Jump to content

Northstar98

Members
  • Posts

    7577
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

Everything posted by Northstar98

  1. Yep, this for me is a massive problem. I'm worried PTO is going to essentially be more of the same and that there will be very little in the way of fleshing it out. The 2024 and Beyond trailer having a WWII naval battlegroup entirely consisting of LSTs and APAs save for an aircraft carrier was already pretty concerning in and of itself. Yes and this isn't a good thing. It makes me reluctant to use those aircraft when there's very little else for them. I don't see how I can construe having an era barely fleshed out as anything other than a bad thing. Well, unless you don't pay attention to the variants that is, if you do then we really don't have many Vietnam aircraft at all, it's only the A-1H and F-8J that are (which so far don't have a carrier to operate from). And Vietnam is probably the most highly requested map going. People have different interests and desires than you do, and you find that "amazing"? Certainly an interesting take, but whatever. It also isn't true - having modules, assets and maps that are coherent with each other wouldn't prevent you from being able to make hypothetical or fictional scenarios, so even if I had that, I still wouldn't be playing DCS solely to reenact historical events. I absolutely can enjoy an aircraft without a coherent theatre, assets and modules, but I'll always be limited to scenarios that are mostly fictional (and even when they aren't a hefty amount of fudging has to be employed, though mileage will of course vary) and I'll always be lacking what I'm really interested in doing and they'll always be the nagging mile-wide, inch-deep sensation that can be quite offputting and dare I say it, even disheartening in some circumstances. If you find that "amazing" then so be it. And that's completely fine. I'm certainly not amazed by this, you can and should be free to make whatever scenario you like. But then, because of the lack of an eastern front theatre, that's practically the only thing you can do, which I find fairly ironic given you're about to type this: To which I say, how is being limited to purely fictional scenarios where even the aircraft's presence in the theatre at all (historical scenario or not) is itself fictional, any less limiting? Surely if anything, I'd be less limited with a coherent set up, because not only can I still create fictional or hypothetical scenarios like I can now (only I'd be able to have a coherent set up as a bonus), but historical re-enactments too.
  2. This doesn't appear to be the case, as per my track. In that I was able to get the site to engage an aircraft with only the Clam Shell and Flap Lid present as far as radars are concerned. If I remove the Clam Shell from my mission, the site doesn't engage. Even if I place the Flap Lid such that the target would be within it's expected scan volume. IRL, an S-300PS battalion usually only has the Flap Lid and a Clam Shell on site, the Big Bird or Tin Shield would be located at an EWR site, providing acquisition and battle management for multiple S-300 battalions. However, you can find examples where they appear to be colocated together (I've found a few such examples on the Kola Peninsula). Of course that's more IADS like functionality which DCS doesn't really support, meaning each battalion essentially operates independently and must have its own acquisition radars. In any case, the Clam Shell, as defined in its .lua has a scan volume between -15° to +60° in elevation and ±180° azimuth, a detection range of 120 km and a minimum radial velocity of 15 m/s. In my track, the target shouldn't be within the scan volume of the Flap Lid and it engages the target, it still does if I rotate the FCR such that target is within where I'd expect the sector the Flap Lid can scan without rotating. If I remove the Clam Shell though, the target isn't engaged and the site doesn't appear to react at all. Note that the .lua sensor definitions do not tell the entire story for the scan volume of a radar. While I have seen radars that have a ±180° azimuth limits in the files (i.e. 360°) - such as the 5N63S Flap Lid B and 9S35 Fire Dome. When I've set up the latter such that it's operating completely independently (no Snow Drift) it was only able to acquire targets within a certain sector, as would be expected IRL. Definitely with you on the trailer mounted Tin Shield, which has a whole host of wrong with it (not an appropriate S-200 radar, can't be used in either of the 2 roles it has IRL, despite the ease the changes to make it so would be).
