/simg/ - Simulation Games General

There are frogposting faggots in this thread right now.

They probably aren't especially good in a 1v1 fite me irl 104th scenario because they fly like you would in real life with real life concerns. They also wouldn't know the ins and outs of DCS missile physics or just DCS "meta" in general.

Basically, I think your average 104th player would be better in the sense that they would probably get more kills and die less.

I suspect they would be right at home in BMS though, especially in a Falcon Online environment.

So, I got FC3 on Friday, playing around with the 29S a lot. Fucking lovely. Absolutely top-hole. Give me a couple more weeks flying by myself and then I'll start coming online with /simg/

Are the AWACS/Wingmen AI messages supposed to be shit or can you git gud?

Some guy on reddit brought his VR shut thunder setup to an old folks home to let the vets have a go.

Apparently they do remember.

>get to show the Greatest Generation flight sims
>actually show them shit thunder and not DCS

anyway here's an interesting vid where a luftwaffe ww2 vet plays the DCS Dora, he's seen so much shit he probably isn't impressed by fancy technology

youtube.com/watch?v=pvKs9VLUcCg

>Not showing any actual decent WWII sim

q: When you're in a flat spin, you're supposed to cut throttle, push the rudder in the opposite direction of the spin and push the nose down

Say you're flat spinning to the right, would it help to cut just the left throttle?

>he's seen so much shit he probably isn't impressed by fancy technology
He seems quite uncomfortable, being unable to handle it as he wants.

>11:00
>he claims that the D9 was beautiful for turnfights
>he also claims it had better turn rate than the 109
Can someone elaborate on this? Everyone says the 190, even the doras, are quite shit at turnfights.

Pilots love what they fly. Its the same thing that makes a dude in his rice out Civic think it's the hottest shit. Unless they've actually flown both planes you should take any comparative comments with a grain of salt.

Well, he also says he flew most of his sorties in a 109, hence why I felt quite confused. What is not stated is which version of the 109 he used.

>He seems quite uncomfortable, being unable to handle it as he wants.

Probably felt pissed his skills didn't translate

>Can someone elaborate on this?

Maybe he flew an early variant of the 109 vs a cutting edge Dora?

these threads are dying every time

TVC jets can't spin out.

The point of cutting the throttle is so that you have more time to recover from the spin and to avoid snapping your fucking wings off.

Bump them more then, fuck last night it was basically me talking to myself at one point

what this general really needs is an anime about cute anthropomorphic plane girls to shitpost about a la Kantai Collection

Same here, and I wasn't even on 4chin.

Srs talk tho. Su-33 Carrier ops when?

What this general REALLY needs is less furfags shitting everything up.

What this general needs is for you to take a long walk off a short pier

haha jokes on you then I'll just be closer to QT bote girls

so can we do some helo ops?

I was thinking maybe asymmetric thrust could counter yaw tho

Fucking hell weebs are just as bad as furfags desu

Aren't you meant to put boot into the spin and nose down?

not what the FC3 manuals say

How the fuck are you flat spinning a FC jet anyway

i cant but it was in there anyway

just tried it in the F-5, the asymmetric throttle thing seems to work compared to just throttle in which caused me to crash under the same alt/speed i started the flat spin

I think it depends on where your nose goes once you throttle back, IIRC if it goes up then you're gonna have a bad time trying to recover

>couple weeks

Just fly with us now dude. Nobody gonna say no to another migger.

Once I can manage my radar properly, and stick my landings more often than not, then I'll come play.

I want to at least have the basics.
Can't wait though, loving it so far

God forbid you crash a mig, nobody will let you forget it :^)

>mfw I just realized I'm right next to the mach loop

just land it somewhere safe

Has anyone ever just driven to the enemy base and fired cannon while on the ground?

kinda

youtube.com/watch?v=-p1NRLFso6Q

How does this video make you guys feel?

>tfw thinking about planes and flying 24/7

Help.

Greg fuck off with your failed nation wanking off

I thought greg was a paki?

there's no going back now

GOD'S TANK

Holy shit it's so fucking satisfying to survive one of these missions, especially considering I was going up against chieftains with their fucking 120mm guns, and the T-62 has shit-all gun depression so I couldn't get 100% hull down.

