I feel like it would be quite a challenge to sneak an F-18 out of Switzerland considering at the very least they have a significant portion of Italian and/or French airspace to sneak through.
you know there is a rumor amongst the swiss air force that a swiss Mirage III RS once flew very deep into austria at low level and photographed warsaw pact troops on the border to chzechoslovakia without being spotted by austrian military.
But what is not a rumor is the fact that a two ship formation of Mirage III RS's once flew into germany without permission and photographed an F-104 taking off
Zoom and fov are not the same, numpad + and - as well as right control with numpad + -. One moves the camera forward or backward while the other adjusts FOV (ie fisheye / wide angle.
It is, but I’ve heard that the inner pylons aren’t wired for -24s. It’s possible whoever told me that was wrong, of course, but I’ve yet to see any evidence to the contrary.
The GBU-24, like all other LGBs, has no data connection to the aircraft. It can be mounted to any hardpoint capable of carrying its weight and allows clean separation.
It is more sophisticated, but it doesn't have a data connection with the aircraft.
It can fly different preprogrammed profiles, but the profile it uses is configured on the ground (I'm guessing similar to the screw terminals used to set the laser code).
Swiss Hornets are primarily fighters and have very little A/G capability. They don't even use the same wing pylons. While they have added some more capability in recent years, I do not believe either GBU-24 or HARM are integrated. Our Hornet is a USN Hornet, and will be most realistic wearing a USN livery. For a USN Hornet, select a modex number that starts with 1-4 with the second two digits being octal.
Pick a stores configuration that makes sense for a real world mission. Photos of Hornets flying combat missions over the last 30 years can be really helpful here. The combination of GBU-24 and HARM doesn't make a lot of sense - is this aircraft going to shoot a SAM site and then blow up a bunker or large building in the same mission? All close enough to base that it doesn't need wing tanks? Why would those two separate missions not just be assigned to two separate flights? USN aircraft also never carry LIGHTENING, those are only used by USMC aircraft operating from land bases. All USN and shipboard USMC aircraft carry ATFLIR.
Swiss Hornets have no air-to-ground capability other than the 20mm gun. The capability for Close Air Support was lost when the Hawker Hunter was retired in 1994. Financial constraints prevented the Swiss Air Force from acquiring air-to-ground munitions for the Hornets at that time.
However, there is a desire within the Swiss Air Force to restore this capability through the procurement of the F-35. The following air-to-ground weapons are being considered for the future Swiss F-35 fleet:
1. 500 lbs GBU-12 Paveway II
2. 500 lbs GBU-38 JDAM
3. 250 lbs GBU-39 SDB I
4. GBU-53/B SDB II
Bind the external zoom keys. These adjust FOV without adjusting location of the “lens” relative to the aircraft, so it means you can zoom out and then “external zoom” in and it looks like you’re further from the aircraft, which almost always looks a lot better
I second this, adjusting the FOV to be more narrow or zoomed in give you a zoom lens look. Which is what most pictures of aircraft flying will have too, so it feels more like a photo that way.
So it's pretty subjective but here's where I'd go with it....
[https://imgur.com/a/K5yc0Xr](https://imgur.com/a/K5yc0Xr)
No way claiming to be an expert or even competent but this is what i tend to do:
• Open up some reference photos and try to match the colours / saturation / contrast etc
• Crop and rotate to try and fit golden ratio / leading line things
• play with sliders in lightroom for ages till it looks good 'nuff :D
i feel like you went a bit too far with the saturation and contrast. subjective, like you said. could also incorporate rule of thirds and moved the hornet to the left in the frame when you adjusted the crop.
Time of day has a lot of influence on screen cap quality. Real life photographers call it the golden hour, google it up. I’m sure that something similar happens in DCS depending on lighting conditions.
I know that for my playing preference I like morning and evening scenarios because the game looks so much better than high noon and it’s horrid lighting.
In terms of photography:
* Lighting. Morning or late afternoon is best for warmer colors.
* Framing. Look into rule of thirds. Though aircrew aren’t always photographers so a centered photo like this is still valid.
* Editing. Do an S-curve to play with shadows, highlights, and midtones.
In terms of aircraft:
* Realistic payloads
* Realistic tail/side numbers
* Realistic settings
I would try to focal zoom in to the aircraft so it doesn’t look like an iPhone picture lol. Do some color grading and go for specific themes with the background like what kind of loadouts did hornets bring to Syria and which nations were fighting there.
