Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

23-09-2020 Patch Feedback thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • captain_dalan
    replied
    Originally posted by KlarSnow View Post
    Attached is a .trk file, been seeing this happen rather frequently since the last patch. Appears to be somethin either with jester or possibly the MLC filter that is causing the radar to break lock in situations when it should not.

    Situation is I am closing head on with a target, lock him up at 40 miles in PDSTT, shoot a sparrow (AIM-7M) at him at ~15 miles. I and the bandit are at 20,000 feet.

    After launch I perform a simple bunt, drop the nose to get underneath the bandit, keeping him visual, at ~8 miles jester calls he lost the lock and it drops, even though I am in look up (2,500 foot altitude delta at 8 miles) with 180 knots of radial closure (812 minus 632 ownship) This has been happening rather consistently even with much greater look up angles in PDSTT, always in rather inopportune times.

    Test 7m 2.trk
    Originally posted by IronMike View Post
    Thank you, we will take a look.
    Very interested into this. I might have experienced it too, but i can't say for certain, as by the time i am sub 20 NM i have usually switched to P-STT, so my statistical sample is too small.

    Leave a comment:


  • IronMike
    replied
    Originally posted by KlarSnow View Post
    Attached is a .trk file, been seeing this happen rather frequently since the last patch. Appears to be somethin either with jester or possibly the MLC filter that is causing the radar to break lock in situations when it should not.

    Situation is I am closing head on with a target, lock him up at 40 miles in PDSTT, shoot a sparrow (AIM-7M) at him at ~15 miles. I and the bandit are at 20,000 feet.

    After launch I perform a simple bunt, drop the nose to get underneath the bandit, keeping him visual, at ~8 miles jester calls he lost the lock and it drops, even though I am in look up (2,500 foot altitude delta at 8 miles) with 180 knots of radial closure (812 minus 632 ownship) This has been happening rather consistently even with much greater look up angles in PDSTT, always in rather inopportune times.

    Test 7m 2.trk

    Thank you, we will take a look.

    Leave a comment:


  • KlarSnow
    replied
    Radar issue inside 15 miles

    Attached is a .trk file, been seeing this happen rather frequently since the last patch. Appears to be somethin either with jester or possibly the MLC filter that is causing the radar to break lock in situations when it should not.

    Situation is I am closing head on with a target, lock him up at 40 miles in PDSTT, shoot a sparrow (AIM-7M) at him at ~15 miles. I and the bandit are at 20,000 feet.

    After launch I perform a simple bunt, drop the nose to get underneath the bandit, keeping him visual, at ~8 miles jester calls he lost the lock and it drops, even though I am in look up (2,500 foot altitude delta at 8 miles) with 180 knots of radial closure (812 minus 632 ownship) This has been happening rather consistently even with much greater look up angles in PDSTT, always in rather inopportune times.

    Test 7m 2.trk

    Leave a comment:


  • Nobody Special
    replied
    Thanks for the discussion of helicopter rotor returns, it makes sense. I'm happy to learn something new.

    Leave a comment:


  • Csgo GE oh yeah
    replied
    Guys, you forgot to lower the phoenix C variant's chaff resistance.

    I remember the reason for BUFFING it was :
    "However their seeker heads are of very similar power irl, too, so chaff resistance between the C and the aim120 is more or less the same"

    If true that should work both ways i guess ??

    Oh and is it true that the chaff resistance for the old analog phoenix missiles is STILL set to 0.06 ???
    Isn't it weird that a 1970's ANALOG seekerhead missile has almost 2x the chaff resistance than a modern aim 120c ?
    Last edited 09-29-2020, 07:36 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • IronMike
    replied
    Originally posted by draconus View Post
    Can you connect them to the already existing Switches audio slider so we can get rid of them or at least change the volume?



    Maybe, we'll take a look.

    Leave a comment:


  • RustBelt
    replied
    Originally posted by draconus View Post
    As for "alternative switches sounds" I meant exactly what you said before, that they shouldn't be heard IRL with ECS and engines on, they are the alternative themselves for a "lack of haptic feedback". Can you connect them to the already existing Switches audio slider so we can get rid of them or at least change the volume?

