Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sk000tch

  1. Man sometimes I sympathize with ED... The irony here is what you ask for is counterproductive to the larger goal you say you want. Its an absolute truth in software development that strict adherence to frequently updated incremental releases is horribly inefficient. If what you want is the best game as fast as possible, shut up and let them work. There will always be delays in development. Sometimes you plan well and release as planned, sometimes you don't. If you have to waste a week getting an incremental patch ready for public release before it logically makes sense from a devel
  2. I am curious about the opinion of those with the stick as well. I know it had some issues early on, but its improved? Any of the stick snobs pick one up? I've got a fssb r3L w/ f16GRH on the side w/ Gunfighter and MCG pro in center. I've been contemplating going virpil so as to be able to use realsims f-18 grip. I don't suppose anybody has had hands on both? btw intend to pickup winwing throttle and probably panels, hence the question. Big realsim fan fwiw if it maters
  3. The obvious potential explanation is priority, if not aware it can only display 7 tracks. I haven't had the opportunity to play with it in MP with flight members, but the little time I did have donor tracks did seem to get a little laggy. Do you think it was a network issue?
  4. I suspect you might be taking "do not loft" as an absolute. Elevation angle rate of change and flight condition allow the LOBL to utilize a variant of PN guidance (RWR slaved modes as well to a lesser extent). The flight path ends up being an arc with, in some cases, pitch stepping like you would see from a JDAM. If you compared it to a range known flight path the range known would climb much more and stay at altitude longer, though once it stiches to homing it will fly similar How much lofting are you seeing? Like what was altitude and range at launch, and how much did it climb?
  5. Sk00tch also said that straight and level release provides superior stand-off in all flight conditions. There is no benefit to lofting in range, and it gives a substantial precision hit. Same with dives for that matter, no increased penetration or accuracy/precision. The non-ballistic JDAM flight path is most efficient when given altitude, speed and time. A release at 30k ft and .9 Mach should give you 12-15nm stand-off, with maximum gps guidance time There are always tactical situations you can come up with. As a result, there is a procedure for loft release but it says the same thing I’m
  6. I believe HTS is scheduled for later in phase II. I wouldn't expect anything until you see PB mode in the Hornet, since hey are both range known LOAL modes. Probably should expect incremental capability as well. I.e. HTS first allows HARM range known mode, then JHMCS integration, then Precise geolocation for PGMs, then maybe left side mounting with dual pod/enhanced PGM capability, then HTS threat categorizing/sharing via link16, then maybe the 3 aircraft rapid acquisition and targeting stuff or maybe someday we'll get a rivet joint and that dlink - just examples, I have no idea how they wi
  7. Not an a10 pilot and don’t have any 1st hand knowledge, but there were issues early on, at least in development, where the rocket motor exhaust causing damage over time to the laser sensor of other rockets in the launcher (even though they’re ~center of rocket). I don’t think that’s what that is though. Again, basically an educated guess but I remember something about a variant or 2nd gen, at least for some platforms, that is longer and would be likely cause for longer launcher. I hate it when people spread bad info here with posts that start with “I think” and I am breaking my own rule her
  8. Yoda- I was just commenting on the question of losing JDAMs as a general matter and his 2nd question of how do you typically attack a high threat target. I don’t know that I’ve seen the same lone wolf stuff in forums, I think most DCS players understand fighters fight as a section. While I do see players and/or mission designers tend toward older tactics, specifically low level, I suspect this is due to DCS lack of EW (and stealth). Because that critical element of modern tactics is missing, players defeat surface to air threats by flying nap of the earth. I am not criticizing DCS, it would
