Jump to content

Fri13

Members
  • Posts

    8051
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

3 Followers

About Fri13

  • Birthday 12/31/1900

Personal Information

  • Location
    6'clock

Recent Profile Visitors

35162 profile views
  1. Those HUD circles are limitations of physics. They still exist there, but in those you have camera further from the HUD why it looks like larger. The CRT projector inside HUD has own collimator corrected design eye, and it can't project picture larger area than the projector glass is under the HUD. Still those HUD projections are way too detailed and high resolution. Lacking the proper glow and diffusion as well limited design eye position to see it.
  2. The + variant opens lot of things for those who enjoy from Harrier with TPOD as they don't anyways use DMT. So capability to use A/A load becomes suddenly real challenger for the Hornet, as Harrier still operates from the FOB if required. The ground units changes will be affecting every unit there is. Hopefully ED gets dozens of different AI's developed that are applied to different units and each behaves through sub-patterns based situation it is facing (enemy under fire, friendly under fire, unit itself under fire, under threat etc). This will make Harrier even more fancy with the A-10C and helicopters etc that are main benefactors. Fighters at medium altitude will/should have less capabilities find ground units and engage them. So real mud movers job becomes really important with ground units itself to support. It is same as in Hornet. Not really useful for anything else than detecting ships at sea, and as well harbor or large city and similar very distinct landmarks. You are almost as good with a EHSI with digital map. What hornet has now, it would be with Harrier+ as well.
  3. @Zeus67 Sincerely still waiting a reply. But if you are in the holiday then please answer after that.... It is better get things done correctly once than revisit changes to redo parts, why Razbam should provide these evidences for questionable features.
  4. Mi-8 is maybe the most enjoyable helicopter for cruising. You get smooth and steady flight, turns and approach with it, but the transitional phase can be scary at first timers as it shakes so much. It is amazing how much troops one can carry in one, making it nice air taxi. Just waiting to get proper infantry modeling. I don't like so much it with gunpods. It is more of a rockets and saturate the area and bug out. I am hoping we would see Petrovich in it as well. Call targets, threats and take control now and then when needed. And most importantly handle the radios and navigation. I don't know how as many hours (closer to 100 than 200) I have spent flying it without outside visuals, inside a clouds or in mist and over the sea, searching for ship to land and deliver goods. It is like flying a truck. I hope that in future we get to see good Mi-8 + Mi-24 combo deals, so it could be purchased as gift. Funny thing is that once I learned from where does the distinct weeping sound come from (the single bar) I can't great it out of my head. So custom to hear it that I think it is sounding on every helicopter.
  5. ECM was very much a thing back then. F-10 was USMC main ECM aircraft. Succeeded by the A-6 in 1963. The F-4's had ECM pods, but F-4E had integrated one in hump behind canopy. The F-4F had it in under nose. The F-100 and F-4's had ALQ-71's for ECM. Even when the F-105 Wild Weasels didn't turn them on, while required to carry one. But it was not capable to defeat the S-75 proximity fuse. Until it was defeated in 1966. “The intercept was perfect,” Dale Weaver, the senior Ryan contractor on the project later reported. The 147E got a complete set of radar guidance and proximity fuse information. The mission even successfully recorded the force of the blast wave that destroyed the drone. The Air Force used the mission data to develop a warning receiver that fed into a jammer. This electronic shield would prevent any SA-2 missile from hitting any aircraft that carried it. But how could they test such a device without endangering a pilot? Bring in another drone. Ryan engineers retrofitted a single Model 147, designated type 147F, with the jammer. This arrangement was known as Shoehorn, and project engineer Robert Schwanhausser said the massive electronic gear had to be ‘literally shoehorned’ into the small drone. The U.S. Navy flew it over Vietnam on missile-baiting missions in July 1966, and the device attracted at least eleven SA-2 missiles, all of which failed to bring it down during several missions. It was finally downed by the twelfth. Shoehorn became the backbone for the AN/APR-26 countermeasures set fitted to U.S. aircraft, including the B-52 Stratofortress, F-4 Phantom II, and C-130 Hercules. The AN/APR-26 would warn a plane that had been spotted by radar, giving the pilot the chance to change course and get out of the air defense zone. It could also detect when the radar locked on, indicating that a missile was on the way so the pilot could carry out evasive maneuvers to throw the missile off. In the final phase of the SAM attack, when the proximity fuze was activated, the warning tone would increase in pitch and change from a continuous tone to a warble, telling the pilot it was time to do or die. “The most important factor in using jinking maneuvers has always been saving your most radical turn or dive to the very last moment before the SAM arrived,” says Miller. “The warble was the signal ‘jink hard NOW!’” And finally if the missile got too close, the system’s last line of defense would attempt to defeat its proximity fuse. But crews weren't happy with a device that might detonate the missile when it was already within lethal range, Miller says. Pilots would often leave the automatic jammer turned off and trust to their own skill With all of these defenses working simultaneously, U.S. aircraft survivability ratios against the SA-2 began to climb. In 1965, the year before the CIA’s successful mission, SA-2s destroyed one aircraft for every four missiles fired. By 1967, it took closer to 50 missiles." https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a34386117/suicide-drone-cia-sa-2/ The S-75 went because ECM from 100% hit probability to slow straight flying target to less than 10%. The missile capability for 10-11g maneuvers means it is just capable to intercept a 3-4g target (4-5g at best). And you need to time it properly. You just don't go "diving under it" as you need to perform a proper maneuver at proper timing, but prepare for it by flying to get missile attitude proper one for time to come. Today S-75 is almost useless a 9g fighters that has situational awareness, but even more it is useless against modern ECM systems. And similar thing is with all missiles, where maneuvering is key thing, and preparation for it. But it can become too difficult and challenging.
