Jump to content

MikeMikeJuliet

Members
  • Posts

    1212
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by MikeMikeJuliet

  1. I hope and expect this all to change when we get the new ATC. Here's hoping...
  2. In my thread someone pointed out that the ATC reported Runway and the Navaid direction in use are not the same. The conditions where both of them change are different so you may end up with what you've experienced.
  3. Alright, that read did clear the underlying system and proposed agreeable changes which should be made. My gripe with the system specifically is that in cases where there is only one landing aid (e.g. a single-direction ILS) the navaid is turned off because the wind is either not blowing from the correct direction or the weather is calm. This is the case in Senaki and should be changed. At present you can't land on all airfields in calm conditions IFR because the appropriate ILS's are turned off. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  4. But if the ILS is activated only with 4m/s winds, that means in calm conditions you have neither. Besides: Senaki does not have ILS for RWY 27... so you can't use ILS at all if the wind's are at all from the wrong direction (and mind you, usually 10kt tailwind is allowed for).
  5. Here is an update for you: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3688257#post3688257 In short: the ILS in de-activated if the wind from the appropriate direction is less than 4m/s (around 7,8KT)... which is ridiculous! Why? Because you know when the weather usually the worst? With static winds, clouds hanging in the trees and fog surrounding everything... and the game doesn't give you ILS at that time. This needs to be fixed. ILS should be on regardless of wind direction or intensity. There is also an approach type called "circling"... so you may use ILS to get low enough to make a visual approach to the opposing runway - the current wind-related ILS does not allow that either. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  6. What the 'effin logic is that? The navaids should be on at all times! There are things called "Circling approaches" where you use the wrong end navaids to get below cloud for a visual approach to the wind-approproate runway... And does this mean that the most likely weather when you have really low clouds (e.g. 0-winds) you have no ILS available?! But good to know. Shame the game never communicates this to the player. I really hope this issue is addressed. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  7. Hello. This document was linked to me some time ago: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/osmhome/redbook/4d_5_10.pdf If you scroll to page 4-172, from there onward you will find paired frequencies for TACAN, VOR and ILS. I'm asking for such pairing to be included in DCS for expanding the usability of radio navigation beacons. Why? Well, take any DCS-airfield... many of said airfields have only a limited array of navigation aids. Then take any DCS-module... many of them have limited equipment. By utilizing frequency pairing you could use your equipment on more airfields/beacons than currently. A specific example is Sochi in Caucasus. Operate the A-10C and turn off your EGI. You've lost your accurate area navigation equipment. Now Sochi has ILS... but for some reason no VOR nor TACAN... so without radar or GPS you have got no clue where you should fly to intercept that ILS. With frequency pairing you could get the DME distance from the ILS and at least get a hint of where the beacon is. Same thing for less critical airfields like Batumi - sure you can use the DME from the TACAN stationed mid-way of the airfield, but you could also get the distance from the ILS itself - giving exact info from the threshold. This is especially handy for aircraft that don't have VOR receivers but do have TACAN:s... or vice versa. DCS maps are mostly realistic, but the problem is that not every aircraft is at all compatible for flying there. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  8. Also remember that the AWACS calls in english in DCS also use some unnecessary or even confusing words: in partikular "for" and "at". Example: "Bandit BRA one-five-zero for fourty at fifteen thousand, hot"... First off the "for" could be accidentally understood as "four", which is bad, but also the "at" is useless. the order and format of the words is known so filler words should be left out. They clutter the message. Compare: "Bandit, BRAA one-five-zero, fourty, fifteen thousand, hot" No filler words and you can separate all three number-terms because of how they are said: separate digits, full numbers and in thousands. And compare all that to the russian slowness... oh boi Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  9. Though I have not run out of juice from flight sims (probably never will) I do sometimes find myself exhausted from the same-ness, so I feel you. I don't have other answers except what has been proposed: join a squadron. That said I would like to spark ideas or conversation considering this. Technically all DCS public servers lack certain features that would make for a more engaging ride and challenge