Jump to content

Rick50

Members
  • Posts

    1018
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Rick50

  1. Rick50

    An2

    All true, but economies of scale can also get balanced against total aircraft replacement, suddenly that "extra expensive part" might look quite reasonable, when priced against say a brand new Viking Twin Otter at 2019 prices! Edit: not that the owner of a Colt is really gonna be in the market for a Viking Twotter, but just making a point about parts replacement vs the alternatives
  2. I'm 99% sure he's using this for his hardware head tracking: https://delanengineering.com/
  3. I'm blown away by the quality of the work being done here! I have to wonder though: is anyone working on, or planning to work on a full proper flyable F-104, that we might enjoy? i mean this AI is beautiful, but I kinda wanna fly a classic CF-104 silver dart myself some day!
  4. Not that it's going to be exactly the same as the earlier Tomcat, but in one of the manuals for the DCS Hornet, the IR COOL switch was described as for cooling the IR seeker head to be better able to discriminate and track heat sources than if not engaged, that it took about 5 minutes to achieve maximum cooling effect, and that (in the Hornet) it would cool the missiles for about 3 hours. I think the cooling increases the contrast for the seeker, making better seeker performance. Now, a couple of things: these systems are not all the same. On Navy Sidewinders, the cooling tank is inside the missile, while the Airforce features cooling tank is inside the launch rail. Different cooling gasses too, I think one uses CO2 and the other Nitrogen N2. It's likely that earlier versions may have had much shorter "cooling" endurance as stated in this thread. I'm not sure if early 'Winders used this kind of cooling at all, for instance during the Vietnam war, anyone know about this? I do know there was a very drastic improvement in Sidewinder performance once the Lima showed up, before that it was just "ok".
  5. woah.... Never thought flight sims were ever going to look better than the average picture... yet here we are...
  6. Yea, but consider that today's DCS dev teams are probably closer in size to game dev team size in say 1999-2002, while the giant "console BLOCKBUSTER!!!1!" projects have grown stupid-massive. It might be like comparing a low budget "independent movie" to say the latest "Transformers" monster... different budgets, different goals, different customers, different ROI expectations, and different people working on the teams to accomplish it. I'm just glad DCS and it's related products exist at all! :pilotfly: Edit: Ok so as a for instance, the RAZBAM team is apparently numbering ten employees, if I'm understanding their page correctly: https://razbamsimulations.com/index.php/our-team
  7. I believe most USB devices get assigned unique device identifier, so that in the case of an external numpad, you can usually assign a different macro / function to the seemingly "same key". And just put a new label on the key top. BUT... I believe that SOME numpads have a "protected" function built in that will prevent you from doing reassigning. So its best to check before you buy. I don't recall the official term for this, and the same may apply to full size keyboards too.
  8. President Airlock: "So say we all!!":thumbup:
  9. Ok, I have an additional AI suggestion: Earlier B-52D's, with the big tail, and "Big Belly" versions, some were dark camo top and black underneath for night missions over Vietnam, and others were big silver and white spectacles of aluminum engineering. Why? Because Vietnam era and earlier Cold War era, and because they look significantly different from the shape of a modern short tail BUFF!
  10. Sure, I get that. But you will notice that the only request I asked for was POSSIBLY the refuel probe, which I didn't realize was model specific. Notice that the discussion of 'heaters was only ASKING for more INFORMATION. I figured the makers of the Tiger module know what they are doing, and would not make such a simple mistake. But I was looking for clarification about whether ANY F-5's, not just the Tiger 2, not just the E model, not just units in American service, but ANY F-5's ever carried more than two rails. Thank you all for the information! :thumbup: :joystick:
  11. So maybe they'll resurrect a few Tomcats from the Boneyard to act as Aggressor Squadron... to act as the real world Mig-31? Seems slightly plausible to me! Big long range radar, speed and angels... Nice repaint! Sorry for the earlier thread hijack!