  3. The far easier thing to do in the mean time would be to just decouple the wind speeds, because having the 1600 ft winds being locked to double the surface winds in the exact same direction in every single circumstance with no exceptions whatsoever and then have that apply across the entire map is just not realistic. In the link you provided, there's a logarithmic function for wind speed with respect to height. In that function there's a parameter, z0, for the aerodynamic roughness length. If you were to take the values in DCS and solve the equation for z0, you'd get the exact same result every single time, regardless of whether you were in open sea or in a built up area. When I've calculated the Hellmann exponent (solving for a in this equation), I get a value of approximately 0.2. The simple fact is, setting up different gradients, which can also be found in the link you provided, simply is impossible in DCS given how the wind speeds are locked together. As for operation at sea, the problem we have in DCS is if we want realistic wind speeds over land (i.e. what the current system seems to be trying to achieve, albeit with no backing or veering possible) it makes it pretty inaccurate at sea and vice versa. Even just sticking to operation at sea, if I were to set an appropriate surface speed, aircraft in the case 1 stack now have to contend with crosswinds at positions 2 and 4 that are significantly stronger than what they should be. This isn't just my opinion either as this corroborated by the links that both you and Lace have provided. At the moment, if you were to use a forecasting model (Windy provides a few, though some are only available in certain locations), which are also based in physics, you'd find it impossible to replicate what's being predicted in DCS, at least in certain locations (though in my experience it's more common than not). When you factor in the fact that we have airports at different elevations, the problem is made quite a bit worse. For an example, at 1000Z today, the ECMWF model, as provided by Windy at RAF Akrotiri (75 ft MSL) is forecasting surface winds that are 11 knots from the west. The METAR report for Akrotiri at 0950Z (found here) was reporting 13 knots from the south-west (so actual surface wind speed is ~1.2× what the ECMWF is forecasting). At 2000 ft (closest I can get to 1600 ft on Windy) the ECMWF is forecasting 14 knots from the west. If I were to set 13 knots surface winds in DCS, I would be stuck with 27 knots at 1600 ft - nearly double. At Damascus International Airport (2020 ft MSL), the ECMWF is forecasting surface winds of 6 knots from the south west. The METAR report for the airport at 1000Z was showing 10 knots from the south-west. While the ECMWF is certainly lowballing the speeds (this time actual winds is 1.67× what's forecasted), in DCS, with the 13 knot surface speed for Akrotiri, the speed at Damascus becomes nearly triple what it should be. If I try to instead set 10 knots at 2000 ft so I've got accurate speeds at Damascus, the wind speed at Akrotiri is now a third of what it should be and now all my ships have to travel faster in order to get an optimum wind over deck. Whichever way I slice it, I'm left in a muddle; I can either choose to have one area be accurate, at the complete expense of accuracy in others, which may or may not involve having the winds at 1600 ft be overexaggerated, sometimes to a significant degree, or I can forsake accuracy entirely, which will probably involve setting a low surface wind such that the winds at 1600 ft are less extreme. All this because the speeds and directions are locked together. If they weren't locked together I would (at least, in this case) easily be able to set up a compromise, allowing me to have much more accurate speeds in both locations and having winds at 1600 ft that are more in line with the forecasting model used and only be a few knots off here and there instead of 10-20 knots off I am with the current system. And given that the locking only makes sense for certain areas, I see very little reason for it to stay the way it is. Obviously though, a higher fidelity weather model, particularly one where it's possible to have more localised weather (such as what's possible in the weather commander program for that other F-16 orientated simulator, which would frankly be perfect for our needs) is sorely needed (especially for the Earth map in development) and is the better solution. However, we have no timeframe for either of these things. We don't even know what the new weather system will even consist or what the plans are in this area, or even if there are any at all. So far we've got new clouds, then the clouds were made to move with the wind and we got things like rainbows, glories and ice halos. Past that, all we know is that there's a new fog system in the works, new cloud types in the works (namely cumulonimbus clouds) and LOS blocking for clouds.