M60s don't scare me, their 105s bounce off the turret armor like they're made of rubber. Those 120s are fucking scary though.

They have a gorgeous MiG-29A model.
They have a gorgeous MiG-29A cockpit.
They are working on the PFM already.
There are so many MiG-29s all around the world, so many people that flew them, and it's a very simple aircraft overall.

What are they waiting for? Make the Fulcrum a full fidelity module already.
It would assure that REDFOR will always have a capable and dangerous multirole aircraft in basically any sort of scenario.

Anyone wanna get on and do some helo shit or fly on open conflict or something?

This makes me hard.

...

Get fucked bongtanks

The mission was simple- Iranian forces were launching an attack against Iraqi position. A three-strong platoon of M60A1s and a three-strong platoon of chieftains attacked, with a three-strong platoon of T-62s and a three-strong platoon of T-55s in defense.

Lots and lots of open ground between the initial positions of the two forces- the Iranians were attacking from behind a large hill, the Iraqis were defending from a slightly raised area that offered a few good hull-down positions, but not many.

>Burgerbiter's faces when their skyscraper of a tank, in service of their GREATEST ALLY IRAN, gets one-shot-killed by a T-55
>Burgerbiter's faces when not a single T-55 was lost

>iranian tank crews

STRONK SOVIET TANK TAKE MANY HITS AND CONTINUE FIGHT

Not entirely certain why the crew bailed out of this tank, the after-action report didn't show any catastrophic damage to it. Morale kill, maybe?

How do I read this

Looking at it makes it look like 600kph is the corner speed but most corner speeds are around 800-900kph right?

I would but I'm away from my computer til tonight or tomorrow lad

Compare to that single-shot M60 kill, LOOK HOW STRONK SOVIET TANK WITHSTAND MANY CAPITALIST SHELL UNTIL FINALLY SUCCUMBING TO JOIN GREAT PEOPLES REVOLUTION IN THE SKY

also because this dumb motherfucker charged ahead rather than finding a good hull-down position to fire from. The T-62 is aided by a very good gun stabilizer system, but that doesn't mean you have to ALWAYS shoot on the move.

And thus ends this tiny spurt of tanksim activity in /simg/. Remember to keep your eyes on the horizon and your front towards the enemy.

The max instantaneous turn rate is at ~600kph.

The max sustained turn rate is the dashed line that peaks at ~950kph.

However bear in mind these are presuming that you don't ignore the aircraft G-limit of 9G, which players in combat flight sims regularly do.

>Tfw I don't have SABOW
can't wait til zi get a job

what game is this?

Steel Armor: Blaze of War

A survey sim tank game where you can crew the T-62 or the M60A1, mainly focused on the Iran-Iraq war (but also having some scenarios in Angola and in the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, IIRC)

How do you know which is which just from looking?

This turn rate and radius shit was what actually made me get stuck on shaw's fighter combat book

Like it was saying something about turn rate advantage in a merge equals nose to tail turn and turn radius advantage nose to nose or something like that and I just didn't get it at all

I know slower speed equals smaller turn radius, but does your nose actually turn slower at 600kph compared to 900kph but with a smaller radius?

ty

>blue flag
>bad ass Ka-50 pilot killing entire field by him self
>one bunker left is shooting at him
>F22xRaptor desides to help
>tries straffing bunker
>runs into our Ka-50 and kills him

Ban raptor when

>Killing Ka-50s at all
B A N T H E M A L L

>I know slower speed equals smaller turn radius
In practice not necessarily, the radii of the turns are indicated by the straight diagonal lines with the R=x labels and they suggest that. But if you start a maximum performance turn at 600kph in a jet there's no way you'll be able to do a full 180° without falling out of the sky since you bled so much speed.

>but does your nose actually turn slower at 600kph compared to 900kph but with a smaller radius?
This is just a generic example chart but it's saying that at 600kph this fighter can turn its tightest *instantaneously*, your nose will change direction very quickly and if you could keep that up your turn radius would be tiny, but you can't. Sustained turn is the manoeuver that the aircraft can perform all the way around the corner for as long as it likes provided it keeps it's speed up.

This is just my understanding, this shit's complicated.

