Jump to content

zzzspace

Members
  • Posts

    228
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Personal Information

  • Location
    Australia
  1. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1629376&postcount=27 Yes, the sound-engine does have an adjustable LPF function. But there's no independent rotor sound for the interior. It just uses the spill-over from the exterior rotor sounds (two of them), so using LPF in those .sdefs ... well, you can image what would happen. The only interior balancing you can edit with respect to the outside level in the BS are the levels of the interior turbine sounds, for both left and right engines, with respect to each other, and also with respect to the external turbine sound level. But the interior turbine sounds are both set to about 40% of the level of the external turbine sound in this mod. I'm guessing you're not having an actual functional cockpit audibility issue of any kind, that this is just an aesthetic issue? That it should not be as loud as the exterior level, and should have an LPF cut at say around 1.2k and up? Which means it would require its own separate interior rotor sound .wav file and its own .sdef file for setting the gain and LPF. I'll report this as an 'issue' in the Sound Bugs and Issues forum.
  2. zzzspace

    Eye Candy

    Very much looking forward to this jet, thanks for the priority work you are giving to it.
  3. Win-8 is not an upgrade, it's a downgrade. (but then again I consider Win7 a most regretable downgrade of XP from my standpoint as being the user ... while Win8 looks like the ultimate microsoft horror-story).
  4. Stand-off and altitude tactics definitely, Speed. Completely agree there as well. In saying the above I'm looking at it a bit more from the direction of taking advantage of the ability to sneak in and attack at low-level now (lets presume recent INTEL is good and current) now that this sort of flight finally works within DCS World. And to leverage cover and terrain as much as possible for ingress and egress and also in between attack runs. It can be done and used for CAS and ground attack but I'm also looking forward to doing strike tactics with an F-15E ... and how all this will fit and sit within a DC. You'd certainly like to think the Ai would check the RAW and see what's out there and where. :) :D Obviously they have to take some risk with the SAMs, especially optical and IR. But if aware a SAM is around, and the location, they should fly accordingly when within range. You know what I mean. If the Ai can be made to work well in gun-only, then they should be able to nail dodge CMS and get out of dodge manoeuvres. I would prefer they didn't abort, but you can basically make them abort now via the ME. So I'd like them to take measure risks with the sharp responses and good memory, and so care about approach and regard to terrain opportunities. At the moment the Ai use altitude and distance to get away, but they don't use cover, except by accident. Been thinking for a long time that Ai is the big issue to clean up before a DC will work and make sense as a plan-able and achievable campaign.
  5. Incorrect, the Ai has never been 'dumbed-down' at any point. It was never intelligent to begin with. It's always been quite terrible, but has shown very slow and halting improvements over the past ten years. This topic also has zero to do with how long you last in the sim, as far as I can see as that has to do with your tactics and skills and your own decision-making. Don't do it wrong and you'll last far longer, hit your target, and RTB. This is a technical study SIM, not a shooter, there is no comparison. But if you want or require 'dumbed-down' Ai, you simply sellect the level of Ai that you want, or else can handle, within the mission editor - there is an option for it for every unit in the SIM. But I also completely fail to see how making the Ai work better makes the game-play less-enjoyable for anyone! For when/if the Ai works, and wingmen do as asked, without just blundering in and getting themselves hosed in seconds, then the mission's goals could be attained, and you would have actual teamwork occurring routinely. And survival and RTB and target prosecutions would become vaguely realistic. And if these things did work as one would hope and expect, I dare say most players would greatly enjoy that, a very great deal ... and considerably more than before.
  6. I've identified another aspect to the Ai engagement behaviour which seems to affect all of the Ai fighter aircraft in DCSw (don't know if this is a known issue, apologies if it is) If you place 2 x 2 in a guns-only and watch you soon realise that once the Ai mutually 'choose' each other as their respective enemy target, they will only attack that one single target aircraft, and not any other in the fight. They also will not switch targets at any time even if the perfect opportunity emerges to do so and get an easy kill. So when one of the aircraft is destroyed, the remaining two against one gun fight does not occur, because the second available Ai aircraft will not fight, because it was not a party to the original mutual targeting arrangement decided upon at the initial merge. So this second aircraft, after defeating its target simply flies away and lands, leaving it's wingman to fight it out alone ... not good mav! But if the opposite side wins the remaining guns battle, even then the remaining two aircraft do not then engage each other, even though they would still have enough fuel to do so. They just ignore each other and go ahead and land at the same runway, as though they are no longer on opposite sides. Or rather, they act like they're not combatants any more.
