WHOGX5
-
Posts
749 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by WHOGX5
-
-
4 minutes ago, Torbernite said:
Totally agree. Let me apologize if I caused any misunderstanding. The radar difference is already there before the detection probability update of JF. I haven't tried the new radar simulation yet because several bugs in that update(already fixed in latest update). So I just focus on the old version and forget that.
And about the ARMRAAM actually I want to say the violent maneuver logic. I'm sorry if I didn't focus on that point. It used to have some problem in autopilot logic and often performs sudden violent maneuver during lofting trajectory, causing energy bleeding and a shorter range. I remembered it's fixed to a certain degree in an earlier version, along with some guidance fix, but when tracking target it seems ED missiles still does that way. Or is that performance just caused by the lack of target memory?
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.
-
8 hours ago, Fuggzy said:
Lately I've been keeping ATT HOLD on all the time. Do others do this? Is it unethical or too lazy?
I find that it basically produces a set-n-forget FBW feel with it continually holding attitudes for me. It doesn't seem to interfere with or fight my inputs, but maybe there's some penalty here that I'm not considering.
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.
-
2
-
-
10 hours ago, Torbernite said:
As for the detect range, the smaller size and lower head RCS of JF might make a difference. However I also tends to regard APG-68+ARMRAAM combination is underperforming instead of KLJ-7+SD-10 is overperforming.
If you check the track you can find the SD-10 has a more optimized maneuvering strategy than ARMRAAM. When ARMRAAM faces an off-and-on radar lock you can find the missile suddenly turning back to some "default" attitude(I guess it might be doing dead-reckoning on target while considering only heading and speed but no overload at the point of losing track) and start to track later again, losing much more energy. This is also found on many other missiles like R-77, but not SD-10. I think this might be the reason why SD-10 often shows better terminal energy than ARMRAAM, although it's heavier and bulky in diameter.
And SD-10 has no INS now and if you shoot and lose track, the missile would be wasted. You can also take advantage of this.
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.
-
6
-
-
2 hours ago, SickSidewinder9 said:
Man, do some people need to fill out a Butthurt Report Form for HR? Relax. Like, is the Sniper pod even that noticeably different from the LITENING?
The sky is not falling.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.
-
5
-
-
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.
-
3
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, dutchili said:
A similar issue was seen with multiple usb controllers connected. In my case a Logitec g29 wheel. Disconnected, reset the pc, issue gone.
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.
-
4 minutes ago, enyak said:
Though regardless the 56M still seems like it sounds off with audible RWR PRF chirps as heard in the video posted above. There's what sounds to me like some chirping after the RWR warning tones.
I was just about to say the same thing. You can clearly hear multiple emitters chirping in that video.
-
1
-
-
Any plans on adding time on station to DCS DTC? Asking for a friend.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Beamscanner said:
Anyone know if the HMD Radar acquisition oval is supposed to disappear once a lock is achieved?
Currently the oval doesn't disappear, and I dont know if this is a bug or not.
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.
-
6
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, Red Rooster said:
Hi there, 5 of us from our sqn also experienced this last night - the plane was very twitchy most of the flight but refuelling was most challenging. Is this behaviour correct?
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.
-
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.
-
On 5/28/2022 at 12:34 PM, D4n said:
Where does your hostile attitude come from? Are you related to the Gambler unit in any way in reality?
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.
-
3
-
-
16 hours ago, D4n said:
Over 2 years later, still waiting for this massive boredness-factor to be addressed by you, ED.
This will never be addressed because no one cares about it except you. If you're not happy having everyone fly with the same skins all the time, then join another server, join a community, whatever you need to do to end up in a place where people change skins. Maybe you can even start your own community where the gimmick is that everyone changes skins after each respawn? A livery randomizer will never be implemented so you can stop bumping this thread.
-
3
-
-
The AN/AAQ-14 LANTIRN Targeting Pod was the most widely used targeting pod in the USAF F-16CM-50 fleet in 2007. The reason for this is that the USAF block 50 fleet transitioned directly from the LANTIRN system to the SNIPER. However, they kept flying their LANTIRNs alongside the SNIPERs as the SNIPERs extremely narrow FOV made it great for stuff like air-to-air missions but a lot less useful for missions like CAS where pilots fly very close to the target area and need the wide FOV of the LANTIRN when searching for targets and doing talk-ons.