    Look, the helmet is big, contains headphones, microphone and apart from securing the head it also cripples the outside sounds. Ask SMEs. When you put it on basically all outside sounds are muffled and higher frequencies are cut or seriously lowered - "helmet" option gives us that result as a sound filter, because clear outside sounds are the source and of course are needed for external views. But I sit in the cockpit 99% of the time. So, I'm sorry I'm not impressed with clear sounds and nice clicks. Put your hands on ears and feel the difference - yes, that's how I want to hear the cockpit and world while having clear sounds that should go through helmet headphones. Imho it is very weird to not want it to hear like in helmet in a military jet simulator and would be great omission to not implement it. Of course I tried without the option too and believe me there are no additional effects that are taken away - it just doesn't feel like I have anything on my head.

    Now, with the changes, all I ask is a control over the volumes, just that - both DCS audio sliders to work with what they say and the in cockpit volume knobs. Looking forward to it, thx.
    Couple with that the fact that IT'S LOUD and tiering to not have hear like helmet on. It actually does what a helmet does which is cuts down on the ear ringing noise so you can hear the radio clearly. And I don't want to have to go in the Esc menu to change the volume when I need to turn something up or down. I don't need the Sidewinders Loud until I need to shoot one, I don't need the RWR bleeping at me constantly when I know where I am, and I need both Jester and the ICS side tone to be the SAME volume, and be able to turn the jibber-jabber DOWN when I'm trying to hear something on the Radio/SRS/or Discord, from in the cockpit, not the Menu while trying not to crash while adjusting the sound sliders.

    And Really Key binds/axis for the ICS, Sidewinder, RWR, Radios would be sweet too.

    I think it's great that you really dig the audiophonic NPR style Sound scape vibe, but I don't need a click to tell me I just clicked a thing I clicked. I know It clicked, I clicked it! I do need to clearly hear radios and warnings without also having to hear a lot of basically noise, and the individual sources have to adjust depending on MY needs, and I don't want to buy a second sound device and a mixer to re-mix it into my headset because the Artist demands it.

    Please, just fix the in cockpit volume knobs and the damn ICS side tone noise like people keep asking.
    Last edited 09-29-2020, 09:33 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • draconus
    replied
    Originally posted by IronMike View Post
    That said, I cannot stress it enough: if you use "hear like in helmet" you cripple the sound work in general, which is tuned to sound like in a cockpit, not in a void space, if you notice the cockpit sounds change when you move your head around. That is: they might not, if you have hear like in helmet on, or might, dunno, but point is: we can't guarantee that. That doesnt mean you shouldnt use it, if, knowing that, you still prefer it.
    As for "alternative switches sounds" I meant exactly what you said before, that they shouldn't be heard IRL with ECS and engines on, they are the alternative themselves for a "lack of haptic feedback". Can you connect them to the already existing Switches audio slider so we can get rid of them or at least change the volume?

    Look, the helmet is thick and comfy, contains headphones, microphone and apart from securing the head it also cripples the outside sounds. Ask SMEs. When you put it on basically all outside sounds are muffled and higher frequencies are cut or seriously lowered - "helmet" option gives us that result as a sound filter, because clear outside sounds are the source and of course are needed for external views. But I sit in the cockpit 99% of the time. So, I'm sorry I'm not impressed with clear sounds and nice clicks. Put your hands on ears and feel the difference - yes, that's how I want to hear the cockpit and world while having clear sounds that should go through helmet headphones. Imho it is very weird to not want it to hear like in helmet in a military jet simulator and would be great omission to not implement it. Of course I tried without the option too and believe me there are no additional effects that are taken away - it just doesn't feel like I have anything on my head.

    Now, with the changes, all I ask is a control over the volumes, just that - both DCS audio sliders to work with what they say and the in cockpit volume knobs. Looking forward to it, thx.
    Last edited 09-29-2020, 09:33 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • IronMike
    replied
    Originally posted by draconus View Post
    I don't know what you're talking about. It sounded perfectly good some months ago, just like I would expect to hear being a pilot and similar to other modules, then it got some sound levels wrong (Jester buzz, radar alt knob and warning). Were they wrong before or you were not happy about it?
    Do you suggest it now sounds (without the "helmet" option) as a pilot would hear in his helmet?
    Also if you add "alternative" switches sounds why is it forced upon us? The slider doesn't work.
    I can give artism credit where it's due as long as it brings me closer to reality not put me away.



