Jump to content

norman99

Members
  • Posts

    573
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by norman99

  1. Sorry, but you're out of luck. Not possible.
  2. Couldn’t agree more Pikey. A Balkans map similar to the other sim, but with some additional eastern terrain would be amazing.
  3. Honestly, without derailing this thread, localised weather is one of DCS’s most glaring omissions. The other major flight sims, combat & civil, have had this feature for decades.
  4. The real question should be, why do we even see them? I’ve never seen a real world photo of a carrier under power with these visible.
  5. I too would love an accurate IFF system, but realised with the current multiplayer experience, there’s absolutely no way to make it work. (I’m specifically thinking of Mode 2,3,4 codes and their application, not transmission range, strength etc.) If IFF systems truly relied on inputting the correct codes to function, then these would have to be provided to each aircraft in the mission briefing documentation, itself not a big problem. (The other sim we don’t mention handles this well.) BUT, given this information has to be made available to all players, there’s nothing to stop a RED player inputting a BLUE IFF code into his aircraft, and freely flying around enemy controlled airspace, and shooting at unsuspecting aircraft that view it as a friendly, due to the IFF return. Basically it would open a can of worms re dishonest usage that would cause chaos on multiplayer servers. Anything that attempts to prevent this, would by its nature, be fudging how IFF works.
  6. If you’re clipping those approach lights, you’re coming in WAY too low. The aim point during the approach and landing should be the markings at approximately 1000ft from the threshold. In the above image, there are the rectangular markings, 3rd from the threshold. Also, there are plenty of places around the world where raised approach lights continue onto the sealed surface, right up to the threshold, as you can see below. (Not the greatest image to illustrate my point, but it’s the first I found with a quick search.)
  7. Honestly, it seems Carrier comms are going backwards no forwards at times. It feels like there’s more bugs and idiosyncrasies now than a couple years ago.
  8. This has been reported before, and acknowledged by ED, but unfortunately, we're still wait to see some improvements. Hopefully soon.
  9. Are you sure about this, or are you referring to a DCS limitation not present in the real world? This is my understanding of ACLS Mode 1 ops. Mode 1 Approach - At 0.5 mile controller advises the pilot to call the ball. Report - SIDE NUMBER, HORNET, COUPLED, BALL or CLARA, FUEL STATE. At approximately 12.5 seconds before touchdown, the uplinked 10 SEC is displayed on the DDI and HUD. After touchdown, ACL and automatic throttles are disengaged.
  10. This is actually more important for AI wingmen/flights. Especially when using the S-3 as mentioned above.
  11. I couldn't agree more!
  12. I'll give it a try now. Stby EDIT: Works for me too. My only advise is the following: Once established at 1200' and 250kts and exactly on the ILS lateral path, if using the A/P, ensure it's is in RALT and CPL HDG mode (check HUD), ATC engaged if desired. Just prior to 8nm, disconnect ATC and the A/P @ 8nm, gear, flap, slow to on speed AOA, maintaining 1200' (all manually, don't use the A/P) Only once established at on speed AOA, if you'd like, re-engage ATC and the A/P and CPL mode. (I prefer to ATC & A/P, but maintain manual control of altitude with pitch control, as I like to fine tune any deviation from 1200' whilst configuring now). The other option is to remain in complete manual control until the next step. At the "ACLS lock-on, say needles" call, deselect CPL, then re-engage CPL. (Or engage A/P & CPL if you remained in manual flight from above.) This should change the HUD indication from CPL HDG, to CPL P/R. Sit back and ride the jet onto the deck Just after the ramp, in the wires, the nose will start to drop, manually try to hold it up and add some power to avoid an _EGIW_ grade. (Good luck with this, it's almost impossible haha.) P.S. In the image posted above, you are 0.6nm left of the correct final approach track, this is WAY to much for the A/P to try and correct when only 6nm from the boat.
  13. My original thread in the Hornet sub was closed and tagged “map issue, not a Hornet issue.” Does this mean ED are confirming this is a known issue with the map? If so, is it on the bug list? I would have thought not having buildings/objects detectable at all by the A/G radar would be a significant issue?
  14. After the initial invasion, and for the subsequent occupation, these would be correct. I guess it depends on which type of scenario one is trying to simulate.
  15. Second question. Where would the BLUEFOR airbases be in a 1991 or 2003 scenario? Seems to me this is tailor made for an 80s Iran v Iraq scenario. Nothing wrong with that, especially given the F4 in development. Unfortunately it's not really suitable for 90s & 00s scenarios that a lot of F-15E/16/18 customers have been longing for. Here's hoping it gets expanded in the future.
  16. If this is correct, that’s disappointing. No carrier ops at all for Hornet and Tomcat fans.