  7. What I can't understand is where the onerous complication is in simply giving a real command system (back at the launcher) a digital terrain model for the area of operations, so that the commands it gives doesn't do something stupid like waste a viable missile that could have gotten a hit. This seems to me to be a quite simple and obvious software solution to the whole problem of complex terrain. After that all you need to do is shape the trajectory to best conserve energy and maximise intercept options. And the DTM helps here, because it also allows the guidance system to predict the most probable path the target will take, given through the ground is not one of the options.
  8. What you wrote above, print it out, laminate it, stick it to the wall, and get on with the rest of your life. ;) :D You'll thank me in ten years. have fun johno
  9. Yeah, that's it, ramp start screwed up the navigation, so it flys to the wrong waypoint co-ordinates, by the look of things. It ignored the usual waypoints, and passed through radar coverage of active SA-11, SA-15 and SA-19s, ignored them, and headed off out to sea, at the correct altitude, but towards 291 degrees, and 331 knots. Should have been doing 420 knots. Nothing like the mission plan. Like you said, headed back to Germany. Looks sort of like the nav has gone chasing after a UTM 137T coordinate, instead of 138T. Congrats! ... so now YOU have to test all the jets, to find out if they're all doing it. Have fun! :D
  10. Yes, default date, I'll try a ramp start from 3:30AM and come back.
  11. Had a dig around about this system and where it's at now (nasty-land): -- TUNGUSKA Missile variants have 9 kg continuous expanding rod warheads with ~10km range 9M311: Original missile, laser proximity fuze. 9M311K (3M87): naval version of the 9M311 used by the Kashtan system. 9M311-1 export version of the missile. 9M311M (3M88): Improved version of the missile 9M311-1M: Used with the Tunguska-M1 radar proximity fuse for improved capability against cruise missiles. Pulsed tracking light instead of constant flare for better ECCM. Range improved to 10 km. PANTSIR-S1 (improved and expanded capability Tunguska system) Far more lethal version of the 9M331, but about 26 kg heavier. Missile variants have a 20 kg continuous expanding wire cable warhead, with a reported ~18 km range and 35k feet. 57E6 57E6-E 57E6Y (my guess is the warheads are differnt, so you mix them in the tubes, for different types of engagements) PANTSIR MODES Using a digital data link system up to six Pantsir-S1 combat vehicle can operate in various modes. - Stand alone combat operation: All the combat sequence from detecting a target to its engagement is fulfilled by a single Pantsir-S1 combat vehicle without employing other assets. - Operation within a battery ("master-slave"): One Pantsir-S1 operates both as combat vehicle and as "master" command post. 3 to 5 Pantsir-S1 combat vehicles acting as "slave" receive target designation data from the "master" and subsequently fulfil all the combat operation stages. - Operation within a command post: The command post sends target designations to the Pantsir-S1 combat vehicles and subsequently fulfill the designation order. - Operation within a battery with command post and early warning radar: The command post receives air situation picture from a connected early warning radar and sends target designations to the Pantsir-S1 combat vehicles and subsequently fulfil the designation order. -- The Russians are planning to replace all 22 Tunguskas with the Pantsir. As you can see for these images, the system had no trouble with a crossing shot on slow-ish cruise weapon. Interestingly the cruise missile was punched sideways, and spinning out of the air, rather than being structurally disrupted by the multi-ring expanding-wire, which clearly didn't even need to physically hit the cruise missile in order to kill it ... or else ... the warheads have multiple detonation modes ... which seems likely from this. Pantsir is one bad-ass SAM!
  12. Sorry John, that's not it either, I launched the same test mission at 4AM, and the missiles were in the air by 4:04AM, and the EWR and Buk system were dead seconds later.
  13. ACMI shows German IDS Tornados launching HARMs
  14. I haven't looked at your track files but I just did a quick test with three German IDS Tornados set for SEAD with HARMs, smash an EWR and Buk battery, in very short order. No odd behaviours noticed, and the HARMS were used very aggressively and effectively. Ai was set to Random. So it is not the HARM, nor the aircraft, or the combination of them.
×
×
  • Create New...