kobeshow
-
Posts
433 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by kobeshow
-
-
It might be semantics, but why even call it "aspect angle" then?
I have not read the updated manual in it's entirety but in the VTB section there is no mention of aspect angle anywhere, only the "b-angle", which in the video is called "heading crossing angle".
Aspect angle is a very specific measurement to figure out your displacement to the bandit [ sin(aspect) x range = displacement ]... as per the video. This is useful for intercepts if you know your turn radius.
If people are asking about aspect but mean something different, they shouldn't call it that. I was admittedly unaware of the terminology in the manual, but there is no mention of aspect, and the VTB does not show aspect.
-
Also there is a (serious) discrepancy between the VTH/ VTB indications.
Look at the image : according to the VTH the aspect angle of the target is 175, according to the target heading line in the VTB and the respective numeric indications (target heading 325/ own heading ~180) the aspect angle should be ~145
Hi,
first of all, that is not how aspect angle works. Refer to good 'ol Pete
Secondly, you are in PID (TWS) mode, so the position/heading update of the bandit is slower than in PIC (STT) and the information lags behind the bandit's actions.
-
How come it works in some cases and in others it does not?
I might be wrong, but I think it has to do with the view settings, which are controlled by the server, so in MP your expirience may vary.
-
You contend that the Su27 has a significant advantage because of an edge case? How many times does a flanker even get a successful high off boresight shot?
It only takes one time to come on the forums and complain about it though (;
-
ED are clear about it, DCS is considered stable since April 4th 2018
-
Mal wieder saubere arbeit von ED, so gewinnt man das Vertrauen seiner Kunden
-
-
today 2.5 has been released to stable, have the issues resolved for anyone here?
-
really, have you read it?
-
daniel ... you can't be serious
-
Ich hab mal reingeschaut, aber konnte mir das einfach nicht anschaun. War irgend etwas an Informationen dabei von dem wir noch nichts wussten?
-
First of all, there is no real dedicated server, all we have is a script that lets a client pretend that it is a dedicated server.
ED would need to supply a real rework of MP and by extention provide a real dedicated server, but with the state MP is in right now, and has been neglected for years, I don't really think this is going to happen.
There are enough SP people and guys who "buy all modules to support ED" that they can comfortably ignore the wishes of people who like to fly online, to offer them 20 bucks a month just to have a nice expirience is equal to having stockholm syndrome.
-
This was a nice one, although the first is still my favorite I like this one better than the second.
You've got the talents man (; keep it up
-
awww, this is cute (; never stop to believe
-
Certainly still the memory leak, as I described my situation earlier in the link I posted...
I just wanted to attach the log that I get now, since that is what we are supposed to do.
The SP->MP pre-loading trick does not help for me unfortunately.
-
After Hotfix 3, I still cannot join MP servers, but in comparison to what I described here I now get a DCS crash and a log.
-
So what will happen in your opinion when a round goes live and people will try to coordinate as much as possible, but numbers/airframe distribution stay the same?
-
So we should just assume incompetence for the team that has higher numbers?
-
Tomcat wird wohl keine SEAD missionen fliegen können, und wie es mit mavericks aussieht weiß ich auch nicht, aber LGBU und JDAM(hörensagen) sollen wohl dabei sein, also kann man schon ordentlich was in die Luft jagen.
-
And that is why I only use official documentation
The switch function was incorrect when the aircraft came out, and corrected after.
And that is why you grew a beard that already turned white while waiting for Razbam to update their own manual, for which they had to hire a guy who was learning on the job, even when doing the training missions, and got lots of useful pointers from the community (not a slight against BalticDragon, he is only human and has to work with what is given to him).
That just goes to show how reliable "official documentation" is, it has been wrong and has been changed and is subject to change, it is not reliable enough at all for a "study sim" (at least not yet).
-
Echt jetzt? Ich habe das Gefühl du denkst die Dinge nicht konsequent zu Ende, und betrachtest scheinbar die ganze Sache aus einer völlig anderen Perspektive. Ich kanns dir gerne nochmal kleinteilig aufdröseln so wie du bei mir, aber nur wenn du Interesse daran hast, sonst belassen wir es einfach dabei, dass wir unter "Dynamic Public PvP Campaign" völlig unterschiedliche Dinge verstehen.
-
You remember Round 6 then? That was the last time we had such a stark contrast in capabilities, and how did that turn out again?
-
Ok then, if that is really your perspective on the competitiveness of the aircraft, there is nothing more to talk about.
(Harrier is not as good as it will be when all of it'S systems come online, see the evolution of the Mirage in the environment of blueflag throughout the plane's development)
-
VERY nice
Mirage 2000C Missing Feature/Bug list
in M-2000
Posted · Edited by kobeshow
Well I stand corrected then, there is mention of aspect in the manual.
But then I don't get your question, I think the VTB (target symbol/vector) lags behind, and the numbers are in real time? That would explain the expected difference in your image.
I have not paid close attention to it, but I would suggest to go for PIC and then see if the same happens.