Jump to content

Tango3B

Members
  • Posts

    192
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tango3B

  1. Yup. I noticed that, too. Seems a bit off to me, too. Might indeed be related to some exaggerated range loss modelling in a look down situation. Actually, the loss of range one might experience in such a scenario isn´t that big of a factor with modern FCRs in real life. I remember this being a topic in another thread a while ago related to another radar problem in a look down scenario and if I am not totally mistaken I think GGTharos was the one who provided some files to some ED official to back this statement. So, I think there is a good chance ED might already be aware of this and that we might see an improvement of this behavior, soon. Let´s see what BN or 9L say to this...
  2. As BN said there is most likely no bug. What I do observe, though is that you fired all 3 shots completely out of usable parameters against a maneuvring target. The first two shots were both fired below Raero but way above Rmax. In this case the target only needs to do a tiny bit of a turn to defend and both shots are trashed. Your third shot was between Rmax and Rne and from very low level at 11nm distance against a maneuvering target which leads to exactly the same situation as described above. Your target had zero problems defending all your shots. I suggest you should have another look at the manual and really learn the symbology which is presented to you. Also, there are very good Youtube channels that show you how to best employ the AIM-120C so that you can make the most of your shots. Just a little more training and you get the hang of it.
  3. Thank you, Santi. Good to know & very much appreciated. Have a nice day.
  4. Yes, same here. Just ran into this problem while dogfighting a Viper. Pretty annoying stuff. 3 or 4 times my radar locked a ghost contact 99nm away in GACQ and the 5th time actually worked. There are track files present in this thread, by the way. Any chance to have another look at this one, ED?
  5. Hi, again! Ok, interesting. In this case everything is fine, I guess. Thank you for your quick replies & have a nice evening.
  6. Hey guys! I don´t know if this is really a bug but or not but I just tried setting functions like radar bar setting, range, azimuth, etc. with the TDC and I saw that after each selection I made with the TDC my TDC went back to stowed position. Is this "correct as is" and intentional? I find it hard to believe it works that way in the real jet as this is actually more than inconvenient. Can someone please clarify if this is correct behavior or if this is a bug?
  7. True. Nothing more to add to this. Well said. And you also might have noticed that your arm was forced upwards. This is because you actually generated lift with your arm. This is a basic aerodynamic lesson, so to say. Now translate that to the originial problem reported by the OP. There's your solution. I do not think there is a bug. What actually might be an issue, though is that I think trimming the Viper sufficently precise in DCS is pretty hard and not necessarily realistc. A forum member called Spacemonkey elaborated a little more on this topic a few weeks ago somewhere here in the F-16's forum section. You can search for it if you want to know more - I don't want to dive into this, again. I would suggest to assign roll trim to a slider axis. I did it and I am able to trim out even the most interesting loadouts without too much trouble. Maybe the OP should consider giving that a try. And also the wind settings in his mission might be a problem, of course.
  8. It starts getting a little frustrating to see things being labelled as "correct as is" or "working as intended" over and over again that are obviously completely off. We also had this with radar related stuff and those JHMCS issues. The MFD brightness is way too low and barely readable in certain lighting conditions. And this is a fact. Many people have this issue and we can't all be wrong, right? And this has been an issue since the release of the DCS F-16C module. This has been discussed many times here in this very bug section. And I actually cannot imagine that any SME would approve the current implementation of the MFD brightness settings. It would be very much appreciated if this issue could be discussed with the team again to reevaluate the current implementation. Thanks.
  9. Your memory serves you completely right. Values are absolutely correct. Would have been a surprise if not, right...?
  10. SpaceMonkey037 probably gave you the best answer you need for your decision making in his first post. The only thing I want to add to his post is that on top of it all flying the Viper really is a ton of fun. It actually feels like a fighter jet. You won´t regret it if you buy the F-16...
  11. Exactly! And this is also mentioned somewhere in the patch changelog. All good and working as intended.
  12. Yes, you are absolutely right. And I very much appreciate the road which ED takes to deal with that issue. By the way, my reply to your post was meant just as a sober statement to not be disappointed and manage general expectations if the patchnotes for the Viper might appear to be a little sparse tomorrow. And you know that some will be searching for their pitchforks and torches, already...
  13. I would not hold my breath for the FM to be updated in the upcoming 2.7 patch. ED's statement is that we will see an update in a future patch which can basically mean any time between now and christmas. As a Viper driver it is probably expedient to start a little excercise in expectation management for the upcoming big patch concerning the fact no other content update except for the HARM was officially announced. Other than that we will probably only see some minor fixes and I hope one of them is the unholy RWS-SAM bug. But that's of course just my guess what to expect tomorrow. Oh well, hope dies last, right...?
  14. Hi, Spectre1-1! No, the above issue has absolutely nothing to do with wether it is an AESA or a non-AESA radar or your assumption that "mech radars" might be slower in ACM modes. These non-AESA radars that we have in the F-16C and the F/A-18C are actually pretty advanced radars and should be reasonably fast in any of the ACM modes and they should give you a pretty quick lock in almost any situation. That´s what they were designed for, after all. Processing power and scan speed are more than adequate for the given task. And it certainly won´t take these two radars up to 25 (!!!) seconds to finally give you a lock on a bandit that is directly on your nose and about a mile away. This just doesn´t happen. Concerning the OP losing lock in his video clips: did you even watch those three videos and the situations that lead to the OP losing the lock? If the observed behavior is supposed to be correct I am happy to trade in my wings...
