AvroLanc
-
Posts
1323 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by AvroLanc
-
-
9 minutes ago, skypickle said:
That does not dim the HDU info, just the displayed video.
With C-HMD selected use the TEDAC SYM button.
-
Just to add another mornings experience…. The RFs are definitely a great tool in the toolset but they are far less flexible than the SALs and I can see clearly why we’ve not seen them widely used IRL.
They very much need a good steady track and lase, almost always using IAT, if you don’t the data is still passed off but the chances of the missile not acquiring are high. This is why George CPG struggles so much.
LOBL works well, but the tracking seems to rely on the side of the aircraft the missile is on vs which relative side the target is on. The missiles Track better when facing the target without own aircraft obstructing….which is a nice touchUsing IAT as a human CPG and understanding their limitations…..they are awesome. And when the FCR arrives they will will really come into their own. George will do better with the FCR / RF combination too.
I just wish we could take 2xRF and 6xSAL as an option…..
-
So I guess this is WIP, but the radio comm presets are non-functional in current OB. Pressing the 'P' button on the EUFD does nothing for any radio. This has so far worked since day 1 last year.
I get that the whole COMM page and functions are WIP, but this is sub-optimal. Would it be best to leave the 'Presets' functionality alone while work is done on the COMM page?
Thanks.
-
1 minute ago, wired521 said:
This has been my initial experience as well (from the CPG position); although I could be doing something wrong. I setup a quick engagement against 4 ground targets at the default spacing from the ME and my first 2 shots (LOBL shots) hit the vehicle next to the one I lased. I haven't tried LOAL shots against stored targets yet, will be interested to hear how this is working for everyone.
I've just done some more shots.... and actually LOBL's all hit my intended targets this time....and this with closely spaced vehicles. Maybe not as bad as first thought. Really enjoying how they've been modeled.
-
Yes the curved trajectory is deliberately off-axis. It's curved to give the missile DBS - Doppler Beam Sharpening. Basically giving the seeker a high LOS rate vs ground speed vs terrain -to pick out the target against the ground clutter.
You'll notice the LOBL shots have a much more direct trajectory. They don't need DBS, because they're already locked on.
Very nicely done by ED.
-
9
-
-
1 hour ago, petsild said:
Currently it is not possible to fire in pilot mode am I understanding this correctly?
You can't fire RF Hellfire from the pilots seat at the moment. They can only be cued from the TADS or FCR. Pilot correctly can't select TADS and the FCR is not yet implemented. So RF from the front seat only atm.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Rhinozherous said:
Impressive curve the hellfire is doing there
... I wonder if this is correct to real life?
Yes the curved trajectory is deliberately off-axis. It's curved to give the missile DBS - Doppler Beam Sharpening. Basically giving the seeker a high LOS rate vs ground speed vs terrain -to pick out the target against the ground clutter.
-
1
-
-
Just starting this discussion, no bug report yet.. How is everyone finding the RF Hellfires?
With my very limited testing so far it seem the RF's are VERY indiscriminate in their target selection. When engaging a group of moving targets I get a LOBL launch...which is expected and a RF MSL TRACK message. However, in this condition my missiles were still hitting other target than the ones designated.
Surely with a RF MSL TRACK and LOBL launch the missile seeker has already locked onto the passed off target....the chances of engaging the wrong target are therefore greatly reduced compared to the LOAL launch?
Or not? Maybe the seeker performance is correct and RF Hellfire are just very indiscriminate? Is there a minimum recommended target spacing?
-
This is all to do with precision. The TADS, FCR and IDM received data (which itself comes from wingman FCR) are the only location sources precise enough.
Waypoints and other points location precision will be determined by the aircrafts own navigation quality. The INUs can drift and the GPS may not have been considered when these things were designed in the late 80’s/early 90’s.
There are 3 ways FCR TADS IDM to get the missile targeted. This will be plenty. The FCR scan can store 16 priority targets in its short term memory (and a bunch more…256…on TSD, you can only shoot those on FCR page though) and you can shoot at all of them from out of LOS just fine.
