Jump to content

AvroLanc

Members
  • Posts

    1172
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AvroLanc

  1. OK, but the issue is not the Apache's system, it's the gamey-ness of DCS. The fact remains that the Air Defense symbols (threats) are always red, blue is not an option. Which was your original query. Friendly Air defense would not be plotted as threats, that's an ED thing and there needs to be a way of pre-planning CM's in the ME. No idea how this would work for multi-player, but you certainly wouldn't plot every MANPADS either. Remember there are only 50 target/threats slots available total. In real life you wouldn't plot every air defense site in the theatre (Friendly OR Enemy), only the ones likely to impact your specific area of operations / route. In the meantime, you can delete a few to free up space.
  2. Well, it's an option as a workaround currently. What kind of missions are you playing with 50 active friendly AD sites? Crazy unrealistic MP servers? There's only target 50 slots available total. The simple fact is that adding Control Measures into the ME isn't available yet, and who knows when it will be. I agree that ED needs to make FRIENDLY AD not appear on the Threats list. If you're making the mission yourself, you could set the unit to 'hidden' and that would also serve as a simple 'temporary' work around.
  3. I’ve certainly seen it. It happens when TADS is the selected sight and Gun is actioned and slewed. It’s no doubt related to the addition of the TSE function, since the gun does micro jerks at the same time the COINCIDENCE message flickers on the HAD. The TSE is clearly calculating lead and moving the gun, but in tiny jerky movements. Was super smooth before addition of TSE.
  4. I suspect that in real life FRIENDLY air defense units are simply not plotted on the TSD (i.e...be part of the DTC mission load). The colour is irrelevant. Those rings are for Threats (clues in the name). Friendly AD would be plotted as a friendly CM as you suggest. Maybe one day (before the end of time?), we might have some kind of mission planning system with module specific options for pre-planning CM's, Threats and the like. Remember you can always delete any type of CM or Point. You'd have to make a note of which AD T-numbers you need and what you don't. A few minutes spent in the TSD menu's at the start of a mission usually pays off big time.
  5. This particular feature has been working since day 1 of early access, so there’s another issue…….(I’m taking suggestions everyone). Once you scroll the target list, you need to press AI interface right short to select the target. Your problem is (partly at least) you are trying to fire when you should let George ‘WAS’ the weapon and then give him a consent to fire. There are plenty of tutorials out there.
  6. Provide a track and someone will be able to point out where it's going wrong. GeorgeAI does work perfectly fine.
  7. So there's a few issues here. Firstly, you've got Missiles selected yourself as the pilot. Don't do that, that's your main problem. Let the CPG select Hellfire (look for CMSL in bottom right of IHADSS). He is the one who fires Hellfire when using the TADS. (generally, but there are exceptions). You've got 'Free Fire' for the CPG (green George interface), change it to the mode where you need to consent to fire each shot. I find that much more reliable. Map the 'Consent to Fire' button to a completely separate HOTAS button, don't use your trigger. Get the TADS video symbology up on your left MPD. In your picture CPG isn't actually looking at a target, the TADS is still FIXED. Make sure CPG is actually designating the target. Look for the lasing cross to know when he's lasing. Maneuver the aircraft for a solid (not dashed) constraints box. Only then give 'consent to fire'. (Also, you need to boresight your IHADSS, but not relevant to Hellfire)
  8. There are two things here. You can transmit a SPI and you can transmit a Steerpoint. AI can only transmit a SPI. Human players can transmit a Steerpoint and/or a SPI. Hopefully AI will get the ability to create and send mark points/Steer-points in the future. You can slave to a Steerpoint and it’s described in a post above. There’s no way to currently automatically slave to a SPI. You should be able to use FCR AG map mode and slew cursors and have the HSD cursor follow those slews, you could then overlay the HSD cursor on top on the AI transmited SPI and create a FCR marpoint. Although, this might be buggy in DCS as the radar map cursor has wrong update behaviour. Although actually I need to try, now that I’ve thought of it.
  9. Any ideas on when the very important CCRP Release Angle Scale is going to be implemented? Is it planned, very odd if it were not? Please see shot I've grabbed off YouTube to avoid posting docs. The elements are: Range Scale Range to Target Carrot Maximum Release Range Tic Predicted Climb Angle at Weapon Release Level Release Range Tic Predicted Altitude at Release (Hundreds of feet) It would be great if this pretty basic addition was made to CCRP. Thanks.
