nickos86

Script Tool: Skynet IADS It makes SEAD to be actual SEAD and not DEAD. Dramatically improves gameplay and complexity. It makes the SAMs to hide their positions, shut down their radar when being shot at with HARMs, create a much more realistic AIDS systems with nodes, power plants etc. A SUPERB script and a MAJOR MUST HAVE add-on for DCS

Hi, any chance for a mini-update regarding the development of the F-18? Pics? Progress of the WIP items currently being dealt with? Thanks in advance!

It's not what I've said and it not my point... Just saying that there already was a poll where they've asked our input as a community. We voted and they already published the results. Keep nagging about "let's change the priorities again" is "jamming" in my opinion. It's not like its a bug. It's a feature requiring development. The issue was already addressed by them.

The F/A-18C (and the F-16) is in EA. It was already stated by ED that jamming is part of the roadmap. Unless you can magically add the jamming capability - the development will continue per their published priorities. Although the lack of jamming it might give an unfair advantage im MP- nagging ED about something they've addressed many times before is "jamming" their work.

As it should...

Any chance to add Hadera and "Orot" power plant? Its the major power plant in Israel... A very important asset.

IASGATG report was much more thorough. In my own Mechanical B.Sc final project I've used FEA and of course when you write down the report you you go deep regarding the mesh you've used, the assumptions , the exact method (what method used at what phase, what are the advantages and disadvantages) etc. ED update was more like the poster you do to show your work. You don't get into the smallest details... You show the conclusions and only the key things. So, you can't judge the quality of their work only by their "poster". I doubt they wrote a full academic report regrading their work because only the writing is a LOT of work. Seems like they took this project very seriously and it's hard not appreciate that. Without reviewing their work in detail - you can't compare it.

It easy to reproduce. Just go to ED's F/A-18C AIM-120 mission and try to fire the weapons against all of the targets in TWS from around 20NM. You'll see that at least part of the missiles will LOFT but won't guide to the target (instead they'll try to shoot down a satellite :) ). I don't think it's only an AIM-120 issue. They wrote that it's can't go MAD DOG at the moment, so I guess what happens is that the missiles are not getting a proper lock at the lunch moment or after. I think the issue is with the F/A-18Cs radar (or radar API in general... Didn't check with the F-16 or any other jet). Seems like the radar connection is lost at the lunch moment or during the flight phase and the missile is unable to guide.

track attached. A bit long. CAS campaign mission. Note how the pod and the MAV looking at different places MAVF_bad_correlation.trk

Dude, you are missing the point. I suggest you to read the development notes again. You've conducted a drag race between the missiles while the updated version got a shorter boost time than before (due to reasons they've explained). An A-A missile is not meant for 'drag racing' but rather for 'Formula 1' racing. It's not 'who get further' but rather who can manage energy more efficiently to deal with a maneuvering target. The test you showed is simply irrelevant - the boost time is different and the target flew straight. For 100 tests of old model vs new model with maneuvering targets - the new model should be significantly better. (If the old model win the 100 test competition - it mean the old model was extremely overpowered because it was bleeding energy like crazy due to an ineffective flight profile and too harsh maneuvering ). I recommend you read this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=260505&page=6 A very interesting discussion.

The slopes looks very similar indeed. But the Lift/Drag parameters are only one part of the issue (in my opinion not even the biggest/most important). Engine performance and boost time is classified for very clear reasons. You can speculate and make educated guesses... but those are guesses. ED line of thinking makes sense. They pointed out why they choose the parameters as they did. I find the control design a crucial part and the autopilot a crucial part. Both are classified. The control - I think that every Mechanical/Aeronautical engineer will do a good job overall. The theory is very clear. The actual physical implementation will be very hard because the SPEC for aeronautical parts that need to sustain combat environment - is VERY demanding. Because in the sim the implementation do not required physical parts but only the theoretical design - it seem they've done a serious effort to build a good functioning system. The autopilot - it's an optimization problem. It DAMN CRUCIAL. It dramatically effect the PK. And its... classified. For the same aerodynamic properties you can make missiles with a hugely different operational characteristics only due to the autopilot factor. So, you can do the best job with creating multiple scenarios - but it's still a guess. The real algorithms are secret.