  4. Not sure what's going on here, the C-17A at least appears to be in range, within the elevation limits (defined as -15°, +60° for the Clam Shell, I make the C-17A at 15°), above the minimum radial velocity (defined as 15 m/s for the Clam Shell, I make it ~40 m/s). The other targets may be beyond what the 5V55R missile is capable of intercepting. I have been able to get an S-300PS battalion to work, even when there's only a Clam Shell for acquisition (see my track below). In that case, whatever the problem is I don't think it's necessarily related to the Clam Shell. I'm not sure if DCS models it but your site is laid out quite strangely, IRL you have a group of launchers consiting of a 5P85S (TEL C) and up to 2 5P85D (TEL Ds) with up to 4 groups ber battalion. The launching group must be located within 120 m of the fire control radar and the 5P85Ds can't be located more than a few metres away from the 5P85S (the limitations come from length of the data links and cables) - see here and here. Perhaps it might be worth switching the Clam Shell for a Big Bird and seeing if you observe the same results and maybe change the other aircraft so they are approaching the site. If that doesn't work, I'd try a more real-world S-300PS layout (an example can be found below). S-300PS_clamshell_test.miz S-300PS_clamshell_test.trk
  5. Alternatively, I think I'd rather have them just removed entirely so that players can set up the deck as they desire without worrying about them at all. We have the units so we can place them ourselves and the ability to make templates with them, but there isn't a way to remove the ones that are already there.
  6. Wanted to bump this, it's been over 2 years since this radar released and it still cannot be used in either of the 2 main roles it has in real life. For clarity, those roles are: A general-purpose early warning radar, where it can be seen at numerous early warning radar sites, including sites covered by current and future maps. A search/acqusitition radar for the S-300, as with the case of the 40V6M mast-mounted version introduced in DCS 2.9.0.46801. Though it has largely been superceded by the 5N64 Big Bird At the moment it is limited to being a search/acquisition radar for the S-200, a system that it's completely inaccurate for (including the Syrian S-200s that our one is supposedly based on - see this post, though do note that in recent imagery the S-200 sites appear empty, so best use Google Earth Pro).
  7. Hooray! Though personally I will be believing it when I see it. Still, definitely better than nothing!
  8. People who care about quite literally, the goal of the game. People who care about aircraft being depicted as they were advertised. People who care about getting stuff we haven't gotten yet and is long overdue. Yes it does, you just can't imagine why. I mean HB already have a backlog, the AI A-6E and J 35 were announced over half a decade ago, the former has missed it's last deadline by what will probably be close to yet another year. If HB spends time modelling stuff that's antithetical to the very goal of the game as a whole, instead of working on items that are sought after, will better flesh out their Tomcat and Forrestal, that's going to be really annoying. Missing deadlines over and over again is one thing, not working on the stuff that's not only wanted, but planned and teased (perhaps contributing somewhat to that delay), is quite another. Because, in addition to the above, it also goes against the very goal of the game, which can quite literally be found in the 2nd line of its description. If something is going to be advertised to me as trying to offer the most realistic whatever possible, I'm going to expect exactly that. If you're instead going to go out of your way to not do that, especially if it means doing something else instead of doing that, then that's going to annoy me. See the Hornet for my primary case study, though this also applies to stuff like the S-200 and ED's decision to give it a completely unrealistic search/acquisition radar, which for years now cannot be used in the roles it's actually used for, despite how trivial making it so would be. While this applies less to the Tomcat, there are items that should be present (even if more miscellaneous items such as a lot of the tests, including OBC, the AA1 panel etc) that are documented for (even in HB's own manual) but at the moment aren't present in the module, as well stuff that's incorrect, that could use attention. I mean, even the pylon for the AIM-120 - the Tomcat has been out for half a decade now and it still doesn't have a LAU-138 model and only very recently got the rest of it's loadout (though none of it functional as of yet). Yeah, baseless nonsense. I mean, [citation very much needed] on these I'm afraid. None of the reasons I gave are illegitimate in the slightest, especially given the point of the game - indeed they are