Jump to content

toilet2000

Members
  • Posts

    317
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by toilet2000

  1. AFAIK, it mostly uses the Doppler returns, but a much lower "rate" than typical a2a radars. Wiki has an interesting article on GMTIs. There's probably a bunch of other stuff going into that, as some radar systems are able to distinguish between several subtypes of targets (eg tracked or wheeled vehicles), such as the Longbow radar on the Apache. My guess is that it seeks specific return signatures. Target ID surely happen using EO/IR or on-the-field reports with sensor/data fusion accomplished by computers and/or operators in the Joint STARS or any C2 aircraft.
  2. Not at all. ELINT = ELectronic INTelligence. The Viggen ELINT pod simply infers RADAR EMITTERS positions from various sources (triangulation, strength or other), but the target has to be emitting radar energy. Currently, no module is able to track GMTIs. As for datalink, the A-10C can transmit SPIs or receive JTAC requests (hardly a form of ground target datalink) and the Ka-50s can share targets from 4 different types with up to 4 wingmen.
  3. Yeah can confirm this issue on my end too, even after this last Wednesday's patch.
  4. I understand the low refresh rate of the target's position and direction (because of RWS scan volume), but the HUD is absolutely useless right now when doing any kind of maneuver. If a target is detected, the HUD box for L&S target refreshes at the same time as the radar, which does not make any sense. The HUD should have a much faster refresh rate, since the attitude and velocity of our own aircraft updated much faster. This way, the target box should stay (or be extrapolated from the last velocity track) in a point in space, the HUD adjusting at the normal refresh rate for own aircraft maneuvers, but at a low (RWS) refresh rate for target aircraft maneuvers. Currently, the target box is static with respect to the HUD FOV (updated once per target measurement), whereas it should be static (or with a velocity extrapolated from measurement) with respect to the world's coordinates, with the target world coordinates updated at a lower refresh rate. Here's a quick drawing of what I'm trying to say:
  5. @Captain Orso Never thought it'd be that hard to understand... And you should really change that attitude. Someone else noted the Dunning-Kruger effect and I found it harsh, but to be honest with that attitude it does seem to be pointing this way. Again : CIP (computed impact point) is independent from the CCIP cross CIP: The computed point where the weapon would hit on the ground if the selected weapon was released at this instant CCIP cross: The cross symbology which can mean several things: - If CIP is within HUD FOV (as in, can be seen through the HUD) --> CCIP cross is exactly on top of the CIP - If CIP is outside of HUD FOV (as in, cannot be seen through the HUD) --> CCIP cross stays at the limit of the HUD FOV, becomes dashed. The CCIP dashed cross is then used to designate an AUTO point if Weapon Release is held down, just like the Balls and Chain of the Hornet. You can read on that procedure in the NATOPS, here's a snippet: The reflected CIP cue (i.e. the thick horizontal line on the BFL) is shown if CIP is outside HUD FOV, as is shown on this image: * Note how the symbology is NOT like the Hornet, meaning the CCIP cross is NOT used as the reflected CIP cue. A different symbol (thick horizontal line) appears and the CCIP cross (now dashed) stays on the HUD too, now used as a designation symbol. P.374 (at the bottom) of the A-10C manual describes 3/9 and 5 mils CCIP Consent to Release modes, which is exactly what CCIP-to-AUTO conversion is, albeit with a different symbology.
  6. With the TGP coming at one point to the F/A-18C and the fact that all other modules using the Litening TGP suffers from that, I wonder if ED will change the range limitation of the Laser Designator. Currently, the range sits at around 8 NM in-game, while it should be much more than that. According to Global Security, the requirements for the LANTIRN 40k' pod was 17.3 NM in combat lasing mode, which it exceeded. Considering the LANTIRN is an older generation TGP than the Litening (and even more so the ATFLIR), the Litening should surely be able to designate above the 17 NM range in good weather conditions. On top of that, the current range limitation effect makes the designated point move in 3D space instead of simply scattering and returning no designation, see this video for more info:
  7. Again, wrong. The reflected cue for CCIP is the thick horizontal line shown below the velocity vector (if within 4.3 degrees of the velocity vector). Figure 2-59, left side, at page 2-59 perfectly illustrates this. Citing page 2-69: If you read the NATOPS carefully, you'll learn that: - The CCIP cross becomes dashed when limited (solution outside of parameters or outside of FOV). - When the solution is outside of HUD FOV (such as in the top right side of Figure 2-58), a reflected (about the lower end of the BFL) CCIP cue appears (thick line below the VV). - When the solution is outside of HUD FOV, immediate weapon release is inhibited. - CCIP-to-AUTO release happen when the CIP solution is outside of HUD FOV, but the Weapon Release button is held down. Symbology switches from CCIP to AUTO with the designated point at the dashed cross position when Weapon Release was first depressed (and held down). - CCIP-to-AUTO is aborted (or reverted) when Weapon Release is released. Figure 2-61 perfectly shows the attack profile of a CCIP-to-AUTO conversion attack. TL;DR: CCIP cross is always shown on HUD. When CIP solution is outside of HUD FOV, the cross becomes dashed and stays at the bottom. Holding down Weapon Release designates the target under the dashed cross for an AUTO release, as long as you continue to hold down the Weapon Release.
  8. Computed Impact Point =/= CCIP cross The CIP is just the point of impact of the weapon, whether or not it’s in the HUD FOV. The cross is always in the HUD FOV, switching to a dashed symbology when the CIP does not match the cross. To the opposite of what you said, the NATOPS goes into detail (even with figures) about how the cross always stays in the HUD FOV. _________ The usefulness is pretty obvious: it allows for a fast, visual designation using a dive bombing approach (often more precise than level releases) without having to dive so deep as to actually make the CIP appear in the HUD FOV. It is often seen being used by British Harrier (HUD footage videos available on Youtube). Again, this is the same thing as the A-10C CCIP Consent Release, a most useful feature.