I think the confusion arises because the USAF F-16CM-50 did not use the AN/AAQ-13 LANTIRN Navigation Pod and therefore people assume they're looking at a LITENING simply because they look so similar and they don't see a navigation pod. You can however tell the difference between a LANTIRN and a LITENING targeting pod visually:
LITENING: http://www.kenmiddleton.net/real_aviation/litening/F-16_Litening_158FW_03.html
Shorter than the LANTIRN and has a straight inlet duct.
LANTIRN: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CoehxV-VYAArgYg.jpg
A lot longer than the LITENING and it has a canted inlet duct.
Practically every photograph you can find of an USAF F-16CM-50 from 2007 will be of it carrying either the LANTIRN AN/AAQ-14 or the SNIPER pod. I actually can't recall ever seeing a USAF F-16CM-50 carrying a LITENING around 2007. I linked an airliners.net search below where you can find a lot of amateur photographs from 2007. Pretty much all of the aircraft in the search are F-16CM-50s with a few block 52's and the likes strewn in here and there. If you want to verify you can always run the aircraft serial number and double check that it's the correct block of aircraft.
As an example, here is a USAF F-16CM-50 in 2007 from Spangdahlem which is clearly seen carrying the LANTIRN AN/AAQ-14:
-
4
-
-
12 hours ago, Moonshine said:
Still does not explain why the clock wont set itself to actual GPS time with GPS turned on and it showing up as GPS on the time page
Oh, you mean in DCS? Sorry, I was talking real life functionality. Yeah, it's obviously not properly implemented in DCS.
-
1
-
-
On 5/10/2022 at 9:52 PM, Moonshine said:
that is true, however, with the GPS turned on and the MMC turned on, time should automatically sync to GPS time with no input needed from the pilot
cant publish the source here, but NL did not react to the DM i sent him yet. (probably too much in his inbox)
The clock in the F-16CM-50 will always resume where it left off when it was shut down. At a later point during the startup when a GPS signal has been acquired the time will be automatically set to GPS SYSTEM in the time page. If you don't want GPS SYSTEM time this has to be overridden manually on the time page.
-
3
-
-
On 5/11/2022 at 7:45 AM, skywalker22 said:
I was saying that, just based on what you are saying: the radars in DCS are very simplified. We won`t get anything better then this anytime soon, if ever. Knowing that, ED did a fine job, need some tuning for sure, but I think that the best we can get.
And another thing, do you think is it that simple to code the radar, where you are not even able to get true data, dynamic RCS of aircraft, and some other things that might influence?
On the other hand, don`t forget, its just a game, and take it that way.
This is not the best we can get. There are a tonne of things that could be implemented. Obviously ED can't make a 1-to-1 true-to-life radar simulation in DCS, both due to performance issues and labour costs. You can however emulate behavior with a pretty satisfactory degree of accuracy.
As an example, regarding RCS, you could run the DCS F-16 3D model through a radar simulation and save RCS values from all directions in all 3 axes with different loadout combinations and store that as an array of simple numerical values somewhere in the game files. Obviously you might have to do some simple scaling of these calculated values to account for different airframes being made out of different materials, having radar absorbing paint, etc. Once you're in-game and your radar sweeps over a target, you check the angle and aspect that target has relative to the player aircraft as well as which stores it has and use the pre-calculated RCS value for that angle and loadout. Is it a perfect, 100% accurate emulation of reality? Not even close. Is it better than what we have now? Without a doubt.
And whether you want to call DCS a simulator or just a game the explicit goal of ED is to make a realistic simulation. Therefore that should be the bar we're aiming for when discussing these things.
-
7
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, skywalker22 said:
We went through the AN/APG-68(V)5 radar and its accuracy on every area in the past few weeks, and the conclusion is that it works close to perfection, based on its real counterpart.
Why the majority of other radars see differently, is because or they are much better then the one on F-16, and/or, which is more likely, they are not coded well enough as they should be, to work the same as IRL. I personally did lots of test hours testing just the radar on F-16 and my conclusion is that works exceptionaly well. AN/APG-68(V)5 is really not any state of the art, and so it should and it does work that way.
