Jump to content

toilet2000

Members
  • Posts

    317
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by toilet2000

  1. 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.
  2. Santi is the same guy that helps Wags with some info on the Hornet for example. He is not with Razbam, same goes for Chicken. They're both completely independent from Razbam.
  3. To begin with, ChickenSim. Also, I know Santi has good sources on that and discussed the issue on Razbam's Discord channel. Those are two very good sources.
  4. Really hope this is going to get fixed. It makes no sense and several SMEs chimed in to confirm this isn't the correct behavior.
  5. This isn't conjecture. This is info that is found in public documentation, including a Master Thesis made on the inherent limits of the LITENING targeting pod for weapon delivery and accuracy that state the limited resolution available at full zoom. According to said document, the "usable" digital zoom is general zoom level 5.0, above that you lose too much details. This has absolutely nothing to do with DDI/MPCD resolution. Honestly, this isn't something very hard to Google, and before completely throwing out someone's valid point, I'd suggest you do a bit of research. And btw, it's Rafale (as in gust, translated), not Rafael (a person's name).
  6. Just landed yesterday with a 21 loaded with 3 R-60s and 1800L of fuel and it was smooth like butter, no need for AB. And this is a somewhat heavy loadout to land with. I think most of the issues come from flying the -21 like other planes in DCS on landing, ie dropping full flaps and gear and trying to fly in that configuration. Landing flaps should be used a bit like those on warbirds: you put them out when you're about to land and need to drop speed.
  7. If you have the stereo parser/fustrum culling option enabled in autoexec.cfg, try disabling it. It solved the issue for me.
  8. The LITENING zoom as said previously is WAY over modeled. In reality it's a digital zoom with integration (making it a bit better than pure digital zoom) when using zoom levels. Max full-resolution zoom should be Narrow FOV at Zoom 1.0. On top of that, the LITENING AT actually has a better narrow FOV compared to the ATFLIR according to docs I could find. I think it's 1x1 deg FOV vs 1.5x1.5 deg FOV.
  9. There was a placeholder implementation, but for now a long time it’s actually not been available at all. The screen stays black, plus they never implemented the targeting/SPI designation system for the EXP modes anyway. It just wasn’t functional.
  10. Honestly, this is all 100% a matter of subjectivity and preferences. My favorite weapons and those I always go back to are the Walleyes and SLAMs.
  11. Because deploying the latest and greatest weapons isn't the only fun to have in DCS. Exactly like flying cold war/early jets, there's a lot of fun in flying older 1980s Hornet scenarios. As for the Walleyes I, they were the ones mostly used on the Hornet during ODS, so for a cool ODS strike scenario, they'd be pretty neat.
  12. 10 or 20 means the TERNAV can't update but the error is estimated to be small. Are you flying over flat terrain or water? TERNAV continuous updates requires some terrain elevation to make automatic fix. As for your question, yes this was solved in a subsequent patch.
  13. You seem to be using a very old version of DCS. Update to the latest stable version or open beta. The DDI Format you're getting is back from when the AG radar was unimplemented.
  14. I haven't been able to see the captain bars to designate an FTT target in the AG MAP EXP radar modes. Only the INS designation cursor can be shown by depressing the TDC, but the captain bars are not shown on the display. Pretty sure this is a bug, because the captain bars should be able to be used to select the OSB labels (HOTAS shortcuts) and the TAC-000 manual from the AV-8B (very similar radar, the APG-65, just older than our -73) says that a FTT designation can be made in expanded modes. I'll try and post a track whenever I have the time. Thanks
  15. Doppler Beam Sharpening still requires a certain radial speed to resolve the distance, so both DBS and SAR (which uses DBS btw) have a dead zone in front of the aircraft. See more info: https://www.radartutorial.eu/20.airborne/ab05.en.html
  16. EXP1 and EXP2 are both DBS modes, while EXP3 is a medium-resolution SAR map. As such, all these modes require some processing time (and flying a stable path for best results). That's why you get a 10 degrees zone too.
  17. It's a more complex issue, since the TDC pressed/unpressed has different behaviors on the AG radar scope. To alleviate this before having a throttle with a clickable TDC, I simply used another button mapped on the throttle (that I can reach while using the TDC) or on the stick. I would assume they might arrive at a solution for this whenever the HOTAS integration for all the added modes and formats is reworked (for example, you should be able to click the labels and use submenus like in the RWS AA mode in most if not all TDC-assignable formats, including the AG radar).
  18. Yup, from the russian translation, it seems the -114K will be in early access, -114L afterward.
  19. It can't be a separate 2-step process without bringing tons of errors in. The DTED has to be used to find the intersection between the LOS from the aircraft own position and the ground. This drives both the lat/long AND elevation values. Otherwise you have to assume that everything is at a fixed altitude value (generally 0 MSL) and the intersection will give you lat/long and 0 elev. Then using the DTED at that specific position will lead to drastic errors whenever the terrain is not close to 0 MSL. For example, pointing a designation at flat ground but at 4000 ft in elev will make the designation appear much further behind the actual point you've designated.
  20. Biggest issue here is the slippery slope. Simulations can definitely take shortcuts and not emulate the behavior, but this causes all sorts of issues. Knowing how the thing works "inside and out" and not just "out" can tell you a lot more on its behavior then simple logic like "if this then draw this". Here are some DCS examples done in the past to "simulate" in a shortcut manner like you described: - Thermal Imaging in DCS in general. There is no "heat", just a fancy color filter. - Radars before the Hornet and the new radar API, they were very simple all seeing eyes (except for range, elevation and azimuth limitations) - EW and jammers (even nowadays, we are starting to see more advanced behaviors) - Targeting and bombing solutions in some modules (those perfect death dot without any accurate way of getting height-above-target) - TGPs and their perfect digital zooms. The behavior should be closer to what Heatblur did with the LANTIRN. When using zoom levels (not FOVs), the quality should degrade. - TGPs and tracking modes, including perfect area track. Area track never drifts or lose track. Point track cannot lock on any object, only some specific objects that are qualified as "point trackable". - Range limitation for laser designators (a floating point in the sky basically) I honestly understand ED very well about taking their time to get not only a good grasp of the behavior, but some backing documentation on at least a general overview of the inner workings of the thing they're trying to simulate. Otherwise you end up shooting yourself in the foot with something half-baked.
  21. According to the book Apache by Ed Macy, mostly the more powerful Rolls-Royce engine and the ECM suite.
  22. So just to make sure, the DATA page should never be the same color as the normal EHSD page?
  23. Not all INS + GPS navigation systems are made equal... Especially when the tech was pretty new and it's made to be blown up. Even more so when you're using mostly off-the-shelf components from other (older) projects, like the Walleyes and the Maverick. Keep in mind the SLAM is a very old missile made from even older components.
  24. There seems to be a lot of contradicting opinions on this point, so I wanted to see if some of you have better info on this. As far as I know in 2005, the ATFLIR was a slightly better pod feature-wise with a better optical zoom (3 FOVs), but much more expensive and less available (initial production rate). So what other differences are there in terms of usage?
  25. Thanks Nineline for chiming in. That was actually my question to begin with: what's the state on that list, promised or not? If it was certain that they would be implemented, I wouldn't be asking the question. It was really just to know the stance of ED on that list, including: - Are there already weapons that were pulled off the list? (since the current plan for EA and out-of-EA does not mention some of them) - Are there weapons that we don't already have that are already confirmed to be coming? (an example would be the SLAM-ER, but unsure about the H/K version). Thanks!
×
×
  • Create New...