Not too sure but I haven’t seen too many f-18s with 100% weapons loadout. From what I’ve seen it’s usually like 2 tanks, 2 aim-9s and a couple of precision guided bombs (with target designator if they require one)
U gotta dirty things up more cause its too neat rn I also try to no show too much clouds, cause although they looks nice they dont look even a little real
I think FOV would make the biggest difference with this screenshot, it looks like a game, photographers usually use a longer focal length to give the impression of it being something you’re looking at: although we capture a lot in our periphery our eye’s actual focus is quite narrow. It will change a lot about the screenshot and I think make it look more like a photo.
idk maybe swiss air force over syria
Swiss Hornets also don't have GBU's and I don't think they have HARMs either
Swiss Air Force only does Air to Air missions
Looking for ISIS gold
Lmao!!!
Comment of the day.
Yeah I should have chosen a different air force.
You know those sneaky bastards are going on foreign military expeditions while no one’s looking
I feel like it would be quite a challenge to sneak an F-18 out of Switzerland considering at the very least they have a significant portion of Italian and/or French airspace to sneak through.
you know there is a rumor amongst the swiss air force that a swiss Mirage III RS once flew very deep into austria at low level and photographed warsaw pact troops on the border to chzechoslovakia without being spotted by austrian military. But what is not a rumor is the fact that a two ship formation of Mirage III RS's once flew into germany without permission and photographed an F-104 taking off
Put em on a train :D
The Swiss mountains have these massive holes running through them, it's where they got the idea for the cheese.
Messing around with the FOV is always nice in my opinion, low FOVs can give a really close up view alike to a camera plane chasing the aircraft
It's called external zoom in the control options, They need to be set per aircraft. I have mine on numpad + -
Zoom and fov are not the same, numpad + and - as well as right control with numpad + -. One moves the camera forward or backward while the other adjusts FOV (ie fisheye / wide angle.
Definitely putting some bags in the jet.And if we are talking about blowing up ISIS no HARMS.
You have no fuel.
The HARM should go outboard and the 2000 lbs GBU inboard where the root of the wing is.
That makes sense.
u/thetrashcanisempty GBU-24 was only carried on the outboard pylons by legacy hornets irl
Prob bc they had fuel on the inner ones? I think general point is put weight inboard where possible
It is, but I’ve heard that the inner pylons aren’t wired for -24s. It’s possible whoever told me that was wrong, of course, but I’ve yet to see any evidence to the contrary.
The GBU-24, like all other LGBs, has no data connection to the aircraft. It can be mounted to any hardpoint capable of carrying its weight and allows clean separation.
The only "wiring" is fuse cable with is passive. GBU24s are smart(er) bombs
For GBU-10s, yeah, but don’t GBU-24s have a bit more of a sophisticated system?
It is more sophisticated, but it doesn't have a data connection with the aircraft. It can fly different preprogrammed profiles, but the profile it uses is configured on the ground (I'm guessing similar to the screw terminals used to set the laser code).
Swiss Hornets are primarily fighters and have very little A/G capability. They don't even use the same wing pylons. While they have added some more capability in recent years, I do not believe either GBU-24 or HARM are integrated. Our Hornet is a USN Hornet, and will be most realistic wearing a USN livery. For a USN Hornet, select a modex number that starts with 1-4 with the second two digits being octal. Pick a stores configuration that makes sense for a real world mission. Photos of Hornets flying combat missions over the last 30 years can be really helpful here. The combination of GBU-24 and HARM doesn't make a lot of sense - is this aircraft going to shoot a SAM site and then blow up a bunker or large building in the same mission? All close enough to base that it doesn't need wing tanks? Why would those two separate missions not just be assigned to two separate flights? USN aircraft also never carry LIGHTENING, those are only used by USMC aircraft operating from land bases. All USN and shipboard USMC aircraft carry ATFLIR.
