Jump to content

tom_19d

Members
  • Posts

    443
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tom_19d

  1. Hi Tiger. Is it only an issue mapping the joystick button to the trim function? What if we start at a more basic level, are you able to map a keystroke to the trim function and then test that in engine? If the F5 is on the ground and the engines are running the stick should move fore and aft as you apply pitch trim, as well as the pitch hat on the stick moving (naturally).
  2. That's a fair and reasonable assessment, I should have offered to try the tutorial myself as well. Thanks Baaz.
  3. Hi ViFF, Fer and I were just discussing this a couple weeks ago here. As it stands, to my knowledge there is no way to display bearing FROM with the current DCS implementation. The problem with adding such a feature is that the actual Garmin 430 has no data field to show the radial you are on, only bearings to a fix (chapter 3 page 3 of the Garmin Pilot's Guide). So I guess the issue then becomes, "will ED implement a feature that doesn't exist in RL." Even though it would be a simple feature (or as simple as such things can be) I can't see ED adding things that aren't there in real life. In the mean time, you could always create a user waypoint at the bulls location, command direct to, and then use the bearing/range provided. Of course you just have to find the reciprocal of the bearing shown (+2/-2 method , +/- 180 method , whichever you use) to get the radial.
  4. Yes, reinstalling an operating system is always a surefire way to fix module bugs. You use two variables to try to troubleshoot problems when you are using "science" right? Oh, wait... I never claimed to be an expert. You did. I simply tried to help when you asked a question with a problem scores of people have had with F5 switchology, not the module. You keep claiming the problem is with the F5 itself and aren't willing to admit the problem was on your end. But if a track shows otherwise, I will of course admit I was incorrect. Some people can admit mistakes and grow. Some can't.
  5. Keep lecturing all you want. You are still the scientist who wants everyone to take you completely at your word without a shred of evidence. That's some weak science. Going right to "its a module bug" with zero proof except your word doesn't sound like a very scientific way to go about things. But, if you really are interested in documenting bugs in a way that helps the devs (since you are posting in the bugs/problems section), here is NineLine's guide. It lays out a well defined, nicely structured way to make the report. Tracks of the "bugs" will be required though.
  6. Missed EW the first time around but lately I have been picking up the DLC campaigns-- glad I saw this before I bought what will soon be the legacy EW. Looking forward to being a customer once the update drops!
  7. Problems with your system aren't F5 bugs. Problems with your X55 aren't F5 bugs. What you described in your original post were the 100% textbook symptoms of the DM/DG switch out of center. At some point you might consider which of these two is more likely; either (A) you made a simple switching mistake that nearly everyone who has spent any significant amount of time in the F5 has made or (B) the primary air to ground weapons of a popular module (that hasn't received any weapon system changes in months worth of updates) frequently suffer catastrophic failures that render them useless half of the time and you are the only one on the forums posting about it.
  8. Are you saying it is still not working for you? My advice then is to post a track. People have been falsely claiming bugs with this module’s bomb/rocket release since it’s inception. I can assure you that while the F5 has some bugs remaining, there are none that cause the issues you describe. But if it is working for you now then great, glad to hear it.
  9. Looks sweet, excited to try it out.
  10. Neither here nor there for the OP's question but 1F-5E-34-1-1 shows the 100's drum having a zero (pg 1-43). Although there is only one clear picture (showing 062) so there is no way to know what happens on the other side of 000. A negative/blank/1 would have made more sense though.
  11. Hi Shahin my computer is about 1200 miles away so that isn't going to happen, but the good news is that that doesn't matter. You will never turn the depression knob in the direction that makes the pipper move above 00. You will only turn it in the direction that makes the pipper move down. Just look through the gunsight and twist the knob. If the pipper moves up, twist it the other way until you reach your desired depression (depression, by its very definition, suggestions downward movement). At the simplest level, this is because gravity pulls every projectile you can launch (rocket/cannon slug/bomb) downward from the aircraft bore line as soon as it is free of the airplane. By moving the pipper down, you will have to hold the aircraft bore line above the target to account for gravity. In no case will you use a sight setting above 00. A sight set above zero would be elevated, not depressed. And don't worry about your English, it is just fine!
  12. Hi Shahin, you want to turn the knob so the pipper moves down. I believe that is turning it to the right, but I use a key command so I can't be 100% sure as I am away from my computer. However, left or right doesn't really matter so long as the reticle is moving down. This is true for both rockets and bombs.
  13. Clearly we would have different thoughts on the concepts there, but as you say this probably isn't the thread for that. I completely agree that having a radial function would be nice, and I further agree that it is a very simple concept in the big picture. However ED generally doesn't seem to be in the business of putting features into modules that don't exist in the real world version. That is why I spend the time to pull the manual off the shelf to see if "radial" is a data item or not and report. Good luck on your quest, so to speak.
  14. Very good. The problem has been that people have reported intermittent rocket/bomb release problems since there has been a F5. These were the first four to come up after a quick search. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=172114 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=178446 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=192123 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=208290 In every case I have seen, it has been either DM/DG, jettison switch, or a binding problem. And like I said, you described exactly what happens when the DG or DM mode is on; pipper won't move, rockets/bombs won't launch. There is no such thing as "over-G damage" to the gunsight. Furthermore, the radar being off or in standby has nothing to do with DM/DG modes. The symptoms described will occur whether the radar is emitting or not, so simply having the radar off/standby is not good enough. And if you can see the pickle button depressing on the in-game stick, I don't know what could be the problem with your X55. But I'm glad to hear it hasn't reoccurred. Hopefully the reinstall did the trick since that is a lot of work. Sorry if I sound a little jaded but this exact question has been coming up for over three years now. If it does come back and you post a track there are lots of people to help!
