Jump to content

Flagrum

Members
  • Posts

    6810
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Flagrum

  1. Exactly. Boresighting corelates the position, where the aircraft thinks the helmet is with the actual position of the helmet inside the cockpit. TIR recentering only changes the position of your virtual head inside the cockpit. Makes no difference, if you just move your virtual head around or let TIR do it.
  2. To me it seems that Pilot George has difficulties, if the Attitude Hold is enabled. He is unable to completely overcome the SCAS (nor does he disable ATT Hold). If I ensure that ATT Hold is disabled before switching to the CPG seat, Geore is doing well.
  3. Are you installing just the F-16 module? What does the progress indicator say about the download size. And what is your download speed?
  4. That's a separate screen between the two cockpits, afaik. Depending on the angle you look at it, it's reflecting some light, it seems. I've noticed it myself as well, but with the explanation above, I had shrugged it off as "realism". ^^
  5. Yes, but other manufacturers found better solutions to similar problems. I mean, I get it, I am biased as I am more used to other interface concepts. And surely many design decisions were implemented with a sound reasoning behind it. But still, it's just the (accumulation) of little things that seem to make things unneccessarily difficult for the users at times ...
  6. Maybe I am missing something here, but what about not pulling too much collective to not give Betty anything to complain about ...?
  7. Thinking about it, my suggestion might not work for every hat switch. For example, if a function has a long-press and short-press action behind it, just stepping through all functions will not be really viable. But I am not sure, if such hats actually exist - maybe FCR Mode?
  8. There are several multi-position switches/hats. I.e. on the TEDAC: LHG FCR Mode, TADS FOV, LHG WAS, RHG FCR Scan Size and many more: Mapping all those to existing joystick hats can be quite difficult because of the sheer number of hats/buttons required. Suggestion: implement alternate bindings for these hat switches that just step-through the individual functions in a sensible order. For example, add a binding "LHG FCR Mode Step-Trough" which perform the next function at each activation (1. ATM, 2. GTM, 3. RMAP, 4. TPM, 5. go back to 1). Or "LHG TADS FOV Step-Through" steps through 1. Wide, 2. Medium, 3. Narrow, 4. Zoom
  9. Depressing the Symbology Select Switch displays the FLT page on the left MPD. This is working ok. But if the FLT page is already displayed on the right MPD, the contents of both MPDs are supposed to be swapped. I.e. left MPD displays FLT and right MPD displays what was previously displayed on the left MPD. This does not work - the right MPD keeps showing the FLT page as well.
  10. UX Design - User Interface Design. Can Boeing even ...? If I was to buy a new, would I consider Boeing as manufacturer/brand? NO. To me it seems apparent, that they can't design a proper user interface. My car would probably have nice cruise control ... but no accelerator pedal. You set the desired speed in a submenu of the board computer. The windshield wiper could only activated by the co-pil... from the passenger seat and navigation system would overlay 5 symbols of when/where/why to steer to. It would not provide a simple arrow, pointing into the right direction, but would provide just a steering cues that are unrelated to the actual orientation or direction of the car. *sigh* FA-18 - User Interface 6.5/10 AH-64 - User Interface: 5/10 F-16 - User Interface: 8.5/10 A-10 User Interface: 8/10 ... sorry, just had to let go of some steam ... ^^ (note: not complaining about what ED did - AWESOME job on those aircraft! But Boeing needs to hire some UX experts ...)
  11. You have to utilize your biological LMC / Linear Motion Control (i.e. your neck).
  12. Yeah, but what's the point in doing that?
  13. The CMWS panel is a later addition to the aircraft, probably using a standard component. They probably had to tie in the audio into an existing channel - but then having two volume knobs for the same audio channel would make no sense. So they did not use the one on the panel. But if you find this already weired, then you must have never flown the FA-18 or even the Harrier ...
  14. It would probably help, if you'd elaborate on that a bit more ...
  15. Where is this? The Falklands don't have glaciers, right?? Big Ass Glacier!
  16. I might be missing something here, but what has this discussion to do with Controller Profiles?