  12. Figured I'd start a list of AI types that you'd like to see in DCS, and please tell us why you'd like it included, as sometimes the reason you want it might help make it happen! Ok, I think this AI aircraft USED to be in DCS, but I think it's been gone since before V2.0, and I'd like to see it back: McDonnell Douglas KC-10 Extender Why? Because it's big, it's seen in all the big air operations in the West. It's able to fuel by boom for the USAF, and by hose/basket drogue for everyone else, AT THE SAME TIME. Meaning missions that are multinational, or multi-service anyway. Want Hornets to escort a JSTAR's? Extender can fuel all of you! Even if you are happy with the KC-135, the Extender brings double the fuel to transfer to your fighters. And sometimes you can drain those '135's, so the Extender may be of use to you for such missions. Is this a problem for most people? Probably not. But having the option of having this for fuel could be nice for some. In a recent video, one group sent up four KC-135 tankers, and drained them before the mission was done, where using Extenders could have offered double the fuel. Another reason: it IS in use by not only the USAF for all American military, but also the Netherlands has two units, and civilian air tanker contractors like Global and Omega also operate one each, and they might be contracted to any number of countries. Is this absolutely necessary? Well probably not, but it would be quite a sight to see at an airfield, and does offer a real benefit to those needing to refuel a dozen fast-movers for long ranges!
  13. Sometimes that is the case. But sometimes not. I know that air to air refueling may SOMETIMES start to become a bit "routine" for very experienced pilots in certain airframes taking fuel from certain tankers... but generally most seem to find it a challenge in most airframes from most tankers. There are lots of little things that cause extra stress and complications with certain combinations. C-5 Galaxy pilots have a steep learning curve when tanking, because their jet creates such a "bow-wave" that it interferes with the tanker! Oh, they do it all the time, but it's not exactly "easy" either. On some KC-135's they have sometimes put a short 10 foot hose/basket drogue onto the end of the boom, so that Navy and Marine jets can fuel from USAF booms. Sounds good right? Extra mission flexibility! But the Marines and Naval people hate this apparently. Why? Because the hose is so short, you are at just as much stress during fuel transfer as when trying to get the basket... because that boom is just 7 feet away from you... normally a basket hose can be pushed forward or to the sides a bit with no appreciable risk, but with a boom not moving, and yet they have to make sure the basket is secure onto probe... well it's super intense for them for the entire fuel transfer. It's different when they have a long hose situation: not easy to hit the basket, but once in, they can relax a LITTLE bit and not worry about collision. Boom refueling, well another animal... it works for large aircraft, but you are getting awfully close to the tanker, and you are kind of at the mercy of the tanker pilot and boom operator. The point being, it's not really easy. And despite it being done a lot by professionals with few accidents, the fact is, there is significant risk there just the same. Saw a TV show where a military contractor (Omega tankers??) was supporting some Marine Hornets doing field exercises with JTAC trainees to do CAS runs. The tanker was to increase time on station for the Hornets. One of the Hornet pilots was really struggling to get the basket, tried several times until he finally got it. He got very close to the point where he was going to have to RTB due to fuel consumption while attempting to tank. Fortunately for him he did get the basket, got fuel and continued his assigned tasking of training JTAC's! Sometimes when we get good at something, after a while we sometimes tend to think "bah, that was easy", when really it wasn't, we just learned from experience, built upon it until it seemed routine, and kept our skills sharp. Doesn't mean it was easy, we just got better at it.
  14. How about some two seat Hornets like the D versions? I mean, we'll have AI units anyway, may as well have some using a different variant. I seem to recall that some D two seaters used the rear seat for night strike missions, so that the pilot could concentrate on flying and situational awareness and leave the target recognition and designation up to the "guy in back". just a thought! Could also use some A-7's as AI too, for the Tomcat era, as well as the Vietnam era too, where those were really busy. I don't really have to mention the A-6 since it seems two different dev teams seem to have promised to make Intruders!
  15. This is amazing!! Fun jet to fly! Any chance of including another airframe without the "Camel hump" though? That way the Blue Angels can look like the Blue Angels? According to Wiki they flew the Douglas A-4F Skyhawk II
  16. LOL!! Looks like you guys are having fun!
  17. Rick50