players to do something else than join, start the aircraft (and miss all checks and BITs) and just run to find something to kill. Specifically: #1 ATC. If you've never tried, suddenly having to actually use radios and to be aware of where you are and aren't allowed to go brings very much to the game especially at ingress and egress - the two things that (arguably) feel the most boring in a sim like this, because people want challenge. Once you juggle your radios and clearances and finally get to the AO you already feel like you've done something! I've run ATC for my group/squadron and you wouldn't believe the amount they suddenly focus on basics like taxiing and traffic circuit flying... and they enjoy the challenge. #2 Human controlled Air defences. Now some servers do have this and this is something that, along with the ATC requires a player to willingly step away from the best bits (= flying) to control something that they themselves might not get that much out of... But a clever, dynamic SAM site is a sight to behold. In most cases in DCS Air defences are either a cake walk or there are so many that you can't even approach them - neither is actually fun for pilots. Now imagine attacking the target and soon realise you are surrounded by SAMs and you have to fight your way out... and hunting the SAMs would actually require tactics, not just an ARM and a button press... #3 Weather and IFR approaches. The lack of this is naturally due to the simplistic weather modelling in DCS + the fact that most aircraft do not share the same suite of radio navigation equipment. But think about having dynamic or structured weather where the AO would have relatively good conditions (to allow for CAS and such), but on the airfields you'd actually need to get the aircraft down safely in IFR... Or a night-carrier landing... or forced AAR... Picture a wingman that has lost his instruments needing to fly on your wing down an ILS approach. Now there are a lot of other things as well for sure, but I would really like to have even some of these on more public servers. At present even the best of them only feel like a shadow of what a really big and intensive scenario could be. I mean on Blue Flag or Dynamic DCS you literally need 4-6 players to conquer an airfield if there is no proper opposition... Air defence is a joke with AI and too many players play lone wolf. I would like to see a minimum formation of 2 enforced on some servers (with the exception of, say, ELINT Viggen). Food for thought. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  10. I'm somewhat perplexed what the point of posting all one's controllers in here are... Wags asked for primary controllers, meaning joysticks (quite apparent from the poll alternatives) and many post their setup even if it does not differ from the options available. No need to post every thingamajig that's plugged to your PC. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  11. The dual-license system is just two separate keys bought simultainously. Both keys contain the full module = both keys can run either seat. Essentially it is just a faster and cheaper way to buy two separate keys, because the aircraft is designed with multiplayer in mind. The RIO seat is not a separate entity. It is the same exact module that contains both cockpits. What this means is that you need two accounts, one for each module and two PC:s capable of running DCS. So if you were planning on running the RIO seat as an iPad APP or on a potato-laptop then you've understood incorrectly. The F-14 will work in the same way as the L-39 and Yak-52. The RIO workstation will not be a separate tag-along external app. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  12. Hi, Ever flown with a player acting as Fighter Controller or Air Traffic Controller? Ever looked at airfield charts from the kneeboard, switched to the appropriate frequency and used SRS / Universe Radio with said player? Then you know how annoying it is that you need to deal with the AI ATC since there no way to deactivate it. You can set "player comms only" in FC3-aircraft, but not in full fidelity planes since, I guess, you can just change to another frequency... But what is the point in having a frequency for the airfield + an actual player on that frequency if it is all overridden by the AI? At present we need to come up with separate frequencies for human interactions and AI interactions. It is not a big issue, but an annoyance nontheless. I regard this as a mid-low importance request. TL;DR: allow for all aircraft to change the AI comms mode the same way as with FC3-aircraft. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  13. I agree. There is nothing unrealistic in being able to use "say again". True you might not have the capacity to ask or listen in the most intense moments, but I find those extremely rare - a fighter pilot is expected to be able to communicate with his/her wingmen and the fighter controller. Now weither you have time to look and press the appropriate fuction keys on your keyboard and then read the subtitles is another matter entirely, but that is the problem of having to communicate via a comm-menu insted of actual speach...