  6. If it would just work so, that on the spotting the threat that is attacking you, first you take cover before you engage. There are rules that does do opposite, like MBT's will quickly learn that they have armor and firepower to deal some sudden threats quickly and so on take a offensive position. But it requires that personnel knows that there is no threat to be shot at, or there is no cover where to go. Why smoke screens becomes valuable tactic to generate concealed area where you can at least avoid getting aimed at so easily. But it is totally different to be a inside APC than it is to be inside a MBT with frontal armor toward threat.
  7. Assisting features should be Opt-In, and not Opt-Out. The boxes became annoying as they take so much space, but they as well showed information like a IHADSS would. Already the crosshair (that so reminds me from Klingon emblem) is so accurate by default that it is little too accurate.
  8. Likely that same bug, system should adjust itself using INS to compensate aircraft movement related to the mapped area. This was one reason I didn't use the freeze feature as it was totally useless for thr purpose, fly to get detailed enough picture and freeze frame, turn away to safe and designate target from that frozen picture and then turn around back target. The EXP3 is less accurate than EXP2 at close ranges, that is the technical limitation. But not it that your radar builds a inaccuracy between start of the sweep and end of a sweep by amount that is relative to aircraft position between those. I talked about this at the time of release how your aircraft turning between sweep increased the error that you might got a designation totally wrong place. As it was like the system didn't have any correlation from where it did capture the picture and where it is itself related to that picture. There is a risk that radar would become too capable and accurate as it is limited in simulation (ie, doesn't render trees and hence no tree shadows) as terrain is just ground and buildings. And this gives you possibility do what you shouldn't be able do, detect individual vehicles etc.
  9. And please notice the "design eye" limited viewing area, as well the HUD drawing circles sizes. The proper sizes are mentioned in the manual in mils, and updated changed in newer manuals that what has been changed. It isn't classified that how something is shown on the HUD. It is what information there might be (like weapon range, coordinates etc).
  10. 1) The hand scaling is wrong. Everyone should put hands fingers open front of them and then touch same fingers together from tips. Like index finger, thumb etc. The gloves at now are like 2 cm longer with fingers. The glove 3D model should scale to the fingers positions and palm center so they would always match when finger tips touches each others. 2) Tracking requires tweaking. It is now very jumpy and gets very easily confused with fingers. As said, we need calibration option as I have now in short test period had the laser beams pointing 90 decrees wrong direction. 3) Deadzones. As LASooner suggested that when controls are moved then have virtual hands turned off or snapped to them. The potential is that one can just operate cockpit without any extra work. Just reach to the button and be done. 4) Just like with a touch controllers, remove the laser pointers. Just forget them. Make the finger tips (thumb and index finger at least) the active parts. So you need to just touch things. The icing on the cake is that switches would move to the opposite direction from where they are touched, or each time switch the status. So if switch is left/right then pushing from right would move it to left. But easiest is just to make it each click (and pause between activations, like 200 ms) to flip switch or button. This so that switch doesn't start repeating itself at high speed. If we don't have laser beams, then we don't need to worry about accidental touches either. So make the laser beam optional. 5) Design the system to activate and disable those without mouse and keyboard. I don't have mouse or keyboard anywhere near the flight chair so it was annoying jumping back and worth to disable touch controllers and get hands working, and then get even menu opening. What leads to gestures. 6) We need some clear intentional gestures for some basic things like menu. Easiest way really is to have like other VR games that you have watch or something on the wrist and there you have buttons for menu. So menu is #1 to be accessible. Want to make very fancy thing? Make a wristwatch that will show the current (real) time. Touch that watch with another hand for DCS Menu. Even a activation/deactivation could be done with it, like spread fingers to toggle that hand On/Off. Or require to keep index finger straight or thumb up to have that hand temporarily active/visible, otherwise disabled. Where I was disappointed was that I couldn't get the finger tips to work. As only things that really matters for me to be able operate cockpits is steady hands and capability use finger to push things. That requires accuracy so fingers are properly tracked like in the Orion demos. Very good potential to offer a "controller free" cockpit. Requires work but with effort and good designing it will succeed.
  11. I didn't say that they are realistically done, I said that the realistic effects are applied. I didn't either talk about reflections, so don't build strawman arguments. If you think that every single canopy is crystal clear and they do not have any light diffraction and bending characters and no scratches and such, and you want to use it as argument then it would be foolish. We can't currently have effects like DOF calculations for the eyes, but such blurring should regardless be done for all canopies as you are to look throught them instead at them. Again, you are making just hyperboles without any substance. If you are not willing to read and try to understand, it is your fault. Your argument now is solely based that no one else understand that DCS World is just a simulator and not a reality. And you are insulting everyone's intelligence by doing such hyperboles that "only real thing is realistic".
  12. Fri13

    TPod Slewing

    If you already have a TPOD then forget the DMT. You can even turn it off behind stick misc panel (in reality you don't turn it off as then DMT seeker is not locked in place electrically, making it possible be damaged regardless gimbal physical dampening protectors, but it is not modeled in Harrier) so you don't use it at all. Just select waypoint on EHSI, press DESG to designate it as target. Press slave in the TPOD page to get it there. I haven't used TPOD for couple updates now with a buttons, but speed did change when last time I used. There just wasn't a "acceleration" to begin the movement IIRC. But it was not fast that you can't do it. Sounds you are in INS mode, as TPOD by default should be slaved to TD that INS is moving at high speed. So SSS Down 2x to get TPOD mode. Just check you are not in INS designation.
×
×
  • Create New...