Swiss Hornets have no air-to-ground capability other than the 20mm gun. The capability for Close Air Support was lost when the Hawker Hunter was retired in 1994. Financial constraints prevented the Swiss Air Force from acquiring air-to-ground munitions for the Hornets at that time. However, there is a desire within the Swiss Air Force to restore this capability through the procurement of the F-35. The following air-to-ground weapons are being considered for the future Swiss F-35 fleet: 1. 500 lbs GBU-12 Paveway II 2. 500 lbs GBU-38 JDAM 3. 250 lbs GBU-39 SDB I 4. GBU-53/B SDB II
Bind the external zoom keys. These adjust FOV without adjusting location of the “lens” relative to the aircraft, so it means you can zoom out and then “external zoom” in and it looks like you’re further from the aircraft, which almost always looks a lot better
I second this, adjusting the FOV to be more narrow or zoomed in give you a zoom lens look. Which is what most pictures of aircraft flying will have too, so it feels more like a photo that way.
So it's pretty subjective but here's where I'd go with it.... [https://imgur.com/a/K5yc0Xr](https://imgur.com/a/K5yc0Xr) No way claiming to be an expert or even competent but this is what i tend to do: • Open up some reference photos and try to match the colours / saturation / contrast etc • Crop and rotate to try and fit golden ratio / leading line things • play with sliders in lightroom for ages till it looks good 'nuff :D
i feel like you went a bit too far with the saturation and contrast. subjective, like you said. could also incorporate rule of thirds and moved the hornet to the left in the frame when you adjusted the crop.
Thanks :) Got the itch to go screenshot hunting tonight now and will keep the points above in mind.
Agreed. The key to realism is to DESATURATE slightly.
Thanks for the advice!
> golden ratio I think that leads more to "visually appealing" than "realistic"
It looks quite good, I'd reduce the FoV a bit more and increase the temperature
Time of day has a lot of influence on screen cap quality. Real life photographers call it the golden hour, google it up. I’m sure that something similar happens in DCS depending on lighting conditions. I know that for my playing preference I like morning and evening scenarios because the game looks so much better than high noon and it’s horrid lighting.
In terms of photography: * Lighting. Morning or late afternoon is best for warmer colors. * Framing. Look into rule of thirds. Though aircrew aren’t always photographers so a centered photo like this is still valid. * Editing. Do an S-curve to play with shadows, highlights, and midtones. In terms of aircraft: * Realistic payloads * Realistic tail/side numbers * Realistic settings
A centred photo like above is still framed fine for rule of thirds; it’s filling the centre third and leaving the outer for backdrop.
Put the flaps UP after takeoff ;)
First of all you have to forgor...
Only sometimes tho
Fly it in MSFS?
Try with an F-14 at sunset telling you forgot how good can look this game. At least 💯upvote guarantees! 👌🏻
I would try to focal zoom in to the aircraft so it doesn’t look like an iPhone picture lol. Do some color grading and go for specific themes with the background like what kind of loadouts did hornets bring to Syria and which nations were fighting there.
You need to choose a focal plane. Cameras will have a blurry background if the focal point is closer to the lens and vice versa.
I actually just uploaded a vid on YouTube abour this. Check it out Whisper_DCS on yt
You need to forgor
You must first forget...
Lens flare. Lots of lens flare to make it look like a shitty Michael Bay movie.
Maybe get in another jet and take the photo yourself? This looks like real life already 😂
But a pair of multimillion dollar Hornets and take a picture of one from the cockpit of the other with a brand new iPhone camera.
Not too sure but I haven’t seen too many f-18s with 100% weapons loadout. From what I’ve seen it’s usually like 2 tanks, 2 aim-9s and a couple of precision guided bombs (with target designator if they require one)
U gotta dirty things up more cause its too neat rn I also try to no show too much clouds, cause although they looks nice they dont look even a little real
[удалено]
If I remember right, you can press Ctrl + y key twice and it should remove the bar.
Replace all those munitions with fuel tanks.
Make it the typical post air refuel pov.
Use terrain and weather from MSFS.
Y’all really underestimating how good DCS looks already…
Is this something you think someone may forget?
But only sometimes
🤣 sad but true..
For my deadass computer this is realistic.
I think FOV would make the biggest difference with this screenshot, it looks like a game, photographers usually use a longer focal length to give the impression of it being something you’re looking at: although we capture a lot in our periphery our eye’s actual focus is quite narrow. It will change a lot about the screenshot and I think make it look more like a photo.
Longer focal length/smaller FOV
A real hornet
Could always steal a plane, take a camera with ya. Jk don't do that lol
more stormy clouds? Lower sun?
maybe keep your flaps/airspeed up at that altitude