Tacview 1.3.1 is available!

Tacview 1.3.1 is available!

Download: http://www.strasoftware.com/download/tacview

More news about coming versions:

This is the first of the several updates planned on the way to Tacview 1.4. Some of the new features are just tiny prototypes of much bigger things which are coming!

Important note: The TrackIR support is complete and is working well. However, we have to wait for NaturalPoint to release an update of their drivers to include a TrackIR profile for Tacview to unlock this feature in cockpit view.

I have started to work on Tacview 1.4 and the improvements coming are going to be even bigger than the new terrain engine you can enjoy since Tacview 1.3.

As usual all suggestions and comments are welcome! Even if I don’t always have the time to answer to all of them, be sure that I’m listening to you to make the best ACMI tool available from real life to DCS world!

Here is the detailed list of improvements:

• ADDED Support for Bf 109K-4
  
• ADDED Support for TrackIR in cockpit view (please wait for the next driver update to enjoy it)
  
• ADDED Auto launch and auto quit option to FSX2ACMI (based on FSX/Prepar3D status)
  
• ADDED Tacview now remembers Falcon 4.0 theaters for each VHS files loaded from the recent files list
  
• ADDED Huey, Ka-50, UH-60, Saab Viggen and boats 3D models
  
• ADDED Export script is now also automatically installed for DCS Open Beta
  
• ADDED More objects to Tacview Database
  
• CHANGED Dead ground objects are now displayed in grey
  
• CHANGED Reference mission time for DCS (from 2004-06-22 to 2011-06-01)
  
• CHANGED FSX2ACMI window now stays in "background" at startup
  
• CHANGED Removed splash screen displayed after a new installation
  
• FIXED Crash when calculating AGL altitude right at the edge of a Falcon 4.0 theater
  
• FIXED Huge Falcon 4.0 maps are now properly supported (like EMF which is twice the size as an average map)
  
• FIXED AGL Altitude for Falcon 4.0 was not always correct where different theaters were overlapping
  
• FIXED Duplicate Falcon 4.0 theaters names in the open-file dialog box
  
• FIXED memory leaks in XML interpreter when reading an invalid XML file (regression)
  

wow

its amazing the pace of advances with this software..

thank you!

thanks! ;)

Great!

Will try it in the next few days. :)

THX!!!!!! :)

Will Tacview integrate upgrade feature in the near future such that we don't need to re-download and re-install the whole package.

I’m going to improve a bit the installer so it looks more like an automatic upgrade rather that a new install.

However, I don’t plan working on a full automatic update download system for now. Because I prefer to focus my time and work on flight analysis for the 1.4.

Will Tacview integrate upgrade feature in the near future such that we don't need to re-download and re-install the whole package.

Thanks Vyrtuoz!

BTW, there seems to be an error in the aspect calculation between two fighters.

What it should be is this:

If the relative bearing from fighter A to fighter B is 135, then fighter B sees a 45 deg aspect. This is commonly known as 'aspect off tail'/AOT, and it an important part of the academics of air combat. Right now I think, but I'm not sure, you're calculating some difference in the heading crossing angle (HCA) of Angle Off, each of which is a different measure.

In other words, the aspect for fighter B is: 180 - Relative bearing of fighter A to fighter B (fighter A left box, fighter B right box)

Please see here: http://www.combatsim.com/archive/htm/htm_arc3/livedie1.htm

And:

I think I read the same documentation as you when I added the feature ;) If you try to reproduce the documentation chart with Tacview you should get the same results.

But now, you are putting doubt in my mind. Did I invert the “formula”?

Maybe someone else can help to confirm what the aspect angle is supposed to be.

I think I read the same documentation as you when I added the feature ;) If you try to reproduce the documentation chart with Tacview you should get the same results.

 

But now, you are putting doubt in my mind. Did I invert the “formula”?

 

Maybe someone else can help to confirm what the aspect angle is supposed to be.

 

Yes. The F-16 will 'see' the aspect that's written next to it. But your formula is not working, I can pretty much guarantee you that.

