Jump to content

AvroLanc

Members
  • Posts

    1322
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AvroLanc

  1. Well, it's not the proper LST function as this hasn't been implemented yet. Once it does get implemented, the true LST will only be available from the CPG seat. However....the poor man's LST method will work from the back seat, same as front. Just WAS your MSLs and select SKR from the ACQ Source list. Once the missile picks up the laser code, you'll get the ACQ source cross jumping to it's location. It's pretty pointless from the back seat though as you have no way to act on the information, you can't lase, you can't store etc. You can fire MSL but with no range information etc, it's suboptimal. Best leave it to CPG. This is far from a perfect solution to buddy lasing though and can be a mess with lots flipping backwards and forwards between SLAVE state, PRI, ALT codes etc. The sooner ED implement LST the better.
  2. With NVS MODE in NORM, the TADS is unavailable for use as a sight, so that's your problem. (In NVS, the TADS is being used as a 'Sensor', not a 'Sight'). Put the NVS switch to OFF, sight select TADS, and then ACQ Source to GHS. Now press the slave button and the TADS will follow the HMD.
  3. I think we’ve established that DCS hasn’t got it correct. The correct functionality is outlined in a couple of easily found docs online, but it’s a bit of an effort to detail the specifics in a forum post. I imagine someone will need to PM ED to highlight again the details though….for whoever feels up to it.
  4. Same on Caucasus..... Anyone tried any other map?
  5. Correct. SAFE should not show any CCRP/DLZ/Missile information, either AA or AG. WPN video should not show in SAFE either. That symbology is only shown in ARM/SIM.
  6. SIM mode is not modelled in DCS. It adds ‘SIM’ to the HUD. That is all. Cosmetic. Of course in real life it’s connected to the weapons symbology displays and video WPN page display etc. But none of that logic has been added.
  7. What would be nice is an implementation of the ‘Recording’ HAD message and associated TEDAC record button…It wouldn’t need to actually do anything, a fake message if you like, but for SOP / role play could be a nice low effort addition. Not sure if you can suggest it Raptor? Thanks.
  8. The next missile in sequence on the rack. Once the missile has gone, it’s gone….there’s no way of telling if it’s tracking the laser spot.
  9. Yeah, this should work as you described. Although ED hasn't modeled the pre-planned threats as being actual Steerpoints yet (should they be 56-79?....I think), which until they do, TMS on the HSD symbol wouldn't mean much anyway. In short....it's NOT correct as is.
  10. Preliminary Changelog would ease the pain. With everyone's grown up understanding that it's 'subject to change'....... How about it? Thanks.
  11. Real thing doesn't have this feature. You have to use the other tools at your disposal to build awareness of where the TADS is looking.
  12. You could also deselect ‘cueing’ from the pilots WPN-UTIL page to declutter. But this would take away all ACQ source info…
  13. I wouldn’t expect it at all. Wag’s did mention it in passing once, but never since, and to implement it fully would be a fairly big task, and I don’t see any signs of it happening.
  14. Thankyou Raptor for your reply. Nice to hear that. Maybe I was being testy, but the 'two steps forwards, one step back' approach is sometimes hard to understand from a mere users perspective. But not just an Apache specific issue..... Anyway thanks.
  15. He can do LOAL DIR just fine. If want to do HI or LO, presumably you’re behind a mask or obstacle. For the moment you can do third party lasing I.e from a JTAC, but you have to time your laser on call and bob up just right. WAS and shoot missile yourself as pilot. Behind a mask is the only real use case for HI and LO trajectory.
  16. Any idea how long this will take to change back? This is a major retrograde step in usability. The ability to have a target CM active as your own ACQ source and to get George to search around that area was fundamental to using George CPG. The current implementation is poor and unrealistic, even if only temporary. And with DCS timescales, could be here for a while…….
  17. There's a new problem with the display of certain CONTROL MEASURE graphic icons on the TSD. With the CM graphics that have interior text, such as BP, AA, FU, EU etc, that interior text is not displayed correctly after the point becomes 'deselected'. (The text should be the CM number, C51 etc, or in the case of FU/EU, the free text entered by user). You can see that text as reverse highlighted (black text) as you create the point, but when deselected that black text now becomes invisible. In previous open betas it worked fine. The reverse highlight bit always made the text labels visible at all times. With CM's that don't have interior text, like AE or EI for example, this is not an issue. See track and shot. Thanks. CM Text bug.trk
  18. Yeah come ED, what's the latest on internal discussion on this 'feature'? It needs to be an option at the very least. It's not even very useful in SP since every enemy ground unit is depicted as an AE 'Enemy Armor' CM - making the TSD cluttered with identical and 'wrong' CM's. I kinda see what you were trying to do, but please.....this is not the way at the moment. A universal, but obviously module tailored, DTC solution is the answer as we all know...what's the latest on that? Any progress since 2019? I'd happily pay for it at this point.
  19. Ah, sorry all. Didn't spot it.
  20. So it seems the PERF page is no longer selectable in the latest OB. Before, the PERF page was semi useful if you artificially changed the Basic Weight to actual weight (not how it's supposed to work, but workaround), and it gave semi-plausible Torque figures. Is the PERF page still coming in an updated form, still WIP? Hope it's not gone forever.
  21. Mid/late 80’s. Paveway didn’t really need to be ‘integrated’, just hooked on the jet and a role change and training to work with third party lasing. System integration would have happened during the lead to the the Gulf War, when the TIALD TGP was rushed into service.
  22. The UK Gr.1s had the LRMTS under the nose while the Italian and Germans did not. The Laser Ranger and Marked Target Seeker was a system to provide laser ranging in a low level type attack where Radar ranging might be unreliable. The Marked Target Seeker was a Laser Spot Tracker type system for working with ground FACs. Both would be welcome additions to any DCS module. Plus the extra fuel. UK Tornados also had different RWR gear and different radios. Of course, and Buccaneer support. RAF Buccaneers would have provided buddy lasing support with their Pave Spike pods. As they did during the Gulf War.
  23. OK, I knew that would come up, I forgot the Marineflieger and Kormoran. Actually those Marine paint jobs / liveries are some of my favorites. But that fact remains, it's a limited capability Torando at FIRST glance. Maybe it will turn out otherwise. Given the complexity of Tornados NAV ATTACK avionics, a limited weapon set might reduce complexity for the developer. I do feel however, that we might not get a module that does full justice to the Tornado story. A 1991 RAF Gr.1 might have been doable and would better represent Tornado's full capability and have provided a better complement to current DCS modules. As well as having a better combat history.
  24. Not much. MK82, MK83, MK84 and MW-1. Oh.....and sidewinder of some kind. That's it boys. A 1989 German IDS is probably the most limited IDS variant there is. Maybe it's a starting point and we'll get some feature creep into the Gr.1 version/weapons. Maybe. Kinda disappointed that Heatblur didn't get it.
  25. Ok, so I’ve been through my reference ( prob same one as you guys are using), and can’t specifically find a sentence that says ‘raw FCR targets are displayed whatever the declutter level’. I think that is just presumed, since it is just common sense. The ALL, FTR+, TGTS, NONE options are datalink display options…i.e datalink…. They should not remove ownship radar contacts…even if that track is correlated with a datalink track. The NONE option should just remove the datalink colour overlay for that track, leaving behind the raw search/system track. Currently a correlated search target will disappear completely with the wrong declutter which is…dangerous. It wouldn’t be designed this way. There is actually a diagram that illustrates this, but admittedly doesn’t explicitly describe the behaviour. This is one of those examples where ED’s 20+ years of experience simulating this stuff should aid in interpreting the correct function.
×
×
  • Create New...