Franken Sabre - Page 7 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-16-2019, 04:14 PM   #61
Kev2go
Senior Member
 
Kev2go's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,658
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goblin View Post
Yes.
None of those are 100% exact simulations of their real counterparts. And they too simulate a specific configuration which won’t fit in every situation.

.......

In terms of 3d model and utilizing the particular avionics, thus least they do fit the ones they are suppose to be from that particular nation and military branch, they are modelled after.

There is a difference.
__________________





Build:


Spoiler:


Windows 10 64 bit,

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Noctua NH14S cooler),Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 32gb ram (2666 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 512 gb SSD


Last edited by Kev2go; 08-16-2019 at 04:17 PM.
Kev2go is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2019, 04:48 PM   #62
Exorcet
Senior Member
 
Exorcet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,703
Default

One of the problems here is that the module is already released and missions and other content are built around it. Correcting the plane is fine, but consideration should be made for backwards compatibility.


I don't think it's a hard fix though, outside of the work done to actually change the module. DCS already supports multiple versions of aircraft in one module (L-39) and option check boxes (civil version for P-51, etc). The current F-86 should just be left as an option separate from the corrected version in one way or another.
__________________
http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk187/Exorcet/F-15singaturebaseACOmodifiedcomp-1.jpg
Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C missions in User Files
Exorcet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2019, 08:02 PM   #63
Goblin
Member
 
Goblin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 999
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kev2go View Post
There is a difference.
To you.

The way I see it, there will always be someone advocating another variant to suit this or that era/theater/country. I remember the original IL-2 series, that had some 30 versions of the Me-109. I’m not convinced that this made it superior. So unless you make every available version, someone is going to complain. And, there’s also a cost/benefit ratio that must be considered.

The developer may err on the side of plausibility and makes a module that can simulate different versions in one, if you know what I mean.
If your version didn’t have Sidewinders, don’t add them. Pretend a little.
That’s my take on this, anyway.

Last edited by Goblin; 08-16-2019 at 08:06 PM.
Goblin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2019, 04:32 PM   #64
streakeagle
Member
 
streakeagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 898
Default

If the F-86F is going to updated to be more accurate, I would prefer a "split" like the P-51D. It would be nice to actually have a variant that served in Korea. The closest variant to the DCS F-86F would be the F-86F-30. Omit the Sidewinder controls and LABS to pretty much nail this variant. Omit the Sidewinder controls to have a spot-on F-86F-35. Perhaps the existing cockpit with LABS and Sidewinder controls could be a "checkbox" option?

The F-86F-40 is too different in flying qualities and appearance with the longer, slatted wings. A separate module would be justified.
__________________
streakeagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2019, 09:51 PM   #65
SkateZilla
Moderator/ED Testers Team
 
SkateZilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 18,516
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by streakeagle View Post
If the F-86F is going to updated to be more accurate, I would prefer a "split" like the P-51D. It would be nice to actually have a variant that served in Korea. The closest variant to the DCS F-86F would be the F-86F-30. Omit the Sidewinder controls and LABS to pretty much nail this variant. Omit the Sidewinder controls to have a spot-on F-86F-35. Perhaps the existing cockpit with LABS and Sidewinder controls could be a "checkbox" option?

The F-86F-40 is too different in flying qualities and appearance with the longer, slatted wings. A separate module would be justified.
^This, except right now there are no plans for a Korea Map, so when that happens, we can re-touch on this subject.
__________________
Windows 10 Pro, HAF922, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill,
2x R7970 Lightnings Crossfired @ 1.1/6.0GHz, Creative XFi Plat. Fatal1ty Champion,
3x ASUS VS248HP + Hanns·G HZ201HPB + Acer AL2002 (5760x1080+1600x900+1680x1050)
TM Warthog HOTAS, TM MFDs, CH Fighterstick, Pro Throttle, CH Pro Pedals, TrackIR4 Pro
SkateZilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2019, 09:51 PM   #66
Kev2go
Senior Member
 
Kev2go's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,658
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by streakeagle View Post
If the F-86F is going to updated to be more accurate, I would prefer a "split" like the P-51D. It would be nice to actually have a variant that served in Korea. The closest variant to the DCS F-86F would be the F-86F-30. Omit the Sidewinder controls and LABS to pretty much nail this variant. Omit the Sidewinder controls to have a spot-on F-86F-35. Perhaps the existing cockpit with LABS and Sidewinder controls could be a "checkbox" option?

The F-86F-40 is too different in flying qualities and appearance with the longer, slatted wings. A separate module would be justified.
True, although not as simple as that.