You're saying a lot of words, but none of them makes any sense whatsoever. What do you mean by "it works close to perfection, based on its real counterpart" and "my conclusion is that it works exceptionally well"? Based on what? I couldn't even begin to guess what you use as your frame of reference.
The radar modelling in DCS is extremely simplified. Ask anyone who's studied or worked on even remotely modern radar systems and they'll tell you exactly that. As an example, a lot of the parameters that govern radar performance in DCS are often set values or percentages rather than actual calculations and statistical probabilities. If the DCS AN/APG-68V(5) behaved realistically, you wouldn't have a specific maximum detection range for a target with a specific RCS and if the target is beyond that range it's invisible. It's all about probability of detection and this probability does not have a purely linear or exponential relationship to the distance of a target. A lot of factors that are dependent on the design of a radar can make it so that, as an example, the radar has a higher probability of detecting a target at 30 miles than at 25 miles even if all the parameters of that target, like speed, altitude, aspect, RCS, etc., are identical. So even if the "maximum detection range" of the AN/APG-68V(5) in DCS for a specific RCS is 40 miles, that shouldn't make it impossible to spot that target momentarily at longer ranges.
Now, most of the information about how military radars like the AN/APG-68V(5) work and does signals processing is obviously classified. There are however a lot of general signal processing techniques and military fighter radar behaviours that aren't classified, especially for older radars like the AN/APG-66, that could be roughly emulated in DCS to get us a little bit closer to realistic radar performance and behaviour. The choice to do that however is up to ED.
-
10
-
-
On 5/8/2022 at 11:56 AM, Deano87 said:
Is it fitted in the mission? Depending on the time of the mission it will default to NVGs instead of HMCS
This is incorrect. The choice between JHMCS or NVGs is set in the mission editor by the creator of the mission for each individual F-16. By default all F-16s will spawn with JHMCS during all times of the day except if the mission creator chooses otherwise.
-
I only have one wish when it comes to the pilot body: Please, for the love of god, give us akimbo, clickable, physical kneeboards attached to the pilots legs. Preferably kneeboards with tabs that can be setup beforehand. This has been around for ages in certain other simulators and would be fantastic to have in DCS as well.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, BIGNEWY said:
please attach track replays, your statement makes no sense to me
I would but I'm really strapped on time at the moment so I'm not able to do troubleshooting in the near future. The only flying I do is my communities weekly multiplayer missions which have huge trackfiles which is what I base my opinions on. If someone else could provide it that'd be much appreciated and, if not, I'll try to put some together in the future when my schedule clears up.
-
Below is an example from a third-party software. As you can see, unlike steerpoints, the VRP, PUP, OA1 and OA2 will be visible throughout the entire maneuver in addition to the actual target and guide you through the very specific attack profile which has been pre-calculated with specific speeds, altitudes, exposure times, tracking times, G-forces, release height, headings, etc. that are adapted to suit your loadout and the type of threat you're attacking. There are other applications for this but this is one example.
-
1
-
-
On 4/18/2022 at 10:34 AM, dutchili said:
What happened here?
I was tracking the IL-76 when all of a sudden i lost the radar track. When I re-acquired the lock the IL-76 was far more to the left compared to the moment where i lost the track.It appeared to me that the E3 data and my own radar track were inaccurate.
Later in the mission I try to lock a MI-29S to shoot it with an AIM-120, but i cannot get the lock quickly with the radar so rely on the AIM120's own radar.
Did i you do things wrong?
...tried to update the track but it was over 5 mb...
The F-16's radar doesn't work too well at all in DCS at the moment and will easily break lock. Datalink is bugged too and will sometimes give accurate locations, sometimes inaccurate and sometimes none at all.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Silver_Dragon said:
KS-19 has on progress by ED, but actually, has none release dates.
Oh, I've completely missed that! Let's hope we get the fire control radars as well. Thanks for the links!
-
1
-
Anyone ride around with ATT HOLD on all the time?
in DCS: F-16C Viper
Posted
I have no idea. You know you're in the F-16 subforum, right?