F-117 - Page 3 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-14-2018, 09:01 PM   #21
Gearbox
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exorcet View Post
Yes. Unless something has changed, the F-117 is quite tricky to catch as a Flanker. At least without EWR. Different radars before differently against stealth in DCS. I don't think EWR loses any detection range against the F-117 at all. SAM's might be similar. Player aircraft have a hard time finding the F-117 though.



It could actually be the opposite. Less aerodynamic shapes are harder to predict the performance of because flow separation, turbulence, and shockfronts are all less well behaved and predictable than laminar flow.


As for the module itself, I agree it would be a good addition to DCS if modeled accurately.

Interesting tidbit on that... in the days when it was created (late 70s!) they realized it was more computationally feasible to engineer a weird slab-sided shape to be able to fly than it would be to make something smooth and curvy and aerodynamic to be stealthy.


I didn't realize it had no RWR, did some searching real quick to confirm that. Microprose F-19 and F-117 were my into into combat flight sims, in those you had a cool dynamic RWR system that showed your current relative RCS based on flight attitude and plotted the enemy signal strengths on it. While looking for that I found this fun story about the bad cockpit ergonomics:


Quote:
The jet was an ergonomic nightmare as it was originally designed, and the guys who took it to downtown Baghdad on the first night of the war in Jan '91 got to experience some of this. Don't know if I've related this or not before here, but I'll do so only because it's applicable to what I bring up here.

When I was in training for the F-117, one of our civilian instructors....Mr Klaus Klause related a story of how ergonomics slowly but surely came to be for this jet. First night of Desert Storm in '91, he was one of the first wave of F-117s going into Baghdad to hit the command centers located deeper than the radar sites on the border the Army AH-64s had hit at almost the same time. It wasn't really known at that time if stealth technology actually worked, as it had never been tested in real-world combat. The F-117, being slapped together from miscellaneous odds and ends from the A-10 (cockpit), F-15A (gear/components), F-16A (FBW) and F/A-18A (engines), it wasn't very ergonomically friendly in the cockpit in a number of ways. As Klause is getting over Baghdad, the AAA that was filling the air in a general barrage fashion starts immediately shifting in his direction, as if it's tracking him. So he begins to slightly change course (which is not recommended for a number of reasons), and the AAA keeps tracking him, with airbursts going off all around him. Finally he really starts maneuvering (to hell with not recommended), thinking "this stealth crap is bullshat, Lockheed the lowest bidder" and other choice thoughts, finds his target, drops his bombs and gets the literal hell out of there.

Crossing outbound to friendly territory to the south, he's getting his systems back on-line, Fencing out, and notices that his position (nav) lights are still on and thats how the gunners were seeing him: visually. Back then in the 117, there were 5 different switches controlling 5 different external lighting systems, located in 5 completely separate places in the cockpit. On fence-in, he'd forgotten the position lights switch. A few years later, the USAF installed a single "all external lights- extinguish" switch on the left wall panel for ergonomic sake, aptly named the "Klaus switch".
Gearbox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 10:14 PM   #22
twistking
Member
 
twistking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Berlin
Posts: 464
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mvsgas View Post
Quote:
Lets talk details
- No radios, antennas are stowed, radio comms are garble.
- No RWR
- No chaff/flare
- Flying at night so they do not see you (how many servers are set to night?)
- ~ 4g max
- ~.75 mach max
line edited- under power (at Holloman AFB, with one GBU-10/27 and 10K fuel took almost all runway to take off) Each engine only puts out 20k lbs of thrust. The aircraft empty weight is 30k+ average fuel 10k and 4k of bombs. So around 44k combat load on average.
- If aircraft departs flight, there is not recovery except ejecting. Stall, same.
Take off, straight level to the target, press pickle button when you suppose to, wait until impact and straight and level until line for ILS landing. Clouds or smoke can't bomb.

Not sure it would be fun at all.
If you only play air-quake, then you'll probably not get much from it. I agree, that the mission profile is not the most interesting, but the other "shortcomings" you mention, would maybe even make it more interesting to some of us...
For me, that would also be the reason to only be interested in a full-fidelity version. A Mac version would only put more focus on the mission profile, which would not be the biggest selling point, at least for me that is...
__________________
My personal wishlist after 2 years with dcs: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=216873
twistking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 11:05 PM   #23
twistking
Member
 
twistking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Berlin
Posts: 464
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exorcet View Post
Quote:
Well, at least you could simulate the aerodynamics of it in real time... on an old smartphone, because i think it is safe to say, that it is aerodynamically the crudest aircfraft ever produced in numbers...
It could actually be the opposite. Less aerodynamic shapes are harder to predict the performance of because flow separation, turbulence, and shockfronts are all less well behaved and predictable than laminar flow.
You are probably right.
__________________
My personal wishlist after 2 years with dcs: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=216873
twistking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 11:26 PM   #24
rajdary
Member
 
rajdary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 767
Default

I have always wanted a module of the F-117A,just for Nostalgia, i played Microprose F-19 & F-117 , im sure in some Campign there could be a multijet option to be able to complete the mission in either an A-10Ca, Harrier, F-117A or a F-18C. It would be fun to complete a Campaign with a choice of different jets!
__________________


