Jump to content

toilet2000

Members
  • Content Count

    259
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About toilet2000

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Hi Flappie, Here it is, after doing exactly what you described. Thanks! dcs.log
  2. I have enabled a while back the stereo parser/culling option in the config files and enjoyed the better performance that it was giving, but some of the issues of it (namely flood lights, heat blur and such only rendering in one eye) made me try and revert back to what it was before. The issue is that if I set the stereo parser option to false, it prevents me from actually seeing the communication menu. The input command registers (I can test it in the controls menu), but the textual menu does not show up. In the exact same scenario but with the stereo parser option set to true, I do not
  3. For people saying to make a snap view in VR: why don't you do the same in 2D? If the real hog (and asked by the 355th to be this way) is like that, then simply change the viewpoint to your liking. I'd rather have it realistic and adapt it if needed than the opposite. As someone else said, in VR moving the viewpoint screws up the occlusion masks around the HUD and cockpit.
  4. Did you enter the coordinate in PRECISE format? If not, the accuracy of 6 digits UTM/MGRS is 100 meters, so enough to be way off target. With a laser designation it shouldn't matter though.
  5. Indeed, DMT should not be "ground stabilized" but rather lock onto contrast and keep that lock when possible. The "ground stabilized" slewing is done through the INS mode, by using the Sensor Select Switch to select this slewing mode. This lets you "ground stabilize" the designation (most likely using a "plane" at alt 0 according to you alt, might be integrated with DTED with newer version though), even when slewing Mavericks around. Right now, when the aircraft is set to use the DMT as the targeting/TDC-enabled sensor, it acts like a combined (and perfectly accurate) DMT+INS mode.
  6. The name and trademark of it is. The actual simulation of how a system works isn't. If they can name it "ARBS", they definitely can implement how it works. You'll see plenty of examples of that throughout the video game industry for example. You can't use a specific gun name in a game without license, but its simulation (without the name) isn't subject to this kind of copyright licensing, AFAIK. It's not a absolute indicator, but it's generally related. Something that is not in active duty anymore, especially in the US military, is generally easier to find information on. But in any ca
  7. Absolutely agree. We're not looking into emulating the planes. A simulation does not follow the exact implementation of the systems so as to have a "as true to life as possible" experience, but rather an abstraction of those systems that cover 95% of the cases and limitations of the aircraft. That is the difference between simulation and emulation. Unfortunately, this is not something the AV-8B currently does. It's not because the Nav system has waypoints, that I can drop bombs and things go boom that it's up to the level I expect from a 70 USD DCS module. Sure, I can "wait for things to
  8. They are. Simulating a system is not a matter of licensing. On top of that, from SMEs the ARBS isn't even used anymore. How can we get GPS weapons that are definitely classified, yet Razbam wouldn't actually simulate systems that aren't? The documentation about the ARBS/DMT is at most restricted, but most of it is public domain. Just look it up. That goes with my final point on that. Razbam's excuse on that if you go on their Discord is because "the facilities are not in place" and "it would slow your computer to a crawl", for which I personally refuted both by showing that HB can defi
  9. Oh, yeah. The DMT, INS and ARBS are really obscure "rivet" systems... Totally forgot about that.
  10. Ha, the good ol' "you're too poor to play". You know you can have an discussion with someone without trying to go for personal attacks? And anybody with a head on their shoulders will want to use their money wisely to buy an honest product. Not just say "meh it's just 70 USD". And btw, early access is NOT a gamble. It's just exactly what is says: it's an early access to a product that is not finished yet. It doesn't include the "you might never actually get the finished product at the end" tag. And since you're saying the definition of what is EA is not clear, the discussion about wha
  11. It's not because you can fly and navigate it that everything's all good. Mods like the A-4E and MB-339 can be flown and still they're not "up to 3rd party level". Don't get me wrong, they're awesome mods. But they are that, mods. Not 70 USD modules, but free mods. The issues with the Harrier makes it Early Access worthy, definitely not "release" worthy, which has been the arguing point.
  12. I'm pretty sure the [NOT CORRECT FOR YEAR] applies to the software and not the retirement/introduction years of weapon. Lot 20s from 2005 still had the logic implemented for launching SLAMs and dropping Walleyes, as these are in the documentation available publicly. Just look for the Hornet tactical pocket guide.
  13. No, not at all. Currently, the ARBS acts like a perfect "INS" mode, with the INS designation mode not even implemented. The ARBS needs a track for a certain time to compute an accurate slant range. Currently, it is instantly "perfect" and can track anything, including untextured flat terrain. There's a lot more depth to targeting systems than just "put the thing on the thing". The A-10C does a good job of explaining that, so does the Viggen.
  14. You're talking about FTT (Fixed Target Track) and not AGR for target tracking. AGR simply uses the radar to determine slant range from the HUD and CCIP (a bit like the Viggen does), instead of relying from baro alt/rad alt or a digital terrain database. FTT on the other hand is a way to track an AG radar return. Simply sensor select toward you AG radar page when the TDC is already assigned to it, it will attempt a return lock on the point underneath the cursor or the currently designated nav-stab point. The big difference between FTT and Nav-stabilized designation (what we had b
  15. Completely agree with that. Deleting the bug threads will not be seen as a good move, for good reasons too. Some people have put a decent amount of time in making bug reports (including community bug trackers and lists). I'd honestly say to start with the community bug tracker. It is still the biggest and best bug list and tracker available currently for the Harrier.
×
×
  • Create New...