  10. So it looks like the M282 Multi-Purpose Penetrator have lost their (admittedly non-functional ) Penetration settings on the Weapons Page. Before, they were defined as RC rockets and had settable PEN 'penetration' values. This always contradicted the manual, which says the M282 had a fixed/modified PD fuse.....so maybe it's now more correct? Although M282 is still 'RC' on WPN Page......Any experts out there with more info? Will settable RC (Resistance Capacitance) fuzes make a appearance? I would have thought the 17-pounders with the M433 RC fuze / PEN values would be useful. (yeah, purely for immersion, until more advanced damage model).
  11. Is the current INS drift model at all well modelled? Last I heard the INS was drifting at insane rates in any pre-GPS mission. If a proper probabilistic based INS drift simulation isn’t included, then it makes NO sense to bother with the FIX page. Other modules such as the M2000 and F-14 have properly researched and carefully implemented INS simulations. The ED Viper does not. Any simulation and/or gameplay immersion is totally bogus unless the underlying systems behave correctly.
  12. I've just noticed that when you've got the VID page set to your HMD and with the VSEL (P-FLT or C-FLT) symbology selected, the selected NVS (Night Vision Sensor) uses the wrong, in fact the opposite, field of regard box symbology. With PNVS as NVS the box is for TADS, and with TADS selected as NVS the box is the PNVS one. (This FOR box is the big box in the HAD with the Azimuth and Elevation tic marks etc.) The FOR box that's projected on the IHADDS is correct, and changes accordingly when you use the collective NVS select switch. It's the VID page symbology that is wrong. Bug is seen in both PLT and CPG cockpits. Edit: Screenshots of issue for clarity. Please enlarge and squint to view..... HMD vs VID Page.trk
  13. No, the IHADSS airspeed is always TAS. You’ve got GS on the TSD and in the lower left waypoint datablock on the IHADSS itself. The velocity vector line gives a good idea of GS as well.
  14. IHADDS now shows TAS, not GS. Depending on the relative wind,TAS might increase slowly compared to GS.
  15. OK thanks. It's a bug then, doubt it was intentional.
  16. The behavior of the 'LASE # TRGT' message has changed in the recent 8th June patch. Before the patch the target number '#' always reset after each engagement i.e when all Hellfire's had reached TOF=0. For example, you'd get LASE 01 TRGT during a LOAL launch as prompt to lase, if you'd rapid fired and had 2 Hellfire in the air you'd get LASE 02 TRGT at the appropriate time, if 3 Hellfire in the air then LASE 03 TRGT etc.... After they'd all impacted, the message would reset to LASE 01 TRGT for the next set of launches. New behavior in recent OB: The message never resets, so you get LASE 04 TRGT etc (up to LASE 16 TRGT) even if it's for the first launch in a later engagement sequence. I'm 99% pretty sure it's a bug since I always thought the message was a reminder to tell you how many Hellfires are in the air and how many are needing imminent lasing ('lase 3 targets please', 'lase 2 targets please' etc). It could be correct though, in that it supposed to be the absolute targets you've engaged....Lase the 4th target, Lase the 9th target, Lase the 11th target' etc..... Can an SME step in? It has changed, was it intentional? LOAL Lase Error.trk
  17. PERF page wind was correct before wasn’t it? Is the TSD wind now correct?, if so then the bug has just been transferred to the PERF page. IHADDS correctly shows TAS now rather than IAS or GS.
  18. The bump up isn’t even coming for the first iteration? Despite the fact that Wags mentioned (but tellingly, did not show) in his video? Do everyone a favour and hold the PIII until it’s ready. It’s represents absolutely no addition to gameplay as it stands. We already have the GBU-31v3/4 for penetration. We are past static menus and non functional Paveway II clones. 25 years already, been there, done that in numerous sims. Disappointed.
  19. Yeah ok, it was a guess and a punt based on what I presumed to know at the time (very little). If you mix all my ‘modes’ together and add in a few bits and nuance then it wasn’t a bad go. Thankfully the thread, and maybe my post, has stimulated some proper discussion that has led to a little more understanding that ED might go ahead and implement one day. So mission accomplished. You’re an SME are you not? Please feel free to fill in the gaps if you’re able. Thanks.
  20. I’ve tested it, yeah….it’s not correct. Nineline, I’ll dig out the references tomorrow. I suspect they’re the same public ones you’ve already got though.