simply the logical extension of that goal. You just don't like them. While that would've been fine in and of itself (though in that case you might be playing the wrong game), you've taken to trying to poison the well and pretending to know my thoughts and motivations better than I do. It does in a game and a product that's trying to be realistic. It only doesn't if you don't care about it in the slightest. It wasn't possible and it wasn't done - operational F-14As, Bs and Ds do not have the capability to fire and launch AIM-120. So, given the goals of the product and given the goals of the module, why should developers spend any time implementing it? Ahh, this again, a true timeless classic. Just one small problem though... Where does it end? Where's the goal line of it now? Because this exact same logic can be used to justify literally anything, so long as it can be ignored by those damned puritanical elitist rivet counters. I mean, let's make the Tomcat accelerate to Mach 4. Because if you don't like it, then guess what? Just don't fly so fast. It really is that simple. Are you going to lose sleep over it? Why would anybody argue against having something that paying customers want to see in game for the aircraft they bought? There's absolutely no reason not to - realism doesn't matter and if anybody has any misgivings about this at all, then they're all illegitimate and the only real reason anybody would be against this is obviously them just wanting to sound smart with their fancy elitist aerodynamics knowledge (or just ability to do simple internet searches, as with the case above). Guess what RedTail, I am in fact aware of the mod. It's almost like the thoughts and motivations you imagine I have, have no grounding whatsoever! Because I maintain that people should be able to mod the game however they damn well like, just like what scenarios people decide to make out of what we have should be totally up to up to them, as realistic (well good luck) or as fictional as you like. None of things I brought up here apply to user mods and it's my choice whether or not they're even installed in the first place, so they doubly don't apply here. And with a mod for it, then we have a Tomcat that realistically doesn't have AIM-120 and modded Tomcat that does, so wherever you stand here both are catered for. So what's the problem?
  9. The same issue also applies to the HQ-16 (though to less of an extent), I wasn't sure whether these weapons were under ED's control or Deka, so forgive me if it's been reported in the wrong place.
  10. It would - like I said, this would be unprecedented. I just feel it would be a shame if that work had to be done away with, if ED produce their own implementation.
  11. Well, one thing that was nice to see is that the Mirage F1 was made compatible with RAZBAM's IFF implementation. If more 3rd parties follow suite then couldn't that be the standard? Though it would be somewhat unprecedented having a 3rd party develop what should be a core technology. I think it would be a shame if a system that basically does everything required (at least from a NATO IFF perspective, but seeing as RAZBAM is working on the MiG-23MLA, perhaps we'll see Soviet equipment too) needed to be reinvented by ED, especially when they've seemed somewhat averse to IFF in the past. This I think is the key here, even a simplistic IFF simulation* would go a long way, though we already have modules that already (at least IMO) do everything required. *
  12. It looks like the definitions for the guns in the .lua are swapped around. Not only are the guns aiming inwards, but their firing arcs seem to be swapped as well, meaning that the port-side gun will only engage targets on the ship's starboard side and vice versa; this in turn results in the guns firing through the smokestack in order to engage targets. It also means that if for example, an anti-ship missile impacts the port side of the ship, it won't disable the gun firing at targets to port, even if the port-side gun is disabled (if that makes sense). This track mostly concerned some odd behaviour with the HQ-16, but towards the end of the track the issue with the H/PJ-12 (Type 730) guns can be observed also.
  13. Hi everyone, I've noticed that the HQ-16 SAM is behaving quite oddly: After burnout has occured, so long as the missile is unloaded, it will continue to accelerate (even in a climb). The HHQ-9 missile also suffers from this issue, though to an even more extreme degree. The missile continues to climb despite aiming downwards, even at fairly significant pitch angles (in excess of 15° below the horizon, even its rocket engine still firing). HQ-16_HPJ12_bug.trk
  14. Reproduced, I've personally observed them accelerating to beyond orbital velocity (reaching >23000 knots), after burn-out. HHQ-9_FM_bug.trk
  15. Northstar98

