Jump to content

toilet2000

Members
  • Posts

    316
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by toilet2000

  1. You first need to designate a target using the AG radar by depressing the TDC, I think it's called T5 Press. Make sure you assigned it in the controls because for me it got reset in the last patch. Once that is done, you either press the stick switch that changes the radar scale to the left (S2 hat) or you press the "RBM" OSB to change it to EXP then DBS1 and DBS2.
  2. Because the stores aren't mounted on the centerline. It actually looks like the CCIP solution is using 0 altitude (like if you were on the ground) on your images. That huge offset (170 mils) looks a lot like if you were flying basically as close to the ground as possible. I'd be curious to see if mounting only a bomb on the centerline gives that kind of offset too.
  3. No, we don't have an "Old Hornet model", we have a Lot 20 with TAMMAC and all the bells and whistles. Choosing a 1994 date doesn't change the plane, it only makes GPS unavailable. Same goes for the F-14. Changing the date doesn't give you an earlier model. The DIL could very well be displaced horizontally due to incorrect wind calculation, incorrect attitude estimation and wrong altitude. Best example is using Snakeyes, which you will see the DIL jump left and right from each releases at low altitude due to the offset between stores, with the horizontal jump getting bigger the lower the altitude. As I said, there is a bug nonetheless, but it's simply untrue that GPS/INS pos is supposed to have no impact on the CCIP solution. Yes, that's the bug I talked about in one of my previous comment
  4. You really don't understand how the CCIP cross is computed. I suggest looking a bit a the tutorials on the A-10C, as it only uses it's INS/GPS combined with DTED (Digital Terrain Elevation Database) to compute the slant range and point of impact. Old Hornet models used to simply compute the CCIP slant range (and thus the cross position) using the radalt or baro altitude (like the Mi-24) or using the AGR when commanded to (Sensor Select to HUD). The radar doesn't directly need any INS data to compute slant range. Hornets that received the TAMMAC upgrade (like ours, except for the HSI) have the integration of the DTED, meaning the aircraft, knowing its position from the INS/GPS, can infer the slant range by correlating its slant angle and INS position with the elevation database and finding the intersection of both. This gives slant range, but only if the INS is accurate. This is generally not an issue because moments without GPS coverage are often small enough that the INS won't drift enough for the accuracy to be that much lower. The issue arises when you completely remove the GPS on a whole mission with a bird made to fly with GPS and with the DTED integration. TL;DR Yes, the CCIP cross should depend on the INS position when not in AGR mode.
  5. Did you read my first comment in your thread? What ever feature I am talking about has definitely a link with the thread and an issue with it actually makes the CCIP unusable with INS drift (because AGR doesn't override the DTED range estimation). Moreover, I was answering question others asked me.
  6. INS position influencing the CCIP solution. There are some issues (as said in one of my previous comment), but with DTED that came with TAMMAC, INS/GPS position should change the CCIP solution calculation, as it would not only rely on current radar altitude when no AGR/TPOD ranging is preset, but rather on position, attitude and the intersection of the weapons predicted path with the elevation map given the current INS/GPS position.
  7. The updated HSI is the only thing we don't have from the TAMMAC upgrade. So I assume we simply don't have the right HSI and we have TAMMAC, which actually fits the CCIP behavior.
  8. It's been discussed quite a lot on the forums and on the Discord. The general consensus is that given the features we have and the specific model/time, we do have TAMMAC. We should actually get the updated TAMMAC HSI, which we don't.
  9. Considering the newer block Hornets should have a DTED, your current position compared with your current attitude (i.e. the LOS of the CCIP piper) should be correlated with the DTED to give you an accurate computed impact point. So basically both are linked. It should feed from the AGR when telling it to though (via SSS Fwd), so there's definitely a bug. But at the end of the day your GPS/INS position is indeed used for CCIP. The HSI situation is actually wrong. Our HSI is not what the jet should have, since it is a TAMMAC equipped jet and thus should have a DTED.
  10. Hopefully we'll get some news about this soon! :)
  11. Considering we're getting a Late Block II (https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/273179-dcs-ah-64d-development-report-4th-june-2021/?do=findComment&comment=4684398), the APKWS is not a realistic weapon for our Apache, since late block II would be around 2008-2011ish. According to your own source, the first ever test of an APKWS on the Apache was in 2013. Same goes for the AGM-114R, which entered service in late 2012. As for the Stinger ATAS, CRV-7, AIM-9/Sidearms and Mistrals, these were not used on AH-64D Block II in US Army service and ED already confirmed these were not part of their plans.
  12. Not at all. It was reduced because they didn't meet their initial deadlines so they dialed back the "hypetrain" that they started to early.