    It wasn't fine before either, as it crippled the soundwork just the same, even if for some of you guys the outcome seems likeable, it doesnt change the fact that the sounds are being crippled with hear like in helmet. Think of it like this: you listen to a song, a recording of purpose and clarity in some way, and then go to your windows audio mixer and turn on "bathroom environment" or "hall", because you dig the reverb sound. That's ok, you are now enjoying what you wanted, but the fine mixing and composition of the song has still been thrown completely over board. That's what hear like in helmet does. It makes everything sound worse, and sells it as if it sounded "like in a helmet." I never tried one on in an F-14, but the last time I had a Tomcat helmet on my head, nothing sounded different, just a tad more quiet. So take the realism of this effect with a grain of salt, too. In a real aircraft you are dealing simply with a wall of noise.

    Hear like in helmet also makes all other modules sound worse, not sure why so many ppl like it, but taste ofc is subjective. Objectively speaking, from the POV of the sound mixer or sound artist, it is an "atrocity" imho.

    That the Jester radio squelch is now louder, is because since we made Jester available through headphones, the sound is not tied to the cockpit slider anymore, so if everything else is turned down, it is louder. We're not sure why, but we are looking into that.

    We didnt make alternative switches sounds (not sure what makes you think that), but we of course choose the soundscope for our module, which naturally is "forced" on you just as say the textures are "forced" on you. Game settings and in this case sound settings allow you to adjust these then. Bringing us back to the issue that the squelch sound is not tied to the cockpit slider anymore, and thus louder if you turn everything else down. (And like I said, we are looking into a solution to give you guys back control over it, we have no intention of forcing any kind of volume on you guys, everyone should enjoy it to his or her preferences.)

    That said, I cannot stress it enough: if you use "hear like in helmet" you cripple the sound work in general, which is tuned to sound like in a cockpit, not in a void space, if you notice the cockpit sounds change when you move your head around. That is: they might not, if you have hear like in helmet on, or might, dunno, but point is: we can't guarantee that. That doesnt mean you shouldnt use it, if, knowing that, you still prefer it.
    Last edited 09-29-2020, 02:22 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Naquaii
    replied
    Originally posted by Lt_Jaeger View Post
    I'm kinda surprised, guess helicopter hunting was no priority.
    I have some experience with analog gbad radars, roughly the age of the Tomcat radar. There you got very destinctiv returns of the rotorblades which make, in my experience good radar reflectors and are great for a huge dopplershift in the approaching and receiding band, wit the parts closer to the mast mostly filtered out - the tips of a rotorblade are close to Mach 1 if I'm not mistaken.
    Depending of the speed you got the cell or off the Doppler filter. Surely the data processor had some problems with the signal to make sense of, but for the operators eye a heli was pretty destinctiv.
    I wonder if there wouldn't be a distinctive pattern on the ddi in cw mode, for sure RWS couldn't make a track, but the Rio......?

    All these said was on a relative short distance, let's assume around 15 miles, but given the raw power of the Tomcat radar.....

    Not saying it is wrong, because for that my radar times are too long ago, I'm just curious.

    So thank you very much for your answer, that takes me to the conclusion to leave the helicopter hunt to the slow poke Hornets.

    Just kidding

    Gesendet von meinem LYA-L29 mit Tapatalk
    It sounds to me like you're talking about fire direction radars maybe? The AWG-9 has no capability at all for CW except as an illuminator for the sparrows, but it does not process and receive the cw itself.
    It uses the pulse and pdd stt modes to point the antenna and then the CW illuminator emits seperately.

    For a fire direction radar / target illumination radar what you're describing sounds about right. The operator in that case would be looking at some sort of A-scope which makes it easier to see this as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • draconus
    replied
    Originally posted by IronMike View Post
    That "muffling" completely cripples our sound work. You need to adjust cockpit and helmet sliders to achieve the volume of your personal preference, but the sounds are tweaked to sound like they would in a cockpit (minus the fact that you wouldnt hear switches at all, but we do that to offer an alternative to the lack of haptic feedback).
    I don't know what you're talking about. It sounded perfectly good some months ago, just like I would expect to hear being a pilot and similar to other modules, then it got some sound levels wrong (Jester buzz, radar alt knob and warning). Were they wrong before or you were not happy about it?
    Do you suggest it now sounds (without the "helmet" option) as a pilot would hear in his helmet?
    Also if you add "alternative" switches sounds why is it forced upon us? The slider doesn't work.
    I can give artism credit where it's due as long as it brings me closer to reality not put me away.

