Jump to content

Sharpe_95

Members
  • Posts

    359
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Personal Information

  • Location
    UK

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. And so long as we have the auto saved file from both pilots that is was ED needs? -S
  2. [REPORTED]Vaziani no longer has runway markings? Hi guys, We have been using Vaziani as an airbase to operate from. Since the latest patch all runway markings have gone. There is no centre line, no touchdown point, no piano keys, no runway numbers. Is this deliberate or an error? -S
  3. ^ I'll work on getting one but may be a week or two. @Newy - when you say a client track and not a server track - how do I save a MP file as a client track? -S
  4. Friendly bump. Please could ED identify if this is correct as is or a bug? -S
  5. Frankenstein was the creator, not the monster. :doh: Sorry just while we are needling people about being accurate......:smilewink: -S
  6. Naturally I cant be 100% sure but having just flown a low alt mission since today's v2.5.6.49718 update I cant help but think this issue has got worse? -S
  7. Hi guys, I noticed today that the TACAN 'Yardstick' (mirroring TACAN channels to get distance data between aircraft) has developed a bug since 2.5.6.49718 (today's patch), after working reliably and well beforehand. I am describing this as a bug as I can't see that this is 'correct as is' as the functionality does not seem logical and also no changes were announced in the change log related to the F16s TACAN (that I can see). This issue is as follows: When a pair of (human) pilots set up the Yardstick, everything seems to work fine. However, when one of them either changes band (X/Y) or the mode (TR/AATR etc) then one of the aircraft (the one that 'stayed' on the original TACAN freqs) has an 'inverted' (black writting on green background, rather than normal green writing on a black background) range measurement in the DED. A further problem exists that when rejoining back to the original TACAN freq, the player that 'left' will show correct range data in the but not the pilot that stayed has (with the inverted DED/CNI range readout) has a 'frozen' range read out that never moves. The 'inverted' TACAN range readout in the CNI page only shows the range at which the other pilot was at the point they moved frequency. The only way to fix this issue is for both pilots to leave the freq (for example, by changing bands, although I assume it works by changing freq or changing mode). When swapping bands (Y to X) we then had 'normal' function of the TACAN in the DED/CNI and the same when moving back to band Y. In summary: Both pilots tune to a yardstick (EG 11/74y AA-TR). Pilot #1 moves to band X. Pilot #1 shows - - - - - in the DED/CNI as normal, but pilot #2 (who stayed on band Y) now has 'inverted' TACAN range info in the DED/CNI. Pilot #1 moves back to band Y. Pilot #1 has correct DED/CNI as normal, but pilot #2 still has 'inverted' TACAN range info in the DED/CNI. When the aircraft move around, only pilot #1 has range info in the DED/CNI. The only way to fix is for both Pilots #1 and #2 to move to band X then back to band Y. I have not tested this with more than two people sharing the channel and if this makes the matter worse? Nor have I tested what happens when another flight is using a different channel that you (accidentally or by purpose) 'drop' into - but I assume it then creates a wave of issues for the other flight that now also has 'broken' TACAN info? Anyway, I have provided a track of myself and a Sqn buddy demonstrating this issue. As I say, it looks like a bug as logic dictates its going to cause issues inter flight as well as the stated intra flight issues. Also ED have made no announcement of any change to TACAN/DED functionality and there is no evidence of this operation in any F16 reference material that I have? Can it please be confirmed if this is a bug? -S server-20200526-210834.trk
  8. Is this what you are referring to? https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=269358 -S
  9. Sharpe_95