  15. Hey, BN! That "delay" that you mentioned above when locking a target in any of the dogfight modes is there, that's true. The radar needs a short time to process the things it sees. But this delay is only a fraction of a second and it is such a short delay that it is barely perceptible. We are surely not talking about 25 seconds or more as this would screw over any serious attempt to perform well in a dogfight. And this goes for all modern jets. You can understand that yourself with logic, I guess. Again, I do not want to be rude but you do not need SMEs to see that this is completely wrong. Personally, I have a Typhoon background as you might know and I can tell you for sure I never ever observed such behavior in any aircraft I flew. And the same goes for the issue with the TD box falling ("lagging") slowly behind the target which leads to the pilot losing the lock. Did you ever hear of a jet doing such things in combat. Would such radar behavior pass these rigorous military testing procedures? Right, it would not. Seeing this issue even labeled as "correct as is" and implying ED's SME feedback has backed this behavior as correct when you developed it is seriously concerning to me and it raises a few questions, actually. I need to say this again, I do not want to be rude because I know you guys do great work but I must say I am a little bit shocked here.
  16. Yup, that´s how it worked. Personally, I´d rather carry an AMRAAM on that station. PLUS: we´ve got NVGs! So why would anyone still want NAVFLIR? Modern NVG´s are way better. You would actually be surprised how bad the NITEHAWK pod really was. Compared to other pods like LANTIRN that were in use back in the day the generated picture resolution was more or less atrocious. There are certain reports from Afghanistan and Iraq which are publicly available that give you a little insight on operating the NITEHAWK pod in that environment. You can also find some cockpit display footage of the NITEHAWK pod in operation. Just google it. And believe me you don´t want it unless you really want something dead accurate for a very specific time period.
  17. OK, I watched your vid...it came online later than my reply. What you showcase in your vid is actually correct behavior of the menu structure in the F-16C that we have in DCS. And it is indeed totally different from what I meant in my post. And it might be confusing to you, too - I totally understand that. But there is actually nothing wrong. Ok, wish me luck that I can recreate tonight what I suspect to be a bug... *** I need to add something. The "two SMSs" you see are also correct. The OSB functions on the left and right can be used to "configure" the bottom row of OSBs that can be switched via HOTAS command. This is also intended behavior and thus correct. Appologize my ignorance.
  18. Interesting. Yeah, I think had at least one missile left. But the solution to get back to CRM/RWS works, too. Ok, I see if I can recreate and make a vid. I am going to fly on Growling´s server this evening so let´s see if I can recreate that issue. Fingers crossed...
  19. Ok, cool. Seems totally different to how I got into that mode but who cares. Show what you´ve got and how you got into it. I am curious now...^^
  20. See, that´s my problem, too. I had it happen to me two or three times on Growling´s server when I was close to a bandit and selected dogfight mode to employ an Aim-120 from pretty close range. As I said it is a very rare occurance. After the engagement I was stuck in that mode which didn´t make any sense to me - just like you might have experienced it. And that´s about it. Currently I can´t contribute anything more helpful than that. I´ll also try to get something useful on that issue.
  21. True. But as you know you can trim out the jet reasonably well and the OP seems to have problems even with the basics of doing that. So, all I'm saying is that the OP needs to put in a little more effort and practice a little more with the wheels to get a feeling for the jet and what works best for him. Training is key to success.
  22. Yup, the trim hat isn't working correctly which is kind of sad. The only advice one can give to the OP is to go and practice using the those trim wheels. It is pretty inconvenient for sure but you will get a certain finesse after you practiced a little, I promise. Really nothing else you can do about it at the moment, I guess.
  23. That´s a negative on your first question. The "NO RAD" dogfighting mode is not implemented yet. You will have to manually cycle the radar emission switch as desired which is let´s say a little inconvenient. Concerning you sometimes being stuck in EEGS mode. I had that happening, too. But it is a very rare occurance, though. I haven´t been able to recreate it so far and thus record a track or a short vid of it happening. If you have a track or by any chance made a video while it happened to you please upload it here as I strongly suspect this to be a bug. There a two ways to get out of this: either press ACM on your radar display and select CRM which puts you back in RWS or set the dogfight mode switch briefly to DOGFIGHT OVRD and then back to CTR position which does the same thing. That´s how I do it and it works for me 100%. Again, if you can provide a track or a vid go ahead and do it.
  24. Right, and this is how it should work. So, there is no bug as the OP had initially suspected.
  25. Thread should be renamed. It is just not true that the Aim-120 is useless right now. Support till active works most of the time without the missile going crazy. And it is certainly still able to deliver the kill if you use it right and this goes for PvP, also. There are other more severe problems related to the current implementation of ECM, though. These problems are potentially game breaking stuff. In the "weapon bugs" section you can find more details on what this is actually all about. Bringing more attention to the overall issue concerning that missile is a good thing, though. I fully appreciate that and I fully agree with the OP that we need a solution a.s.a.p. in the upcoming big patch.
×
×
  • Create New...