Stingray66

Indeed. That would Be an option!

I had these blackouts on my older system as well. I blamed my bad old system for these failures and indeed there always was the Windows message after I closed the game: "Graphic driver stopped working and was restartet.." or similar. Since I did not activate HDR for obvious reasons, I cannot tell about that. On my new one, I did not experience ALT-TAB issues with the HDR...I'll play around...

Just to be sure -> There is no way to define the HoF before you enter the mission?! Does the mission designer have an influence on this setting? In this case, we could talk about realism and sticking to the setting. Otherwise, I'm afraid we do have to take this not-so-realistic way of changing the HoF via the INV.

How many clients?

Thx, I will try that with the Wind directions and strength.

Thanks for all the answers. What I meant was that I never ever took off or landed on 09 which is the Standard RW as laid out by many of you. The question is what is the threshold at which you get directed to the other direction. Winds from say 170 or Even 180 shouldnt provoke a change. But what is? Besides: Even in really bad weather I got directed to 27 without ILS... Is that realistic? If you cannot land on 09 because of the wind and 27 has no instrument landing equipment wouldnt you be redirected to another airport?

Es ist eine weitere überarbeitete Version online, v1.2, die auch den praktischen Ablauf eines Maverick Abschusses in drei Varianten inklusive Multiple Mavericks beschreibt. Dabei wird nur auf die Sensoren eingegangen. Dass ihr also vorher den Master Arm auf on stellen, die TGP aktivieren, die Maverick EO Time einschalten müsst, vorher auch noch ein Maverick Profil auswählen müsst, ist NICHT enthalten. Das ist vorausgesetzt. Beschrieben ist, wann was SOI ist, und was für einen erfolgreichen Einsatz vonnöten ist. Hoffe, das gibt dem theoretischen Guide auch ein wenig Praxisnähe!

Gut zu wissen! Naja ich schätze in der echten A10 werden sie durch Neustart der CDU gelöscht. Sollte im Spiel auch funktionieren, ist halt im Flug unpraktisch :D

Ist übernommen... Ich habe mich jetzt sklavisch an die Terminologie des Manuals gehalten, zumindest was die Steerpoints/ Waypoints/ Markpoints betrifft. Als Überbegriff halte ich mich weiter an Navigationspunkte.

Ich habe weiter oben im Dokument meine Nomenklatur festgelegt und eindeutig gesagt, dass sie nicht notwendigerweise mit der des Manuals übereinstimmen muss. Das hab ich nicht gemacht, um absichtlich etwas "Neues" zu erfinden, sondern um etwas Klarheit in die Sache zu bringen. Offensichtlich sollte ich doch näher am Manual bleiben, da Steerpoint im Manual eindeutig verwendet wird. Praktisch gesehen ändert das jedoch wenig, da wie im englischsprachigen Originalmanual steht: Way- und Markpoints werden automatisch zum Steerpoint, wenn man sie auswählt... Ich werde das dann doch übernehmen, hatte nur darauf gewartet, dass sich der erste dran stößt ;)

Du kannst Markpoints in Wegpunkte umwandeln, und sie dann auch in einen Flugplan einbinden,..., dann sollten sie eigentlich in der Markpointliste verschwunden sein. Letzteres hab ich aber noch nicht getestet!

Sorry for coming back to this such late -> I complete forgot about this thread... :music_whistling: I was talking about Senaki...I always start AND land on 27, although only 09 has an ILS frequency. Why that? If there are any places that you want to avoid, why do you direct takeoff AND landing on 27? Doesnt make sense. Any ideas? EDIT: Have to try to force strong winds coming from 09...maybe that helps...slow winds doesnt stop ATC from directing you to 27...

Concerning the ATC - I dont think this is intended -> why should then certain airports have ILS on exactly the never-used runway...

Since I didnt hear the word, I call it :D "Jeppeson Charts" Isnt every runway equipped with a Jeppeson chart and sticking to it is mandatory? Assuming every airport has a TACAN (or smaller ones might have nearby TACANs), you can enter the standard approach laid out in the JEPPESON by using TACAN navigation which should lead you exactly to an ILS approach (or not if there aint ILS). But if there isnt an ILS signal, you should already see the runway (in the end it is a visual approach, PADI lights at least). Anyway, there is always a line in the chart for visual/ ILS approach similar to this: "At 300AGL runway should be visible. Otherwise perform ...." Maybe someone with more experience of IRL situations can comment?

Cheers! Thanks for the answers! Really appreciated!