And also, as pointed out above, it's to do with active target identification. RF Hellfire were designed for the cold war gone hot scenario. Hordes of red army tanks pouring over West Germany. In that target rich and very dynamic scenario you can't afford to waste missiles firing against a location were there may or not be a target....he may have moved, even if there a minute ago. You can't fire them preemptively. Every missile needs to count so you use FCR and TADS and wingman FCR (IDM) to actively locate targets before engaging.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Sinclair_76 said:
As mentioned in this chat:
The HTS FOV according Aerospace Power Journal Summer 2002 p11 (https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/ASPJ/journals/Volume-16_Issue-1-4/sum02.pdf) is 180° forward sector. Although the HTS variant described is not the R7 (but the R5?). It does not seem realistic to not have the ability to maintain standoff in a more modern version. As anything less than 90° requires the platform to fly towards the target/threat at some angle.
After testing the HTS FOV within DCS I came to the conclusion it is 120°, 60° left and right.Test setup:
A HTS mounted F-16, hot on ground, with 11 Clam Shells (for elevation guaranteeing LOS) at 360° / +-30° / +- 60° / +- 65° / +- 75° / +- 90°
After selecting a radar on the HAD I cycled through the various emitters and it looped through the 360° / 030° / 060° / 300° / 330°, ignoring the other emitters. At the same time the AN/ALR-56M shows all 11 emitters.
Track replay as well as miz included for verification. Nevada because I needed as flat terrain and large LOS as possible.
Test-HTS-FOV.trk 427.21 kB · 4 downloads TEST-HTS-FOV.miz 8.79 kB · 2 downloads
Thanks for this, nice testing.
It correlates with what I’ve found in my much less scientific observations.
-
13 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:
Great I look forward to all the advanced air to air modes, finally some IRST action! Though that does mean you guys will have to fix the whole IR through clouds issue! Also really really forward to the new MWIR model you guys will have to develop for it.
Cant wait!Err….you realise none of this will likely happen? Or maybe you were being sarcastic in an attempt to dig for information or intentions….. Either way, I have a feeling we’ll both be disappointed.
-
Was I the only person actually looking forward to LANTIRN?
Hopefully a proper LANTIRN does indeed come later. Sometimes it's refreshing to have kit with limitations and quirks to work around.
Also.....are the reference docs absolutely clear that SNIPER has Auto Maverick Handoff....'cos that could be a capability you loose. LANTIRN has a specific hardware 'Missile Boresight Correlator' for this purpose.
-
5
-
-
55 minutes ago, Moonshine said:
i observed similar using your track to test. nails -> outer most circle - spike -> middle circle - active missile launched -> center of RWR. the logic seems clear, however it might need some finetuning as in some examples, the symbology was "jumping" from the very center to the very outside in relative quick intervals
tested it with a buddy, note especially the rwr during the time i am low level defending a missile. the "16" is very jumpy
mobettametas_Dogfight_Arena_v1.73.2-20230418-194938.trkYeah that’s still very simplistic behaviour that offers no similar situational awareness as the old implementation did.
At the very least the logic should be refined and a step added so that:
When a threat is within lethal range, (I.e not spiking or locking, just within a lethal range) it should move to the inner ring.
The spiking and missile firing stages can be left as they are. But this additional movement of a threat from the outer ring to the inner ring…..obviously coded based on threat capabilities and it’s signal strength….with inherent range ambiguity if you wish…..is critical to a more closely simulated ALR-56.
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, falconzx said:
Lethality is a mix of things. Something out of range is not lethal, regardless of lock or not. USAF and F16 operators knows this because you know the range of the weapons a certain threat uses. The same we can say on this sim.
An/Alr56m is programmable by crew operators, so it's safe to say you can also adjust the span of intensities associated to the range positions, a specific type of threat, have on the display. How do i know? It's mentioned in the public brochure on Baesystems official site. (I don't think i have to pm that)
Anyway i also found a document which confirm an/alr56m is unclassified. So i don't think ED have to be so strict on some evidence interpretation. But i don't know, by the way i appreciated the Nineline explanation, many people maybe doesn't know the weight of some matters.
Anyway, responding to Nineline, in this specific case i think there is nothing complicated, what the community here is asking is not a change with something new, maybe classified or maybe you cannot keep in this simulator or because some player asked without a precise evidence. The community is just asking to roll back on something you have sell for years and you still have in the stable release, because we're all convinced that the previous implementation was more correct from all the evidences we can find.
And probably this convintion is the same ED had for YEARS since F-15 has been modeled, and then the F-16C, someone found wags video, someone ED manuals, you still have F-15C another USAF rwr in the sim which act in that way(so if it's a legal problem it would persist).
I don't want to go offtopic but think about hotter topics like ECM or IFF. We all know that we are not getting those systems simulated high fidelity because of classified info and so on, but the sim has a simplified version of them.
