Jump to content

Karon

Members
  • Posts

    805
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

2 Followers

Personal Information

  • Location
    EU
  • Website
    http://flyandwire.com/

Recent Profile Visitors

9460 profile views
  1. /u/PALLY31 is that you buddy? FH → BR is the Cut; you are looking for BR → BB. Then, when Target Aspect = Relative Bearing from the TID (RBRG = Antenna Train Angle or Angle Off) but opposite in sign, you have collision, but only if you are co-speed. Otherwise, you need to compensate because it can be really off depending on other parameters and the scenario (such as low speed and high Cut). I'd guess that using the vector in TID AS, the Collision button (if STT or if you manage the TWS centroid) or the drift (if in PSRCH) is simpler in those cases, cut TA = ATA works too as a starting point or when the Cut is low.
  2. Hey mate, how are you? Thanks for the patch, the TID double readout is a blessing! I'm trying to understand how the TA works, though. I didn't have much time to test, just a couple of scenarios. For each of them I calculated the TA empirically with GIMP and using TA = BR → BB and I can't understand how it works. I noticed two things: the value changes instantly when the F-14 manoeuvres. This shouldn't happen. the sum of the ATA (Relative Bearing) and the displayed value is 180 (or very close, probably due to approximations) Scenario I: Scenario II: Thanks! EDIT: just seen you reply, @Naquaii . Thanks for confirming that it's bugged atm!
  3. Fair enough. He did not say anything incredible in my opinion, at least in the videos he posted. I guess that the sensibility of the military can be quite diverse, especially in such a critical period, so I do understand and respect your point. If you think about it, men have been enjoying and dreaming about others' old sea stories since ancient times. Speaking of which, when will we hear yours? (well lads, I tried, now I'll see myself out!)
  4. Well, so far he did not talk about anything that is not a personal opinion, common knowledge or freely available (procedures-wise, for instance, the P-825, rev 2017 and 2002 come to mind, on top of others, and unless I did miss something). I hope at some point he will go more into the details of certain procedures barely mentioned in the available docs; perhaps later when he is up and running with DCS. The thing is, at least of me (an enthusiast with no military or aviation background whatsoever), it is sometimes hard to discern the line that separates the "better not divulge" from what is freely sharable by former or active duty personnel. Moreover, when the source is not official (e.g. a random YouTube content creator), even discerning the apocryphal from the genuine is sometimes not really immediate either. Ward has great communicative skills, he is a pleasure to listen to, and his background gives him authority; hence solving one of the points I raised above. The former, instead, depends entirely on him. About the flight suit, it is not necessary, but plays a part in constructing his persona, which totally makes sense considering he is on YouTube and the focus is on entertaining. I'm really looking forward to seeing him flying.
  5. TWS is a peculiar radar mode with a number of limitations (check the manual for further details). Often adjusting the antenna elevation solves the issue. I understand you tried both higher and lower targets, but the TWS radar volume is so limited that it may not be enough unless you pretty much nail the angle. Try 4B, it's usually simpler since the setting of the correct AZM is immediate. You can also find the correct angle in different ways, by using a mnemonic formula for instance, or a pre-calculated table, for example. When you are "seasoned" enough, you'll mostly rely on your guts. There may be other parameters, such as the VC switch but, on top of my head, none affect similar radar modes (as they are both HPRF PD modes) as much as the volume limitations mentioned above (Disclaimer: I'm terribly rusted, so I may be missing something). Reiterating using your post: Let's say you are flying at 35,000ft. Range let's say 35nm, to illuminate a target flying at 10,000ft you need to set the antenna at -7.8°. If the target is down at 5,000ft, then the angle is -9.3°. Follow up question: were they appearing in LINK4A, but what about RWS? Were they appearing in such mode? See if this helps mate.
  6. Not really much has changed since the launch of the F-14 in this regard. It took a very long time to see the first implementation of the API, and it's incomplete yet (HB folks, feel free to correct me here if I'm wrong). Another example, the fact that the lost target in most scenario reverts to the old "flat" guidance. On top of that, there's a lot of work that should be done by ED imo, for instance turning the current countermeasures into physical entities. Unfortunately, I'm afraid all these improvements and overhaul will take quite a lot of time.
