Jump to content

Rubberduck85

Members
  • Posts

    131
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Rubberduck85





  1. Again, realism as you intend it is only about how ANG use it as standard loadout, just doctrine. Again, this is not a doctrine simulator.
    You ARE telling people how to have fun by saying that the way they use it is not realistic enough, hence your idea of realism should translate into having them play as the ANG flies by their doctrine. This is called presumption.

    About the "sides" argument, i really don't get it. No one literally cares if you mount 1 agm65 with Lau-117 or 2/3 with lau-88.
    To me, it's even hilarious that someone is frustrated by it to the point of wasting time on it, still you do. So yes apparently it only applies to your "side".

    I will always stand against this "doctrine police" mentality, regardless of which game/simulation/module is discussed.
    I know, it's a lost cause with some people but then again maybe I'm presumptuous, maybe i don't realize that pretending to be a ANG pilot that flies according to a specific doctrine is the only true emotion in an otherwise dull existence.


    Regards

    Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

    • Like 3
  2.  
    It's very simple - what's true to reality?
     
    If the wiring isn't there in the real aircraft for the operator, variant and timeframe they're going for, then why should they be there in DCS?
    The current mav implementation is possible but not a standard loadout. ED's word.

    Possible =/= unrealistic.

    Not standard =/= impossible.

    No one is being unrealistic, someone likes using non standard loadout if they want.
    And guess what? It's not my case.

    Again DCS is a sandbox simulator, not a doctrine simulator. I would never dream to tell people how to have fun.

    If this fact represents a problem to the point that it's unbearable, this is called "OCD" in the clinical field and might require professional counseling.

    Regards


    Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

    • Like 1
  3.  
     
    This is not about what we like or don't like.
    It is about what is realistic for F-16 Viper Block 50 operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007 as determined by ED.
     
    ED has determined that AGM-88 HARM on stations 4 & 6 is not realistic for that time & place, and has disabled them.
    Following that logic, same should be done for LAU-88 as Wags himself has stated that it is not a valid loadout.
     
    If it was done for HARM, why should LAU-88 be an exception to this?
    We need to have some consistency, either allow all erroneous loadouts or none.  
     
     
     
    Source:
     
     
    Now it ain't about what we like or don't like? You explicitly mentioned arcade players and arcade way of playing, their mere existence ruining your personal immersion, influencing server missions. Had you refrained from such expressions i would have believed you.

    By the very same logic (simulating USAF/ANG 2007 BLK50 viper) let's remove Greek and Turkish liveries, as they are not operated by US air force.

    I'd go even further: let's make it impossible to play this module unless a 800€ force sensing stick is detected by the sim.

    I really appreciate ED's renewed progress on the module, I don't care about "only" 2 harms, and it has been discussed to death that mounting 2 Mavs per wing is not valid because by 2007 the only thing they were bombing were middleastern insurgents. Still they are there, man hours of development have been sunk into it and I'm perfectly fine with it and thanks to ED i have the privilege of choosing to go John Rambo style or pretend to be part of an air force.

    Again, do we want to simulate a warplane or a doctrine?
    I say let's stop telling people what they should do, give options and live a happy life.

    Regards



    Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

    • Like 18
  4.  
    I don't see the logic behind this check box that you propose, as it would still permit the arcade players to carry an invalid loadout.
    These players would very likely still fly their singleplayer missions with 6 Mavericks and perhaps even influence server admins to enable LAU-88 on public servers, therefore allowing the lack of realism to continue.
     
     


     
    I don't see the logic behind this check box that you propose, as it would still permit the arcade players to carry an invalid loadout.
    These players would very likely still fly their singleplayer missions with 6 Mavericks and perhaps even influence server admins to enable LAU-88 on public servers, therefore allowing the lack of realism to continue.
     
     


    And i don't see the sense in your proposal.
    Because arcade players exist, and they enjoy the product even with 6 mavericks whether YOU like it or not.

    Arcade/simulation liberties are even taken by ED, Just look at BS3, a "what if" of a prototype.