So given it's an instrument hard to see in function clearly, is being strict on interpretation of "we dont know which manual" the best approach? No. And this was your answer, you confirmed this with all the patches before this, for years.
In fact we had for years an instrument which nobody complained about(specifically to this topic) because in-line with many, you can call "vague", info and evidence you can freely find.Agree with all of this.
The recent changes to the AN/ALR-56M are a massive mistake. The one good thing about the ED F-16 vs the F/A-18 was that the RWR was somewhat better modeled. The very fact that your initial implementation was based on signal strength and range was clearly based on documentation you must have had (maybe......you've still got it)..... The -56M was clearly not just a port over of the Hornet RWR. You went out of your way to model it (correctly) in 2019.... Now this had changed. Why? What has changed in the reference documentation?
The ALR-56M is now modeled as a incredibly simplistic RWR that only differentiates between presence / lock / firing. It's supposed to be more advanced (Wild Weasel CJ/CM remember). This is clearly not how it should behave. ED knows this (or did, why did they model it correctly in 2019?). 'Other sims' know this for about the last 22 odd years as well.
To me this is a cynical butt-covering exercise that has nothing to do with simulation accuracy. It's by ED's own admission about reducing exposure to possible legal concerns. We all understand security concerns but please just be honest and upfront and give that as the reason for the change. That would be preferable over the frustrating butting of heads over the interpreting or mis-interpreting of reference manuals. You've just seriously handicapped a core F-16 sensor/system and we're all adult enough to deserve to know why.....
This really highlights the folly of trying to model the more modern aircraft without really thorough research first. Hard to acquire reference material, and its interpretation has been a serious frustration throughout the DCS Viper's life and is now really spoiling the quality of the simulation.
-
1
-
3
-
-
16 minutes ago, Капитан Чук said:
Your solution is that because you have "good hardware" then everyone must have good hardware just to have this one thing about DCS as you like it. When the real solution is for ED to design the sim so we can ALL go to settings and change the speed of the TDC for each function according to out needs so we can ALL have DCS as we like it.
We don't need to upgrade our hardware from mid-range to ultra high end, just as we don't all need to rush out and buy the latest high-end gaming PC & outfit.. If ED was to take that approach the player base would be very small indeed.
The only real solution is for each DDI format to have user custom slew rates. The change ED have made is a step in the right direction. An improvement…. I was calling this out as a positive.
The warthog nipple style TDC is notoriously bad and there’s no real way round that. It’s was far from ideal 13 years ago when when I replaced my TM Cougar with a Warthog and TGP control became so much more frustrating. Luckily 13 years later we have other options. ED is very slowly making progress, maybe we’ll get the ideal solution sooner or later. -
I'll add the counter view here....
The new TDC behaviour is an excellent improvement. The old TDC slew rate was far too slow on the Radar page and far too fast on the HUD/JHMCS. It was very very difficult to do a HUD TDC designation.
That was now been solved. HUD TDC movement is now really nice, and the Radar ATTK pages are now much faster/easier to use, especially using the TDC to bump range and azimuth. It's a little more sensitive for fine control, but the old 'warthog nipple' is crap in any case. The mini-stick on the Virpil CM3 works much better. You need good hardware.
All-in-all a very positive change.
-
5
-
-
It was once suggested by ED that buddy-controlled MITL datalink stuff was planned….but we’ve heard nothing since.
Safe to assume that it won’t be added anytime soon.
Although maybe with the future F-4, F-15E….GBU-15, AGM-130 etc it might get looked at again.
-
1
-
-
47 minutes ago, Moonshine said:
I know youd use them for pop up attacks primarily to get visual references in how to fly the pop up, even that is bugged, see my referenced post.
As i said, there might be multiple use-cases. whether its the „correct“ way of using them like in wags video i beg to differ and wouldnt use it like that myself. However for some reason he made a video showing this exact method in which case ED might have info about this type of use
and if its clearly wrong, then that video would be better removed since it causes confusion
either way its not working as it should since even for a pre planned pop up attack, the OA1 triangle is not at the correct height.OK, so the problem is that at the time of the Wags' video, Offset Aimpoints were incorrectly implemented i.e. their function was completely NOT accurate to how they're supposed to work. They've been improved since then, but again, I'm not sure how they are currently. I might go check now.
Using the the OA triangle in the HUD as a pull down reference for Pop-Up attacks is a valid useful trick, but clearly is not the reason for their existence.