    Free Map

    That would be fun to fly!:thumbup:
  18. Ok so for some reason, I seemed to have a fuzzy memory on this, but I had been under the impression that at least one airforce had on occasion mounted FOUR sidewinders on the F-5 at some point, instead of the usual two. Meaning, two extras carried under the wing on pylons. But just now, having not seen this in very long time, decided to check pictures from Google image search, and not one of them had more than the standard two on the wingtips. So I thought "ok I must be remembering this wrong". Yet a look at the Wiki page for the F-5 suggests it can carry 4 Sidewinders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-5#Specifications_(F-5E_Tiger_II) So now i'm confused. I know this was not common if it's real, but... is it true? Did any of them have wiring to have two extra rails on lower pylons? I know that some CF-5's had wingtip tanks, they were sorta shaped like an old glass Coke bottle, maybe us Canucks sometimes carried 'Winders on rails because the wingtips had fuel?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CF-5 On another subject, is it possible to add the air refueling probe added as a option? I know it was fixed, meaning it did not fold out of the way, and most users did not use this, but considering the range limitations, and that some users might want more fuel for longer strike missions, maybe this might be a worthwhile addon? I'm not sure, maybe the probe was unique to CF-5's only...
  19. Wow... are there any like this for the other maps, or is this unique right now? Seems like an important tool for the pilot who's low on fuel, or lacking a working advanced navigation... say as if your HUD has failed, at least you can roughly get places.
  20. I'd buy it! ...but I'd suggest not holding your breath waiting for one! Unfortunately, some aircraft are quite complex, and that means lots of work by developers, that could more swiftly create a simpler aircraft and bring in sales revenue. And they need to bring in money or they are not in the business of making addons for us. Gripen would be similarly complex to a Hornet or Harrier or Viper, unlike say a Crusader or Scooter. Also, and this is another unfortunate thing, some aircraft are not very well known outside of the hardcore combat aircraft enthusiast... Lots of people know what a Warthog Blackbird or Hornet is... and EVERYONE, including many who don't really care for planes, know the Tomcat from a certain cheezy movie whose title escapes me now... but most of the population don't even know the JAS-39 Gripen even exists, and if I told them about it, they'd ask me if DCS had F-22 Raptors because reasons. But like I said, I'd buy it!
  21. Wow, been so long I'd forgotten all about this! But I do remember hearing about this kind of thing back in the 1980's, might have been stories about the 1970's era though. I seem to recall that this might have been done a little by a handful of Phantom drivers in the Nam era... but memory hazy on that.
  22. Harrier FARPs on German roads were common in the 1980's...
  23. The reason I suggest three different eras of the same region, is so that in the modern one it matches our Hornets and Harriers (and Vipers whenever it shows up), in the Korean War the very different look would be correct for early Migs and Sabres... and the early 80's so that we can make use of the A-4 skyhawks, F-5 Tigers, Mig-19's, Tomcats and other jets in the pipeline!
  24. hmmm love the creativity! I'm a little skeptical how durable that will be over months and years of use, so let us know in future!
  25. wow... no one saw this early 80's Clint Eastwood movie?? The premise is, he's an experienced American fighter pilot, (I think flying Aggressor Sqn ), but unusually, he also speaks Russian. The West learns of the Soviet "Firefox Mig-31" and get very concerned... it's somewhat stealthy, very maneuverable, and capable of speeds beyond the Blackbird, and huge fuel reserves. Oh ya... and it can be controlled by thought, it reads your mind. Faster to react, they say. But they realize, the pilot needs to "THINK IN RUSSIAN" to fly it. In a panic, the Americans and Brits launch a plan... TO STEAL THE JET! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_(film) Ok, so it's not the best action movie... but it was pretty good to inspire me until Top Gun showed up years later! Then again, Blue Thunder featured real footage of helicopters doing crazy maneuvers in urban Los Angeles... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Thunder
×
×
  • Create New...