  17. I can't remember the details or the exact issue, but changing your loadout in the mission planner confused the DSMS as the jet would spawn with the original INV settings but the new loadout or vice versa. Iirc, you had to reload the INV then, but that would not always help. Your DSMS would then be sprinkled with red text everywhere Or something like that.
  18. It caused more confusion than it was usefull back in the days. If you were not very carefull and knew exactly what you did, it would just mess up your A-10C DSMS / INV, rendering your aircraft virtually useless in that mission. Maybe other aircraft nowadays are not that sensitive in that regard, but I know that 10 years ago, I ran into this issue 3 or 4 times with the Warthog and also read a couple of posts of ppl with the same issue. Then I just ignored this feature. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  19. Well, we probably have the eyesight comparable to elderly people when we stare through the monitor (or worse, a VR headset), trying to figure out the labels ... I.e. it probably actually helps the readability - what does 101% accuracy help, if you can't read it? ^^
  20. Georgiens Stromversorger sind vermutlich an bis zu 10 % aller Verluste auf dem Gefechtsfeld verantwortlich!
  21. Hi @BIGNEWY! This is still in status "investigating" - do you need more input to get it "reported"? How can I help?
  22. The new feature of the ME that allows to add own symbology to the F10 map is great - I really love it. But when I tried it out, I noticed a bug: I used the drawing feature in one of my own test missions (Syria) and everything looked and worked as expected when I flew it (started directly from the ME). A bit later, I quit the mission, returned to the ME and also returned to the DCS main page. There I started an instant mission (Marianas). While flying that mission, the F10 map still showed the drawings I created earlier, probably at the same coordinates (DCS World internal map coords) on the Marianas map, where I placed them on the Syria map. It seems, that the list of draw objects is not initialized properly when changing missions.
  23. No. A GPU is a complex part of electronics with many components, which can break - with varying end results. Similar to a car (which is also "hardware" ;). If something breaks in your car, you may still be able to drive. But depending on what part broke, you might not even notice at first. But it could lead to a fatal crash in certain situations.
  24. Yes, that is understood. But I am talking about the difference between the cruise phase and the sea skimming phase between cruise phase and terminal attack phase. At it is now, in R/BL mode the weapon never really has a chance to execute a proper TERM maneuvre as it is still at cruise altitude when the terminal phase begins. It never gets close enough to the water to sea skim or even to pop up. I think we agree, that the flight profile should basically consist of three distinct phases: Cruise, to initially cover the distance to the target Sea Skim, as low as possible without getting wet, something between 15 - 150 ft AGL Terminal, to perform the SKIM or POP maneuvre in order to hit the target It also seems, that all three exists as distinct flight phases in DCS:W, just not merged into one flight profile. When you look at the BOL TacView screenshot: the weapon sea skims at ~150 ft and only a few seconds before the impact, it drops to 15 ft to perform the configured TERM attack (SKIM in that case - but I could also provide a POP example, where the maneuvre is clearly visible). The whole goal of the sea skimming phase is to make the detection (radar horizon!) of, and the defense against the weapon (late detection = short reaction time) as difficult as possible for the opponent. If the weapon enters the sea skim phase too late (or not at all in our R/BL case at hand), this phase is virtually pointless. If it enters this phase too early, it's range is serverly limited. https://navalpost.com/anti-ship-missiles-what-is-sea-skimming/ If the point, when the weapon enters the sea skimming phase, has any direct relation to when either ... a) ... the weapon starts actively searching for a target, or b) ... the weapon has eventually aquired a lock, I can't say. There are probably arguments for both: target aquisition is easier at cruise altitude, but on the other hand, the weapon already knows more or less where the target is anyways and only needs a final lock a few miles out (s. the linked article which also elaborates a bit on that aspect).
×
×
  • Create New...