Agreed on removing the Video.
The answer to the OPs question is to manually create a custom steerpoint in the 1-25 range and then use the VIP function.
-
2 hours ago, Moonshine said:
also, dont waste your time on it, in the current OB its broken (again). location of OA doesnt save. @BIGNEWY can this be moved to bug-reports?
goes alongside this bug, which is already reported:
did it according to Wags video and this currently is not working (watch towards the end where he designates OAs with the TGP):
Track:
OA_does_not_save_position.trk 421.73 kB · 1 download
This is NOT how OA’s are supposed to work. Wags’s video was wrong and does not represent how OA’s are supposed to be used.
I’m not sure exactly how offset aimpoints currently function in the OB, but this method for designating 2 additional targets is not a use case.
-
1 hour ago, BIGNEWY said:
As stated we would need to see evidence specific to our modelled aircraft.
I appreciate you may feel this is not needed but we have been down this road before when using evidence not specific to our aircraft only to find later it was not valid.
thank you
So, I think we all appreciate this approach but it’s the inconsistency that becomes bizarre and frustrating. The Hornets Spanish Litening TGP on a USN Hornet being a prime example, along with the fact that most radar/avionics/MSI stuff in the Hornet is pre 2005 Lot 22.
Many such examples are present in the F16 too. I’ve personally provided evidence in PMs that come from 90’s era Block 50 and A MLU’s….and those changes have already been implemented and are in sim already. And these, in some cases were supported by simple YouTube screen captures, for again, very simple aircraft basics features. And this is because it made sense for these fundamentals, in the absence of the perfect 2007 manual.
With the Spanish Litening example, you went that way to provide the next best intelligent solution to a lack of reference documentation…..which is absolutely the correct approach. Nobody’s talking about adding TFR or Greek ECM or Norwegian Penguin missiles to a USAF 2007 M4.2+ Viper (well, some are, but you’re correct to ignore them), but an intelligent review of the available stuff on the basics is what’s needed. Big picture. I very much doubt that everything in this DCS Viper has been gathered from a single 2007 M4.2+ dash-34 manual anyway.
Anyway, thanks. I recognise only so much progress is made by banging one’s head against a brick wall.
-
1
-
4
-
-
So sorry, are we saying that the documentation you’ve already got specifically and deliberately states that the HUD altitude option doesn’t exist in Tape 4.2? If so, perfectly happy with that.
….Or are you suggesting there are gaps in your documentation concerning this feature? (but strangely not the functions of the remainder of this HUD control panel, but set that aside for now).
If it’s the latter would it not be valid to extrapolate this simple known function from every other Block 25-50 and MLU onto your simulation of a very similar 2007 Block 50? Considering all other functionality of the HUD control panel hasn’t changed in that period
Thanks, but I’m genuinely curious.
-
2
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, JSpidey said:
If I understand correctly, you'll lase with the TADS and the coordinates from the laser spot can be used with the radar hellfire.
This is correct.
The Radar Hellfire just needs a target location. It can be used in either LOBL or LOAL. Generally LOBL for all moving targets and short range stationary targets. LOAL for long range stationary targets. The missile itself will decide LOBL or LOAL depending on whether it’s active radar seeker sees the target or not whilst still on the rail.
For use with the TADS you’ll get a TARGET DATA? message in the weapon inhibit field until you lase and provide good location data to missile.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Nobody has tested this? From further testing the AN/ASQ-213 detection cone seems to be actually a bit less than the forward 180 degree sector.
It seems the threat needs to be well inside the forward arc to be detected/updated. Even with very short SCT/scan times (with a single manual threat). It would still be useful if the actual modeled scan/search zone numbers could be provided by ED. Thanks.
-
Quick question since it's not in the manual...... What are the Field of View limits for the HTS (Harm Targetting System AN/ASQ-213) search area?
It's obviously not 360 degrees, but what does DCS have modeled? 180 degree forward sector seems to be what I get but maybe it's a little more.... Anyone know the numbers? It's kinda important to know the limits when you're skirting the edge of a SAM's WEZ and need an update for the PGM quality.
Cheers.
AGM-114L: LOBL vs. LOAL
in DCS: AH-64D
Posted
I believe the missile does 3 LOBL attempts of 3 seconds each. So after a max of 9 seconds you’ll get either a LOBL BOX and RF MSL TRACK or a NO AQUIRE if the seeker can’t find the LOBL target.