I suppose we should all brace for a horrible, hideous monster that’ll only look like anything on mobile, if that. I hate “modern” forum UI with passion, especially IPS. I hope whatever replaces this forum gets a decent look, but I’m not exactly hopeful.
Posts made by Dragon1-1
-
RE: [IMPORTANT] Please Read carefully the annoncement!!!
-
RE: F-16 G Limit CAT III
The Viper’s FCS doesn’t really support that the way Hornet’s does. IIRC, in the Viper you basically command the G with the stick. Max stick deflection=max G. The Viper isn’t aerodynamically stable, you can’t really fly it “manually” the way you can do with the Hornet.
@Dee-Jay:If your a/c is not reusable after your landing, mission may be successful, but you have -1 a/c for subsequent planned missions (depending on severity of the over-g). Not stimulated on game.
Still better to have -1 Weasel bird than -4 strikers+their pilots. And it certainly is easier to find another Viper than another nutter who’d fly it into WEZ of various kinds of SAMs on purpose and then fool around long enough for them not to lose interest and trash his HARM. Then again, those guys were dodging SAMs in Phantoms just fine before the Viper got that gig, so maybe G limits don’t bother them that much…
TBH, campaign should simulate bird writeoffs from things like over-G and landing accidents (maybe as an optional difficult setting). IRL, treating you planes like rental cars is a good way to have attrition creep up even if you don’t exceed any limits.
-
RE: F-16 G Limit CAT III
G limitations mostly applies 99.99% of flight time, when you don’t have a missile tracking you. (And when a missile is tracking you, it means that you’ve failed your mission).
Unless the mission is SEAD, then it’s just another day in the office. In fact, if it’s tracking you, it’s probably not tracking whoever you’re escorting, nor did it go quiet to spoof your HARM. So… mission accomplished?
-
RE: Forward roll
Outside loops are a thing in some aircraft, but they’re extremely dangerous due to hemorrhage risk from negative Gs. Also, IIRC, in the Viper in particular the lubrication system of the engine doesn’t like being inverted (including negative G) for an extended period of time. Since it takes a while to do such a loop at manageable G loading, it might not be possible to complete it without damaging the engine in the real jet. Not sure if it’s simulated in BMS, but it might be.
In general, anything not specifically designed for showboating at airshows has the risk of not liking inverted flight. This may preclude outside loops, which is fine because pilot physiology doesn’t like that sort of thing, either. Besides the “Messerschmidt escape” (a sort of outside split-S, which German pilots used in WWII to escape early Spits, since the latter had carburetor-fed engines that would quit under any sort of negative G), there aren’t many practical combat maneuvers utilizing negative Gs.
-
RE: Do I need all this expensive hardware to be competitive or enjoy the sim?
I made my own headtracking clip with 3 cheap LEDs, three resistors, an AA battery holder, a large paperclip (to hold the leds) and a laminate board to solder it all to. Stuck some velcro on the side and mounted it to the headphones. Worked great with Opentrack, I never wanted real TrackIR.
I think T-flight HOTAS is actually pretty good, you can learn to AAR with any hardware, as long as you have the patience. Just mind that you’ll need to find your own technique, what works for TM Warthog users or in the real jet won’t work for a low-end gaming stick.
-
RE: Defeating the F-14 in BVR.
Well, the F-14 is a BVR interceptor. It’s faster than the Viper, and the AIM-54 (154 is the JSOW) has better performance than the Slammer on top of that. Your best bet is to hide behind mountains and use ambush tactics, or to run the Tomcat out of missiles (of course, that doesn’t get you the kill, since it’s faster).
It’s more or less the same situation as with the MiG-31 and R-33. You can’t really duel it in BVR, because it’s holding all the cards. IRL, you may be able to use ECM to level the playing field somewhat, but there’s not enough data to say for sure. The earlier Tomcat radars were particularly susceptible to jamming and notching, but F-14D fixed that (though there’s not a whole lot public data on that one). Either way, in BMS I don’t think it’s simulated.
-
RE: Is smoke a bad sign outside the plane?
Unless it’s the F-4. Then you have to decide if the thick black smoke trailing behind it is an engine fire or just business as usual.
-
RE: Long life Falcon BMS
We’ve been there with FreeFalcon already. And what a hot mess that was…
-
RE: FCR to Detect and Track at 0 Closure Rate?
I don’t know how it is in the Viper, but the F-14 does have a filter at zero closure rate, which they say is used to reject returns from the ground directly below the aircraft. Other aircraft using similar radar tech presumably have it, too, but I don’t know, maybe it’s different in the Viper.
-
RE: Duplicate ded etc on hud
Yeah, it’s annoying more often than not, though AAR is a good use case.
-
RE: CBU-97 woes
The tolerances for bomb release in CCRP are pretty tight, and at 20k you need to really have the FPM on the line, and keep it there. Any deviation will result in not hitting the release parameters. Releasing from higher altitudes in CCRP is extremely finicky.
-
RE: MP Anti-Virus Question - what are you using?
