some1
-
Posts
3444 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by some1
-
It's in the same ballpark as Rhino, people use that with extensions so it's doable, although not perfect.
-
12nm is when you move the stick diagonally, so power of two motors combined. But even 9nm is plenty for a stick without extension, that translates to around 3kg max force on the grip.
-
Software becoming outdated or unsupported due to old age is one thing. Software becoming unsupported because dev and platform owner get into public argument is another. Anyway, I'm repeating myself: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/351813-edrazbam-situation-info-discussion/?do=findComment&comment=5492950
-
Date is at the top, August 2023. To my knowledge it's the most recent plan of work posted before the dispute with ED started. Similar thing happened with the Mirage. All the big model and system reworks, proper manual and realistic radar were done years after the module had been proclaimed out of early access. I wouldn't put so much emphasis on what's early access and what is not. Devs have different standards and different motivations to move the modules out of EA quickly, or call them beta forever.
-
That's also the opinion of Razbam themselves, see the picture above.
-
The new DCS fuzing options do not work correctly on any Razbam module, it's been reported months ago, when can we expect ED to fix this? Some bombs are unusable because there's no way to set the new fuzes. As you can see, things already start to deteriorate as ED makes core changes to DCS platform. The Harrier does not even come with a complete manual. It was supposed to be finished after rework that was planned by Razbam when main work on F-15 was done. Doesn't look like it will happen any time soon.
-
I've spent 200$ in ED store on Razbam modules that are now unsupported and/or unfinished. How's that for a contract? Companies fight, customers loose. I don't know who started it and who is at fault (or whose fault is bigger), but either way, I'm not willing to support this circus any more. That's my main point.
-
Regardless of who is at fault, I'm much less willing to spend money on DCS now, after the Razbam fiasco. I may still risk buying a really interesting addon in the future, but gone are the days of throwing money at DCS and the whole "passion and support" spirit. I can understand 3rd party devs are sometimes falling apart due to internal arguments between team members or just loose the capability to support addons because of age and changing personal situation. That's life, and it's a risk involved in buying addons for any simulator. But ED and 3rd party fighting over money and throwing customers under the bus in the process? That's on another level.
-
That's a very far fetched theory. No pilot's manual for any gyro gunsights I have mentions such phenomenon. WWII era K-14 and EZ42, or A-4 sight in the F-86 and F-100, it's always "keep the dot on the target", never "please aim ahead because our boffins can't figure out average AoA correction". None of them used AoA sensors either, only rate of turn. You would have think an error so large that would throw the solution completely out of whack, like it does in Razbam module even at minimum range, would at least warrant some warning to the pilot. You're not using the gyros in level flight, might as well cage the sight and turn off the radar.
-
You have to lobby ED to implement FFB central position in the A-10 the way they did it in the F-5, or the Hornet. Curves will only mess up FFB further. In the real aircraft the stick has less forward travel than aft. The stick is not biased forward, the neutral point remains roughly in the vertical stick position. In DCS A-10, you have to fly with the stick pegged at 75% forward, because that's where ED put the neutral point. As if anyone mounts their joystick at an angle.
-
Ok, the VOR and TACAN modes are now correct. GPS (RNAV) mode is still wrong and shows true bearings instead of magnetic on the HSI and GPS display. Refer to my previous post for details.
-
There's a checkbox in the launcher itself.
-
That's the whole point, you don't have to. Gyro gunsight from WWII works without radar, not knowing anything about enemy position and velocity. If you use your aircraft as frame of reference, then in a stable tracking shot enemy position is relatively constant. Then the whole problem can be reduced to: "where the bullets will be relative to my aircraft after a time of flight that is required to cover the distance to target" and then paint the gun cross at that position. If the pilot puts the cross on the target, he'll score a hit. Of course solving that ballistic equation is not a trivial task, with many parameters that affect bullet trajectory, and the enemy in real life (or in simulated combat) is rarely as cooperative as AI forced to fly in circles. But you can't expect much accuracy in a more complex situation from a gunsight that doesn't work well even in a "best case" scenario. null
-
This report is about a scenario where the enemy flies a constant turn and you follow him with steady tracking. The enemy position is constant relative to your aircraft and the gun. No target extrapolation is needed, just an accurate bullet path / time of flight calculation. Basically an ideal conditions, If the solution is inaccurate here, then it's inaccurate in any other situation, except for the rare occurrences when two errors cancel out, or the error is too small and you still manage to hit the target. In the F-4 the bigger problem is achieving a good stable radar lock. The gunsight itself seems to be more accurate in such scenario than in F-14, but I didn't do much testing recently.