Although it would not require any 3d model or Fligt model changes the F-86F30 would be more than just removing sidwinder and labs controls. fairly different cockpit panels in the Front, and also different panels for Fuel tank controls in the sides, and no bombing computer, no manual bombing pipper type that is in the F-86F35.

Although i agree F86F30 is more fitting for Korea as that was the last version to see use in that war. F86F35 missed Korea, but in its standard 6/3 wing configuration is otherwise identical to performance to the F86F30.

if there was any separate sabre module that i would spend money and prefer over the F-86F40 ( technically USA never operated production F40's, only upgraded F25-F35 blocks with F40 wing post via retrofit) on would be the F-86H
__________________





Build:


Spoiler:


Windows 10 64 bit,

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Noctua NH14S cooler),Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 32gb ram (2666 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 512 gb SSD


Last edited by Kev2go; 08-17-2019 at 09:56 PM.
Kev2go is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2019, 03:39 AM   #67
Kev2go
Senior Member
 
Kev2go's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,658
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goblin View Post
To you.

The way I see it, there will always be someone advocating another variant to suit this or that era/theater/country. I remember the original IL-2 series, that had some 30 versions of the Me-109. I’m not convinced that this made it superior. So unless you make every available version, someone is going to complain. And, there’s also a cost/benefit ratio that must be considered.

The developer may err on the side of plausibility and makes a module that can simulate different versions in one, if you know what I mean.
If your version didn’t have Sidewinders, don’t add them. Pretend a little.
That’s my take on this, anyway.
To you may be rationalizing inaccuracies, but not everyone has your lower standards.

I'm not advocating for a particular variant, besides pointing out in a bug report inconsistencies for features for the specific variant that it should be, that is actually supported by documentation. IE USAF series manuals for the F86F series. That is fact. Why does the Mig15bis get to be representative of a korean era version? IF it was a post war version Soviet pilots would be wearing G suits for EG.

Therefore a USAF variant should be represented to its accuracy, as this is the most common available documention ( if not the only type besides RCAF] Canadair sabers,but thats another story). Using documentation from country of origin should be the default where possible. A Aim9 less F86F35 is still not a Korean era aircraft. Itsdifferent from the F86F30 that was actually used in korea, but otherwise still the same in performance. That itself is already compromise on its own. And lets be honest whens the last time anyone used Gar8's ( aim9b) anyways. its more a of a niche weapon that carried at the cost of extra drag, and very situational against a small maneuverable target like the Mig15.

Going by the logic of "plausibility' just because it feels so is a very slippery slope.
__________________





Build:


Spoiler:


Windows 10 64 bit,

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Noctua NH14S cooler),Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 32gb ram (2666 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 512 gb SSD


Last edited by Kev2go; 08-18-2019 at 04:03 AM.
Kev2go is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2019, 03:54 AM   #68
Kev2go
Senior Member
 
Kev2go's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,658
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkateZilla View Post
^This, except right now there are no plans for a Korea Map, so when that happens, we can re-touch on this subject.
There was no planned environment for the F4E, yet in comparison to prior modules Belsimtek had very specific feature list for the F4E, I did some fact checking, and it would have been authentic USAF model based on their feature descriptions. About a mid 1980s era F4E aircraft, but nonetheless even if that wasn't put on hold, that too would be stuck without any specific scenario, or campaigns but BST seemed to finally start moving to higher simulation standards that ED has with that planned module/.

How is that? did ED finally start enforcing higher standards and greater communication on 3rd parties after the fiasco of a certain 3rd developer starting with "V"?

Who knows but lets be honest If that F4E was released im sure no one would be asking for "plausible" fantasy features to be a criss cross of multiple versions or from other users.
__________________





Build:


Spoiler:


Windows 10 64 bit,

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Noctua NH14S cooler),Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 32gb ram (2666 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 512 gb SSD


Last edited by Kev2go; 08-18-2019 at 04:00 AM.
Kev2go is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2019, 08:16 PM   #69
SMH
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 72
Default

+1 for slatted and fenceless wing. I'd like to be able to pretend it's a Canadair Sabre VI. Changing the visual model wouldn't break any missions. (It might break a lot of skins though, though maybe this is a good time for it as many older skins seem to be broken anyway.)
SMH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2019, 11:49 PM   #70
M1Combat
Member
 
M1Combat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Prescott AZ, US
Posts: 713
Default

Has anyone told Kev about the BS3 yet?

Just curious
__________________
Win-10 x64

Nvidia RTX2080 (HTC Vive)
MSI Z77 MPower
Core i5-3570K
24GB G-Skill Trident-X

Saitek X-65F and Fanatec Club-Sport Pedals
(UCR - mapping throttle and clutch pedals together to form a rudder Axis)
M1Combat 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 05:07 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.