  21. It's not really for the TGP, although it could be used that way. It's a left over from the days before GPS. In those days the INS would drift a small amount, the waypoint would then not be over the correct point in the real world. You could use the radar to slew to the correct target, and possibly get a FTT. No problem....but what if the target doesn't show up so well on the radar? Maybe it's a collection of soft tents or another radar insignificant target? You can't see it on radar in that case. But, there's a distinctive looking bridge or building at a known bearing and distance offset from your intended target. This radar offset is exactly what OA1 and 2 are for. You can slew the radar cursors to the bridge, the radar looks at the bridge, but the aiming and waypoint are at all times directing you to the true target. This is what offsets are for. Similar for TGP I guess, but it's much easier for the TGP to see the true target, so you'd not use the offset in most cases. Maybe if the target had a laser warning receiver and you want to avoid alerting or was very hard to find even on TGP.
  22. Offsets have been implemented completely wrong anyway. They're not supposed to be merely additional waypoints (you'd just use an another waypoint, if that were the case), they're supposed to act as a true offset - i.e aiming offset from the target waypoint in situations where aiming directly at the waypoint/target isn't possible. All steering and weapon aiming should at all times be towards the Waypoint, with OA1/2 being where the sensor looks, but with the entered offset data defining the Waypoint (.....the target.....) position. ED haven't really understood how this is supposed to work.
  23. It's locked out above 80 knots right? Check speed.
  24. Well, if those real pilots and crew chiefs want to offer their opinion then they’re free to help out any time. The problem is they don’t/can’t. It doesn’t really matter if it’s ‘dangerous’ or embarrassing later on, if they weren’t willing or unable to contribute towards a more realistic 100% correct solution right now then……who cares. The real info may never come in these specific cases. Getting a few sensible and knowledgeable heads together to construct a reasonable solution is that best we can hope for in these cases. It either this or make do with a equally incorrect Paveway II copy that adds absolutely nothing to current gameplay or simulation. I say again……I’m 100% done with static menus and non functional inactive menu options. I want depth and functionality above and beyond the same old combat sims I’ve been playing for 25 years. Futhermore, if that depth and true consequential gameplay can’t be provided through lack of documentation for the chosen module, then by heck choose to model a more appropriate airplane in the first place.
  25. There are clearly lots of Paveway III details that ED simply doesn't have access to, which is a massive shame since they did once indicate that a new autopilot would be coming for PIII. Even Wag's video wasn't clear...is there a new flightpath model/autopilot implemented for PIII or is it just the same as Paveway II?? It's clear as mud at this point. The Range Cue and Release angle settings do have some logic. The way I understand it, Paveway III is a very 'canned' weapon i.e. it's limited to fly in a very specific 'pre-planned' flightpath. It's very pre-planning intensive and the delivery has to be spot on in terms of Airspeed/Dive/Altitude to hit those pre-planned parameters. This is because the weapon has fixed non-flexible fuzing and when you use PIII you want the impact angle and fuzing etc to be planned spot on for the type (hardened!) of target you're going after. This is not a TOO CAS weapon. Therefore the Range Cue and Release angle setting's are there to pre-set a condition to release, they don't influence the actual bomb at all, they just make sure you're flying the pre-planned delivery. Having said that, the gliding flightpath can be 'shaped' to achieve what you want by making a setting on the 'MODE' switch. On Paveway III, this is a physical switch on the bomb itself. Just like a PII's laser code. The 'MODE' setting knob has positions 1-8. I imagine these are the 8 gliding profiles or trajectory shaping modes. This detail is what ED lacks. But I say, let's make em' up..... MODE 1. Standard medium/high alt level delivery that priorities range over terminal shape. MODE 2. Medium alt drop that produces glide path the flattens in terminal stage for vertical targets (you want to hit side of a tower) MODE 3. Medium alt drop that produces glide path that steepens terminal stage for horizontal targets (hit top of the target) MODE 4 and 5. Low altitude drops that optimised for <5000ft deliveries for same vert or horiaontal as MODE 2 and 3. MODE 6. Low altitude LOFT flight path to acheive max range in LOFT delivery for vertical impact angle MODE 7. Same as 6, but for different terminal stage etc etc Paveway III needs constant lasing in order to continually know it's relative position to the target. It also has a barometric altimeter, for rate of change of height. Now, I've made the mode details up, but the 8 position MODE knob is real and I'm willing to bet I'm not too wrong...... I don't see why ED can't bow to a gameplay perspective here. Inactive and non-functinonal MFD buttons and labels should have no place in DCS in 2022. We're not in 1998 anymore and I expect more.
×
×
  • Create New...