Here's a test you can do (Sorry I don't have anything handy, but it is easy to reproduce):

Fly a chase scenario with two fighters, one behind the other, about 1nm.

Lead fighter starts a 3-4g turn. Observe 'Relative Bearing' from lead fighter (left box) to trailing fighter. 180-relative bearing = aspect for the trailing fighter.

Now switch to trailing fighter and observe 'Aspect' of the lead fighter. You'll see it's not 180-relative bearing (FROM A, not OF A), except for a few cases where they line up.

Edit: Pics included.

For the first image, the setting is: Range/Relative Bearing (3d)

For the second image, it is: Range/Aspect (Here we should see 45 or so).

yep.. something seems "off"

Thanks Vyrtuoz, great stuff as always :thumbup:

Did a small observation today. The GBU-38 came off the aircraft sideways please see attachment.

In same test I dropped 6xMK-82AIR (without the balute) and one CBU-97 and they did come off the same heading as the aircraft.

Cheers

Hans

It looks like that some weapons orientation is not properly exported by DCS World. I’m going to rewrite my exporter soon, so I will fix this if this is on my side. But I really think the bug is on the DCS side.

Thanks Vyrtuoz, great stuff as always :thumbup:

 

Did a small observation today. The GBU-38 came off the aircraft sideways please see attachment.

In same test I dropped 6xMK-82AIR (without the balute) and one CBU-97 and they did come off the same heading as the aircraft.

 

Cheers

Hans

I have calculated the aspect angle in 3D. That may explain your observation, because in that case, the roll of the target aircraft matters.

Maybe that was a bad idea… Do you think aspect angle have to be calculated in 2D (from a satellite point of view) in all cases to make sense? (The answer is not obvious to me, especially when thinking about dogfight in full 3D space…)

Yes. The F-16 will 'see' the aspect that's written next to it. But your formula is not working, I can pretty much guarantee you that.

 

Here's a test you can do (Sorry I don't have anything handy, but it is easy to reproduce):

 

Fly a chase scenario with two fighters, one behind the other, about 1nm.

Lead fighter starts a 3-4g turn. Observe 'Relative Bearing' from lead fighter (left box) to trailing fighter. 180-relative bearing = aspect for the trailing fighter.

Now switch to trailing fighter and observe 'Aspect' of the lead fighter. You'll see it's not 180-relative bearing (FROM A, not OF A), except for a few cases where they line up.

 

Edit: Pics included.

 

For the first image, the setting is: Range/Relative Bearing (3d)

For the second image, it is: Range/Aspect (Here we should see 45 or so).

No, not from satellite point of view ... From observer's point of view. Still 3d but ignore roll.

This is nothing but reverse relative bearing :-)

The reason why it has to be three dimensional it's because you may be in an oblique turn in a dog fight and not horizontal turn.

I think, also, that displaying the aspect angle between objects is confusing. The best may be to display it under each aircraft like on this video to avoid any ambiguity:

I don't find it confusing, but I think what you are suggesting is more convenient and I like it.

It's a big deal for BFM analysis.

In this case, if you look at my images, what would be written under the LEAD aircraft would be about 45 (The aspect that the TRAILING aircraft sees), and under the TRAILING AIRCRAFT would probably be about 150, but I didn't do the numbers on that one (the aspect that the LEAD sees)

If vector A is from observer to target and vector B is "nose axis" of the target, targets aspect is the angle difference between vectors A and B if I'm not mistaken. This should result in the correct aspect angle also in 3d. Roll has no effect on aspect.

Done! I have fixed the aspect angle calculation in Tacview 1.3.3.

@Vyrtuoz: Good deal! :)

The general preference is 'angle off tail' ... so on bandit's six, 0 aspect, on his nose, 180 aspect. This also works well with 'hot' and 'cold' reports (high, low) :)

If vector A is from observer to target and vector B is "nose axis" of the target, targets aspect is the angle difference between vectors A and B if I'm not mistaken. This should result in the correct aspect angle also in 3d. Roll has no effect on aspect.