Jump to content

Rick50

Members
  • Posts

    1004
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Rick50

  1. FBW was not all created equal, or the same. Prevention of over-G was likely not considered for bombers and cargo in the early days... even for fighters it seemed more an afterthought at the very start. Nowdays it seems prudent to include such limits on everything that flies.
  2. MAYBE... maybe they are working on such a plan. No, this is not a hint, I don't "know" anything. But sometimes, when trying something new, early "tests" and "prototypes" get created, not shown to the public. I'm guessing is making some simple tests to try and determine the best route forward... Thing is, making a global map needs many resources. FS9 had one of the world's most powerful giants to help develop it. XP10 or 11 is more impressive for the tiny team that makes it... but they depend quite a lot on the community users to help upgrade it's world, especially airport layouts submitted by users, and lots of freeware scenery makers. And despite all that, sometimes XP11 can look amazing... and sometimes look potatoe... it's a monumental task. It all makes the latest MSFS2020 look like an "impossible dream". Not actually impossible, but seeming to require soooo much efforts from data resources, from teams of humans, from AI and photogrametry (requires big number crunching), many manual corrections... and then a truly VAST cloud-based data distributor for the users to syphon from. MS partnered with several other companies to make that all happen. For ED to do similar would likely require several partnerships. I have no idea about the financial needs to do this. "proof of concept" is a good term, for when someone has an idea, and wants to see if the idea might be worth trying, they will try testing the concept. I think maybe ED is near this stage for ideas for increasing map coverage. Maybe.
  3. Maybe... have you ever been qualified to drive a jeep with a head-mounted periscope ?
  4. I'm curious though about the fuel states for the aircraft in the diagram: was there any explanation for why the Phantom was at 65% but the Mig-21 was at 40% ?? Was that an expected fuel state for such engagements? It makes me wonder if the Mig Bingo state would only allow an extremely short engagement time.
  5. Right... but my post was not about adversaries. It was about the slight difference between the E and Navy variants.
  6. well... I don't "know" for absolute. But... CG is important for all airplanes, and fighters. So yes, the gun and it's ammo in the nose does put a lot of weight there, but I seem to remember something about a change to weight in the aft region to balance the weight... fuel tank: I don't think the CG would be a real issue, but the two new weights up front and at the tail, would likely slow down initial pitch inertia, especially while pulling G's. On the other hand, the internal E would probably be "sliperyer" aerodynamically than a big fat pod slung underneath... and neither is gonna be a hardcore dogfighter, because a flying anvil is still an anvil !! Navy might be a little more "pointable" even with the pod, and the E might be a little less draggy and that might give a slight edge in "dive extend away" a little better...? Might be splitting hairs here, with very minor differences, might not even notice sometimes, in the heat of a fight. well... I don't "know" for absolute. But... CG is important for all airplanes, and fighters. So yes, the gun and it's ammo in the nose does put a lot of weight there, but I seem to remember something about a change to weight in the aft region to balance the weight... fuel tank: I don't think the CG would be a real issue, but the two new weights up front and at the tail, would likely slow down initial pitch inertia, especially while pulling G's. On the other hand, the internal E would probably be "sliperyer" aerodynamically than a big fat pod slung underneath... and neither is gonna be a hardcore dogfighter, because a flying anvil is still an anvil !! Navy might be a little more "pointable" even with the pod, and the E might be a little less draggy and that might give a slight edge in "dive extend away" a little better...? Might be splitting hairs here, with very minor differences, might not even notice sometimes, in the heat of a fight.
  7. Rick50

    Mirage III info?

    A SuperSabre does sound cool, but honestly I really want the Mirage III, Phantom B and E, and F-8 Crusader all something fierce! Mirage for the history and bare metal looks, Phantom for the power and mission flexibility (almost everything under the sun?), and the Crusader for stunning good looks and being the last gunfighter! I also do think the F.1 has a cool factor, a pocket cruise missile, that's a bit unique in looks... it shares the "look like a mean weapon of war" look to it that the F4U Corsair, Phantom and Hornet share, though maybe with sharper look to it! Don't mind me, just asking for the whole world on a platter here!
  8. For a carrier variant, would it make more sense to choose the B ? I mean, because it was introduced earlier in the war, say compared to the J ? I think someone made that point already... Also, 649 built...
  9. Rick50

    Mirage III info?

    Hmm. Ok, thanks! Had been hoping they were a bit further along with it, but I do lookforward to the Bo-105 and A-29... the Lightning might be a fun rocketship! Huh... didn't know about the F-100 there.
  10. How many DCS modules are there, for multiple variants of the same airframe? I'm not talking say the Gazelle between ATGM vs cannon/rockets, but an actual different variant of the aircraft? Fw190 A-8 and Fw 190 D-9 Dora F-14B and... A (is it out yet?) A-10A and A-10C... one is full fidellity... but the other is FC "simpler". Su-27 and Su-33... but both are FC "low fidellity". Nothing wrong with that, but IMO it's not the same thing as expecting multiple variants in full fidellity. That's... not a long list. Three of them are low fidellity. Five are full fidellity.
  11. Rick50

    Mirage III info?

