Jump to content

toilet2000

Members
  • Posts

    317
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by toilet2000

  1. That is very well put Swift. Totally agree. Sure you can "do" most of the things, but it's not at the same "true to life" level as what we expect from a DCS module. This isn't a "lite" sim. You should be able to mostly follow procedures, which is not the case in the Harrier. That's on top of simply breaking issues like the slew.
  2. I agree with Pikey on this one. The Harrier is just not at the same level of quality that I personally expect from a DCS module (and it seems to be the case for several other customers). The HUD repeater on the MPCD is a good example of the "low quality" on top of the tons of missing features and functionalities. Same goes for the more than 2 years old bug of Sensor Select Switch Left making the EHSD appear on the right MPCD. While we can expect an EA product to get better quality implementations of systems and improve much further over time, the same cannot be said for a "product sustainment" phase. IMO, a product leaving EA should be close to if not entirely feature complete (with a clear roadmap of the missing features if it happens to be so) and at the best quality it can. I understand that bug fixes (from older bugs or from new ones) can be part of the product sustainment phase and I agree with that, but quality and polishing of the systems that are in place should be done before leaving Early Access, and a clear roadmap of the small amount of potentially missing features should be laid out, at least in my humble opinion.
  3. toilet2000

    F-15E?

    You're dead wrong. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3341529#post3341529
  4. Oh didn't know a fuel truck and a radar signature while a T-72 or a BMP are stealth vehicles... /s There are issues with the rendering tech that have nothing to do with the AG radar resolution or whatnot. Check the forum thread linked by LastRifleRound. EXP2 will have higher resolution than EXP3 at close range (something like 5-7 nm).
  5. Very good write up. Thanks! This has been my experience too.
  6. The best detail is attained at 45 degrees from your direction of movement.
  7. Most if not all of the image processing on those kind of systems aren't done via "CPUs" or "GPUs", but rather via dedicated chips (custom made) or FPGAs. Saying our CPUs and GPUs are much better than back then has little to do with the processing requirements. We don't have hardware dedicated to apply a specific processing almost instantly, but rather rely on programmable "general use" hardware (even on a GPU). This is exactly the reason why even the best GPU available can't beat ASICs in cryptomining. Application specific hardware is best in terms of performance.
  8. That's definitely something I would like to see for the Hornet too. And as Swift said, considering we have older weapons like the Walleyes and the AGM-84E SLAM, the Nitehawk wouldn't be off at all. +1
  9. uboats said the aircraft isn't ADF capable, and won't get symbology for it, even if the radio panel has an ADF mode. See: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4462924&postcount=55 As for HNS, currently setting the INS to HNS (INS + GPS which makes the green UFCP light near the HNS button light up) does not fix the very fast error rate of the current INS. After a 30 minutes flight, the whole INS can be more than a mile off currently, with no real way to fix it expect with a ground alignment or an overfly alignment.
  10. Here’s another source: Source: https://www.16va.be/4.2_les_mi-24_part1_eng.html Says it’s gyro-stabilized, has narrow and wide FOV + infrared tracking (at least for the missile SACLOS). Moreover, the Mil Mi-24 Attack Helicopter book cites the Raduga-F as being a LLTV/FLIR. This answers applies to @Fri13 comment too. Edit: some more info/sources: https://www.deviantart.com/stealthflanker/art/Raduga-SH-268189991 Since we have a Hind-F (P version), the Raduga is the Raduga-Sh with at least different left fairing for the Shturm guidance antena.
  11. That's actually my guess too as to why the US Navy/Marines didn't really use/train on AG radars in the Hornet, whereas other countries did train on it. I've been told by people in the know that the RCAF did train on the AG radar and it was used. Canada doesn't operate JSTARS or the like.
  12. The Raduga-F is a FLIR system, as far as I've seen, with the "orange" thermal color as seen in games like ArmA. See this timestamp:
  13. There’s a very distinct difference between emulation and simulation.
