Jump to content

AvroLanc

Members
  • Posts

    1322
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AvroLanc

  1. With C-HMD selected use the TEDAC SYM button.
  2. Just to add another mornings experience…. The RFs are definitely a great tool in the toolset but they are far less flexible than the SALs and I can see clearly why we’ve not seen them widely used IRL. They very much need a good steady track and lase, almost always using IAT, if you don’t the data is still passed off but the chances of the missile not acquiring are high. This is why George CPG struggles so much. LOBL works well, but the tracking seems to rely on the side of the aircraft the missile is on vs which relative side the target is on. The missiles Track better when facing the target without own aircraft obstructing….which is a nice touch Using IAT as a human CPG and understanding their limitations…..they are awesome. And when the FCR arrives they will will really come into their own. George will do better with the FCR / RF combination too. I just wish we could take 2xRF and 6xSAL as an option…..
  3. So I guess this is WIP, but the radio comm presets are non-functional in current OB. Pressing the 'P' button on the EUFD does nothing for any radio. This has so far worked since day 1 last year. I get that the whole COMM page and functions are WIP, but this is sub-optimal. Would it be best to leave the 'Presets' functionality alone while work is done on the COMM page? Thanks.
  4. I've just done some more shots.... and actually LOBL's all hit my intended targets this time....and this with closely spaced vehicles. Maybe not as bad as first thought. Really enjoying how they've been modeled.
  5. Yes the curved trajectory is deliberately off-axis. It's curved to give the missile DBS - Doppler Beam Sharpening. Basically giving the seeker a high LOS rate vs ground speed vs terrain -to pick out the target against the ground clutter. You'll notice the LOBL shots have a much more direct trajectory. They don't need DBS, because they're already locked on. Very nicely done by ED.
  6. You can't fire RF Hellfire from the pilots seat at the moment. They can only be cued from the TADS or FCR. Pilot correctly can't select TADS and the FCR is not yet implemented. So RF from the front seat only atm.
  7. Yes the curved trajectory is deliberately off-axis. It's curved to give the missile DBS - Doppler Beam Sharpening. Basically giving the seeker a high LOS rate vs ground speed vs terrain -to pick out the target against the ground clutter.
  8. Just starting this discussion, no bug report yet.. How is everyone finding the RF Hellfires? With my very limited testing so far it seem the RF's are VERY indiscriminate in their target selection. When engaging a group of moving targets I get a LOBL launch...which is expected and a RF MSL TRACK message. However, in this condition my missiles were still hitting other target than the ones designated. Surely with a RF MSL TRACK and LOBL launch the missile seeker has already locked onto the passed off target....the chances of engaging the wrong target are therefore greatly reduced compared to the LOAL launch? Or not? Maybe the seeker performance is correct and RF Hellfire are just very indiscriminate? Is there a minimum recommended target spacing?
  9. This is all to do with precision. The TADS, FCR and IDM received data (which itself comes from wingman FCR) are the only location sources precise enough. Waypoints and other points location precision will be determined by the aircrafts own navigation quality. The INUs can drift and the GPS may not have been considered when these things were designed in the late 80’s/early 90’s. There are 3 ways FCR TADS IDM to get the missile targeted. This will be plenty. The FCR scan can store 16 priority targets in its short term memory (and a bunch more…256…on TSD, you can only shoot those on FCR page though) and you can shoot at all of them from out of LOS just fine. And also, as pointed out above, it's to do with active target identification. RF Hellfire were designed for the cold war gone hot scenario. Hordes of red army tanks pouring over West Germany. In that target rich and very dynamic scenario you can't afford to waste missiles firing against a location were there may or not be a target....he may have moved, even if there a minute ago. You can't fire them preemptively. Every missile needs to count so you use FCR and TADS and wingman FCR (IDM) to actively locate targets before engaging.
  10. Thanks for this, nice testing. It correlates with what I’ve found in my much less scientific observations.
  11. Err….you realise none of this will likely happen? Or maybe you were being sarcastic in an attempt to dig for information or intentions….. Either way, I have a feeling we’ll both be disappointed.