  7. It looks like your LINK4 is saturated, it happens quite often in crowded servers or missions. I mean, it's not a big loss anyway, as your radar is the primary source of information, but it is not ideal. The real issue is the logic behind what is displayed that is awful and, as most of the data coming from the AI, it lacks proactivity. If you have a wingman, switch between LINK4A for general SA and LINK4C for section coordination and attack. Again, DL is handy, but hardy a necessity: remember that you have a guy behind you, and his primary task is controlling the F-14's stupidly powerful radar
  8. Added Part X of the Intercept Geometry study, which concludes the brief overview of the P-825/02 and the techniques used at the beginning of the millennium. Next stop, a quick at how things looked in the '50s through the '70s.
  9. Were you replying to my post? Because no one expects all bugs to be quashed, that's impossible, but dealing with the game-breaking ones and the exploitable, it's a way to make it more "competitive"-friendly. I agree on the rest of your post
  10. Probably, that DCS is not, at this stage, a platform solid and reliable enough to ensure a fair and bug/exploit free experience to every player, and it will take a while to fix it. Certain applications are more prone to suffering from those issues, and "competitive DCS" is one of those. By playing, you should accept and understand that these issues exist at the moment. If you don't like it, then play a different game (I'm saying "you" but I'm not referring specifically to you). On a personal note, I've been invited to play in a few "competitive" teams but, besides the lack of time, I refused: I don't mind losing as it's always an occasion to learn and improve, but losing because of a bug or exploit, oh my, I'd be royally pissed off. Therefore, I don't play competitive DCS: there are other games around, more stable, reliable, with fewer bugs and more suitable to competitive gaming. The situation will surely improve in the next few years but, at the moment, it is what it is.
  11. It's a bit weird at the moment. I did not spend much time on it, but sometimes the missiles is guided and activated correctly, sometimes it doesn't. The distance seems like an important factor. Here, for example, the two '54s were guided and activated correctly. A couple of days ago I launched an AIM-54 in TWS a relatively short range, and it went dumb (looking back, I should have used PSTT, but that's another story). Any way, it's still WIP, so I wouldn't lose my sleep over it. It'll get fixed.
  12. I'm going to get a lot of hate here, but DCS modules could easily cost 3x or more than their current price. Why? 1- since 2008 I played two modules: Ka-50 and F-14 as RIO. Hours of fun / Cost tends to +infinite. I bought multiple copies of the F-14 to gift to friends or modules I never even launched just to support ED and the devs. 2- the same CoD every time or FIFA cost as much as a module, not to mention a premium whatever in the various war thunder / wot. A DCS module takes an incomparable effort to make instead. 3- sales are recurring and quite well distributed during the year. That being said, these are personal considerations and, moreover, a steep price increase would make DCS inaccessible to many people, which is something no one wants. In the specific case of the F-14, we get three variants of the F-14A and the F-14B and a ton of other stuff. It's well worth the price!
  13. That's an odd issue, OP. As @zildac said, make sure you press Clear every time you want to start a new input of command. Actually, pretend that every new command must be preceded by it. For instance, new WP: [CLEAR] [1] {type Lat} [ENTER] [CLEAR] [6] {type Long} [ENTER] [CLEAR] [4] {type Elevation} [ENTER] Now, pressing Clear is not always necessary, but initially helps to avoid a ton of issues. Similarly, after working on a WP, do an half-action on the HCU. It will de-select your WP or track, so you don't end up positioning the wrong WP or, even worse, your own AC location accidentally! About the NAVGRID, make sure you are in TID GS mode and the NAVGRID is selected. Press clear and do what you need to do. So: HCU half-action CAP to D/L Select NAVGRID [CLEAR] [2] {type number of sectors} [ENTER] [CLEAR] [8] {type orientation} [ENTER] [CLEAR] [4] {type width} [ENTER] Again, all these half-actions and [CLEAR] are overkill, but they make sure you are not working on something you don't want
×
×
  • Create New...