    GBU-39

    Quite right and almost fully agree. However, while I would normally be the first to jump up and down and complain about the state of the F16 and the lack of love it is getting ATM, in my mind I have rationalised it thus (maybe it is helpful for you)?: I am the first person in the queue when it comes to 'give me my module now I dont care what state it is in', I therefore cant and wont complain when what they give is a little (or a lot) rough around the edges. I am 100% behind EDs EA business model and fully accept the fact that we will have a 'busted/not ready' aircraft for a year or two while we all (hopefully) help ED with open beta testing, in my mind this helps ED and speeds the process up and I get a fun aircarft to fly a couple of years early :thumbup: Do I wish ED would give more love to F16? Yes. But then the Hornet was where the F16 is now some years ago and they are committing to getting it out of EA, hopefully we will see this same level of love some time next year. But also, remember that the skills the Devs are learning getting Hornet out of EA are if not directly relevant to F16 then very closely linked - so I see that as helpful too. ^Hope that's helpful to you? Although as they say 'rationalisation is the first refuge of an unsound mind' ;) Regarding the payment model - well now, there's an interesting and probably horrifying discussion for another day and another post. Back to your OP: Naturally (and with equal validity) not eveyone thinks this way. Some people will just apply a black and white picture saying 'it's not on the exact F16 model we fly therefore it's not realistic therefore no' - but forget that actually when you look around at how we all fly (even those of us that do fly in more realistic VFWS) and how the sim works, they forget we are breaking realism rules left right and centre by design, by choice and by accident. I think this therefore undermines any 'realism only' argument. As you said it's a matter of choice. I dont think the option for choice should be removed for weapons integration just because 'the weapon in question is not 'realistic' because it is not on our exact model of the F16'. Its is available on some F16s, give people the choice, let them decide to use it or not. -S
  10. +1 However the OPs post is clearly not a bug but a wishlist issue surely? Recon a mod will be moving this post shortly. -S
  11. Lol - very kind of you to 'take one for the team': you will forever be held in high honour among the fledgling DCS Typhoon community and your sacrifice never forgotten. NOW STOP TALKING HERE AND GET BACK IN YOUR WORKSHOP!!!!! -S
  12. Yeah I can confirm it has never been modeled in BMS either. I'm looking forward to this too (just coz I'm a naff pilot and the more basic info is in the hud the happier I am!). -S
  13. Sharpe_95

    GBU-39

    Well if realism is the ultimate standard we are all to apply to I would argue you should feel worse for re-arming in about 30 seconds to a minute, or changing your skin instantly, when your flicking switches in your pit while executing a 9g turn or when you get easy and consistent locks on targets low to the ground as there is no ground clutter effect on radar or when you are firing amraams BVR having not achieved clear two factor authentication of the target. And by the way, I assume you fly in a full flight suit and helmet when your in the pit and naturally we all have 2-4 hour briefings before we fly - right? Oh btw when was the last time you drank alcohol as you clearly can't be under the influence when flying, nor can you drink a mug or tea or coffee while your flying ;-) Point is, DCS is one of the best (also few) modern combat flight simulators. But just because it has the word 'simulator' in the title this does not mean people should confuse it for real life. ED know this and that is why they put in various 'player aids' to make the game more fun and pragmatic for eveyone. Thus, as you say, we play a game where people can take the realism factor as far as they like. ED do their bit by giving us models and an engine to fly in that are as well modeled as they can make it - the rest is down to how far the player wishes to go, and what the player wants and funny old thing, that varies person by person and it comes down to what they want and where they choose to draw the line. In the mean time, in the same way we have options to fly the same module in game mode or sim mode - ED provide, we choose. Weapons, ED supply (as far as they can get suitable info to code it from in the first place) we choose to use it or not. For my part (IMHO) so long as there is a thread to the weapon being used on the aircraft (one variant or another) in genral as so long as ED have the ability and resources to model it (+/- some fudge factor) then as you say - give it us and let us work out if we want to use it or not. Personally I would pay ED on a weapon by weapon basis for additional content. Having the choice is the key. -S PS: On the subject of realism and amraams I would really recommend this short (open source) essay written by a member of the USAF war college; 'Promise and Reality: BVR combat'. There is no way all this can be modeled in the sim as it is mostly about human factors/ROE impacts on BVR but it's still a fascinating read when compared to how we all fling amraams at eachother with carnal abandon :) http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/11/09.pdf
×
×
  • Create New...