Jump to content

Raptor9

ED Closed Beta Testers Team
  • Posts

    1105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

8 Followers

About Raptor9

  • Birthday 01/01/1983

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS, and many others...I don't want to list them all.
  • Location
    US
  • Interests
    Anything and everything Aerospace
  • Occupation
    Fling-Wing Pilot

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. It's pretty much how Kharrn described it. Think of them as quick-select "favorites". Kind of like how you have a standby radio frequency, allowing you to quickly swap between frequencies you wish to tune your radio to. In this case however, it allows you to quickly switch your missiles to a different laser of an asset that you planned to work with. As a technique, I'll set Channel 4 to Code R (R for REMOTE), so that any time I need to manually plug in a laser code that I didn't plan on using, I immediately edit Code R every time, and that way it is already set into one of my 4 "favorite" channels. You could also select Code J (for JTAC) as Channel 3 and change it to 1688, or Code F (for FAC-A like Kharrn mentioned), and then set two other codes (not 1688) for you and your wingman into Channel 1 and 2.
  2. There is some condition-based logic that governs whether it can be switched between SAL and RF, but I meant to say that there is no reason why any player should not have it on SAL since there is no other missile type available. It's like if I were to tell the OP they need to switch the missile type to AMRAAM.
  3. That is the only type it should be since that is the only type available.
  4. @Caldera There is some erroneous MSL NOT RDY instances that have been reported.
  5. If you are asking for it's real-life range, that is a sensitive topic that isn't appropriate for discussion. However, if you asking what the maximum range within DCS is, I've been able to strike targets at 9.9 km, the limit of the AH-64D laser. However, you need to launch it LOAL with a HI trajectory for it to have enough kinematic energy to reach that far. And you need to have a very precise aim point in maximum zoom, to ensure you aren't lasing beyond the target itself, something that George isn't 100% perfect with, which is to be expected since he isn't supposed to be a perfect targeting system, just like a human. This is a very poor comparison, and also subject to a lot of player frustrations when the AH-64D initially came out. That's not just me speculating on that, I observed it first hand when playing online with friends. When you are dropping an LGB from a fighter, there are two key differences between this and engaging a target with a Hellfire from a helicopter. First, when dropping from a fighter, you are lasing from a very high angle to the ground, so if the TGP is not directly on the target, the laser will probably still be within a few meters of the target. When you are lasing from a very low altitude, you are firing a laser across the surface at a very shallow angle. If you move the crosshairs ever so slightly up or down, the designation can move several hundred meters. If you or George let the laser drift ever so slightly beyond the top of the tank, you're designating the ground anywhere from a hundred meters to a full kilometer beyond the target (depending on how extreme your lasing angle is at low altitude). Second, the Hellfire is not a 500 pound bomb packed full of explosives, it's a 100 pound anti-tank missile; where most of the mass isn't explosives but rather the rocket motor, guidance unit, and seeker. If you don't actually hit the target with a GBU-12, you're still probably going to blow it up, depending on how hardened/armored it is or how close you hit. If you don't directly hit a target with any anti-tank missile (of any type), it's not going to have any effect.
  6. I've made a point of these two behaviors (exceeding it's authority as well as it's behavior without ALT hold on) as well. It seems to try to maintain the VSI position when ALT hold isn't on.
  7. @skywalker22, the azimuth and elevation settings adjust the total volume of airspace being scanned by the radar as the radar antenna itself is mechanically moved back and forth and up and down in sweeping motions. These settings do not change the output power or the sensitivity of the radar antenna to radar reflections, they only adjust how much physical airspace is being scanned within each scan pattern. The only effect on "detection range" that these settings have is not the range at which the aircraft can be detected, but rather when they are actually seen by the radar. If an aircraft is in a block of airspace that is scanned at the end of the radar search pattern, then yes that fighter won't be seen until later in the scan compared to an aircraft that happened to be in a block of airspace that was scanned at the beginning of the search pattern. But it's not because the aircraft wasn't able to be detected at that range compared to the other aircraft, it's the fact the radar hadn't physically looked at that area yet. If you scan using 1 bar of elevation and +/- 10 degree azimuth, that is a very small chunk of airspace that is rapidly scanned again and again within moments. If you set the radar to 4 bar elevation and a +/-60 degree azimuth scan, it will take longer to scan that much airspace; but these settings do not affect detection range.
  8. Actually, I may have mis-spoke. I'll need to double-check on whether it is required to lase or not. But LMC is definitely not required. Also, bear in mind that this is approaching an area that gets into sensitivity issues. As a result, it really comes down to any un-restricted, approved for public release, sources. Any information outside of that can't be posted here, let alone utilized.
  9. Nothing, it is always active when using the TADS. But the quality of its calculations is driven by the quality of the data it receives, which is why having LMC on with a laser range is the most accurate and steady form of targeting. But it isn't required.
  10. Those descriptions aren't very accurate. The TSE isn't limited to targeting with the LMC nor laser ranging.
  11. I couldn't tell you, I haven't played with it in a long time. My memory on this isn't clear.
  12. You should always start a new bug report thread when posting about another bug. It helps the community managers keep the bug reports organized based on what is already reported, being investigated, etc.
  13. If [A] and [+] are pressed at the same time, it displays the LED test pattern, which allows maintainers to see if the KU scratchpad display is functioning properly. In real life, it should generate an "A" on the display as soon as the key is pressed by itself. But, I guess the follow-on question is, under what circumstances in game are you all encountering this to be an issue? I'm not being pedantic; I'm asking because in my mind I can't see how this impacts gameplay, since I'm never intentionally holding keyboard buttons down during KU data entry. If there is some aspect of gameplay I'm not aware of or haven't encountered that is being affected by this, I'd like to hear it.
  14. I want to add that in testing the various EUFD advisories that are generated by the fuel system, you need to ensure the FUEL page is not displayed. If the FUEL page is displayed, you shouldn't get EUFD advisories like "CTR TANK EMPTY", "EXTERNAL # EMPTY", or "FUEL CHECK COMPLETE" since opening the FUEL page acknowledges these advisories and removes them from the EUFD. It should still show them in on the WCA page of course, but to ensure their EUFD functionality is also working, close the FUEL page before the messages are triggered. Having said that, I did perform the same test without the FUEL page open, and I can confirm this advisory is indeed missing from the EUFD and the WCA page.
  15. From my understanding, the Black Shark 3 module will actually include two separate Ka-50 aircraft: An updated 4-pylon Ka-50 version from BS2 with improved graphics/textures. Don't know if the more in-depth systems of it's existing equipment will be included or not. Modeled on an actual version of the Ka-50 that existed. The new 3x pylon Ka-50 version with new defensive equipment and features discussed previously. A "what-if" version of the Ka-50 if development had continued like it did with the Ka-52.
×
×
  • Create New...