Jump to content

near_blind

Members
  • Content Count

    411
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About near_blind

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 12/11/1870

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. What's your plan to simulate the diverse effects of multiple generations of ECM emitters spanning 50 years on the ECCM suite of a semi analogue radar when the EW infrastructure in DCS currently consists of Jamming: Yes? / No? It doesn't help that the F/A-18 is a modern set where ECCM is largely automated, and the effects of DECM on ownship are modelled incorrectly. Even then: why would you want HB to step in and try to hit a moving target while the EW model as it is, and how it interacts with weapons is in a state of constant flux as ED tries to mess with it, knowing that this will inevitably
  2. In PSTT it doesn't get post launch guidance instructions. At best it gets pre-launch antenna cueing instructions if the target is > 30 degrees off bore.
  3. It'd definitely be nice to have a intermediate copy of the NATOPs, from either the late 80s or early 90s. The ones you can find online are either from 1972 and reference the initial configuration of the A, or from the early 2000s and reference the F-14B post adoption of the PTID and newer navigation system.
  4. Take it with a grain of salt (I've been wrong before with that video), but I think that's from VF-301 doing a carrier qual on Ranger in 1986. http://www.gonavy.jp/CV-CV61f.html If that's the case, it should be kosher for our F-14B and late A.
  5. It should be tied to the ACM cover, but that functionality isn't working right now for some reason.
  6. Is there any chance things like speed (and possible AAR) callouts could be enabled or disabled via a jester menu option? These are things that I imagine would fall under the formal or informal contract between crew members. If it were a real person this is something we'd discuss before takeoff or during startup, and its something I could ask for or ask to stop. Jester insisting on doing it 100% of the time moves him from appreciated team mate to 'that guy who has to find his own table in the wardroom' territory.
  7. F-111 or I riot privately manage my disappointment, I guess.
  8. Is there anyway that ED could host the database files where it is externally accessible in such a way that it cannot interact with the game but that we still have visibility into the structure and values? Something like GitHub or ED hosted site? Reiterating what others have pointed out, losing visibility into the values and structure of those files is crippling to modding and trying to troubleshoot potential bugs. I'm far more concerned about the latter than any impact potential cheaters could have.
  9. I can confirm the bolter calls on CVN-75 at least, the kneeboard page also failed to record a captured wire. AIM-7Ms are still defeated off the rail when shooting at aircraft with jammers (e.g. SU-24M)
  10. A correlated track will still receive the active signal if it's supported. The target might be out of the acquisition basket, it might not, it all depends on how early the track was lost and how violently the target maneuvered, but the there is always a chance, however small, that the missile will find something. A lost PD-STT Phoenix will never hit a target.
  11. A TWS launched AIM-54 with a correlated track has a small chance of achieving a kill. A PD-STT launched AIM-54 with a broken lock has no chance of achieving a kill.
  12. I interpreted the issue to be the same one I reported here: If that's the case then it's not a radar issue so much as a jester issue. After the first request to transition from PD to P-STT he will respond affirmatively to all subsequent requests, but he'll never actually attempt to make the transition. Its not that the radar is having trouble finding the target in pulse, it's that Jester isn't even trying to use it in the first place. If I had to guess somehow Jester is getting into a state where the pulse lock code function isn't being called.
  13. Confirmation bias is a cruel mistress, but I'd sure love to get my hands on these imaginary Phoenixes. They sound amahzing, real dart beaters and flanker abusers. A strange way of ignoring it I guess, but to each their own.
  14. IIRC, missile flight path and hits are determined by the client that launched the missile, not the server or the target. The longer the time of flight, the more network latency, the greater the apparent desync to other clients: this is an inherent issue with DCS netcode that is exaggerated in the AIM-54 due to its longer flight times. If the missile off by 15 miles on shooters's track/tacview, than that would be an issue.
  15. Looks like the TACAN wasn't set for the carrier in the mission.
×
×
  • Create New...