    Leave a comment:


  • IronMike
    replied
    Originally posted by Lt_Jaeger View Post
    I'm kinda surprised, guess helicopter hunting was no priority.
    I have some experience with analog gbad radars, roughly the age of the Tomcat radar. There you got very destinctiv returns of the rotorblades which make, in my experience good radar reflectors and are great for a huge dopplershift in the approaching and receiding band, wit the parts closer to the mast mostly filtered out - the tips of a rotorblade are close to Mach 1 if I'm not mistaken.
    Depending of the speed you got the cell or off the Doppler filter. Surely the data processor had some problems with the signal to make sense of, but for the operators eye a heli was pretty destinctiv.
    I wonder if there wouldn't be a distinctive pattern on the ddi in cw mode, for sure RWS couldn't make a track, but the Rio......?

    All these said was on a relative short distance, let's assume around 15 miles, but given the raw power of the Tomcat radar.....

    Not saying it is wrong, because for that my radar times are too long ago, I'm just curious.

    So thank you very much for your answer, that takes me to the conclusion to leave the helicopter hunt to the slow poke Hornets.

    Just kidding

    Gesendet von meinem LYA-L29 mit Tapatalk

    Pulse is your friend in this case, even more so PAL. That ofc needs somewhat an idea of the chopper's whereabouts, but once it comes within 15nm, PAL will pick it up. so a rough direction and distance already helps.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lt_Jaeger
    replied
    I'm kinda surprised, guess helicopter hunting was no priority.
    I have some experience with analog gbad radars, roughly the age of the Tomcat radar. There you got very destinctiv returns of the rotorblades which make, in my experience good radar reflectors and are great for a huge dopplershift in the approaching and receiding band, wit the parts closer to the mast mostly filtered out - the tips of a rotorblade are close to Mach 1 if I'm not mistaken.
    Depending of the speed you got the cell or off the Doppler filter. Surely the data processor had some problems with the signal to make sense of, but for the operators eye a heli was pretty destinctiv.
    I wonder if there wouldn't be a distinctive pattern on the ddi in cw mode, for sure RWS couldn't make a track, but the Rio......?

    All these said was on a relative short distance, let's assume around 15 miles, but given the raw power of the Tomcat radar.....

    Not saying it is wrong, because for that my radar times are too long ago, I'm just curious.

    So thank you very much for your answer, that takes me to the conclusion to leave the helicopter hunt to the slow poke Hornets.

    Just kidding

    Gesendet von meinem LYA-L29 mit Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • Naquaii
    replied
    Originally posted by Lt_Jaeger View Post
    Thank you Sir.

    Gesendet von meinem LYA-L29 mit Tapatalk
    Hi!

    Please see this link: https://www.radartutorial.eu/10.processing/sp16.en.html .

    A modern radar with a dedicated helicopter detection channel uses techniques not available in an older analogue radar like the AWG-9.

    If detected in the AWG-9, which would be unlikely as the RCS of the rotor blades is very small, the AWG-9 wouldn't know what to make of it.

    The returns would be random snapshots of a very tiny target exhibiting seemingly random doppler returns and would make it highly unlikely that you'd receive two identical consecutive returns making the formation of a track very unlikely.

    If detected you might be able to see faint traces on the DDD from the helictoper but being very very faint and random it would be really difficult to differentiate from clutter.

    Unfortunately this means that helicopter hunting in the F-14 should be restricted to Pulse mode only. (Unless you're hunting a very fast helicopter ofc!)

    Leave a comment:


  • Lt_Jaeger
    replied
    Originally posted by IronMike View Post
    To be honest, I am not sure, but from what we gathered, I would very carefully suggest "no". Mainly due to the fact that helos usually fall way below the notch filter limits, but even if they did produce some kind of return with the rotors, not sure if it was significant enough for one, or even doable/ reproduceable in DCS for that matter. Gyro or Naquaii can probably give you a better, more correct and more knowledgeable answer to this question, I'll forward it to them.
    Thank you Sir.

    Gesendet von meinem LYA-L29 mit Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • IronMike
    replied
    Originally posted by Lt_Jaeger View Post
    Could someone elaborate on this statement?

    I know first hand that helos leave a distinct pattern on an Doppler radar wich even prevent notching.

    How about in the Tomcat?

