Jump to content

WHOGX5

Members
  • Posts

    579
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by WHOGX5

  1. Every version of DCS DTC has triggered Microsoft's anti-virus checks until the files have been sent to Microsoft for them to check and clear it. This has to be done for every single patch that's been released and since 3.3.0 RC12 isn't an official release but a forked version my guess is that whomever made it never sent it to Microsoft to get it cleared.
  2. I'm not sure if you just don't understand what I'm saying or if this is some elaborate trolling scheme? First of all, seeing as the picture you linked was taken at Lajes Air Base in the Azores, I should refrain from commenting on it specifically... However, even that picture does not show any sharp angles whatsoever, whether it be on the runway or the taxiways. Just to be 100% clear: The issue is not uneven flatness. It's not sloping runways. It's not tectonic plates or volcanic ashen soil being located under the runways and taxiways. It's not downhill or uphill sections of the runways or taxiways. All of these things are completely fine. The issue is sudden edges on taxiways and runways that are so sharp that they would have to be intentionally man made. It's 100% unrealistic. It's not the result of any natural phenomena whatsoever. I don't know how to explain this any clearer.
  3. It's not a minor issue. Try landing on 06R in IMC conditions and overall poor weather in an F-16. As you're aerobraking you'll, all of a sudden, become airborne again. Not due to bouncing or pilot error, but due to there being such a sudden and sharp downgrade that you literally become airborne. This is not realistic and it is unacceptable. All it takes is a little bit of crosswind to tumble you over and smack your wing into the ground. Even without a crosswind you'll be at stalling speed when you go over the edge and smack down several hundred feet down the runway which, considering the F-16s lack of suspension, can end in a multitude of different ways. Even if you merely attempt to taxi at the max allowable straight line speed you'll regularly be surprised with your nose wheel steering getting turned off as your nose wheel ever so slightly lifts off the ground. I don't get why you're defending Andersen AFB being broken and unrealistic? A fix would be preferable to just having Andersen AFB be a crap airfield.
  4. As I mentioned in my post, the issue isn't that there are slopes. The issue is that there are sharp angles between different inclines. Here is a video of Spudknocker taxiing on taxiway B at Andersen AFB. It's worth noting that he is taxiing way below the standard taxi speed for an F-16 and it's still giving the nose gear suspension a run for its money. Obviously this is incredibly obvious on the runway when you're landing at 170 knots.
  5. I think the runways and taxiways at Andersen AFB needs to be smoothed out quite a bit. It's especially noticable when landing on runway 06R where you land on the runway and, all of a sudden, a few thousand feet down the runway there's an incredibly sharp downgrade that sends you airborne again at stall speed, slamming you into the ground which isn't ideal in an aircraft like the F-16 which has almost no suspension at all. Taxiway bravo is also incredibly bumpy and taxiing at normal taxi speeds feels like it's going to snap your nose gear clean off as you hit sharp incline after sharp incline. Looking at videos of Andersen AFB on Youtube it's clear that the runways and taxiways aren't flat, but they are curved with very long and smooth transitions between different inclines. In DCS it's not smooth at all but rather very polygonal with sharp angles between each face.
  6. When bringing up endurance mode on the DED it will give the pilot an optimum mach number to maintain for maximum endurance. In the track posted below the optimum mach was 0.58 mach. However, on the HUD the mach indicator displayed both mach 0.57 and 0.59 but skips over the actual optimum mach resulting in the pilot being unable to determine whether he is maintaining the correct airspeed. TRACK_ENDURANCE_MODE.trk
  7. When selecting endurance mode in the CRUS page on the DED a time to bingo value will be displayed. This value is incorrect. In the example posted below the time to bingo is roughly 1 hour and 50 minutes while the fuel flow is 2550 pph and total internal fuel is 7000 lbs. This should give a time to bingo of approx 2 hours and 45 minutes, not accounting for the inevitable decrease in fuel flow as your total fuel weight decreases. TRACK_ENDURANCE_MODE.trk
  8. IIRC this was reported way, way back but still no fix.
  9. It's fully dependent on the mission at hand plus that each wing have their own SOPs and SCLs. As an example, it was very common for USAF F-16CM-50 squadrons in 2007 to have a mix of LANTIRN and SNIPER pods with a lot of pilots opting for the LANTIRN during most A-G missions like CAS due to it's wider field of view and choosing the SNIPERs for SEAD and A-A due to its better zoom and A-A capabilities. So even the TGP would be swapped out for another TGP on a per mission basis. There are also wings that require all their flights to carry ECM pods while other wings don't. I have even seen F-16s with full CAP loadouts hauling around HTS pods so anything is possible as long as someone at that particular wing thinks it's a good idea.
  10. Hey @Viper39! Would it be possible to allow the kneeboard and coordination cards to be exported to .xlsm files in addition to .xlsx for the next patch?
  11. You see at 0:16 how the radar elevation indicator on the left side of the FCR moves all the way up and then all the way down when you move your physical axis all the way up and all the way down? Compare that to after 0:57 when you drop your TWS lock and the elevation indicator only moves halfway up the display since the radar has recentered at the location your physical axis was at when you dropped the lock.
  12. First of all, there seems to be some confusion in this thread regarding the LANTIRN system. There are two LANTIRN pods; the AN/AAQ-13 Navigation Pod which contains both the terrain following radar (TFR) as well as the forward looking infra-red (FLIR) which can be repeated onto the HUD (much like the DCS AV-8B). Then you have the AN/AAQ-14 Targeting Pod which is a regular TGP. So just be aware that, when it comes to the LANTIRN system, the term FLIR refers to the AN/AAQ-13 Navigation Pod, not the AN/AAQ-14 Targeting Pod or any other pod. And to answer your question, the F-16C Block 50/52 fully supports the LANTIRN system, it's just that the AN/AAQ-13 isn't used by the USAF Block 50/52s. You can see plenty of block 50/52/+ export vipers carrying both LANTIRN pods and even opting to have the WAR HUD from the block 40s installed on their 50/52/+ vipers. Also, since the CCIP upgrades of the F-16 fleet, block 40/42 and 50/52 are identical when it comes to software. Even the old export F-16A/B MLUs run basically the same software nowadays as the block 50/52 with a few minor differences depending on the operators integration of domestic weapons/avionics.
