Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Whisper

  1. Well, if it's not a tandem/side by side issue, I'm eagerly awaiting ED's version of a working side by side multicrew, without refactoring the DCS code. Then they can explain to Polychop people how they did it (again, without touching DCS engine, because if they need to refactor engine, then something is wrong in their code). But again, it won't come. ED can declare it's not because their engine is not suited for it to their heart contempt, in the meantime, facts are speaking : nothing is coming....
  2. Different case with the Mi24. It's a tandem cockpit, not a side by side. It's like L39 & F14, there's far less synchronization issues. These sync issues are what killed Gazelle multicrew, it's really the killing point as to why ED/BST can't get Mi8/Huey multicrew, while successfully working on Mi24 multicrew
  3. Looks awesome! Is the multi-aircraft type working on the Gazelle Campaign? I need to try this one! Merci msieur pour le taff, on a une campagne Gaz multi en cours, super boulot!
  4. Apache is a Day 1 pre-order for me. Instant buy. Probably my most wanted, alongside a few other choppers, some feasible (Lynx, Helix), others probably not because sur-classified (Mi28 ). But Apache tops it all. DCS is just perfect for these birds.
  5. Yes, that's what I meant. I never said scripting solutions are the source of the problem. Again, I can't thank Ciribob & others enough for all the job they do to make DCS what it is. The source of the problem is ED priorities. That kind of issues has clearly not seen any dedicated dev for long enough to still be there after years....
  6. That doesn't allow for simulating weight of transported troops, unfortunately. Transport chopper's main task is.... let's take a wild guess.... transport. 2 of 4 choppers in DCS are transport chopper. ED is simply making half of their sold helicopter products useless , this is unacceptable, if you ask me. But since there are excellent community people (and I thank them million times for this, they are the litteral saviors of 2 DCS modules) that give us the tools to get around this HUGE (and longstanding, I can't remember the last time I could use DCS internal transportation system ) missing feature, ED gets away with it. Sorry ED, but that's unacceptable, and has been for years. Shame. That's exactly the kind of things that make me saying DCS will never be a complete product and will never be able to compete versus others that understand what "complete" means.... If I'm not too mistaken, I've already told my sentiment on this topic a while ago. Let's face it, ED doesn't care about this side of their issues.
  7. Saburo was reacting to "both could run 1.65 at high alt" which seems to be wrong. Only A8 Fighter variant could A8 fighter variant, which has no C3 injection, could be boosted up to 1.56 ATA while in first supercharger stage (low alt) and up to 1.65 ATA while in second supercharger stage (high alt) F8 (& G8 ) Jabo/Attack variants were having C3 injection, allowing them to boost up to 1.65 ATA in first supercharger stage, but this boost was prohibited at second supercharger stage. Which means if I'm not mistaken, without boost, F8/G8 were limited to 1.42 ATA at higher alt/second supercharger stage. If I refer to my (rather pitiful) knowledge of these engines, the nominal power was usually 1.15ATA, combat 1.35, and some of "them" (ie, these kind of Daimler & BMW engines in use in 190s and 109s) were rated to higher pressures for a specific "emergency" regime.The emergency regime for A8 family is 1.42 ATA. it could be boosted to values listed above, but not for F/G8 at second supercharger stage. At least that's what I undestand of Saburo's docs.
  8. Done. At last a nice looking 190, true to this plane! I've a very hard time liking long nose outlook...
  9. Naelius, try putting your water parameter to low, and test FPS. Water rendering is an issue in this engine since LOMAC days....
  10. Main Lobe Clutter. In case this helps : There are 2 filters used on the return signal of a Pulse Doppler radar : Filter for Main Lobe Clutter and filter for Side Lobe Clutter. Both are there to eliminate return from the ground. The MLC filters is used to eliminate the return of the ground from the pulse sent in the front, the actual wave used for detection. It's tuned at the frequency shift corresponding to a zero ground speed, and is responsible for the sensibility of PD mode to notching, since a notching plane has zero ground speed relative to detecting airplane and is filtered out by this filter. You don't need this filter if none of your main signal is going in direction of ground, which happens mainly when you aim upward, thus when you're below your target. This filter is automatically disabled when the radar signal is tilted more than 3° upward if I'm not mistaken. You can make sure it's disabled via a switch in RIO cockpit on the front left panel, I think. The Side Lobe Clutter filter is used for the residual signal (way weaker than main lobe signal) sent downward toward the ground with an horizontal speed component equal to aircraft speed. That signal is reflected by ground and comes back to the radar sensor (since it has same horizontal speed, it "follows" the emitting airplane). Since it has horizontal speed equal to aircraft speed, its frequency is shifted by an amount corresponding to airplane speed. To avoid detecting a ghost target that woud be flying constantly at your speed, this frequency shift is filtered out. This explains why actual airplanes in front of you, cold, at your speed, are undetected, they are filtered out by Side Lobe Clutter filter. This one cannot be switched off, AFAIK, though it could be disabled at a certain altitude, I'd say, since the return of the residual downward signal should really be negligible when flying high. Back on the original question, both Pulse and Pulse Doppler modes are prone to issues with ground return. The first one is susceptible to losing target in ground no matter its aspect, whenever target is roughly close to ground (or more precisely, when some ground in the main lobe is at equal distance from the emitting airplane than its target, which happens quite often), the latter is susceptible to notching in ground return. I don't know which one would be the most efficient between a P-STT lock and a PD-STT lock with MLC off, but both case kinda require you to keep out of ground return, so I'd say the most important thing to do would be to keep UNDER your target post launch.
