Requesting to add “radial” field in NS430 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-04-2018, 04:07 PM   #1
Fer109
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain
Posts: 64
Default Requesting to add “radial” field in NS430

I have just bought NS430 module. My goal is to use it as a “situational awareness” display, using the second page of the “nav” mode.



In this page you can also add “showing fields” and change them.



My idea is having present my Bullseye position all the time close to a map showing my aircraft position. In the first field, I use “waypoint” (the bullseye), in the third “distance”, but in the second instead of “bearing”, I tried to change field to “radial”. But this options is not possible.
There are many fields you can choose, but not “radial”.

I know the “radial” is the same as “bearing”+-180 degrees. But if possible, it would be very nice to have this option too.

Real life GCIs use BULLSEYE format for giving information instead of TACTICAL (BRAA, Bearing Range Altitude and Aspect). Despite of the fact that TACTICAL information is easier to understand, in fact it is only useful for the single group GCIs are reporting to.

On the other hand, even it is true that BULLSEYE format information is less intuitive because you need to assess your BE position and then the position provided by the GCI at the same time, it will be useful for all the players on frequency. And in the long run, it should be the default format in a multiplayer missions.

GCI controllers cannot afford to broadcast TACTICAL information to every each player, in particular, in overcrowded servers.

Sooner or later, we have to promote, or at least to provide tools to use BULLSEYE format. Mirages already have this option, F-18 is working on that…

Therefore, almost all modules could join to BE format with the help of the NS430. That is way of my request, and by the way, it looks quite simple to be done.

Last edited by Fer109; 12-04-2018 at 06:42 PM.
Fer109 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2018, 01:34 AM   #2
tom_19d
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: United States
Posts: 307
Default

Not a bad idea, but the Garmin 430 has no such data item (per page 3-3 of the Garmin 430 Pilot's Guide).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fer109 View Post
Real life GCIs use BULLSEYE format for giving information instead of TACTICAL (BRAA, Bearing Range Altitude and Aspect).
Simply not true. Controllers (at least USAF/USN) can use calls related to Bullseye, a BRAA format, or even plain english as dictated by the situation. Their job is to provide maximal situational awareness to the aircraft they are working and it is up to the controller to tailor his sentence structure, cadence, and even tone and inflection to leverage this information to the greatest extent possible.
tom_19d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2018, 07:04 PM   #3
Fer109
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain
Posts: 64
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_19d View Post
Simply not true. Controllers (at least USAF/USN) can use calls related to Bullseye, a BRAA format, or even plain english as dictated by the situation.
What is true is that I didn’t mention how specifically USN/USAF usually works.

Obviously, GCIs can use whatever format they want ot need. What I meant BE format normally is the "default" choice. As a matter of fact, "picture" calls implies bullseye format.

My intention was not to create a debate about that, neither was my topic.

The fact is that for few groups, of course TACTICAL format would be workable and better, but for several groups (like we can find in many server like BLUE FLAG or 104TH) TACTICAL information is just useless for the other players. The reason why GCI are overwhelmed in crowded servers is because they stick to TACTICAL format.

I only want to have the tools in DCS to be able to work properly using BULLSEYE format too.

There are already implemented some options, but in my view not enough, in particular in FC3.

For instance, working with BULLSEYE format in the F-15C at this moment requires a huge effort to pilots:

First of all, your selected WYPT has to be the BE.
Secondly, to check your current BE position you should check the opposite heading of the HSI pointer (for knowing your radial), and then the distance (in HUD or HSI).
And finally, estimate the bearing and distance of the “bogey” BE position related to our BE position.

So complex steps make BE format not workable in DCS at this moment, let alone pilot training for working like that.

Using NS430 as I mentioned above is a way to promote or allow it, at least in a limited way, and at the same time, increase our “situational awareness”.

Anyway and regardless my opinion concerning the use of BE format, I am just doing a simple suggestion to Belsimtek in order to improve this module: to be able to select “radial” as a field.