  17. Currently, the AI priority for carrier ops is to prioritise recovering aircraft over launching aircraft. This is both incorrect (for cyclic ops), and leads to all sorts of issues on the deck. For instance, due to the deck containing many departing aircraft, an aircraft just landed may get stuck taxiing, fouling the landing area, and then everything gets frozen forever. Remaining aircraft don’t land, and nothing launches. If the priority was given to the launching aircraft, it would be both more realistic, and prevent some of these deck issues. When an AI aircraft arrives overhead for recovery, the AI ATC should check to see if there are any active aircraft on the deck about to launch. (Make the use of “request launch” command mandatory for player aircraft to help facilitate this). If there are any active aircraft on deck, the recovering aircraft waits for these aircraft to launch before being issued the “signal charlie”, and commencing recovery. This has the added advantage of clearing the deck of departing aircraft, providing more room for those about to land. Similarly, when an aircraft on the carrier becomes active for departure (or a player requests launch), it should check to see if any aircraft have already been given the “signal charlie”. If so, they wait till that aircraft has landed before moving, then they launch. If no aircraft are in the process of landing, departing aircraft have priority. Any subsequent arriving aircraft are required to wait until all departing aircraft have launched before they can commence recovery.
  18. Honestly, the sheepskin compresses and flattens rather quickly, years on, there's not much difference to a cotton/synthetic cover, except it catches and hides more crumbs/filth.
  19. If you’re looking for the NAV FLIR/HUD imagery shown above, you can stop now. It’s a function of the AN/AAR-50 Thermal Imaging Navigation Set (TINS), which was removed from service prior to the 2005ish era Hornet being modelled in DCS. Originally, when the ATFLIR replaced the NITEHAWK as the Hornet’s targeting pod, the NAV FLIR function was intended to be integrated as well, and in fact it is present on some cheek mounting station fairings, as you can see below. (it’s the small circle at the front of the fairing.) My understanding is that whilst present, with the advent of NVGs, the need for a dedicated NAV FLIR quickly reduced, and the wiring/avionics integration was never completed. Unfortunately for DCS users, this means no HUD/NAV FLIR for the Hornet.
  20. Absolutely agree. I’d really like to see this system completed correctly in DCS. (Technically we’d also need the P-14 correlation compensator and the Parol-4 IFF radar.) It’d be perfect for the Syria map. Maybe we could crowdfund the purchase of the SA-5 models from TurboSquid, and add them to DCS ourselves? https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/max-sa-5-battalion-missile/513949
  21. I first posted this in the Hornet sub, but the thread was closed due to it being classified as a map issue, not a Hornet issue, so I'm reposting it here. I'm noticing vastly different images when using the ground radar, especially EXP3, depending on which map my mission takes place. Specifically, for the Marianas the radar shows buildings and other items, but the ground features such as runways, taxiways (no roads) are very soft/blurry, and nowhere near the same definition as the Persian Gulf or the Caucuses. Compare this to the A/G radar return in the Caucuses, which produces a much sharper image of the ground details.
  22. I first posted this in the Hornet sub, but the thread was closed due to it being classified as a map issue, not a Hornet issue, so I'm reposting it here. I'm noticing vastly different images when using the ground radar, especially EXP3, depending on which map my mission takes place. For the Persian Gulf specifically, the A/G radar displays very sharp ground features, runways, taxiways, (no roads) etc, but absolutely no buildings or other physical features. This is in contrast to the Caucuses map, which displays all features correctly. As you can see, no buildings or roads are visible on the radar, even though there are plenty in the area.
  23. I wasn’t aware of that. (It’s been in my document library for a while, so I have no idea where I got it from). Still, I wouldn’t have thought just proving a rough timeframe for the approval of TOO delivery’s shouldn’t be too sensitive. I’m interested in creating accurate era specific missions, so just wanted to know if and when TOO was made available to Hornets, and when they were limited to PP missions only.
  24. I'm not sure if the is a "feature", a bug, a map issue, or even limited to just the Hornet, so I'll post it here. I'm noticing vastly different images when using the ground radar, especially EXP3, depending on which map my mission takes place. In short: The Caucuses map displays what I expect, a rather sharp image, with easily distinguishable features, such as runway/taxiway/ramps (no roads), buildings etc. The Persian Gulf displays very sharp ground features, runways, taxiways, (no roads) etc, but absolutely no buildings or other physical features. The Marianas shows buildings and other items, but the ground features such as runways, taxiways (again, no roads) are very soft/blurry, and nowhere near the same definition as the other two maps. Has anyone else noticed this? Do we know what the cause is? I have added pictures below to illustrate. All images taken at 20K, ~18nm & ~45-50° off the nose. (F10 map included for comparison.)
  25. The documents I have which detail JDAM systems and delivery methods, specifically state that TOO mode, whilst fully operational in the Hornet, was not authorised, and hence PP mode was used exclusively. This was due to "current state of F/A-18C/D tactical airborne sensors is such that coordinate accuracy (TLE) exceeds the minimum requirement for GPS guidance. This renders F/A-18C/D aircraft sensors unusable for JDAM employment either in real-time or as a second-party targeting source." These manuals are from 2001/2002, so may be out of date. My question for whoever may know is, was TOO delivery mode ever authorised in the legacy C/D Hornets? If so, would anyone know a rough time period for its approval? Lastly, just out of curiosity, what changes would have to be made to allow Hornet sensors to provide coordinates that meet JDAM accuracy requirements?
×
×
  • Create New...