  14. From what I've understood is that trees are in fact slightly upscaled in size to have proper coverage while keeping tree count slightly lower. I can't confirm this but it has been discussed at length at least within my squadron's VR users. This may contribute to the perception that something is off. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  15. ... and it would be of great utility to be able to control lights, tacan and other systems of the carrier via Combined Arms... then you can just say "inbound" to your fellow player and you're all set. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  16. Yea it can't be changed with normal gameplay options. But don't worry, there is an easy rule to remember: Just double it. Specifically: 2m/s * 3,6 = 7,2km/h 7,2km/h / 1,852 = 3,8876...kt So, to get the approximate kt from m/s, just double it. 2m/s = roughly 4kt. if you want to be a bit more exact just remove "a bit" form the value you just got and you are close enough to get the idea. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  17. I posted a report on this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=201583 I flew the A-10C. On the same flight I tried Senaki ILS and Kutaisi ILS. Since I didn't get them to work I flew to Batumi where I know I've gotten the ILS to work previously and it did this time as well. All cockpit switches in the same position in all approaches (except frequency obviously) and as said, Batumi worked completely as expected so I can confirm this is no user error. Requesting a fix for this. No point in having ILS frequencies on the plates if they are unusable. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  18. Today tested this and I can confirm. ILS does NOT work on Senaki or Kutaisi on the A-10C. I did a control by flying to Batumi on the same flight and ILS there works flawlessly - All cockpit switches exactly the same except of course I changed the frequency (naturally) and course. So this is not a user error. So the A-10C ILS in not broken, it is the ILS:s themselves. Game version latest OpenBeta at the time of posting ( 4NOV2018 ) I will report this in the Maps section of the forums as well. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  19. Not a priority at this stage but sure I agree... It really kills your mood when trying to strafe for a unit in the woods and it doesn't get a scratch because a tree withstood all your rockets. I wonder how feasible this would be in regards to game performance... Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  20. Call it necroing, but Phil Style made a good video about the visibility problem with changing screen resolutions which clearly shows that higher screen resolutions make spotting much more difficult due to the target pixel-rendering. So the higher your resolution, the smaller the target can get making it harder to spot when far away. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  21. Hi. I'm not commenting on the carrier stuff - I'm no expert in those. About runway numbering: Consider the runway number to be the runway's name. It is not supposed to be exact. If you have multiple parallel runways they will be marked for example 24L, 24C, 24R (Left, Center, Right). Secondly, runway names are derived by rounding from the magnetic heading at the time of measurement. Magnetic heading changes all the time, and the rate depends on where you are on earth. So if a runway was named 15 years ago it the magnetic heading may in fact have changed so much that the heading may not round up to the same numbers. To obtain the proper magnetic heading for a given runway pilots in real life refer to the appropriate aerodrome charts that give the exact magnetic heading for that time period (changes, say once in 1-3 years). The problem with DCS is that the runway numbers are derived from real life airfields, but the headings are derived from DCS true north by magnetic declination. The problem arises from the fact that DCS true north does not resemble actual true north, but is in fact grid north (so at every single point on the map "true" north points exactly straight up on the map in stead of the actual geometric north pole). So when you derive the magnetic heading from this the headings differ from the real life counterparts. Since the runways are named after real life runways there will be disparity typically near the edges of each DCS map. I hope this helps. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  22. If you try with a buddy try the following: launch immediately after reaching Rne, have your friend do a 180, nothing else, and measure the missiles speed when (or if) it reaches the target. If the speed is not sufficient to hit (or at least it wouldn't be able to stand any additional maneuvers) the Rne indicator gives optimistic calculations. I agree that the Rne does not mean you couldn't evade the missile - but that is not the point. Within Rne you should not be able to bleed the missiles energy beyond a certain amount (this amount may be defined differently by different missile manufacturers). Within Rne you might still evade the hit, but beyond Rne you can actually deny the shot ever reaching you. That said launching within Rne doesn't yet mean a high pk shot - E.g. shooting within Rne only means your target will have to do extra work to succesfully defend, but will still quite likely survive. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  23. Having all the aircraft visible at the start would also make the airfields more lively - no more empty aprons/ramps. But the problem then is: if you die airborne and respawn, how is this handled? the aircraft would respawn at that point just like before... I would prefer a spawn mechanic that would show a tug etc. bring the respawning aircraft from hangar to the ramp, but that would seriously slow down respawn times. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  24. While I do understand why so many people would like to have the HARM or the A/G radar as a priority I still feel confused about the result: anyone can see on these forums that systems that are left half finished get a lot of criticism on their way, but still people would rather leave the F/A-18's Air-to-air suite half done until some heavy Air-to-ground systems/weapons are implemented? I would much rather ED finished the whole air-to-air suite, link 16 included before fully focusing on the air-to-ground -side of the aircraft. That way we would have a complete F-18 and not a half done F/A-18. I am especially baffled about the low status of additional radar modes - TWS is an instrumental radar mode to effectively employ the Hornet! I do not know how far ED is in completing the A/G radar, but if it is still a-ways away from completion and the poll would be taken as is for a developement roadmap then I fear we will be stuck with a half baked fighter for a long time. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
×
×
  • Create New...