  12. Was I the only person actually looking forward to LANTIRN? Hopefully a proper LANTIRN does indeed come later. Sometimes it's refreshing to have kit with limitations and quirks to work around. Also.....are the reference docs absolutely clear that SNIPER has Auto Maverick Handoff....'cos that could be a capability you loose. LANTIRN has a specific hardware 'Missile Boresight Correlator' for this purpose.
  13. Yeah that’s still very simplistic behaviour that offers no similar situational awareness as the old implementation did. At the very least the logic should be refined and a step added so that: When a threat is within lethal range, (I.e not spiking or locking, just within a lethal range) it should move to the inner ring. The spiking and missile firing stages can be left as they are. But this additional movement of a threat from the outer ring to the inner ring…..obviously coded based on threat capabilities and it’s signal strength….with inherent range ambiguity if you wish…..is critical to a more closely simulated ALR-56.
  14. Agree with all of this. The recent changes to the AN/ALR-56M are a massive mistake. The one good thing about the ED F-16 vs the F/A-18 was that the RWR was somewhat better modeled. The very fact that your initial implementation was based on signal strength and range was clearly based on documentation you must have had (maybe......you've still got it)..... The -56M was clearly not just a port over of the Hornet RWR. You went out of your way to model it (correctly) in 2019.... Now this had changed. Why? What has changed in the reference documentation? The ALR-56M is now modeled as a incredibly simplistic RWR that only differentiates between presence / lock / firing. It's supposed to be more advanced (Wild Weasel CJ/CM remember). This is clearly not how it should behave. ED knows this (or did, why did they model it correctly in 2019?). 'Other sims' know this for about the last 22 odd years as well. To me this is a cynical butt-covering exercise that has nothing to do with simulation accuracy. It's by ED's own admission about reducing exposure to possible legal concerns. We all understand security concerns but please just be honest and upfront and give that as the reason for the change. That would be preferable over the frustrating butting of heads over the interpreting or mis-interpreting of reference manuals. You've just seriously handicapped a core F-16 sensor/system and we're all adult enough to deserve to know why..... This really highlights the folly of trying to model the more modern aircraft without really thorough research first. Hard to acquire reference material, and its interpretation has been a serious frustration throughout the DCS Viper's life and is now really spoiling the quality of the simulation.
  15. The only real solution is for each DDI format to have user custom slew rates. The change ED have made is a step in the right direction. An improvement…. I was calling this out as a positive. The warthog nipple style TDC is notoriously bad and there’s no real way round that. It’s was far from ideal 13 years ago when when I replaced my TM Cougar with a Warthog and TGP control became so much more frustrating. Luckily 13 years later we have other options. ED is very slowly making progress, maybe we’ll get the ideal solution sooner or later.
  16. I'll add the counter view here.... The new TDC behaviour is an excellent improvement. The old TDC slew rate was far too slow on the Radar page and far too fast on the HUD/JHMCS. It was very very difficult to do a HUD TDC designation. That was now been solved. HUD TDC movement is now really nice, and the Radar ATTK pages are now much faster/easier to use, especially using the TDC to bump range and azimuth. It's a little more sensitive for fine control, but the old 'warthog nipple' is crap in any case. The mini-stick on the Virpil CM3 works much better. You need good hardware. All-in-all a very positive change.
  17. It was once suggested by ED that buddy-controlled MITL datalink stuff was planned….but we’ve heard nothing since. Safe to assume that it won’t be added anytime soon. Although maybe with the future F-4, F-15E….GBU-15, AGM-130 etc it might get looked at again.
  18. OK, so the problem is that at the time of the Wags' video, Offset Aimpoints were incorrectly implemented i.e. their function was completely NOT accurate to how they're supposed to work. They've been improved since then, but again, I'm not sure how they are currently. I might go check now. Using the the OA triangle in the HUD as a pull down reference for Pop-Up attacks is a valid useful trick, but clearly is not the reason for their existence. Agreed on removing the Video. The answer to the OPs question is to manually create a custom steerpoint in the 1-25 range and then use the VIP function.