To me the SD-10 feels like a “crowd pleaser”. There is no evidence provided by DEKA that what they’ve done is based on real data. Of course there never will be such data. The real data is classified. All they can do is educated guessing. DEKA is being smart about getting a lot of PR features. The JF got the most advanced weapons (based on half-baked ED API) – and everyone wants to play with the newest and coolest toys, right? They do everything so that the product will sale. I get that… It’s a different philosophy than Eds. In a way- its even countering Eds approach to be honest. So, I wouldn’t compare the SD-10 to the AIM-120. There’s really no way to do it properly… Personally I trust ED more. They’ve done a long way to build their reputation. Overall, they show that they try to go the extra mile for realism when they decide to go “simulation way” with their heavy modules and projects. DEKA still got some way to go to prove us that they’ve got the highest realism standard.

Absolutely! That's the level the community expect! Superb job ED!!

Gotya. Thanks!

I think that writing down "this features are currently in review" is easier than "there are no documents that implicate it shouldn't be there". The community will argue much less knowing the idea is not dismissed no matter how much is being written here. I'm really glad you'll push this features. They'll help make the 18 a much more cooperative plane in MP ground attack scenarios. Many of us (including myself) enjoy this very much. Thanks!

Yes

Santi, can you give some info regarding when should the OFFSET cursor is effective? What's it purpose. I notice that although I can't slew - i can move the OFFSET cursor... Then, by breaking the track - it moves to where the OFFSET cursor was located. What's the operation idea of this feature? Thanks!

Hi, In the last few times where you pushed open beta updates after a month long pause - the update was much more stable, bug free and feature rich. Although we all want it here and now (or even better - yesterday), there's much benefit to longer development cycles. I guess that every ENG group work with a bit of a different build and then it's being integrated for public releases. In the 2 week cycles - you compile everything a few days before (at best). Leaving you almost no time to develop anything new but rather deal with last's build integration issues. More importantly - leaving you almost no time to test the release build. If a release build is ready a week prior to the release - it makes it possible to test it a bit and make sure all the wanted features are in and nothing broke. I'll even suggest a more controversial proposition - push a beta every two or three month. The SC vs F16 releases perfectly demonstrate that the costumers prefer a delay and a good product rather than "on time" release with multiple bugs. I understand Nicks approach to EA and that we as a community are vital for QA and development. It make sense. In this case a monthly update is the best option. Thanks.

I know. WPN alt was set to ground. Moreover, I've designated a TGT with the TPOD... The MAV should look at what the TPOD designated after I uncage it. Still - it doesn't work

Hi, At the latest "smarter every day" video the host flew on a Thunderbird F-16. During the flight he demonstrated the behavior of the F-16 altimeter during the transition. I recommended watching the whole cool video and specially minutes 11:30 and after... ED devs, would you consider implementing this interesting phenomena? Although demonstrated on an F-16 - it should be relevant to all fighter jets. Thanks!

actually I've tried all this things already... Still doesn't work.

TONS of fun! ED - THANK YOU! GREAT JOB!

NineLine, there a video showing coordinates and a north indication in the Spanish flir. Why not just put this items? What's the big deal? It's there is RL... It will end up a super long discussion that last for months now... win-win...

RSharpe, even further - it's a "low hanging fruit" in regard of costumer relationship. The hornet is already a combination of a few different suites and branches... It's cool. No problem at all. Adding this features won't hurt the realism and there are photos proving it's actually used in real life and not made up only for s to be happy... ED - why do you so care about adding coordinates and the north arrow? It's easy and will add an important feature,capability and a gameplay option...

If I move the TGP to look at a certain point with WAYPOINT DESIGNATE, slew the TGP and make a TGT on a point - the MAFV won't look at this point. MAVF.trk