My fear is that as far as “radial” is not an option in the real GNS 430, they would not implement in DCS NS430 either. Therefore maybe I should firstly request it to Garming…

Who knows if Belsimtek can improve real products…
Fer109 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2018, 08:12 PM   #4
tom_19d
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: United States
Posts: 307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fer109 View Post
My intention was not to create a debate about that, neither was my topic.
Clearly we would have different thoughts on the concepts there, but as you say this probably isn't the thread for that.

I completely agree that having a radial function would be nice, and I further agree that it is a very simple concept in the big picture. However ED generally doesn't seem to be in the business of putting features into modules that don't exist in the real world version. That is why I spend the time to pull the manual off the shelf to see if "radial" is a data item or not and report. Good luck on your quest, so to speak.
tom_19d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2018, 10:57 AM   #5
Fer109
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain
Posts: 64
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_19d View Post
I completely agree that having a radial function would be nice, and I further agree that it is a very simple concept in the big picture. However ED generally doesn't seem to be in the business of putting features into modules that don't exist in the real world version. That is why I spend the time to pull the manual off the shelf to see if "radial" is a data item or not and report. Good luck on your quest, so to speak.
We agree on that.

Just in case, using "bearing" instead of "radial" could be good enough. I will only add +-180 degrees for saying my BE position. But I would prefer to skip that task if possible.

Thank you for your comment.


PS If I had a dedicated controlled for my flight, I would ask for BRAA format with no doubt. It´s easier for pilots. The issue is that usually I am not the only station airborne.
Fer109 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2018, 05:15 AM   #6
jamie_c
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 33
Default

A little late to this party, sorry. Firstly I don't yet have the DCS NS 430, what I do have is the GNS 430 training software from Garmin.

How I'd manage this in the real thing (may or may not be possible in DCS) is to create a User waypoint named BULL (or anything easy) at the bullseye grid or as an offset from an existing waypoint. This way if I get a bullseye call, I create another point from that location using radial and distance. If instead I get a BRA call, I use P.POS. Both methods create a visual point on the nav map showing me where they are and if you go direct to, you've got your ownship bearing.

Hope this helps in some way.
jamie_c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2018, 07:46 AM   #7
tom_19d
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: United States
Posts: 307
Default

He can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe Fer wasn't looking for the ability to plot a call on the moving map; aside from that requiring a lot of head-down time he was just looking for a continuously displayed radial/distance from the bull. As it stands, you have to use the plus two/minus two, plus/minus 180, or whatever mental tool is your favorite to make the bearing field into a radial and he wanted a way to bypass that step. That being said, the method you described would work to generate a pictorial display if that is what you are after, I just don't know how practical it is in a single pilot tactical aircraft.

As for a BRAA call, sure you could plot that too but much as before I would advocate looking out the windscreen in that case.
tom_19d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2018, 11:44 AM   #8
jamie_c
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 33
Default

As would I in most cases, but if you're talking L-39 and Mi-8, you could just as easily have an F/A-18 in the future giving a Bullseye call for a ground target. It's up to the user to decide priority in the fight, if he thinks turning rotraries is his best use of time, best of luck to him

Whether they can add the feature requested depends on how far they're willing to deviate from the real thing. I'm surprised the real 430 has as much utility as it does.
jamie_c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2018, 03:16 PM   #9
Fer109
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain
Posts: 64
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_19d View Post
He can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe Fer wasn't looking for the ability to plot a call on the moving map; aside from that requiring a lot of head-down time he was just looking for a continuously displayed radial/distance from the bull. As it stands, you have to use the plus two/minus two, plus/minus 180, or whatever mental tool is your favorite to make the bearing field into a radial and he wanted a way to bypass that step. That being said, the method you described would work to generate a pictorial display if that is what you are after, I just don't know how practical it is in a single pilot tactical aircraft.

As for a BRAA call, sure you could plot that too but much as before I would advocate looking out the windscreen in that case.
I fully agree with Tom.
Fer109 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:10 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.