    Hi, I've seen occasional mention and a few screenshots of a Mirage III that I believe is being developed by the Razbam team. But I know nothing about the project! Is this meant to be AI only? Full fidellity flyable module? Arriving soon, or in some undefined distant future? I ask because it would make a great plane to fly for many maps, not just South Atlantic! Simpler than the flying server networks of today, but fast to altitude, has a real history...
  12. Minsky, thank you for your efforts! I believe you when you say you made a "literal translation of Kate's words" I believe there was no mistake in the interview OR the translation. I believe I made a mistake in concluding that it might be ED making this Phantom module, but now believe it's being made by a 3rd party dev, thanks to BigNewy's response saying it's not ED. But ED management would know about 3rd party devs getting near release time for a new module. Did she make a mistake in revealing this tiny scrap of info? No, I don't think so either... she didn't name the dev, nor did she give a release date, nor even a variant... all she did was answer a question about a well loved plane many of us want to see, and gave us hope that we'd probably see one soon! Now... could she have mistaken F4 for F-4, and forgotten the name of the aircraft? Not remembering the Corsair name and upon hearing the Phantom name with F4 just reflexively agreed? Possible I guess. But even if that were such a mistake, so be it, I make mistakes all the time, and I bet all of you make mistakes from time to time too, that's just part of life. I'd be far more disapointed if people got upset at her about such a mistake, than in realizing a Phantom was not arriving. Disapointed? Sure, yes, but upset at others, that wouldn't be fair. I just hope that over the next while we get more information that confirms or denies a Phabulous module! I ALSO hope this doesn't scare off ED from giving interviews, which is a real possible consequence of this fallout.
  13. I think long term, we'll see not only the Corsair, some carriers, but also Wildcats, Hellcats and others. I do wonder if they have a bomber quietly planned, like a B-25 Mitchel or something? Perhaps able to do both strategic and tactical missions? I vaguely recall camera footage of light bombers doing ultra low level bomb-let drops at maybe 50ft, lots of small charges, on a time delay fuze I think. Others have seen B-25 gunship variants, with 8 half inch Brownings, I think one even had a 76mm howitzer in it? But I think before all that, we need a Mitsubishi Zero, full fidellity module, to meet in the air!
  14. I'm curious but we'll never find out. HOWEVER... ED stating that a Phantom is "SOON"... and since they have no 3rd party projects to evaluate... suggests to me that it "might" be ED themselves who are making a Phantom (!!!!). MIGHT. Don't take that as fact, I'm just guessing based on slivers of info... but this might be the best news for the F-4 that we've had since ThirdWire ! EDIT: I only think it could be ED making it, because it was mentioned that ED did not have any current module submissions for evaluation at this time. However, thinking about the wording, that may be reaching for a conclusion too much. It may well be that ED knows of a 3rd party dev making a Phantom, that they think they are getting near completion or EA status, and will soon submit their module for evaluation and quality control. This interpretation seems more plausible, since just a year ago Nick Grey suggested in an interview with GR that ED would not be making a Phantom, but that 3rd party devs were welcome to do so for DCS (which is itself good news). Really, to my mind, as long as a Phantom module meets ED quality and high fidellity, with a minimum of bugs and crashes... really that's what I'm looking for, regardless of who makes it!
  15. Even ED doesn't seem to know, because neither Kiowa nor Strike Eagle have been submitted to ED for quality evaluation/approval yet. Actually they currently don't have anything submitted to look over, evertyhing is either already released and in our hands, or is still deep in development.
  16. Ooh... that's great news, a major change from what I'd last heard! AND a full fidellity Fulcrum Mig-29 ?! Just days ago it looked to be not happening... Wow, well, I welcome all of it! Did they mention if the Phantom is being worked on by ED or a 3rd party dev ?? I'm guessing it's too early to guess what variant or variants, unless they stated. I think when it was briefly discussed years ago I think they were aiming at a Gunslinger E, but that might have changed. Ok I just discovered I can get youtube to autotranslate... not perfect but makes the vid worth watching!
  17. I wouldn't be too excited either, to dogfight with British Harrier pilots armed with brand new Limas and itching for a good fight... with an hour or more of hostile, very cold ocean to swim home in, for even a tiny amount of damage... I mean, if you had to ditch 300km from land... that wouldn't just be very miserable, I'd be severely doubting successful rescue before dieing of hypothermia. Sure, maybe today with the very long range specialised rescue helos you might stand an ok chance... but in 1982 Argentinian service? Doubtful, I'd think. The Argentinian pilots did their job, followed the orders, and did what they could in the conditions they were stuck with. Might not be glamorous or inspire big movies, but I do think they ought to have pride just the same.