  13. Then blurry isn't the term. Even if information is lost, nothing garantees that this "lost" information was useful to make a sharp image to begin with. That's the goal of upscaling, we don't see individual pixels, we see patterns. If you can upscale and preserve sharp patterns, then that "lost" information wasn't very useful for us. That's actually the basis of lossy compression like JPEG (when using a more quality-friendly compression). At the end of the day, if your upscaling method is blurry, it failed at upscaling.
  14. It's not antialiasing, it's really just upscaling (like DLSS is). Those methods are getting quite good at producing upscaled image based on synthetically generated base images (i.e. games) and does not make them blurry (depending on settings of course, but the higher quality settings do not). It's actually something that has been done for a long time in higher res TVs and such (i.e. upscaling 1080p to 4K), but the task is much more challenging for synthetic images than real video images (like TV). FSR and DLSS both cannot be used for antialiasing.
  15. The Ka-50 is a prototype, there never was a single production variant of the Ka-50, as they were basically test beds for the autopilot system and other stuff that would be put in the Ka-52. Not a single Ka-50 was the same, and all got different test configurations over their life. That's why there are certain liberties with the Ka-50: the real aircraft doesn't have a specific configuration or version with specific features. The F-16CM Block 50 in ANG/USAF does have specific capabilities and configurations/software versions.
  16. Belsimtek (BST) is and always was Eagle Dynamics. They branched out a part of their team to test the 3rd party workflow, forming the Belsimtek team. When the API got much more mature and more 3rd parties got in, they moved the team back into the core team, hence the "merger".
  17. I mean, the original poster gave his source: NFM-000. So yeah we have evidence that it should be.
  18. Yes, the FLIR (or targeting pod) is a donor to the MSI picture, at least IRL and not currently in DCS. Trackfiles when MSI is enabled should include tracks purely given by the FLIR or even datalink, but it is not currently the case. We can "see" datalink tracks but they don't behave like tracks (ie selectable and L&S-able).
  19. The original YF-16 was first presented as a day air superiority fighter in the LWF competition, but the ACF competition that made it so popular both for the USAF and internationally was intended to produce a multi-role fighter/bomber to supplement the F-15. So from the get go, even before the production started, the F-16 was designed as a multirole aircraft. The first YF-16 (which isn't an F-16) was a pure ASF, not the F-16.
  20. I'm not talking about the original F/A-18A/B, as these didn't have MSI to begin with. I'm talking about the upgrades made to the Hornet to replace the F-14 in the fleet defense mission when talks about removing it from service started. That's especially why I chose the word evolved when talking about the Hornet.
  21. IPD is a variable set per person, and by default it is obtained by DCS via the VR API of your headset. The calibration procedure of your VR headset is done to obtain this, but you can measure it yourself using a mirror, an app or by asking your optician. This isn’t something that you ask others, this is something that is very specific to you and your facial dimension. IPD represents the baseline of the stereoscopic system that is your eyes, and as you know, the distance between your eyes depends on your own measurements, not anyone else’s.
  22. With proper MSI, the Hornet should indeed be a beast for SA. It's a generally slow aircraft that accelerates slowly but has great nose authority, so the F-16 is generally the winner in a dogfight. As for missile slinging and BVR, don't forget that the Hornet evolved to replace the Tomcat in the fleet defense and AS role, and thus a lot of goodies have been implemented to help it do so, especially MSI. The F-16 on the other hand was first designed as a cheap fighter-bomber for export (like the F-5A) and evolved into a mainline fighter-bomber/specialized SEAD aircraft afterward. The USAF has several other and better aircraft for the air superiority role, such as the F-15 and the F-22. It's radar (even though it has unrealistic range currently in DCS) is smaller and less capable than the APG-73 of the Hornet, so definitely it most likely is less capable in BVR compared to the Hornet. The F-15 is another story though, as the version we have in DCS is both extremely simplified and much, much older. IIRC it's similar to an early 1980's F-15, so non of the fancy sensor fusion and datalink avionics. Therefore the comparison in DCS isn't very relevant.
  23. I'm pretty sure I had this discussion with @Santi871 and he has documentation that points toward this. But honestly, just based on pure educated guesses and logic, just the name of it definitely gives you enough details to know this: Multi Sensor Integration. Currently, there's no "integration", just a bunch of sensor doing their separate things. There's a lot of SMEs who have hinted at this too.
  24. Check if your Radar Elevation axis is not bound to something you don't want it too. It sounds like the radar is scanning at the lowest or highest angle. (check the elevation carret on the left side of the radar)
  25. No, not at all. SEA mode is not GMT. GMT requires moving targets. SEA mode is optimized to filter out non-return areas typical of bodies of water and put synthetic bricks over the resulting returns. Otherwise there wouldn't be any difference between the SEA mode and the GMT mode. This is very well described in available documentation online for the APG-65.
×
×
  • Create New...