AvroLanc
-
Posts
1323 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by AvroLanc
-
-
48 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:
Hi can you PM me any public info on this, thanks
Sure
-
So this is simple request...the HUD maximum g-value should be reset to 1g when pressing the DRIFT C/O switch to WARN RESET.
This doesn't work, and has never been implemented as far as I know. Bug, because it's so simple. I wouldn't clutter the wishlist thread with this...hehe.
I've got a highlighted scan of the required docs ready to upload when requested.
Thanks kindly.
-
On 8/30/2022 at 12:00 AM, Phantom711 said:
Is that a thing in real life? Setting different laser codes on one aircraft on a pylon-per-pylon basis? Never heard of that. What would be the use case?
It depends on the Aircraft / community, but especially with the F-15E this was a common technique.
The bombs on each side of the jet would be set up for different codes. Dropping one from each side with own ship lasing one code and wingman lasing the other code. Would allow near simultaneous impacts of two weapons on two separate targets, without the dust and impact smoke obscuring the laser (difficult to coordinate two drops from two aircraft and still get simultaneous impact).-
3
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, hanab said:
No. It is the fact, dev take time. Datacard was annouced many years ago and we still waiting this.
The truth is, I doubt it’s much closer than it was 4 years ago…. Reference the nice static DTE page in the Viper.
It does take time, but you wonder if an odd hoc method of special waypoint functions might have been added in the interim, similar to Heatblur or Razbam. -
Thank you Raptor, good to know. You’re doing a great job as part of the ED team.
-
1
-
-
There's an entry in the 24/8 OB patch of:
- Fixed: TADS: Limit Indication Error
This maybe refers to the LOS Cross flash in the Weapons Symbology when the TADS is at an azimuth or elevation limit. Problem is...it's still bugged. The LOS Cross reticle should flash when it's at a 'limit' and the LIMITS message should show in the 'Sight Status' field on the HAD.
Before the patch the LOS Cross reticle did indeed flash in the HDU TADS, but not on the TEDAC TADS. This has now changed to NO flashing in either. I believe this is incorrect. There should be a flash of the reticle (and the missing message). Real TADS footage online will confirm this.
Thanks.
-
26 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:
Removing the code change in the MFD is something we are looking to change in the future. Should be done on the ground using the kneeboard option.
thanks
Ideally it should be done on the armament screen, along with choosing fuses etc. Similar to what you’ve done with the WW2 stuff….Which is very welcome.
The ability to set bomb laser codes on a pylon per pylon basis is important. I’m thinking future F-15E application here in particular.
The kneeboard thing is still a bit gamey, if you ask me.-
7
-
-
14 minutes ago, elchacal said:
Thanks!. It was driving me crazy.
If you’re on the latest 24th August patch, it’s working again now.
-
I’ll add here that the actual ‘type’ of CM are not even correct in most cases. The AE Enemy Armor CM seems to be the default for every enemy ground unit…infantry…..APC….trucks…. All get the same icon.
And why does a generic T point get a 3km threat ring?
Please ED, let this be user configureable, or just revert to old the behaviour. I don’t think anyone asked for this in its current form.
-
Hmmm… moved to wish list… I would have thought this was initially more of a discussion item than wish list.
Especially considering how dead this Apache forum seems to be at the moment. -
So it seems TSD Control Measures now auto populate all friendlies and enemy units. Wasn’t in the change log.
This is a mixed bag, while it saves time in writing down and entering MGRS etc to enter yourself, the TSD can now be extremely cluttered, with lots of superfluous unit icons. Most of which will need deleting.Can this become an option or something? Or better yet, can we enter only desired CMs through the Mission Editor? This brute force method doesn’t suit all occasions. Thanks.
-
2 hours ago, 777coletrain said:
Was this added in the update today?
No.
-
Err…..those missing things are actually in the patch notes….
Plus, give it a while, patch has only just dropped.
-
No, he doesn’t actually store them ….yet.
Hopefully one day he will, but it could get complicated for George if there are many targets in the same area, you wouldn’t store each and every one. ED will need to work around this.
EDIT, beaten to it. The suggestion in the above post is rather good. -
53 minutes ago, LastRifleRound said:
You're right Avro, OAP logic is not correct. I was doing some test runs with VIP enabled, and while the logic was correct (slewing causes IP and TGT to move equally) the issue was how imprecise setting it up in the first place was. This definitely ought to be something that can be configured in the ME as RAZBAM has done. Same with the Hornet.
Yeah, the VIP/VRP functions are working much better than the OAPs. I was pleasantly surprised, but the precision problem remains.