  9. If you don't know something, don't claim it doesn't make sense. OP was right, you were wrong. That's it. Just an extremely quick google search would have given you what you were looking for: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3380639 Page 2-70 of the TAC-000. Not only does it make sense, but it's even already in another DCS module (named CCIP Consent Release in the A-10C). So, as you say: "go home and redo your training".
  10. Have you guys at least tried deleting the fxo and metashaders/metashaders2 folders in Saved Games?
  11. Yeah, I’m having the same problem here!
  12. That's weird, just came back from TAW N/A server 2, Stennis is on 50X, got no signal on 50X, switching to 50Y I get a tone. If I ask JESTER to switch to 50X, he gets a tone. Are you sure you dialed your TACAN in the front cockpit, and that the PILOT/NFO TACAN switch is set to pilot?
  13. The singleplayer version of the Iran Nuclear powerplant strike mission is missing the IP waypoint and the Surface Target waypoint (they are not in the nav computer nor in the kneeboard, nor in the F10 flight plan).
  14. I couldn't understand why my TACAN wouldn't pickup, but if I asked JESTER to set his to 50X, it worked. Turns out, the X/Y switch logic is inverted in the pilot cockpit, meaning setting the switch to 50Y tunes to 50X.
  15. You need to Sensor Select Switch Depress to IFF interrogate. Auto IFF interrogation is coming, but for now it's only manual and they removed the automatic IFF when in 15 degrees from boresight in STT.
  16. For anyone with frame rate issues, delete the fxo and metashaders folders in your Saved Games directory. Went from almost unplayable to good and consistent frame rate.
  17. Same behavior! That’s only on the third kneeboard page, which unfortunarely is required for RIO startup (DL page).
  18. According to the TAC manual (TAC-000, 1-386), you are wrong as it is not a user mistake. TDC pressed down should simply set an aircraft designation, leaving the TPOD format page. It should never revert to the DMT page. According to real world AV-8B pilots, asymmetric loadout should be hardly noticeable, apart when landing. GBUs maybe. But the AV-8B N/A was used as the dumb bombs truck. Because of the ARBS, it was often more precise than AV-8B+ with radar ranging and was the preferred aircraft for delivering dumb bombs. With the ASL we currently have, that's a big problem. Doesn't matter how many GBUs you have, it's a matter of time with laser on. The Lightening should never overheat, and in the rare case of a failure and overheat, the "flashing L" would not stay on. Now that part about Ace Combat: c'mon dude, what's with the attitude... And anyway, TERs rack and GBU-12 loadouts are certified, according to said TAC manual (2-38 ). The default Chaff setting (I think it is "S") should still release a Chaff, just not a "Program", but a "Single". Again, no user error here, simply a bug. Good job on trying to discredit OP though. I do suggest you do some research beforehand.
  19. The fact that the Maverick displays on the right MPCD is a bug. It should never ever show on that screen, as the sensor wiring doesn't even go to the right MPCD. The Maverick cool down is reset whenever you change MFD page, whereas it should continue the cool down/alignment procedure once you start it, whether or not you change MFD pages.
  20. Most probably this is a matter of LOS angular precision. The HARM sensor clearly isn't that precis and that error in angle can lead to dramatic errors in ranging. At those ranges, even on a flat terrain, the range can be dramatically different. The targeting pod can be used to range, because you have a really rough idea of the LOS to the emitter, so you can zoom in an acquire the target manually. Just as an example, at 50 nm on a flat terrain, flying at 20 000 ft, an error of 1 degree in pitch angle can lead to an error of up to 18 nm. Combined that with the fact that the emitter could be mountainous terrain, making it even harder to get an accurate range (because of multiple solutions possible due to the angle error), it's almost impossible to get an accurate range. _____________ The reason why this works with the A-10C is the smaller range. The CCIP piper computes solutions for ranges of around 3 nm, tops. Translated to angles, a 1 deg from 10 000 ft at a range of 3 nm gives a max error of 240 meters, much better. At closer range and lower altitudes, that error becomes negligible. The range of the HARM missile makes it impossible to compute an accurate range to target from LOS only.
  21. HAHAHAHA Good one. Like it's actually doable. I mean, with your "nice to have != necessary", I don't know why the Marines are actually buying new planes. CCIP is nice to have, but might as well just bomb manually, and not bother with a system that "could break". There's a reason why those systems are considered a basic necessity in today's airplanes, because they're not "nice to have", they're essential in today's battlefield.
  22. Often during the Viggen over PG campaign, I get this error message: And it doesn't seem to progress the campaign (nor does it show the debrief text file). As far as I know, my missiongscripting.lui file is fine: EDIT: I fixed half of this error. The first missions still outputs a lot of errors, but I can still finish it by just clicking "Ok". The error when the missions finishes (and the fact that the save progress prompt would come up) was fixed by running DCS as admin.
  23. In VR, the default behaviour of the flexible sight and door guns is to follow the head to aim. This is a really awful way to control the sight in VR (in fact, it's against the first rule of game design in VR). Is there any way to turn this off? I tried the key bind to turn off head tracker aim, but that does not work in VR. Thanks.
  24. I exactly described what kind of proof in my post. Something like that is a really good proof of activity: https://github.com/opencv/opencv/graphs/commit-activity I'm sorry if I care about where my money goes. I guess I should just throw my money at everything without asking question in your humble opinion right? It worked really well for a lot of DCS customers before right? Um um VEAO.
×
×
  • Create New...