  9. Couple things - let's just agree not cite Reaper videos as evidence of real world employment Loft delivery profiles do not improve JDAM performance due to the shaped trajectory commanded by the autopilot. Lofting reduces the range capability afforded by a straight and level release under the same flight conditions, and significantly increase the standard deviation from mean point of impact due to autopilot inconsistencies and LAR uncertainties in the dynamic IZLAR. Release profile against high threat targets is ideally high, fast and on-axis to maximize standoff distance and TOF to maxi
  10. It seems from comments on their forum that it’s moot at this point, but I don’t think realsim would produce a consumer product and price it out of consumer price range. Their current lineup is a good guide, their stuff is expensive, but not prohibitive for the segment they target. I would add that extrapolating costs from Otto switches doesn’t make much sense. On average I fly irl probably about as much as I play DCS, and while it does make me extremely picky about things like stick feel, the deflection force (or switch force) that feels right when your sitting on a chute at 9G would feel o
  11. Neither, or it depends I guess. Instead of "see" lets use "communicate," because seeing where other units are is just one small aspect of what links do. Real time ISR, targeting, avoiding blue on blue, better informed and faster command, its an endless list. But tio answer your question: Viper can communicate with both Hogs (SADL) or Hornets/Eagles (Link-16) Hog can communicate with Hogs, Viper, AC-130, many helos, some Army small drones like puma/shadow, larger drones like predator/gray eagle, global hawk, tankers, any ground unit with a EPLRS radio. Hornets/Eagles can communicate wi
  12. The A-10C cannot transmit or receive Link 16 messages only SADL, the f-16 can do both though. As to the main point though, I don't think ED simulated gateways, they simulated the function, but not specific assets. The SADL-Link 16 gateway still works if there is no awacs. Perhaps they built an automatic reversion to ship-based or other terminals/gateways, but the more likely answer, in light of the choices they made regarding simplification of datalinks as a whole in their implementation, is that ED chose to implement a gateway function without requiring a specific asset. It makes sense fo
  13. The A-10C cannot transmit or receive Link 16 messages only SADL, the f-16 can do both though. As to the main point though, I don't think ED simulated gateways, they simulated the function, but not specific assets. The SADL-Link 16 gateway still works if there is no awacs. Perhaps they built an automatic reversion to ship-based or other terminals/gateways, but the more likely answer, in light of the choices they made regarding simplification of datalinks as a whole in their implementation, is that ED chose to implement a gateway function without requiring a specific asset. It makes sense fo
  14. Hope nobody got in trouble, i was surprised to see comments re how employed/effectiveness. We are better off citing public domain docs guys, it provides something ED can actually use. Curly - that is a cool way to represent/show how cell size effects IQ, but if I understand correctly its not accounting for supersamping like effect used. Google pixel spacing SAR resolution for a better explanation than I can give. I am nowhere near as informed as ya'll about specific block we have or exactly when specfiic upgrades, etc., but if we have BRU-55's that is at least 05/06-ish iirc? That was
  15. The amount of arguments that begin with "I think" or "It would make sense" is one of the reason many don't post here anymore, at least regarding technical topics. Tactical or procedural conversations are fair game i figure, some people want to learn to fly correctly, others are bored with or uninterested in that and would prefer to fly as they wish. Nothing wrong with either of those even if a bit funny at times, but for topics like this it doesn't benefit anyone to guess. It just confuses the topic with bad information. fyi F-35 has the same size antenna as a legacy hornet, both sign
  16. The role of ships is more complex than that, tactical networks must be managed like any other network. Most of that is not modelled in DCS, but certainly AEGIS systems should contribute like the way SURV/AWACS is modelled (though I am not sure to what extent it currently does). The only thing I would add to fmedges comment is line of sight requirement. I don't know to what level of detail DCS models this, whether LOS to each donor is checked, if there are relays, etc. But you will notice missed messages in canyons and such, so it's in there to some extent.