  11. Beware, you talk about "break the lock". Which implies that you are talking about a launch in STT. The behavior described by Jojo is true for launch made in TWS mode, not STT. So, 2 cases to consider relative to your question : 1) You launched in TWS. You lose track of target before the active range of the AIM54 seeker, so before sending the command to the missile for it to go active. This is the case described by Jojo. Question : is the command sent anyway? From what I understood of what I read (which is very blurry), I'd say "no". To me, the missile should go ballistic and not go active/pitbull. 2) You launched in STT. In that case, the behavior is different. Manual states : "In pulse doppler STT the AIM-54 uses SARH all the way to the target receiving guidance commands at a greater rate than in TWS and also continous spotlighting of the target because of the STT mode being used. This increases the effective range of the AIM-54 seeker slightly.". To me, being SARH all-the way means that in STT, Phoenix should be basically a Fox1. There's no hint here of a switch to active at any phase of flight. Now, there is this little sentence at the end of the part describing the 3rd way to launch a Phoenix : "If the target is not detected actively by the seeker it will still fall back to SARH until the seeker can acquire on its own like in the two SARH modes.". Which seems to imply both TWS and STT launch modes permit the seeker to acquire target on its own..... Go figure .... I'm really at loss as to what SHOULD BE normal behavior. Many way to interpret things, currently.
  12. You can switch to TWS MAN post launch, AFAIK
  13. See here : https://www.mudspike.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/DCS-Bf.109K-4-Guide.pdf Page 15 . make sure you push once the switch labeled "Governor Automation" in this picture, to put the prop pitch in automated mode, during your startup procedure. You can verify this by changing your throttle pressure, and the prop pitch indicator should move by itself. If the prop pitch indicator doesn't move (see its position in slide 12), it means you are not in automated mode, clic on the Governor Automation switch before your engine die. It could be something else, but engine getting killed constantly in Bf109 is VEEEERY often due to a prop pitch automation issue.
  14. Pulse Mode is supposed to be easily able to pick up boats on the see, dispite sea clutter noise, because of the reflectivity of boat vs sea. It was used to locate the Carrier sometimes. Now, in Pulse Doppler, the Carrier should definitely be hidden by the mainlobe clutter filter.
  15. So it seems documented now that the issue could be an MP bug , seemingly affecting all missiles, but being very visible for Phoenix. This behaviour looks OK and demonstrate that missile works OK in SP. Or.... it it? The documentation is not that clear on what should be the IRL behaviour in the scenario described above. The online documentation states that : Since the radar is going silent, it means, I guess, that the famous command to switch to ARH isn't sent by the WCS. So why would the missile suddenly track a target long after this when said targets is in range and passes through its radar? It shouldn't have switched to ARH since it didn't received a command to do so.... Or is the command sent when radar goes silent or TWS loses track before ARH range? In which case, what is the expected lifetime of the Pheonix ARH on-board radar? Should it be able to be live for the whole missile flight time in the above example?
  16. See here : https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3854968&postcount=54
  17. What radio do you try to communicate with? AFAIK, RIO only has access to 1 of the 2 radio. Be sure to use the correct binding , in the real one it's one of the rudder pedals that is the radio trigger. Using the \ PTT binding probably won't work
  18. Make sure both Pilot and RIO have their ICS configured to Hot Mic in each of their respective seat (on the left console) and you will hear each other as soon as you speak
  19. The issue appears with new missions , apparently. It was working fine, and probably old missions are fine too, but on mission created under the last version, I can't for the sake of me reproduce the previous behavior of being able to have multiple client slot over the same parking spot
  20. Confirmed, since last update, when creating a mission from scratch with new Carrier and ships, you are limited to 4 slots per Carrier per slot type (Ramp & runway)
  21. If I may ask again, Andre :) Is it a definitive out of stock for Kw-908, or can I wait for a restock? If definitive, I guess the best choice for flightsim would be Kw-901 and not Race edition, despite the 2 motors less, because of placement of motors?
  22. Written stuff has advantages video won't ever overcome, like the ability to go search for missing information few lines or paragraphs before, instant. If you missed a point on a previous sentence, getting the info back is a matter of seconds, and being written, your eyes have seen it, you know it's there, somewhere around previous page, for example. I keep missing important stuff and have to re-watch entire sequences of videos pretty often, not knowing where the missing info is. You typically see in videos the check lists and such being enumerated on a corner of the screen. This kind of stuff is better suited for written media. Video is not the answer for everything.
  23. If there is an amazing feature of the Tomcat that would explain the performance tax, then ok. Otherwise, this kind of argument is silly, and performance drop is due to poor optimization. Other modules achieve correct performances, including modern ones that have high fidelity systems, which could cause performance issues. Jester, maybe, is performance taxing? Anyway, saying "it's new, so it requires more power" is just a lazy way to hide potential optimization issue. Useless argument.
  24. :( Sadness :( So the only option left now is KW-901. That's forever? Is there a big difference?
  • Create New...