Threaders! Two somewhat basic questions whereto I did not find enough information in the manual/ forum: 1) What is the difference between UHF "main" and "both"? Sometimes people tell to switch to either position, and in the end I have no clue whatsoever about the difference. 2) When does a pilot use ground power? In the forum it turned out that definitely not for start up. But do pilots IRL request ground power during shut down? Or does the pilot leave this up to the ground crew? Thx for your help!

still - the link aint working -> seems to be in a restricted area EDIT: The very second Memphis replied :D THX

I dont know about the motivation of nVidia for these driver updates...indeed, they are somewhat buggy and even if not - on my system was no increase in frame rate/ stability whatsoever....they should rather take their time and publish a useful driver update The last one ditched my screen resolutions in almost every game. I could put whatever pixel dimensions, my screen had black stripes left/ right as if no 16:9 format was available. Going back to the last (stable) driver fixed this issue -> embarrassing.

:D Amazon gehts nicht anders als anderen Unternehmen. Die haben einfach in der Lieferung nix dabei und müssen selbst nachfragen....zweifelhafte Methoden Besonders ulkig ist der Satz: "Es sollte aber nicht mehr allzu lange dauern." Was die für ein Zeitgefühl haben....

Thanks for the clear answer - is though a little bit discouraging. SADL at least works - tried it with another human.... Still - though the F4AF was unrealistic it was at least easier to set up a flight. I am just thinking of easiness of building a mission - heads up - waiting for more patches ???? :music_whistling:

Just a total noob question: Tried setting up a simple MP mission -> 4ship. Wasnt able though to include all four planes as "Client". Why the hell cant I set this up? Looking in the forum I didnt find a dedicated thread but some other builders posted implicitly that I would have to put there four individual planes. Are there any drawbacks of this? Can this really be? Will the second human guy then be addressable using the wingman radio call? Will SADL work? I am not mentioning the extra-workload for the builders to set up payload and waypoints individually....

True, but Fish was talking about interference effects - if I understood it correctly. Which adds another layer of complexity. For sure, clouds etc give a radar signal as well - you just do not talk about ground clutter - call it sky clutter ;) Just a little anectode: When I was sailing last year in the Bretagne the radar gave off signal derived from the froth - not talking about waves. Radars are very sensitive...today up to two dozens of correction algorithms are applied to extract a somewhat useful signal.

Why would beaming and notching then exist if it was such useless - there are many quite old systems out there - no need to become harsh. Filtering requires Fourier transformation in digital computers which was introduced quite late - and as such you do not turn off the filter you turn off the Doppler pulse and just scan in normal radar mode (cw or p) like in the old days (=WW2 ;)). Why that? Because making the Doppler pulse amenable for detection the radar has to fulfil some special requirements - it is not that it's always there and you just get the info when you want. The Doppler pulse as such IS always there - that's physics - but it wouldnt be good enough for a radar to work with it. Measuring doppler effects in that tiny hertz region is actually quite tricky. As mentioned above. Besides, how do you measure the velocity directly out of a single radar contact, then? Velocity is the first derivative of the location. That is how you "measure" -> you calculate based on at least two positions. And moreover you cannot track with a "normal" radar. You just have subsequent little dots/ squares on your screen. Nowadays you can -> because of Mr. Doppler. Therein, the velocity is a direct measurement of the radar not something you have to calculate based on previous positions. (though admitted, you need a computer to extract the velocity out the pulses' frequency). For the sake of clarity. I think taken all together we keep quite a high standard in this forum just like you guys did in the sim - btw awesome job :thumbup:. Why I said useless? Because all this does not add anything to the gameplay any more - although we agreed that beaming is not that bad after in some conditions. :D

Exactly, you can turn it off. But that would imply switching the radar mode which comes usually hand in hand with a lost track - at least for a very short time. After all, that is what you want. If you turn that off however, you have no exact measurement of the object's velocity. You can only interpolate between subsequent positions. That's the reason why people introduced the doppler pulse radars. Yet again, I think this discussion is useless. By looking at many postings above everyone could appreciate that modern radars are no longer efficiently doped by beaming primarily because there is simply more than a single radar looking at you...:music_whistling:

Indeed, a SAM would not have to filter. That is not what I meant. It is just the way a Doppler Radar works. It simply does not detect immobile objects, and flying at exactly 90° renders you as such. You do not have to stay there; forcing a break in the lock takes a few msecs. The engineers know that as well and that is why modern SAM do not rely on a single Doppler Radar...they are way better. Anyway, as intensely discussed, this is only applicable if a single eye looks for you -> once there are more, you can forget about it. And also confirmed, it works best against airborne radars - not because they would have a need to filter ground clutter, but because the radar is the same and once you have a Doppler Radar that is just the way it works. For airborne targets you can be rather sure that it is just a single radar that guides the missile -> higher chances. BTW: ED Team: Did you implement the data link that far, that e.g. one plane hooks up a target and directs the missiles of the other planes in its flight? Dont know how the system is termed technically, but say Bat11 detects targets and Bat12 fires two missiles homed by the radar of Bat11? (in the A10 only for KI flights...) Nowadays, this is not a problem and with such a system you would run into problems as well.