  13. I have no idea. You know you're in the F-16 subforum, right?
  14. Ah ok, gotcha. And no, the missile behaviour is probably not just due to a lack of target memory. If that were the case I'd assume the missile would simply maintain its current control surface deflection or alternatively fly a ballistic trajectory. However, since the missile is actively maneuvering away from any sort of last known or predicted location of the target after losing lock there must be some part of ED's missile guidance code which is seriously borked. It's such an unreasonably odd behaviour. Regarding the lofting parameters, I haven't really taken a deep look at it myself so I can't really comment on it.
  15. 99% percent of the time I fly as flight lead in our community and I completely abuse both ATT HOLD and ALT HOLD, constantly doing the paddle on, paddle off as mentioned above. Even though it's fun to actually fly my aircraft, the extra head space the autopilot me with allows me to stay several steps ahead when it comes to communications, navigation, tactics, etc. Also, I practically never use HDG or STRG hold as they have more cons than pros in my opinion.
  16. You also have to keep in mind that the JF-17s and the F-16s radars in DCS have been modeled by different companies to different levels of fidelity where the JF-17s radar is closer to real life than the F-16. So it's not as simple as "this radar has a longer range than this radar" but rather that the two different radar systems interpret the same physical phenomena in different ways. As an example the JF-17s radar simulates probability of detection where there is no "max range" of the radar in the same sense as there currently is in the F-16. These numbers are not accurate, but as an example, in the DCS F-16, if a target with certain parameters is at 35.1nm you will basically have a 0% probability of detecting it while at 34.9 miles you'll have a 100% probability of detection. In the DCS JF-17 you might have a 50% probability of detection at 35nm while you have a 10% probability of detection at 50nm. So basically, at 50nm you might only see the target every tenth sweep which may be several minutes apart in RWS, but if you attempt a STT on that radar hit it will just blast pulse after pulse onto the same sliver of sky and start getting returns a lot quicker as each pulse has its own probability of generating a return, giving you RWS hits and a stable lock at a much further range than a radar that doesn't model that kind of behaviour at all and even has an STT range that is shorter than its RWS detection range... And don't even get me started on the AMRAAM. If we just focus on the AMRAAM issue you brought up of losing a lock, the DCS AMRAAM doesn't seem to have any form of memory function or interpolation of the last known flight path. You can notch a DCS AMRAAM for 0.1 seconds and it will most likely do a u-turn away from the target, start a descending spiral or just fly in a straight line and not even attempt to reacquire the target.
  17. If you cared enough to actually read up on the different pods the F-16CM-50 employs rather than spending your time blindly handing out butthurt reports, you'd know that there are very noticeable differences between the SNIPER and LITENING pods, both hardware and software wise. Not getting the SNIPER pod means a reduction in capability compared to the real life F-16CM-50, both in the A-A and A-G arena.
  18. What's also worth mentioning is the HOME BINGO function where, in addition to the manually set bingo fuel, the F-16 will give a home bingo alert once it estimates that you have just enough fuel to get back to home plate with 800 lbs of fuel remaining at 5,000 feet over the airfield. This would be a meaningless function if the HOME steerpoint would be the same as your active steerpoint.
  19. You don't need to disconnect it. Just make sure to go into options and clear all axis binds for the controllers that aren't in use. It's usually best to clear all axis binds for all controllers and then only bind what you're actually going to use, otherwise you can easily miss a default double bind or something similar.
  20. I was just about to say the same thing. You can clearly hear multiple emitters chirping in that video.
  21. Any plans on adding time on station to DCS DTC? Asking for a friend.
  22. The ellipse is indeed supposed to disappear when a radar lock has been achieved. The current implementation of the ellipse is completely incorrect in general. The ellipse is supposed to show true radar beam direction meaning that when you move your head it will lag behind your HMD crosshair, limited by the max angular velocity and reaction time of the AN/APG-68V(5). This also means that the ellipse will be gimbal limited IRL which IIRC isn't a thing in DCS. The same is true for the boresight cross on the HUD. If you're slewing the radar with your HMD the boresight cross will also move on the HUD. With its current implementation it's impossible to tell if your radar is pointing towards the bore cross or your HMD ellipse when trying to lock something in front of you.
  23. I found the roll rate a bit hard to handle at first as I'm used to making bigger corrections, but now that my muscle memory has adapted to it, it's very controllable even without curves or saturation. The DCS F-16 has been very sluggish ever since release so it's only natural that it'll take some flight hours to adapt to the new FM update. The F-16 is actually twitchy and snappy now as it should be and once you get used to it you'll be very grateful for this update.
  24. I've noticed a similar thing when I've setup offsets on the DEST page. If you cycle between the OA1, OA2, TGT, RP, etc. it will reset the offset points as you cycle through them. Makes them kind of useless at the moment.
  25. I didn't mean to come across as hostile but this is a nonsensical wishlist item and no one in this thread agrees with it. The solution to your perceived issue is quite simple; play on servers that don't use the Gambler livery or make your own missions. There is no reason for you to be bumping this thread as ED will never divert resources to implement a feature that practically no one wants and the effects of which can be achieved with ease using the tools that already exist.
×
×
  • Create New...