-
You can swap x/y ffb axis, to ensure that force in pitch is higher than the force in roll. That's how the real force sensing stick is set up and was probably an "inspiration" for that weird ffb setup in DCS. Or ignore FFB effects coming from DCS and use a fixed spring effect in your joystick software. In vpforce rhino there's a "sticky" checkbox on the spring effect, don't know about other joysticks.
-
Yes, that's the issue.
-
Thanks, makes sense if the leftmost digit is either 0 or 1. In the meantime, I found a diagram that also confirms what you wrote: http://aviation.watergeek.eu/images/f-4b/flight_director_group_7.1.5_hsi_schematics.jpg Looks like they dropped this requirement for newer aircraft. Destination yes, but individual route legs are usually much shorter than that, even in modern aircraft with latest equipment. I don't think you can even legally file a flightplan that has legs longer than 500 nm, though military aircraft obviously don't always have to.
-
Not sure about that one, but usually these distance indicators go up to 999 nm, not 9999 nm, even in newer airframes like F-15. TACAN has reliable range below 200 nm and no one is flying 1000 nm legs on INS either. Some drawings in the F-4 manual also make more sense if you read the last digit on the distance indicator as decimal point, so 9,5 nm instead of 95 nm.
-
I also noticed something has changed after the latest patch. I need different mils values for gun and rockets, and also didn't have much luck with DT yesterday.
-
How to map the ICS Radio button
some1 replied to VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants's topic in Bugs and Problems
The picture in Polychop manual has the items 1-5 repeated twice, that breaks the numbering scheme. You already have both weapon buttons detent mappings, they are called "Fire Weapon [1st/2nd Detent]". Button cover is purely mechanical, you don't even need to flip it open to fire a weapon in real life, according to Casmo. "Communication Menu" binding serves as trigger 2nd detent. -
When I perform a slow approach, the helicopter bounces back into the air at around 7 ft. Not touching collective, and the aircraft goes from slow descend to climb at a rapid pace, and keeps climbing past 70 ft. On the second approach I need about 10% less torque to maintain descend speed. In this track at first I need 91% torque to hover at 8 ft, then set 88% torque to descend, but instead of descending the aircraft starts climbing. And on second attempt 78% torque is enough to maintain descend speed. oh58land.trk
- 1 reply
-
- 3
-
-
No matter what is the pressure set in the mission editor, the altimeter shows airfield elevation at 1013 mbar. The attached mission has pressure set to 750 mmHg so the altimeter should show the correct elevation at 1000 mbar. zPressure.miz
-
- 2
-
-
-
Amount of ammo in the gun does not affect weight
some1 replied to Gunfreak's topic in Bugs and Problems
It changes for me, there's 53 kg difference between 100 and 500 option (~2% loadout). -
Yes, classic ILS approaches in real life (that do not depend on GPS/INS waypoints) are usually oriented in relation to ADF, VOR or TACAN. You would fly some sort of procedure turn, arc, or just be vectored by ATC to intercept ILS localizer. The ILS approach procedure in real life not only gives you ILS parameters, but also tells you how to get to the point where you intercept the ILS needles. If you don't have the charts or don't want to fly the whole procedure, then an easy to remember aiming point to intercept ILS is a waypoint on runway course, 10 nm before the threshold and 3000 ft above airport elevation. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3320451/
-
Added Phantom and Kiowa.