    You, with your proposal are telling other people ,unrelated to you, how they should have fun, and this is illiberal.

    The bit about: "These players would very likely still fly their singleplayer missions with 6 Mavericks" is really golden.

    As if Average Joe, playing singleplayer dcs on Friday night after a week of hard work is acting against nature by flying with 6 mavericks.

    My proposal allows freedom of choice and believe me, you are not alone: there will be multiplayer servers oriented to full hardcore realism.

    Regards

    Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

    • Like 14
  5. ED, thank you for the massive Viper patch and making that extra step towards realism. 
     
    Can something also be done about the inaccurate double and triple Mavericks on LAU-88 on stations 3 & 7?
    It is not an operationally valid loadout for the Viper being simulated in DCS and therefore shouldn't be an option in the simulator.
     
    I believe that this would be a beneficial addition to DCS, as it would encourage players to use realistic loadouts ( especially in multiplayer where 6x mavericks are a sight that is way too common).

    How about creating a "checkbox system" in the editor where in a mission, specific weapons quantities are allowed/forbidden?

    So you can have a mission where only 1 agm65 per wing is allowed, or 2 or 3.

    This way everyone wins: those who wants to be "one man air force" and those who cannot sleep at night knowing that "one man air force" people exist.

    ED could also call it "enforce the righteous realism upon those who err" checkbox, so it can make mission editors feel empowered.

    Also: can we have this consistent across all modules, even 3rd parties?


    Regards

    Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

    • Like 16
  6. Yeah, its all off of SPI, you can create four steer point on the target and cycle through them and drop on each, but you cannot just assign coordinates to the bomb like the PP mode in the hornet. Only some export blocks like IAF vipers have the capability to assign coordinates to each bomb.
    Maybe with markpoints created through TGP one could be able to cycle them after each JDAM release?

    Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

  7. Isn't this something that only the ground crew can change?
    It's a simplification, it's the same on the A-10C.

    Other modules such as F-14, F-16, Mirage, etc model this "correctly" as you have to change the code on the ground using the kneeboard.
    (You should be changing this in the rearm panel IMHO)

    Maybe this is a game design decision due to A-10 and F-18 being the flagship modules, to not overwhelm new users.

    I'd rather have consistency across modules but that's just me.

    Also cluster bombs burst altitude should be only selectable on the ground while the setting in the store management page is to have the bombing computer give the correct solution for the previously set BA.

    Regards

    Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

    • Like 4
  8. One of the biggest problem I have with the F-16 is that it has poor fuel endurance. I had several incidences that I'm running low on fuel in the middle of an air to air engagement and having to disengage and RTB because I left the afterburner running for too long (I blame War Thunder for this /s).  I usually run two fuel tanks so I'm wondering whether running three fuel tanks is worth it. Also, how do I when a fuel tank is empty so that I can jettison it?
    I never run 3 fuel tanks, mostly in preparation of the upcoming (202X) ECM pod.

    Also probably the drag of 3 tanks negates the benefits of additional fuel but i could be wrong.

    Generally, I try to fly as sleek as possible for greater range/endurance and speed.

    Regards

    Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

  9. Reported
     
    thank you
    Hi,

    A question.
    As mentioned by =Panther= the pylon currently used is not part of the aircraft but part of the external fuel tank.

    Is this being accounted for in the currently on-going FM review? I mean:

    1)the current "pylon" is removed together with the tanks if tanks are jettisoned (reducing drag)

    2)A new pylon is offered to mount weapons

    Thanks


    Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

  10. 6 hours ago, unknown said:

    M-SEL forgotten?

    quick and dirty video, maybe it helps, if i didn't get your point just ignore me:

     

    (should be 1440p after YT processing)

     

     

    6 hours ago, Florence201 said:

    As per my video mate, are you hitting MSEL once you have the VRP page up? VRP-PUP must be video inverted to correctly enter the data

     

    M-SEL completly missed! This time I was able to set it and with good results. Thank you!

     

  11. Hi,

     

    I've noticed that the VRP function in F-16 has been somewhat enabled after finding this video on youtube:

     

     

    however when i try, i cannot obtain any visual cue on the HUD.