Phanteks Enthoo Evolv Tempered Glass, Asus ROG Maximus IX Hero, Intel i7 7700K @ 4.8, Corsair HX 1000i, Nzxt Kraken 62, 32gb DDR4 3000Mhz Corsair Dominator Platinum, Nvme SSD Samsung 960 Evo 1Tb, Asus Strix OC 1080ti, Philps 43" 4K Monitor + 2 x Dell 24" U2414H, Warthog HOTAS, Track IR 5, Obutto R3volution, Buttkicker Gamer 2, MFG Crosswind pedals, Occulus Rift CV1, Windows 10 Pro.
rajdary is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2018, 07:27 AM   #25
mvsgas
Veteran
 
mvsgas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Phoenix AZ
Posts: 7,337
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gearbox View Post
A few years later, the USAF installed a single "all external lights- extinguish" switch on the left wall panel for ergonomic sake, aptly named the "Klaus switch".
Is on the throttle like the A-10 pinky switch. It also uses the CDU from the A-10. The CMDI and the EPI from the F/A-18. FLCC from block 5 or 10 F-16, was never updated, so even the flight control check took about 2 to 5 minutes as of 2007 when I stop working on them. The Targeting screen (IRADS display) only displayed video from the FLIR/DLIR and IIRC they took that form F-111.
__________________
Quote:
What is best in life? Crush them

CPU=Intel Core I3 7320, Mo/Bo= ASRock B250 Gaming K4, Memory DDR42400 pc4-19200 16gb G.Skill Ripjaws V, video card=EVGA GTX 1060 SC, 6gb gddr 5, Joystick=Thrustmaster T-flight Stick X, Track IR, Win10 64

Last edited by mvsgas; 09-15-2018 at 07:33 AM.
mvsgas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2018, 09:41 AM   #26
nessuno0505
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Italy
Posts: 478
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airj247 View Post
I believe the beauty of DCS is that it’s still in its infancy
A-10c is 9 years old, I can't call it "infant", considering it's a piece of software (in 2008, when a-10c was published in EA, we've had windows vista…)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airj247 View Post
majority of the planes we have if not all aren’t 100% complete… even other study level sims aren’t 100% It’s just the fact that other modules have made compromises too.
It is what I've said: I can accept compromises, they are obvious since this is a game and not a military simulation to train real pilots. But what I like is that ED has a threshold of fidelity for what they accept to develop as a DCS product, and they also ask 3rd party devs to conform to this threshold, at least for what full fidelity modules is concerned. Then we have FC3, which is lower fidelity but the few simulated systems are quite accurate anyway. If ED or a 3rd party can simulate an f-117 within this threshold, or at least as a FC3 module, I'm ok with it. But I think the appropriate documentation needed to do this is not so easily accessible, and there are a lot of interesting planes for which an accurate documentation can be available (panavia tornado, century series fighters, f-111, f-8, a-6 and so on). So I can't say I do not want an f-117, simply I believe there are a lot of more interesting potential modules easier to develop, both as full fidelity and/or FC3.
nessuno0505 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2018, 08:42 PM   #27
Airj247
Member
 
Airj247's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 203
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nessuno0505 View Post
A-10c is 9 years old, I can't call it "infant", considering it's a piece of software (in 2008, when a-10c was published in EA, we've had windows vista…)
By infancy I implied that the sim still has room to grow, we just got the F18,yak52, and plenty more aircraft still on the way. I completely agree with your bottom statements, I don't want a half assed plane just because I like the aircraft, if it isn't to the threshold ED has set then I have no problem with it not being made. But if their is enough data, information that we can make the module and have it function very close what it should, then I say why not? I too don't want a simplistic incomplete version of the aircraft.
__________________
Modules: A10C, Mig 21, F15C, F5E, M2000C, AV8B
Airj247 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2018, 06:18 PM   #28
moco
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 7
Default

This has been at the top of my personal wishlist for a long time. Seeing as how we'd likely never see a B-2 in the game the F-117 is the next best thing in my opinion, in terms of a stealth air to ground platform. I think it's far more capable than some people are giving it credit for, only being able to drop bombs might sound boring to some of you but you have to realize there are some of us who find air to air combat just as uninteresting. The real arguments against this module is the fact that the aerodynamics and stealth characteristics aren't readily available, these are without a doubt the defining features of the jet so making a module without this info would be either difficult to accurately make or massively disappointing as they'd just be giving us their best guess.
moco is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2018, 10:14 AM   #29
beppe_goodoldrebel
Member
 
beppe_goodoldrebel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 296
Default

Could be a nice mod using the A-10A FC3 avionics.
A full module for a classified aircraft is very much in doubt.
beppe_goodoldrebel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2018, 01:05 PM   #30
joca133
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 123
Default

There are so many interesting aircraft, albeit with a limited available public information. I too think its a pitty to limit our experience to pre/cold war era tech only. In my view we have the professional/higher fidelity modules, and them FC to supply with more generic, but still well modeled aircraft. The F-117, Rafales, Eurofighters, etc, would all be welcomed in this category. For those concerned with balancing issues, just restrict servers and missions to the models desired. All old school games like janes, atf, lightning, f19, etc had these almost fictional aircrafts, and they were all fun.
joca133 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:48 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.