    Gesendet von meinem LYA-L29 mit Tapatalk



    To be honest, I am not sure, but from what we gathered, I would very carefully suggest "maybe". Mainly due to the fact that helos usually fall way below the notch filter limits, but even if they did produce some kind of return with the rotors, not sure if it was significant enough for one, or even doable/ reproduceable in DCS for that matter. Gyro or Naquaii can probably give you a better, more correct and more knowledgeable answer to this question, I'll forward it to them.


    EDIT: changed it to "maybe", Naquaii will elaborate on it later (and better).
    Last edited 09-28-2020, 03:12 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • IronMike
    replied
    Originally posted by Whiskey Greg View Post
    I am 100% willing to chalk it up to user error. I am about the furthest thing from an expert there is. I only mentioned it because before the patch I was always able to pick up those targets, but not after. Certainly I could have been doing something wrong. I'll assume that I was, and I'll go keep playing.

    I also hopped into MP since I posted that "issue" and my radar seemed to be working fine (other than Jester dropping lock after the AIM-54s come off the rail).

    I have much to learn! Thanks, Mike!


    Cheers



    Anytime, however - it's not necessarily user error. But even I find myself often in a situation where I did not sanitize the sky properly or put the AWG-9 at a disatvantage and then curse the radar for a brief moment, before looking at my own doings.. We just need to be careful atm with reports that are not 10/10 reproducable, means happen wrongly every single time. In general TWS was a "fairly unreliable" radar mode, and not necessarily the mode preferred to engage targets. It is easy to forget that, as it self advertises as some kind of uber mode, but in fact of course it splits a lot of radar energy across many targets, etc... Maneuvering has a huge impact on it, own aircraft as well as target, and so on. Those are all things that need to come to mind and be kept in mind as well, when talking about "radar issues" that are not 100% reproducable.

    Leave a comment:


  • viper2097
    replied
    I know this is a minor one and stands last in line, but still:
    NEW! Added ability to hide HUD Camera: click the HUD camera in the cockpit to remove it. (F-14 pilots could carry hex wrenches to remove the HUD camera, especially for landing.)
    Won't you add a little delay between clicking and disappearing with the sound from a wrench turning? Would be awesome .

    Leave a comment:


  • Lt_Jaeger
    replied
    Originally posted by Nobody Special View Post
    Don't the rotors provide a return at rather high doppler?
    Could someone elaborate on this statement?

    I know first hand that helos leave a distinct pattern on an Doppler radar wich even prevent notching.

    How about in the Tomcat?

    Gesendet von meinem LYA-L29 mit Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • IronMike
    replied
    Originally posted by draconus View Post
    I concur. I have always used the "hear like in helmet" feature because it's great simulation of what it says. It worked fine in other modules and it did in F-14 too before. Without the option it sounds like... without helmet and is unbearable. The switches are too loud and are not connected to the appropriate volume slider. With the option for helmet we should hear clearly the comms, audible warnings, RWR, Sidewinder tone (I might have missed sth) while cockpit switches, ECS, engines and external sounds should be muffled. All should be muffled when there is no el. power.

    That "muffling" completely cripples our sound work. You need to adjust cockpit and helmet sliders to achieve the volume of your personal preference, but the sounds are tweaked to sound like they would in a cockpit (minus the fact that you wouldnt hear switches at all, but we do that to offer an alternative to the lack of haptic feedback).

    I can only say it again: we strongly advice against using "hear like in helmet" and if you do, we cannot guarantee that our sounds actually sound as intended and that you can mix them to your liking in a proper way.

    It shouldn't extist as an option in the first place - imho, it is a slap in every sound artist's face and nothing else. That said, I know many like the effect it makes, and that is completely fine, but again, if you use it, we cannot guarantee that our sounds actually sound as they were intended to sound.


    That doesn't mean we are not willing to look into the Jester sound issue, we're just getting mixed results ourselves atm, only 1 of our devs finds it too loud, the rest of us seem to be fairly happy, also due to our own slider settings for world, cockpit and helmet respectively - which doesn't mean we dismiss that some of you find it too loud at all. It's just difficult to find a good middle ground. And atm it is not tied to cockpit sound, and not to ICS volume, since we implemented Jester and cockpit alert sounds via headphones, which poses another obstacle. We'll keep looking in to it.
    Last edited 09-29-2020, 02:26 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X