Jump to content

Kula66

Members
  • Posts

    2218
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kula66

  1. Yes. Even without PH ACT, if you have a PAL lock on the target, the missile seems to go after anything nearer ... I've shot down friendlies that I didn't even know were between me and the target
  2. I now get this too ... and yes, I have VA installed
  3. Not sure how much lag I get on a fast M2 and 32GBs of RAM, but it's enough!
  4. I asked a couple of years ago and the response I got was that it was caused by a delay resulting from having to fetch and play the appropriate audio file, ie. the call was correct a few seconds ago
  5. The issue is the range of the 18s radar as compared to the 16s; the 16s radar currently out ranges the 15 and the 18, which does seem odd.
  6. Ah, sorry, I never use the AIM-7!
  7. Select PH, switch to TWS, allow the WCS to build a track and assign it a priority 1 ... you should now see a T in the HUD.
  8. I didn't say it WAS wrong .. you said they'd never design a system that created a missile that went active by itself, and I pointed out that they already had done and it was called PAL (functionally the same as PH ACT). Then a question: or is the current PAL/PH ACT implementation wrong too?
  9. With PAL at 10-15 miles, you can easily lock a bandit, fire and the 54 will happily race after a nearer friendly, as I understand it (and evidence confirms) it's maddog off the rail! So the argument, that they wouldn't design a system that could potentially lock a friendly accidentally by going active itself, doesn't really hold any water or the current PH ACT implementation is wrong too.
  10. You mean, just like it does now when you fire it in PAL mode?
  11. And you feel that accurately reflects the 20 years development effort, $100s of millions spent and the revolution in digital electronics that took place over that time? Not sure I notice it myself. With all the underlying improvements in DCS missiles going on, let's hope that once the code fully sits with ED, they will address this - I'm sure they'll get around to it eventually.
  12. Meanwhile we 're stuck in the rather ridiculous situation where the 54C (early 90s), which we know had a steady stream of updates, has the same seeker as the 54A (mid-60s)
  13. Ok, my bad, that makes sense ... so you use UDP for speed, and then its up to the app to handle it correctly
  14. I'm not sure that's how TCP works ... 'TCP provides reliable, ordered, and error-checked delivery of a stream '. If packets arrive out of order or get lost, then the transport stack will request a resend or pass them up the stack in order. If this 'lost packet' theory was the case, why does this impact the 54 so much more than say the SD-10? I can't imagine DCS uses UDP!
  15. My steamVR was recently updated, which coincides with the SteamVR crashes - hence the likelihood of being involved. I Don't think WMR for SteamVR has been updated recently, but I'll check. Prior to this it has been rock solid for months - I'd never had a similar crash. I've only had 2, but it is a right pain!
  16. "motionReprojectionMode": "motionvector" - Is this the setting you're referring to?? Always been set to this value. I'm apparently running 1.19.7, but the the SteamVR properties, says I have not opted into any betas. Its pretty much the only thing I use steam for, so not sure how to change it!
  17. Just started happening to me, second time in an 18, first time was in a 14 while flying in the TACT comp final ... not a happy bunny. No issues prior to this
  18. @Airhunter Did I say the C has no smoke?
  19. 54c is extremely useful close in ... no big smoke trail in the sky!
  20. So @defeatist99why the reference to it going ‘pit bull’? They just don’t work like that. Plus the 31’s PESA radar is very different anyway, it will appear to do odd things.
×
×
  • Create New...