Rosly

I initially opened a feature request but due to lack of reaction fro ED, and reaction from other folks on this forum, I think this should be considered a BUG. The problem is that TGP in A-A STT tracking does not follow the limitations of physics, strictly speaking rotational inertia of the camera gimbal. As result the updates for angle from radar STT cause TGP picture to be jittery. It's really difficult to visually ID A-A targets with the TGP because it's repositioning the viewport with instant "jumps". It is less noticeable when TGP track target by contrast but still problem is similar.

@NineLineany chance?

Hey, Hi, electronic engineer here and some rant I put a lot of admiration to effort given to details of any engineering modelling of aircraft systems. I generally enjoy such details as those are basically aligned with my field of interest and profession. Though, the recent announcement about INS/GPS feature improvements made me start thinking "is this even make a sense". 1) Who wait for this? I do not recall wide discussion about urgent need for this feature. We already have basic implementation of dead reckoning. Why to spend more time if more wanted features are in queue? 2) How we can use it? I do not recall any API which allows to influence on GPS precision. We do not even have damage models for this, nor we can trigger GPS precision degradation from mission scripts to simulate some nice scenarios (like in recent battle fields). The only way to degrade GPS is to switch the date before 1991 (or something like that I do jot recall exact date coded into DCS). 3) How many of us will ise it? No one will use those INS features as in most servers we have GPS. As long as you have GPS the total error is below a couple of meters. This is a measurement error. It does not matter for plane navigation as this error does not accumulate! While GPS is functional. 4) Should ED spend time on more wanted features? You tell me? - heat seeking missiles see through clouds and mist (same AI units without radar like WWII or Cold War) - TGP is jumping like a rabbit when.l tracking AA targets (no inertia simulation for camera head) to the point you cannot distinguish the siluete. - no pilot body - damage model is a joke Yeah I get it the idea about simulation details and I will probably enjoy this details os few cold war missions. Though comparing the development velocity for ED and some third party vendors, and also level of perfection and details to core features, makes me very bad emotions. I'm waiting for major bug fixes mentioned above but instead I get more detailed feature almost noone will notice on daily basis. The only way to make sense of having those improvements wouldn't be model of electronic warfare or at least dumb API to define zone with degraded GPS precision.

Works for me just now

@BIGNEWY @Wags > The new scenery compute system achieved our ambitious goals of: > increased GPU performance > improved VRAM management > increased CPU performance > improved streaming from storage disk to VRAM with optimised CPU usage Whoever is responsible for this job, he deserved a pay rise! This is the biggest performance upgrade since introduction of MP. Woooow! At last! I have stable 90fps in VR on any map, including low level flight on Normandy 2.0! No reprojection. Zero! Thank you so much!!!!

I didn't found any change in Open Beta "change log" so I'm opening this as a BUG because I suspect this is a regression. Problem statement: All F-16 ECM pods are not making any difference (both in Deception and Noise Jamming modes) to legacy/old SAM radars and it's tracking, after one of recent DCS updates. I remember it worked pretty well. For SA-2 it was quite easy to break a lock, means was effective for Fan Song up to 12nm. In recent version of OpenBeta I not only cannot break a lock even at 20nm but also seems there is no difference in locking range under jamming conditions. To backup the story it worked some time ago, measurements for "DCS skynet IADS mod" of effectiveness of ECMs which simply does apply anymore. @NineLine@Raptor9 You seem to admit ECM is effective for AG. So was it changed recently without notification in change log or this is a regression ?

Not sure what you asking? Just punch in the freq and switch to FM modulation.

The temporal solution which should work to some extend till fix will be provided is to use the ARC-210 with given freq and FM modulation instead of dedicated FM radio.

SteamVR API is disabled in my Aero base config. Yes I'm sure

Seriously, any reason why not yet match ED store?

When?

Have the same problem but on Aero Varjo. Though I was thinking it is DCS single thread bin problem as multithread bin works with quad view. I will have to uninstall Leapmotion and check if single thread still have issues with quad view.

Understand, though suggesting to use different design decision for new Campaigns. Line of sight and range limitations are essential for UHF/VHF. DCS and SRS are designed to reflect reality in this regard. Using different units than the narration based ones, to emit on those radios will influence on ADF as well.

Bump. A year passed...

As electronic engineer I'm trying to point out that there is physics behind all technical solutions. You do not get infinite precision which you impose of having when making hopes for "instant measurement". Please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_uncertainty In scope of phase measurements what you have is angles in one or two planes. The error of this measurement is huge (couple of degrees at least). You are not able to make instant projection of 3D vector over the surface from that and get precise location. RWR gives you very rough estimate of signal source azimuth. HTS is far more sophisticated and use triangulation and statistical methods to narrow down the position. There is nothing wrong in using single plane for measuring the direction for RWR. The design goals of this system if far different than those in HTS. The frequency range are different. The measurement time is different. The expected precision is different. And lastly I bet F-35 have far more superior sensors than original APR-47 Not mentioning F-35 work in network, because this network extend methods already used in HTS pod in block 52 of F-16, namely the TDOA. So comparing APR-47 to modern software define network sensors is just not sane Despite what some pilots say (like "Starbaby") the modern networked software defined radio system are far superior to any skilful pilot. But I get the point any story need at least 10 percent true If that wasn't the case, we would not get inch precision SAR images and still rely on vacuum display tubes and 2-plane phase differences. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoZ_-6tvxu4