  14. It's dumb that my base model Honda Civic doesn't have a turbo. It's dumb that Honda sold me a base model Honda Civic and doesn't give me the same things as the Si. Different planes, different systems, different nation, different weapons. It's not because it shares the same name that it is the same aircraft. The AV-8B+ has a lot of differences in system to our N/A for example. Razbam is supposed to give us the closest UK Harrier to our N/A, the GR-7, but there are still notable differences: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=187214
  15. See this: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj5mYeaztLqAhWRmHIEHZyDDFMQFjAKegQIAxAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftrace.tennessee.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D6123%26context%3Dutk_gradthes&usg=AOvVaw2aV4JkrwHoXIKjjJ_nEeCe This quotes a 512x512 image.
  16. IIRC the best way to do so is to simply filter out the emitters. You can select which emitters to show, and selecting a single category will limit the overlap of say search radars over track radars.
  17. The resolution limit is not because of the TID, it's because of what the LANTIRN pod had. In fact, in DCS currently, the Hornet's LITENING (and most probably the one in the A-10C and the Harrier) have a much too high resolution. LITENINGs from the Hornet's time period should have a 512x512 FLIR resolution with 2 optical zoom levels (the Wide and Narrow zooms) and 10 digital zoom levels (the "zoom levels" actuated via the arrows on the DDIs or via the antenna elevation HOTAS controls). at zoom level 9 it should be something like 90x90. Yes, the LITENING uses computer vision techniques to enhance the resolution and get a bit more than "90x90" in terms of actual information content, but it is still very limited. This is actually something that HB went above and beyond to simulate: the zoom levels on the LANTIRN are digital only and thus the resolution gets pretty poor (since it's an older generation targeting pod) at max zoom level.
  18. I'm not an artist myself, but I do remember reading someone in the know pointing out that RB have errors in their textures definitions and something missing in them (can't remember what exactly, but I'm trying to find that post again) that makes everything very dark. IMO this is clearly not a gamma issue, as it's been well described that DCS requires a lower than usually gamma because of the lack of contrast adjustment. Most people have a gamma between 1.6 and 2.0, because otherwise the colors are washed out. IIRC this is actually something ED was suggesting to do back when the big merge happened (2.5).
  19. Actually, some weapons can't be added due to the lack of SDK, namely the Walleyes, the Mavericks and the Bullpups.
  20. Correction to that: "You have now learnt why AG radar isn't used really at all on US hornet IRL." RCAF Hornets trained for and used the AG radar. The type of mission that would make use of the AG radar was done by other platforms in the US military (namely the F-15E).
  21. It should indeed be less than 171x171. If we consider each zoom levels to be a scaling by the same factor, zoom level 9 should be 99x99 (with a scaling factor of about 0.833).
  22. There are issues with what's cold and what's hot in DCS because it simply isn't simulated at all currently. But as you can see from the videos I linked previously (see: ), it should absolutely washout during explosions, and for a fairly long bit of time.
  23. It's actually much better resolution than it should be. It's a 512x512 sensor with 2 optical zoom level (Narrow and Wide FOV) and several levels of digital zoom. At zoom level 6, the image resolution should only be 171x171. Currently, apart from the blurriness, the resolution stays the same whatever the zoom level.
  24. Clearly the "Good FLIR" image as posted in this thread is no better. It doesn't washout at all. Maybe there are issues with the current rendering (including the washout being sometimes the same "color" as the explosion), but the "good" image is clearly not realistic at all. It should absolutely washout and stay like that for some time.
  25. Even then, the FLIR cameras found in current commercial products are definitely not the same as a FLIR imager from ~2005. It will generally washout because of the same limitation of any camera: "exposition" time. Sure, using dual-image techniques (think they call it HDR) can help, but even then... And that's something available in current day smartphones, not a FLIR pod from 2005. Even from the videos, you can see that this washout stays for quite a long time, suprisingly so, while the flash is almost instantly gone when viewing the CCD images.
×
×
  • Create New...