  18. Yes, lots and lots of hours of work, possibly into 10,000 hours of work for a module? I don't know, but whatever it is, it's a LOT. You are also quite correct about the pricepoint being really small for what you get (as long as there aren't bugs that cause game crashes). I think the money is about getting enough hardware, and money to live while it's in development. In the linked thread about the TU-22 Backfire project, the 3d modeller's computer broke, and was still struggling to get a machine up to restart work 2 months later. It's also mentioned that for them (and others, I strongly suspect), this was a side-job, an unpaid hobby effort that might see income for the efforts years later if sold well. Meaning, there was no monthly income for doing the work. No boss to complain to about getting a raise, as there was no paycheques! You put in some Backfire work, when you have some spare time, maybe between dinner and sleep. Maybe on holidays when you don't have to work for the paycheque to pay rent/mortgage/insurance/food/kids and so on. So yes, I do think most simulation devs are basically volunteers, until after their first commercial success, at which point they maybe start to morph into an actual functioning company... at that point it might increase to full time employment for the partners who started it, and the hiring of outside contractors to help, maybe hire a few part time employees. They didn't have ED's resources, and there was a time that ED likely didn't have much resources either, they have been working and growing for more than two decades, with HUGE experience and many module successes (and earlier sim versions like Flanker 2.5, LOMAC / LockOn, and so on). Code reuse... that I don't know. I used to think it was easy to do exactly that, but one day I remember someone, from ED I think, explaining that many things you'd think code for could be re-used, either "had to" be re-coded from scratch, or was just as much work as coding from scratch. Silver_Dragon posted this thread link, and since reading it myself, I understand why he did. The causes of project end, were a surprise to me, I hadn't even considered part of that as a possibility. Truly a must-read for anyone hoping to see complex modules for DCS, to appreciate the effort and understand:
  19. Brian, 3DArtistExtreme, alieneye... ...thank you, and any others in your team or who helped you with information access or advice and donations, for attempting this project, and for sharing the story of what went wrong. That can't be an easy thing to share, but I appreciate the effort!
  20. Drama. No need to forget. I didn't say it COULDN'T be done, I said "MAY" not be possible. There is a HUGE distinction between those two. You SHOULD check back in 2024... maybe by then you'll get a few screenshots of a Phantom cockpit. Maybe an EA release by 2026 or 7. The Hornet took over 3 years, from public announcement to EA release. That's with ED's larger crew, two decades of experience making combat flight sim content, and supportive community. All those other aircraft took many years and hoops to jump through to get permissions and data, the Harrier by Razbam, and all the others you listed by ED's amazing team. I'm curious about aircraft module projects that were started, not publicly announced, but failed in the dark, for this reason or that. We'll never find out, but I'm curious about past failed efforts, what the module was supposed be about, what kinds of reasons there were for the project failures, the ones we didn't hear about and likely never will. ED themselves had made talk and even a couple of screenshots of the Phantom F-4, several years ago... and then dropped it. I do not know the reasons why they dropped it. More recently, they stated they would not be pursuing the Phantom, but that they'd be ok with a 3rd party publishing a Phantom for the DCS world. Think about that... ED, with all it's capabilities, STARTED a Phantom... and then early on decided to stop. I'm not trying to kill off the dream... but overly optimistic enthusiasm for a module that doesn't appear to be chosen by a dev, or announced is mildly silly, and that's fine, it's nice to dream of a brighter future! I'm just offering a "devil's advocate" point of view so that people wandering into a thread don't get the mistaken idea that a Phantom or BUFF module is just months away from the store. People often jump to conclusions based on a few scraps of incomplete information, all the time. But if anyone is confident it's doable and will sell well enough for a workable profit, then start a "Kickstarter" and promote it in the forums here, and other flight simulation forums, I bet you could get enough funding to get a project going.
  21. Forget multiple variants, it may be TOO difficult to bring a single Phantom into DCS that would meet ED and us virtual fliers' minimum expectations. IF you get permission from Boeing... IF you get permission from USAF USN, you still may run into issues with the remaining Phantom Phlyers in Japans' JSDF, Turkish defense ministries and so on. IF you get legal permission to obtain the manuals.... IF there are enough subject matter experts, people who flew them for real and remember how it all works... who have time and patience to share their extensive knowledge... ... the manuals that are needed to actually rrepresent the real aircraft systems, it's detailed flight envelope, it's fire controls... might not be available at any price. As for variants, I'll bet that there are many more differences that the general public is unaware of, which would vastly complicate making additional variants. How much would you pay for a DCS Phantom with EVERY variant? And how many DCS flyers would follow you to that pricepoint?
  22. Caucasus map. start Anapa, fly west... keep flying west.
  23. incroyable!! Wasn't that long ago we wouldn't even get proper stitching in a wall texture...
×
×
  • Create New...