>tfw no air to air armament on Ka-50
>Ka-52 gets R73s.
>You will never get to use the Shlem and archer a faggot as he tries to kill you.

>No A2A weapons on god heli
Use the cannon
>:^)

Ok here's the deal:
Your pilot and/or plane can only sustain X amount of G's before exploding/passing out

Going fast makes you go fast (duh)
Going slow makes your turn CIRCLE smaller (duh)
Going slow also makes your turn RATE quicker because you can pull the stick further back before stalling

So the ideal corner speed is the SLOWEST speed at which you can pull MAXIMUM G's
However, this speed is not sustainable for more than a few seconds, that's why it's called "instantenous turn rate", because you can only hold it for an instant, your engines don't generate enough thrust to keep your speed up when doing it.

So the key is to instead hold maximum G's, you try and hold your corner speed and ease up on the G's when necessary, your aircraft still performs really well in that conditions, but you can keep this corner speed up indefinitely.

You can still transition into the instantenous turnrate from the sustained turnrate at any moment, if you need that extra deg/sec turnrate to pull weapons on a target.

Hope that clears it up

This is how the turk was removed and cucked out of a kill

OPERATIONAL
ACCIDENT
DO NOT BAN

>

Do you have any insight into pic related

the book said something like choose nose to nose if you have a radius advantage but nose to tail for a rate advantage and idgi

I mean it does make sense, if you can turn quicker than your opponent, even by a little, then you 're gonna win the turnfight, so the nose-to-tail approach works in your favor.

But if you're gonna lose a turnfight, cutting inside the circle (nose-to-nose) will let you come out victorious even though you may have lost from a simple turnrate duel.

In reality it's not that simple though, because you'll almost never fly a horizontal turnfight with someone, they'll dive and climb to avoid getting killed and you'll do the same.

We had some good ass sorties.

Forgot how good the Su-27 radar was comaped to the Migs

So in a hypothetical horizontal fight does it mean passing an opponent when you're at 600kph = nose-to-nose (think its called flat scissors?) but if you're at 900 then you go nose to tail because you're at corner speed?

I find it really hard to visualize all this shit. Do you not go nose to tail when slower because you'll bleed too much speed by the time you're 'in the saddle' and not go nose to nose when fast because you'll overshoot?

I'm just half remembering what i read like 8 months ago before giving up

Are bms ops really dead ?

This is an old video from the ancient, but still very informative Flanker Training videos that explains the idea of corner airspeed, as well as its relation to turn radius, very well.
youtube.com/watch?v=d6WWYjrWxqk

The exact numbers probably aren't right anymore (this was from the LOMAC days if I remember right), but the concepts all still apply.

I wouldn't think of it in such mathematical terms if I were you, a theoretical understanding helps but there are so many variables that you can't just say if he does this, I will counter with x at y kph, it just won't work. Besides, that chart is not for any particular aeroplane. You need to understand teh flight characteristics of the actual plane you happen to be fighting in.

The problem is that you can't fire your weapons while on the ground.

You and I are going to have a big fight if you ever come anywhere near my chopper.

thx

THREDDY ALMOST DEDDY

treat yourself

>attacking an enemy position with even odds
>smug when you win
i love the t62 in that game but you gotta fucking step it up

Am I right in thinking that fiddly multicrew heavies like B-52s and P-3 Orions will have a much higher comfy quotient?

Bumping to keep the thread alive.

Here's an idea.

Afghanistan texture pack
And
Wait for it
AND
SU-33 Carrier Ops.

Sounds comfy to me lads.

Anything sea flanker sounds pretty comf

Post your most aesthetic webms please

Did someone say a couple threads back that laterneck procrastinations had a new unannounced aircraft in the running?

I'm not sure what you're talking about but the confirmed future LNS releases are the Viggen, Corsair, and Tomcat.

A MiG-23 was discussed years ago as something they might do after "the next 3 planes" At the time of that statement those next 3 planes were completely unknown so who knows if that's still valid or in their plans.

I just checked the forums and people are saying the next one is a C-47 skytrain

How utterly dull, literally worse than a trainer

Only half an hour of work left and then I can go home and drive some of that sweet sweet 29.
Time appears to be dilating.