Jump to content

Harker

DCS Ground Crew
  • Content Count

    2915
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Harker

  • Rank
    DCS Ground Crew
  • Birthday April 25

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS World, Falcon BMS
  • Location
    Europe
  • Interests
    Aviation, Science
  • Occupation
    Nuclear engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I wasn't clear enough, I didn't detect the helo as a brick, I just found its return manually with MAP. I already knew where to look for it, this was in the context of a test. It was flying low and relatively slow, over a river, so I could pick it up. Only after I switched to FTT and successfully tracked it, I got a brick with heading and speed. I doubt it could pick it out over land, if it was moving, unless we're talking about a desert or something equally featureless.
  2. I don't know how GMT will work, but I've been able to both detect a low flying helicopter in MAP mode with EXP2/3 and track it with FTT, getting correct heading and speed info on the brick.
  3. Sounds great. It will not divide the playerbase, since everyone will be able to join a mission and even set up basic IADS networks themselves. And module owners get access to additional tools and functionalities. Definitely interested in this. And we get improved EW simulation. Everyone wins.
  4. There was a debate early on, about the position of the critical and safe bands. It was initially like in the manual, before ED obtained info that said it was reversed at some point, to what we have now (outer: safe, middle: lethal, inner: critical). Btw, there is logic to having the critical on the outer ring though, since you can more easily tell the azimuth and closely spaced critical emitters would be better spaced. But apparently, Northrop Grumman came around to your way of thinking as well. The selector knob should affect both the EW page and the azimuth indicator and you can see the
  5. I want the exact same things as the community and I would prefer to see them sooner rather than later. I don't think I'll get much use out of the hangar, because why would a pilot go there and I don't think I'll get much use out of the ready room, because I use Discord with my squadron and it's easy to do briefings and debriefings there. I agree that these features will see marginal use, at best, by a large part of the community. But, working in code development myself (very different code, but still), I understand that once you start a project with a set schedule and planning, sometimes
  6. To be fair, that's not a necessarily bad idea, although it may look like that, externally. It's usually far less efficient to shift priorities down the line, than it is to stick with the original plan, assuming that no blocking issues arise. I hope I'm right in this case. The way I (optimistically) see it, is that we can get all the features in, say, 12 months, if ED sticks to its schedule, or get desired features sooner, but then wait 18 months to get everything.
  7. My only real concern is the performance impact that additional detailed areas will have. The SC is already heavy on performance as it is, I just hope that, if hangars etc come, optimization will be at the center of their implementation. I get that there are people who want to go below deck with their aircraft for some reason, but maybe some high-detail areas and/or scripts would only load and run if you a trigger something, like go on the elevator and start it or if you spawn below deck (if that'd be possible at all). That way, performance impact for flight deck ops will be minimized, while en
  8. No one is arguing about the lights' actual brightness. The problem is the horrible, fake bloom effect. The lights are perfectly fine without the fake bloom and they even have a proper bloom effect if viewed from correct angles or directly straight. The fake bloom effect is present everywhere, it clips through stuff, it shows when the actual light source itself is not visible (and thus no bloom at all should be showing) and it's a shame, because it has no reason for existing. It should be a relatively easy fix, considering there are only things to remove (and maybe increase the illumination rad
  9. Harker

    TXDSG

    I also don't expect everything that's in public docs. Do I think we should get it? Yes. But I don't think we'll get all of it. Things such as a full HSI simulation or full functionality of the Radar page options (such as RF channels, duty cycle options etc). Although they're explained in great detail, down to the electronics and the signal processing where applicable, in public documentation, I don't think we'll see all of them in DCS.
  10. True, true. Especially at higher elevations, the error would be too great. Which is what we probably see in DCS. BTW, I tried yesterday with AGR enabled, within the radar FOV and it still showed 0-2 MSL, while the real one was more like 5000.
  11. I also don't claim to have first hand knowledge. I'm just taking my info from NATOPS and USN yearly reports. IIRC, TAMMAC should have been introduced into the fleet by mid-2000s. However, I don't know if our Lot 20 Hornet got it later. But if we didn't have TAMMAC (or at least DTED), we also wouldn't be able to do things we already do, in DCS. The FLIR, for example, wouldn't be able to generate elevation data, but it does. Also, we already have things that came after TAMMAC was introduced, if I'm interpreting docs correctly. Huh, I didn't know that. Interesting. I'm guessing the JHMCS
  12. Regarding the drift and 0ft MSL, it shouldn't be an issue for a Hornet equipped with TAMMAC, because it has DTED elevation data available to it. And our jet should be equipped with TAMMAC (although the current HSI layout doesn't reflect that).
  13. Right click and select a target with left click. IIRC, you need to have "Cockpit visual recon mode" enabled in the Options. And since it's visual, you need to be close, for it to work.
  14. Right now, the AZ/EL page doesn't show offboard tracks, but it's supposed to. So when that feature comes, it'll be possible to cue the FLIR at an offboard track, while keeping your radar silent. And as Wags showed in the last Hornet video, you can cue the FLIR on a jamming contact (AOT) that your radar hasn't resolved the range for yet.
  15. +1 would be very nice to see this. It'd add some authenticity to the catapult hookup process.
×
×
  • Create New...