  17. real simulator's grips are a big step up in quality, the F-16 CE won't be plug and play with VKB but the buttons can be passed via bluetooth while X/Y axis from the gunfighter. I have their f-16 on a FSSB but with their f/a-18 grip coming out soon am contemplating putting it on my gunfighter
  18. fwiw it will change with weight and config, but 250 is a fine approximation. Frankly, it is completely irrelevant outside very limited circumstances. It isn't a Cessna with a 20:1 or whatever insane number it is glide ratio. The hornet has, if I had to guess, probably close to ten times the wing loading of a 172 (~120 lb/ft2 vs. maybe 15 or 20?). For a fighter that's not that high really, viper is higher for example, as are many larger aircraft like a B-1 or 747/A380. That’s not the whole story though. Trapezoidal wings favored by US have excellent flight performance at super/trans sonic sp
  19. jesus i have barely any recollection of this thread... flashback to when I was recovering from an injury/surgery. I don't generally do the walls of text thing, fortunately it's not too bad. If it helped you then great, I am just glad I didn't embarrass myself. btw - solution to your problem is time in seat and bfm drills. Athletes don't practice how to play a game, they do small side drills, then large side drills, and finally scrimmage. No different here To be relevant to this thread - rather than practicing BFM, and work on in close defense. Focus on specifics like lift vector, air
  20. Most guys agree that g-loc in DCS is unrealistic, but for a number of reasons beyond max tolerance. The consistency and low peak G of onset is just one aspect. I remember that main thread well and I don't remember anyone singling out the viper as specifically unrealistic. The Viper just makes reaching DCS' limits easier. Pilots on these forums have lost friends in the 16 though, and virtually everybody knows someone. The viper had a tendency to bite, often unexpectedly, often guys with low time in type, and for more reasons than just the 9g peak. Its better now, they can identify students phys
  21. To answer your question, the roadmap lists JPF as a 2021 project. I don’t know where damage modeling that would include any JPF capabilities is in the larger DCS roadmap however. As it would be just a couple ddi screens and graphic effect until that happens, I suspect this is why it is listed as a late stage project. Time delay or void sensing is pointless if the effect on a structure is the same as inst. Same is true for terminal trajectories, jdam airbursting, etc, until weaponeering effects on structures and some type of risk estimate distances for different units are modeled there’s not mu
  22. Couple things to note. The NIRD is a normalized display, meaning, the Rmin and Rmax will always be at 2:30 and 6 o’clock position, respectively. Rne will move in accordance with Vc, range, aspect, among other things. Whether due to how you are employing or degraded sensor, there are a variety of things that can cause Rne to not be displayed. Because Rmax and Rmin are fixed, they will almost always show up. I don’t know about the other comments re: overlap. When range to target is below Rmax, the attack format will display max aspect value between 0 and 18. Max aspect is the degrees/10 that a t
  23. Not sure about that first question either... On the second, however, you can drop designations by quickly selecting guns (entering gun Acq) then undesignate to RTS. Reset is the book answer. and better in certain situations, we need to see the az/el implementation, how bump acq is done, and see where its at. The third question is more interesting. There was a post that referenced HOTAS functions that were not in game yet in that monstrosity where Kate posted a roadmap. Some of the functions listed weren't in our OFP or were from E/F variants. However, it was possible to go to TWS in later
  24. Its a sim, not RL, but I have spent too many hundreds of hours drilling eyes up outside the cockpit into student pilot's heads to willingly strap anything on my face than requires me to fixate on any instrument. Center image clarity has diminishing returns at a certain point. What is completely undervalued and not discussed, is the large FOV (vertical included), coupled with edge to edge clarity. I can maintain formation with one eye on #1 while I adjust DDIs in peripheral vision in an index, i can't do that in a reverb (I had both for a while, also rift S). That's just one example, point b
  25. frequently, usually when i forget to switch back. No doubt solid 60 at 120hz looks better/smoother than 40/80, its just a matter of what you can maintain. I've been playing at 90 most often, as I can get the new lighting effects and msaa x2 and hold 45 but not 60. With things changing as frequently as they have been, it seems I have to re-evaluate after every patch... so my answer could be completely different next week But ya, like almost everything, more is better
  • Create New...