OAs have never worked correctly in the Viper, and at the moment they use completely the wrong logic. Slewing actually changes the preset offset range and bearing data rather than the TGT location, which is insane.
ED doesn’t seem to want use the already existing ME functions for any of this. Offsets, Pre -planned threats, JDAM targets, HARM targets could all be set in the way that Heatblur and Razbam use. Instead we wait for a DTC function that is pretty much never going to happen anytime soon.
-
3 hours ago, Ignition said:
It would be nice to have more precise ruler units in F10. I don't know in real life in real time how they manage this, but I guess a FAC would give really precise parameters.
Offsets generally aren’t used for CAS in the way you mean, but in real life they would have proper planning software to very precisely plot the offset for radar offset bombing.
The offset range function should have a ‘feet’ option, but ED haven’t modelled it. Offsets are completely broken in the current OB anyway.-
1
-
2
-
-
14 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:
Hi,
to be determined, for now remains a wish list item.
thanks
The exact same information is available in the Hornet code as you TUC a contact: Abbreviated Callsign, Aircraft Type and Speed. For hostiles, Aircraft type and Speed.
Is there any reason why these can't be added to the F-16 as well? Without this 'Expanded Link 16 data' It makes the HSD display pretty useless, as you can never tell who anyone is..... It's a MASSIVE glaring omission to your Link 16 depiction.
Hopefully this is more than just a wishlist item.
-
5
-
-
ED have just used LANTIRN pod symbology and control logic and overlaid it on top of their LITENING pod optics implementation. This is the reason why no PTR option currently exits. LANTIRN had no PTR mode.
I imagine they couldn’t find a good allowable reference for LITENING symbology and logic.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Floyd1212 said:
Isn't that what I said?
Yes it is, and I was pointing out you’re totally correct. Maybe not totally necessary, but isn’t that that allowed?
-
1
-
-
There’s no way to do exactly what you want.
The closest you get is kinda the opposite as Floyd1212 describes above….make GHS your acquisition source and select TADS as the sight. Now when slaved the TADS will follow your line of sight. Deslave when you’re looking at the desired spot.Otherwise you make do with the FOV box position in the Field of Regard box at the bottom of the TADS display. It shows the rough TADS LOS relative to the aircraft. You also can see the TADS LOS on the TSD MAP and terrain associate off that.
Generally I’ve found you don’t really need what you describe, you should have enough awareness of what you’re looking at with all the other aids, what you see in the TADS and just by looking out the window. This is all by design, it works ok.
-
1
-
-
Thanks Guys, I’m aware of the background of Link 4 in DCS, and why Heatblur have a unique in-house solution.
I’m still curious if anyone is having issues with the two different implementations conflicting with each other. When I had EDs system activated in the ME , the F-14 wasn’t doing an ACLS properly. When I took away those ‘link 4’ and ‘ACLS’ special waypoint properties from the SC, the F-14 worked ok.
Does this mean you can’t have both F-14s and F-18s in the same mission and expect ACLS to work for both? Anyone else noticed this?(There are some weird bugs with EDs system….any other carrier capable AI flight group that takes off or lands on the carrier will render the ACLS inop for the player……maybe this is playing its hand here too).
-
1
-
-
So I deleted the ED Link 4 and ACLS from the Carriers properties in the Mission Editor. It appears Tomcat ACLS is working OK after this.
Is there a known conflict between ED's LINK 4 stuff and Heatblurs ACLS?
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Miro said:
There's a bug, alt hold works normal, but You don't see it on screen and IHADS.
Only RAD ALT hold still works, BARO ALT HOLD is completely non-functional until the next patch....
-
So I notice there's a few historical bug reports of ACLS. To be honest, it's been an ON-again, OFF-again feature ever since release, but can anyone confirm the current working status for ACLS in the Tomcat?
I've been trying all afternoon to get ACLS working with the supercarrier, the best I've got is the 'VOICE' and 'LANDING CK' light, but certainly no A/P couple. How bugged is it at the moment?
I get no other ACLS status lights, and no A/P REF light at any time.....
Do I need SC or Forrestal? It certainly used to work with SC. Does ED's Link 4 system being activated totally bork Heatblur's implementation? Should I deactivate it? Even the CASE 3 Instant Action mission doesn't work.
Will HB ever migrate over to ED's Link 4 system. It seems odd that there can effectively be two different LINK 4 frequencies/system active in a mission.
Thanks.
FCR not displaying datalink target nor search targets
in Bugs and Problems
Posted
Yeah this is clearly not how the real thing should work.
THe FTR+, TGTS and NONE filters should be filters for the datalink portion of the track only. The raw ownship radar contacts should be present ALL of the time. In no way should those filters actually filter out the radar returns.