I don’t do multiplayer, but COMODO Internet Security has an easy way of setting up firewall exceptions. It’s reliable, does what it should do, and doesn’t second-guess your choices. Also, free.
-
RE: LGBs not releasing
Yeah, that happens. CCRP can be a bit fiddly, you need to follow the cues very closely. It’s no different from dumb bombs in that regard.
-
RE: LGBs not releasing
Cue travels toward FPM but never quite gets there?
If the cue never gets there, that means you never get inside release parameters. How tightly are you flying the steering cues?
-
RE: So what with DX11 support?
I’ve never had that problem in DCS no matter the aerobatics I pulled, but then again, on my last sailing trip it took going below deck in rather rough seas to make me even mildly seasick, and I’m no sea wolf.
-
RE: Deep stall recovery procedure
The best way to get into a deep stall is trying to see at how low a speed you can still pull off a pirouette. Or trying to learn how to do a pirouette without quite knowing what you’re doing.
-
RE: APKWS
The point of LMAVs is not in-flight retargeting (though it can be done), but that they’re much easier to use and more reliable when working with JTAC or FAC. You don’t even need a TGP, you catch the laser, get in range, pickle and leave. That way, you can hit anything the JTAC can point the laser on, a vast improvement over visual or IR contrast lock, which can be unreliable IRL.
Of course, since we don’t have JTAC lasing or any trouble with locking Mavs, that’s more or less a moot point.
-
RE: Falcon 4 in the real world
We already have it on earth - it’s called field artillery…my idea solves mobility and deployment timeline problems - the ability to attack/defend becomes immediate. And probably unstoppable…which is a value of it’s own.
This is exactly what I said. Field artillery. MLRS. You name it. We have it on Earth, and it works fine. And no, an orbital platform doesn’t have immediate reaction time, quite the contrary. You have to wait until it’s over the area you want to attack. A low polar orbit has a period of about 90 minutes, but the Earth rotates under it. Your response time, therefore, varies from 90 minutes to 12 hours. And once it’s out of its window, you need to wait another 12 hours to hit the same location. You do have some wiggle room, but Earth is big and you’re going fast. To alter the orbit significantly takes a lot of fuel. You could deal with it using multiple satellites, but again, doing this drives the costs up even further. It’s hardly unstoppable, either. Any system capable of shooting down an ICBM can shoot it down, too, either before or after it shoots. They can usually target terrestrial rockets and lately even tube arty shells, too, but the S-400 probably isn’t capable of nailing the launcher that fired it, which would be the case with an orbital one.
People likely have thought about it - and dismissed it as a very impractical proposition. There’s simply nothing orbital artillery can do better than terrestrial one. It’d be a worthless, vulnerable and politically risky boondogle that would get an ASAT in the face the moment a serious conflict started, because guess what, in orbit, there’s nowhere to hide.
-
RE: Falcon 4 in the real world
…well, yeah…and doing what I propose is NOT difficult in today’s world.
It is difficult, and expensive. We know how to do it, but it doesn’t change the “space” part remains a significant challenge. It’s a solvable problem, but it’s also not worth solving, given that launching things into orbit will always remain more expensive than launching them on a ballistic trajectory.
Your idea is basically “let’s place a guided, warheadless MLRS in orbit”. I’m saying, “why not place it on Earth?”. It’s cheaper that way, and works just as well. If you want it to go faster in terminal stage, just give it another rocket, like Durendal does.
-
RE: Falcon 4 in the real world
The original concept - yes. I never liked that either, and I’m not talking about using them against ICBMs, but as a simple free fall from orbit to surface weapons like artillery…yeah, I’m ALL about that. In my concept a god rod wouldn’t be more than about a meter long…and maybe 3-4 cm in diameter. I even have a concept for how to steer them…and like I said before - if I can think of these things, someone else has probably beaten me to it already.
Orbit is free fall. That’s the point of orbiting. It’s literally falling, but going sideways so fast it keeps missing the ground due to Earth’s curvature. It’s a very non-intuitive concept (if you don’t play KSP), but that’s all orbits are. It has nothing to do with getting outside the gravity well, quite the contrary.
To bring something down from orbit, you have to slow it down. If you slow it down a little, it’ll hit the atmosphere and slow it down further… which will also heat it up, because when it’s going so fast, drag and heating will both be huge, costing you mass (from the projectile ablating) and velocity. It’ll also take upwards of 10 minutes to come down, meaning you can forget about hitting anything that moves. Now, if you decelerate it a lot, it’ll hit sooner, but, well, you have to decelerate it a few thousand meters per second, and it’ll still slow down. At this point, you can just throw it with an ICBM, without bothering to enter orbit.
This, BTW, is why kinetic bombardment is harder and less destructive than most fiction portrays it. I ran the numbers when figuring out my own, once you take into account atmospheric drag, you lose it all unless you have a very high projectile mass. Your best weapons for it are basically nukes, because you don’t lose the yield when they’re slowed down by drag.