     

    my workflow:

     

    1. target steerpoint currently selected (in my case STP 2)
    2. list -> 9 (VRP)
    3. dobber right to select "VRP to PUP"
    4. data entry for a PUP circle: STP 2, TBR 220.0° RNG 24000 feet, alt 6000 ft (roughly 4 NM to SSE of a STP located on the southern lakes in Caucasus Map)
    5. master arm is on, AG selected, CCRP selected. 

     

    tried with CBU-87 and MK-84 but no luck.

     

    Can someone tell me what I'm doing wrong?

     

    Regards

     

     

  12. Hello !
     
    Does the F-16C currently supports buddy lasing for the Mirage 2000?
    We had a few problems with that last night, althouh it worked with the Hornet...
     
    Thanks !
    Afaik all litening tgp are modeled in the same way, no matter what aircraft is lasing. You should try again and if you have problems post a track in the bug section.

    Regards

    Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

  13. Not gonna subtract from your post, just a thing about not being able to find a suitable object for boresighting.

    Have you considered placing a allied vehicle at a steerpoint between starting airbase and fence in? You can then use it to boresight.

    And if in a multiplayer public server, have you tried finding an allied vehicle and write down its position as reference for steerpoint editing/creation?

    Regards

    Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

  14. I stand corrected. I've searched far and wide and our F-16 actually has the lock message.
    Afaik, only when in ACM modes will you get the lock message when the radar locks a target. This is the case for at least the block 40,42, 50 and 52. The greek block 50/52, the OCU versions and the MLU's all don't have the LOCK message from what I know.
    Sorry for the confusion everyone.
     
    Yes It's a ACM only thing, apparently even HAF Vipers have it, you can see here in this video I found:



    During this mock dogfight (sim mode is engaged) at 0:39 switching to vertical scan, then bore and obtaining lock (with VMS " lock" call) at 0:52.

    I said apparently because of the description contained in the video.

    Regards



    Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

  15. Yes it was adjusted to consider line of sight and curvature of the earth. 
    Are maps still flat or was curvature modelled?
    Regards

    Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

  16. So do i get it correctly that:

    F-5 / F-14 / F16 /AV8 do need to set from the kneeboard page the LGB laser code while on the ground

    While

    A-10/F-18 can do it in flight with store management page?

    Shouldn't this be consistent throughout all modules as it depends from the weapon?

    Also how does it work for CBUs in reality? Set on the ground and while in flight you put the corresponding setting to allow correct release calculation on HUD?

    Regards

    Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk



  17.  
    This is what DCS is really all about - a study sim to get into amazingly detailed modules of aircraft from various eras and learn to fly them (and to learn their sensors, weapon systems, etc along with it). 
    It is true now, It should however be a digital COMBAT simulator and focus equally on what happens outside the cockpit as much as it focuses on what happens inside. They'll get there eventually (i hope...).

    OP has a point, this is the first true gunship coming to DCS. As it's not a dedicated tank killer, its role is mainly air assault/ground support/being cool. Strafing/rocket runs its routine.

    What is outside the hind in an appropriate hind scenario ( not super high tech)

    *Few infantry models

    *A cheating AI that snipes you with ungodly accuracy with BMPs, magically aware of you presence any time/weather

    *A definitely not user friendly mission editor to transform targets into moving targets

    *Not so good damage model for ground units

    *Beautiful maps (especially sirya)

    All items of which ED is aware and working on.

    So yes, in the beginning the hind will be great for learning to fly a gunship in it's marvelously rendered cockpit, maybe not so for fighting as one. Not everyone plays dcs just for the study aspect, also for the combat one And we can only hope it improves.

    Regards


    Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk


    • Like 4
  18. Keep in mind that if you delete extra liveries from CoreMods, every time you update or repair DCS, it'll re-download them.
    I have the steam version so I'm not sure about this but I will keep it mind, and and the current rate of update release (which I'm comfortable with), it's ok.

    Regards

    Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

×
×
  • Create New...