    CH-47D

    And as I said before, this is never going to happen, it is never ever going to be a reality. There's nothing to prevent. I never said it was a rule, that is obvious. But it absolutely wouldn't be unprecedented as this very thing has been done before, with the examples I gave. In an ideal world, it would be far better for there to be multiple variants of an aircraft rather than just one. That way you can cater to the people who like modern aircraft and historical aircraft fairly equally and neither has to make compromises one way or the other. We don't live in that world, but should extra variants be considered, ED would probably make more money going from older to newer than newer to older, something that has never been done before (and as I said, the only one that comes close has the variants bundled in as one, so it doesn't really apply). And that's absolutely fine, it's a perfectly valid preference to have. I'm not sure about people being triggered, but so far nobody has asked for the "earliest" version of an aircraft. The primary reason why people ask for an earlier version of an aircraft is usually either for historical reasons (i.e. they want to recreate or at least make/fly missions inspired by historical conflicts/eras. Vietnam seems to be a pretty big one (where earlier Chinook variants fit), Cold War (where everything up to the D potentially fits), Gulf War (where the C and D fit) etc) or they just prefer an older version for whatever reason (it might be than an older variant fits better with contemporary assets that are already present, operational history, number built, number of operators, preferring steam gauges over glass cockpit etc). Of course, you don't have to care about any of that, but those are some valid reasons why some people might prefer to go older rather than newer, at least in some circumstances. And those reasons don't necessarily have to apply to DCS. There's also a reason (as I laid out) to go historical rather than latest and greatest. But of course, you have your preferences, I and other have ours. As it stands, I'm not really interested in a CH-47F, the simple reason being that the scenarios I'm interested in end in the 1990s (Operation Deny Flight/Deliberate Force), where it doesn't fit. A CH-47D would fit that (and given its use into the 2000s/2010s with the US Army) the current Apache as well.
  16. Northstar98

    CH-47D

    Because it's almost certainly easier to sell a later version as an upgrade, than an earlier one. They've done this with the Ka-50 twice and again with the A-10C so it wouldn't be unprecedented. What hasn't been done yet is going newer and then selling an older version later. HB comes close with the Tomcat, but the older variants are bundled in as one. ? I have no idea how you figure this, DCS is never going to be exclusive to older aircraft.
  17. Yeah, there probably would be alignment issues, but that can be fixed by altering current geometry. But the point is that it doesn't necessarily need to be made spherical. Possibly. It might also be that the technology just isn't there or a number of things I haven't considered. It almost certainly will, but I'm hoping we can get smaller, spherical, add on maps that overwrite the areas they cover, allowing not only higher-detailed maps, but historical maps as well. This kind of thing has been used in other flight simulators (lower resolution base map, with addon maps that are higher detailed) for decades, so it wouldn't be unprecedented, personally it's easily the ideal option.
  18. You wouldn’t - it would be distorted (which all flat maps in DCS necessarily are by virtue of them being flat), but barring anything else, the lack of spherical geometry shouldn’t be a prerequisite for joining them. That said, moving forward it would be better if future maps were made with spherical geometry, not only would it be more accurate, but then, hypothetically, they could go on the world map currently in development.
  19. Yep, I’m not saying it’s a bad map per se, but one that could’ve been so much better. The assets we have available for it doesn’t really help either (the complete lack of Iranian naval assets is a pretty big omission IMO). As for the name, ironically that’s what it was called initially, IIRC the reason given for the change to Persian Gulf is due to players being unfamiliar with the Straits of Hormuz.
  20. +1, a couple of third parties (RAZBAM and Deka) already have their own implementations that (at least in RAZBAM’s case, not that familiar with Deka) do everything that would be necessary. Though the other important aspect is having this apply to the AI, not only with the ability to assign codes, but also to have the AI perform interrogations as part of their identification process. Right now they appear to be able to instantly identify and classify everything they detect with perfect accuracy. With hostile/friendly being a simple coalition check and not accounting for things like IFF or other means of identification (e.g. visual, even if approximated). This would also open up doctrinal considerations when against unknown targets - for instance, whether the AI should only fire at contacts positively identified as hostile, or whether they should fire at anything not identified as friendly.
  21. Definitely - it simply lacked scope to include them. Frankly the scope of that particular map seems not only very limited, but also quite odd from the outset. Suffice to say I really hope ED won't make that mistake again with Iraq and Afghanistan, it would be a royal shame if they did.
×
×
  • Create New...