest-living-fighter-ace-f-14-tomcat-pilot-col-rtd-fereydoun-a-mazandarani/ Right now I tend to think, with the deliveries of the F-14 they initially only got the Aim-54, with the Aim-9 and &7 being on order, which then got cancelled and then they adopted some of the Aim-9/7 from their phantoms. Maybe someone else can chime in with more detailed info.
  23. Not sure why you think that they didn't have Aim-9 and Aim-7. I think they actually carried both. I think one type (likely the Aim-9) they got straight from the get go and the other one was added shortly after the war began. Can't get the details back together right now. I think they transferred the sparrows from the their Phantoms, after the revolution and the lost support from the US. Regards, Snappy Edit:This thread discussed the early loadouts as well ( look further down in the posts): One example , quote from Magot: " There is list differencies Iranian F-14A GR IIAF/ IRIAF in time (1979-1980) against F-14A US NAVY - downgraded ECM - downgraded ECCM - AWG-9 changed frequencies or jumped wavelengths/ counter jammings - Processors was slowered about 1/100 against US NAVY F-14A processors - APX-81-M1E IFF system for Iranians could only detect and interoggate transponders of Soviet origin Air to Air loadout AIM-54A Phoenix - ECCM was there a bit downgraded against same AIM-54A used in same time in US NAVY AIM-7E-4 Sparrow - from deliveries for F-4s for IIAF (AIM-7F never been delivered to Iran, but before islamic revolution it was planned) AIM-9P2 /P3 Sidewinder- from deliveries for F-4s/ F-14As for IIAF Engine: TF30-PW-414 (Was less prone to stall engine than original engine TF30-PW-412 mounted to first series of F-14A for US Navy) There are some source data about use microprocessor in F-14A http://firstmicroprocessor.com/"..
  24. Agree with you, but that bug report hasn’t even been acknowledged or marked as reported by ED. Personally I doubt they’re able and/or willing to change the track replay system. regards, Snappy
×
×
  • Create New...