  19. This is NOT how OA’s are supposed to work. Wags’s video was wrong and does not represent how OA’s are supposed to be used. I’m not sure exactly how offset aimpoints currently function in the OB, but this method for designating 2 additional targets is not a use case.
  20. So, I think we all appreciate this approach but it’s the inconsistency that becomes bizarre and frustrating. The Hornets Spanish Litening TGP on a USN Hornet being a prime example, along with the fact that most radar/avionics/MSI stuff in the Hornet is pre 2005 Lot 22. Many such examples are present in the F16 too. I’ve personally provided evidence in PMs that come from 90’s era Block 50 and A MLU’s….and those changes have already been implemented and are in sim already. And these, in some cases were supported by simple YouTube screen captures, for again, very simple aircraft basics features. And this is because it made sense for these fundamentals, in the absence of the perfect 2007 manual. With the Spanish Litening example, you went that way to provide the next best intelligent solution to a lack of reference documentation…..which is absolutely the correct approach. Nobody’s talking about adding TFR or Greek ECM or Norwegian Penguin missiles to a USAF 2007 M4.2+ Viper (well, some are, but you’re correct to ignore them), but an intelligent review of the available stuff on the basics is what’s needed. Big picture. I very much doubt that everything in this DCS Viper has been gathered from a single 2007 M4.2+ dash-34 manual anyway. Anyway, thanks. I recognise only so much progress is made by banging one’s head against a brick wall.
  21. So sorry, are we saying that the documentation you’ve already got specifically and deliberately states that the HUD altitude option doesn’t exist in Tape 4.2? If so, perfectly happy with that. ….Or are you suggesting there are gaps in your documentation concerning this feature? (but strangely not the functions of the remainder of this HUD control panel, but set that aside for now). If it’s the latter would it not be valid to extrapolate this simple known function from every other Block 25-50 and MLU onto your simulation of a very similar 2007 Block 50? Considering all other functionality of the HUD control panel hasn’t changed in that period Thanks, but I’m genuinely curious.
  22. This is correct. The Radar Hellfire just needs a target location. It can be used in either LOBL or LOAL. Generally LOBL for all moving targets and short range stationary targets. LOAL for long range stationary targets. The missile itself will decide LOBL or LOAL depending on whether it’s active radar seeker sees the target or not whilst still on the rail. For use with the TADS you’ll get a TARGET DATA? message in the weapon inhibit field until you lase and provide good location data to missile.
  23. Nobody has tested this? From further testing the AN/ASQ-213 detection cone seems to be actually a bit less than the forward 180 degree sector. It seems the threat needs to be well inside the forward arc to be detected/updated. Even with very short SCT/scan times (with a single manual threat). It would still be useful if the actual modeled scan/search zone numbers could be provided by ED. Thanks.
  24. Quick question since it's not in the manual...... What are the Field of View limits for the HTS (Harm Targetting System AN/ASQ-213) search area? It's obviously not 360 degrees, but what does DCS have modeled? 180 degree forward sector seems to be what I get but maybe it's a little more.... Anyone know the numbers? It's kinda important to know the limits when you're skirting the edge of a SAM's WEZ and need an update for the PGM quality. Cheers.
  25. In regard to the HUD Altitude switch…… is there any reason why it’s not implemented? Is it planned? Are you saying it’s not part of the 2007 Block 50 you’ve modelled? Seems strange since all of the F-16 documentation out there from Block 50’s to MLU’s all have this feature. It would seem to be a very simple thing to add when such basic display settings are common on most DCS aircraft. A simple BARO/RAD/Auto mode is pretty common for the complex 4th gens. Seems to be a very curious omission. There is of course ample documentation on how it works and looks. Hopefully you can add it.
×
×
  • Create New...