AvroLanc
-
Posts
1323 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by AvroLanc
-
-
IAW pp. 259-260 of the game manual, "The WCS also performs additional computations so that the crew is provided with […] time-to-go to a selected destination point".
I have not seen a time-to-go indication to the current destination point anywhere in the jet. Could anyone please point me to that indication?
Hook the destination in the TID.
Select number ‘5’ / Rng on the CAP panel.
TTG is shown top of TID.
Unfortunately there’s a bug and the TTG will only display when the destination is on the right side of your nose I.e keep the point slightly to the right of straight ahead. Reported but never acknowledged by devs.
-
So...err....seriously what happened to the suggested hot fix for RIO lighting?
If not now, then when? next OB? or next OB with F-14 additions?
The lights really need to come back, like really. It's been far too long now, the RIO pit is INCREDIBLY hard to use in VR.
-
Meaning the A/G missions obviously,
coming to think about it,
this would regard A/G auto PP missions of course,
as in 'hit that nuclear facility in Iran' (or was that Iraq)
The A/P would be used at most for the admin / routine tasks. Cruise segments / holding patterns in non-hostile areas etc.
No one want to fight an autopilot disengagement, when surprised and forced to defend a threat.
There might be some specialized exceptions - aircraft with auto terrain following equipment would obviously use A/P, mainly during night sorties.
-
I'm really looking forward to fixing the afterburner... :music_whistling:
Yep, and it’s the RIOs lights that are the big issue. Almost invisible, especially in VR. They’ve been missing too long now. Come on HB, hotfix would be great any time now.
-
Cobra mentioned both on reddit and here I believe that hotfix files would be made available for the afterburner and RIO lights issues. They were apparently left out of the latest OB patch.
Can these be expected before the weekend?
Thanks.
-
Well yes, but it's missing a key factor: where the line of sight from the TGP to the ground ends. That differs whether or not a hill is there, or a house, etc. Hence, where the laser comes in to determine that.
Rates tracking works by tracking a scene and then using the rate of change of line of sight to determine the slant range. Obviously it’s less accurate than laser range.
And yes it’s debatable whether or not the coordinates generated would be sufficient enough for JDAM.
-
It can use an angle tracking / rates solution without a valid laser. Similar to the ARBS / DMT in the harrier. Although I'm sure the laser would be more accurate.
Being WIP it's not entirely clear that this is indeed what's happening. I think we're missing some symbology.
-
Or said in a different way, can you use the Targeting pod as a way to create Markpoints? so you can later switch between them?
I think the answer is yes, but I have no clue of how many can the hornet store, definetely this is my favourite functions when using the A10C, where you can mark a whole platoon.
Hoping it not only can store multiple points, but that we’ll be able to create them via the helmet-mounted sight. Look, Click, Kill!The Hornet can create and store up to 9 Markpoints.
To be honest, I would value improvements to the NAV system, markpoints / offset points much more than any new weapons at this point.
-
-
At the end of the video, you indicate that you should use Super Search (DDD) instead of pushing the button. I assume you're referring to bugging the contact on the TID and then pressing PD-STT. While I know the WCS conversion to STT (i.e. push button) isn't as reliable as Super Search, I would think that in this case the WCS conversion would automatically resolve the range ambiguity you encountered.
Just wondering if there's any reason (technical or bug related) that makes you prefer Super Search.
Haven't watched vid, but Super Search is when you use the HCU in DDD mode and pull the trigger to 1st detent. It will give you a +/-10 degree azimuth search using current bar setting.
-
Correct. I'm talking about an indication on the radar format that tells you which mode you'll go to when you press Undesignate.
I actually think the RTS RWS option next to osb 5 on the DDI should be a selectable option, when in STT. Currently doesn’t work. However it does when ACM is used for an STT.
Pressing it should return the return the radar to search, similar to the undesignate NWS button.
This is what jak525 was referring to.
-
Then why is it an option?
The Mech nose fuze setting on a Paveway II pulls the nose arming wire for the 'thermal battery' that powers the guidance section.
-
Yep, used to both drive abort cues and select which arming wire(s) is pulled on weapon release.
Ahh Ok. Abort cues makes sense. Thanks.
So the fact that we can actually set Instant or Delayed EFUZ in-flight and the bombs actually detonate instantly or with a delay respectively, is unrealistic, correct?I believe so. Would be great if we could configure fuzing options on the loadout screen. Same goes for laser codes......
I believe ED plans to model the JPF and DSU-33 airburst for JDAMS. Will be interesting to see how they get loaded/optioned?
(Seeing the old M904 mech nose fuze on a JDAM is just wrong)
-
This has probably been brought up before...but the VSI on the Attitude Indicator has a scale limit of +/- 5m/s, but the max vert. speed indicated is never more than +/- 3 m/s....ever....
This bug has been in since launch, can it get looked at?
