Jump to content

AvroLanc

Members
  • Content Count

    841
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About AvroLanc

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 05/24/1984

Personal Information

  • Location
    UK
  • Occupation
    Airline Captain

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I agree with you wholeheartedly. And have done over the last two and half years of Hornet rollercoaster. However, ED don’t, and that’s what we’re fighting against. Half of it is legal, half is an unwillingness to delve deep dev time into a system when they have an excuse not to. I don’t know the answer.
  2. ED will not implement something based on hearsay, rumours or anything not found in publicly available documentation. Rightly or wrongly they want to cover their own backsides. If you’ve got a hard and detailed documented source on 90’s era (Link 4?) DL capability please share it.
  3. Yeah it's a curiosity to be sure. However, giving the benefit of doubt it - it seems the Hornet is somewhat limited compared to other aircraft here..... There's no ability to select and transmit a standard markpoint or waypoint in F-18, however it very much is a basic feature of the F-16 and A-10C (IRL). In the case of the F-16, even before Link 16. Maybe the legacy Hornet really is lacking with this, or least it was in 2005 ish. No doubt the latest Super Hornets can now do this, but remember that in 2005 MIDS/L16 was a pretty new capability and it may just have not ma
  4. hmmm...we were led to believe this might be coming. The question should be - why wouldn't it be there? Most importantly, does the documentation specifically rule it out? Does the AZ/EL documentation pre-date / is concurrent / post-date documentation for MIDS / Link16? Because if there's a mix of documentation being used instead of a single harmonised reference I can see that being an issue....
  5. This seems to be how it’s implemented at the moment, but it’s surely wrong or WIP. If it isn’t a single integrated picture across all 3 formats ( which it should be), then surely the AZ/EL being a radar page, would show NCTR and SA showing LINK 16. Reading some docs I have, NCTR info should show primarily on the AZ/EL. Possibly to be merged / supplemented with LINK data when available. The data block we see down in the bottom left is simplified at the moment.
  6. Ok, thanks for that. Not tested it myself yet. I've no idea if that's correct, but it doesn't seem unreasonable...... There's a bug (or is it?) where friendlies SURV tracks without MIDS/L16 never receive an ID from Awacs. Anyone have any idea whether this is correct or not? I do know that AWACS can indirectly publish a PPLI in this case, and hence should contain ID data, but my reference is some F-16 docs.
  7. Personally I agree with Joni’s post, I’m seeing the same issues and it’s more apparent now that the AZ/EL page has been implemented. Hostile tracks on the as/el data block always seem to have the correct type ID, presumably a result of some kind of AWACS NCTR. However it’s never been documented how this might work....range criteria / aspect etc? I’m guessing that real world AWACS capability is going to be greater than the 25nm fighter type we see in game. IRL AWACS would have other intelligence and ECM data to help form IDs so I appreciate it gets complex to model. Added to
  8. +1 Yeah, this is noted my end too. Why would the AWACS Type ID not be available in the SA page? But is on AZ/EL? They should surely sync and provide integrated information? I’ve noticed that the Type ID is always available on the AZ/EL , even in situations where there’s no FF data. Perhaps the AZ/EL is ‘cheating’ because it’s WIP? This has been marked as correct but it’s difficult to understand why. As a side note, I’m finding awacs never prints the type ID of a non-PPLI contact on the SA page. Even non-link 16 friendlies don’t have an ID.
  9. DCS ATC has nothing to do with real life anyway. Unless you're using Supercarrier, best to ignore it unfortunately. Trying to use it breaks immersion more than it's worth. Looks like it might be improved in the feature so fingers crossed.
  10. No, the F-16 does have the ability to send and receive SEAD THREATs over DL. The documentation is sparse but the sending of SEAD threats is probably tied into the HTS system (So USAF Block 50's and later) but all F-16C /MLU types can receive them. There are unique HSD SEAD symbols / DED pages and HOTAS functions available. Note this is independent of the threat waypoints created in pre-planning / DTC. For us in DCS, we don't know yet.
  11. Well....aware....as in ‘working as intended’.....for the time being at least.
  12. +1 I see the same. +/- 10 seconds is pretty usual. I'm sure it should be more accurate, but it's probably a result of the JDAM flight model and autopilot development being in a state of flux and not being entirely predictable. It may change as things are finalized? In the mean time, I've learnt to expect it. This also applies to unguided and LGBs. LGB impacts are always a few seconds after the TTI timer expires.
  13. The only two with any hope are Mk77 Napalm and the ADM-141 TALD. ED said in the newsletter they're working on effects for 'Fuel explosions' - this might tie in with the effects needed for Mk77. They're also still on cards whenever this question pops up. Likewise for TALD's - they're never ruled out when asked, and indeed are already included (sort of, not very effectively) with the F-14. Wave goodbye to Walleye I and Shrike. Not enough interest and questionable applicability to the period our Hornet exists in. Personally I'd like to see sea mines
  14. XP is Transponder - the modes your IFF will squawk to others. You can set codes for modes 1,2,3( and 3A), and either A or B mode 4. AI is Airborne Interrogator - the modes you interrogate when 'IFFing' a contact. These codes can be set independently from the XP. The contacts XP modes will need to match your AI codes to provide a positive (friendly in our case) response. I'm sure the radar and AZ/EL pages should show separate symbols for IFF returns along with the normal radar returns. Presumably ED plans to add some kind of system with IFF codes. It has been mentioned b
  15. Bump. Maybe JDAMs will get attention in the final push. Hornet awesome is so many ways, but little things need polish.
×
×
  • Create New...