-
You can’t physically change the fusing on bombs in flight, it has to be done by the weapons crews on the ground. The pilot simply sets the aircraft to match the weapons.
The exception being joint programmable fuse etc of smart weapons with a data connection to the aircraft.
Indeed. In addition, my question is what the significance of the pilot choosing/specifying between an electric instantaneous vs. delayed fuze in the SMS? Does the jet care? It’s not as if the ballistics will be affected by a timer function on a FMU-140 tail fuze?
Always been unsure of this one.....
-
There's a couple reasons its better CCIP typically requires a larger dive angle, which means higher velocity on the bombs, making them less susceptible to wind and decreasing the slant factor. Lower altitude employment allows for radar altimeter usage in the solution and therefore more accurate slant range, rather then pure INS calculations. You also can typically see the target better and make adjustments.
The human factor makes it more accurate, because your using the plane to help aim, not pure math which is highly dependent on the quality of the data you have to begin with. In a perfect world AUTO would probably be just as accurate, but IRL its less then desirable for dumb bombs, because they're so many variables that come into play.
The common misconception is that AUTO is for level delivery. AUTO is perfectly capable of diving delivery, I use it 99% of the time. Combined with a radar slant range, or TGP laser range (ok, both not available yet), it’s preferable, takes away the human reaction factor when you mash the pickle during CCIP.
If you’ve got an accurate waypoint elevation BARO ranging may be more accurate than RAD ALT, depending on terrain under release point.
-
Even sight oscillations in the stick and how closely you stay on the fall line have a huge effect on accuracy, at 10k ft I wouldn't expect a whole lot more from auto mode with dumb bombs then what your seeing.
Also without precise terrain elevation data, the computer is just not going to be able to get a great solution for auto to begin with. The GPS/INS is good but not that good. That's why in practice you wouldn't really see auto mode used for that kind attack. CCIP is always going to be a much better option for unguided weapons.
Well not really, there’s no reason CCIP should be more accurate. CCIP is using the exact same inputs and calculations as AUTO. Auto should be more accurate when given a precise aim point, generated by the TGP or WP designate.
-
Primary display for NCTR info is the Az/El page, currently WIP
Ok, that's useful information. Thanks.
Az/El sounds like a massively useful page.
-
Ok, so it might not be 'realistic'. But are you going to implement the realistic NCTR displays?
If not, then a semi-realistic solution might be the next best thing.... Just thinking out loud.
-
Can I make a reasonable suggestion for the display of NCTR data.
Currently, to view the NCTR ID of a hostile, you have generate an STT lock, SCS down to the SA page, to slew, or now 'Step' to the contact. Only then can the aircraft ID be seen, at which point you've lost seconds and your head can't be further down in the cockpit.
Wouldn't it be more sensible to show the aircraft ID somewhere on the radar page. Maybe in the top right border. This would allow the quick and easy ID of a contact as soon as a STT lock is made.
Since the NCTR displays are probably classified anyway, and since any solution ED implement for us arguably won't match the real system, it would seem a very sensible QOL thing to add. For that pop up unknown 10 miles in your face. Ala Mongo's Mig-21.
IRL F/A-18's had NCTR displays well before SA pages were added anyway.
Thanks.
-
Our intention is to bring them back at least close to as they were. We think the effect adds to the immersion and helps convey the feeling of something as powerful like an F110 lighting the air on fire. In that sense it compensates for this deep rumbling atmosphere you get irl, even if you do not see them. In the sim the visual representation is meant to help you "taste, smell and feel" it.
Good decision. Effects and visuals can compensate somewhat for the lack of feel. Wholeheartedly agree.
-
Mmm i dont know, i expect the visuals to be almost identical to what we see in the A10, then at a kater stage hopefully will hava a rework of the FLIR rendering for all devices.
The symbology for sure will be different in the hornet, also the integration with the hotas, so well done in the A10 i dont expect the same in the hornet.
Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk
I expect the visual (ie the actual flir image) to have to be adjusted to look right on the green monochrome DDI versus the A10’s colour display otherwise it’ll look odd. Different displays / resolutions etc. Not to mention the osb, menu symbology.
-
I'm not worried about the lack of screenshots, the visual part is already there, what is left is all the pod-aircraft interface, which is different for the hornet compared for example to the A10 or the harrier.
Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk
Expect symbology to be similar but with differences. I wouldn’t say the visual element is all there. That all needs coding and implementing correctly.
-
The fact that we haven’t seen a single screenshot of a TGP DDI display should be a big clue that the TGP is nowhere near complete. We’ve been given screenshots and info for almost every other new feature.
It’s bizarre that it entered ‘internal testing’ and the end of May..... and the engineer responsible was ‘still confident of a end of June release’ a couple of weeks ago.
Having said that, it’s obviously a massive task that they must get right.
IFF Zero + IFF Warning switches not working
in Wish List
Posted
Yeah, all that would be nice. How many years are you prepared to wait? Took nearly 20 for BMS.