  15. Not a bad idea, but the Garmin 430 has no such data item (per page 3-3 of the Garmin 430 Pilot's Guide). Simply not true. Controllers (at least USAF/USN) can use calls related to Bullseye, a BRAA format, or even plain english as dictated by the situation. Their job is to provide maximal situational awareness to the aircraft they are working and it is up to the controller to tailor his sentence structure, cadence, and even tone and inflection to leverage this information to the greatest extent possible.
  16. Very good, one time fluke or figment of my imagination I suppose haha. That does however lead me to ask the if it is something we could get turned on. I do realize that it is not completely realistic, as the F5 obviously only has one radio and that it sounds hypocritical coming from a realism hawk like me. However, I would make the case that using a phantom radio in SRS is still much more realistic than using teamspeak or discord for intraflight communication. You still have to coordinate for the correct freq, use a PTT, ect. Having a hot mic teampeak/discord going amongst a flight has always felt a little cheesy to me. Using a second SRS radio also makes it easier to form a flight with someone you meet in game, as you only have to agree on a frequency-- no tabbing out to find each other in another voice app. This way you can closely coordinate but still have the ability to talk to other flights, announce intentions in the terminal area, and utilize the AWACS/GCI without hopelessly clogging the main frequency. Anyway, just my thoughts. If there is something I am missing or if someone has a more streamlined way that they handle their voice comms I am all ears! (And if it time to stop whining and dust off TS/Discord, I can do that too, I just think SRS is such a wonderful asset I want to use it for everything DCS related).
  17. That sounds great, I wasn't able to fly much this year until recently so I missed that mission earlier but I'll be looking forward to it when it returns. On another topic, am I imagining things or was the SRS "expanded radios" option formally on and now is off? The reason I ask this is because I am always on SRS and the other night there was a fellow trying to do his first time SRS set up. I managed to get him going on a random frequency since we had lots of back and forth chatter. What makes me raise this question though is that in the recent past I am quite sure I used the SRS overlay with expanded radios in the F5 so myself and another guy could have an "intraflight" freq for our use and still monitor and talk on 251 to the AWACS/GCI/other flights. When I tried to pull up the SRS overlay with this new guy, I didn't have the option to use a second radio. Does anyone else use the expanded radios and have they experienced this?
  18. Hi all, I have some thoughts on the air to ground question at hand. I actually really get a kick out of using the F5 in the striker roll and I find that it has an excellent balance against the targets available on the maps in circulation. For example, destroying one lake worth of targets is generally possible before rearming on "mountains cry" (although those "water tower" looking structures are tough to crack). Ditto either the pump station or the road outposts on "Ossetia." The road outposts on "Sail Ahoy" usually take one load each since they have tanks. I can also usually open Gelendzhik on "Five Points" with one to two loadouts. I know that there has been some question about the usefulness of rockets against these targets, but that is all I ever carry and they seem to get it done (not trying to toot my own horn at all and I have plenty of TacView track if anyone is doubtful). Personally if it were up to me I wouldn't change the locations of the air to ground targets-- I think no matter where they were, the MiGs would be trying to find the F5s heading that way (they are interceptors after all). Honestly a lot of my fun comes from trying to decide whether I have the energy/terrain/time to keep my rockets on and reach the target area or jettison and fight. And frankly, when a MiG makes me jettison ordnance, in my mind I count that as a kill for them, even if I end up shooting that MiG down, because it stopped me from accomplishing my mission. I also am really not a fan of the idea of swelling the number of targets to increase score for a twofold reason; I don't know how much more performance stress I think the server needs and I really don't personally care about my score; to me, capturing or destroying objectives is the game, even if for a lot of players they don't pay that much attention. Likewise I think beyond marking target "areas" on the F10 map like on "mountains cry" I really wouldn't like to have individual units visible on the F10 map. One of my favorite things about the server is that is makes you actually navigate and use your eyeballs, and most of the maps have a method (like the infantry spawn) that you can use to determine the status of objectives before hopping into your aircraft. I think what is really at play here is that it is a public server and although great examples or cooperation happen at times, often driven by having a solid GCI, usually the largest functioning element is a 2-4 ship working together but not coordinating with anyone else (as Alpenwolf said). I don't really know how to change that given that Cold War is public server that is not persistent (at least in the way that servers like BF are)- but I don't think that is a problem, I really enjoy it in its current state. Perhaps the only thing I can think of to encourage objective focus would be somehow scripting a large award of points to all the units of one side within a radius when an objective is cleared, but even that would have lots of possible criticism.
  19. Hi Fox, this is a textbook description of being in either dogfight guns or dogfight missile (DG/DM) mode. In both modes the AG launch/release circuitry is locked out to defer to sidewinders and and the pipper ignores depression settings, even if in manual mode on the gunsight control panel. Make sure to give a center press on your dogfight selector as you roll in for an AG attack. Additionally the jettison switch being out of center catches everyone from time to time.
  20. tom_19d

    MGRS support

    Hi ody, it has been a while since your reply above and I can't find any other threads on the MGRS issue. Do you have any idea if MGRS will become usable on the 430? I keep my F10 map in MGRS for my other modules, it would sure be nice to be able to read a grid off the F10 and punch it right into the 430. Thanks.
  21. Another thought, having it installed causes issues with IC as reported across the forum and most people won’t play on a public server without IC. A private server among a group of friends that wants to use the A4 is of course something different.
  22. The CBU 97 the OP is using is an unguided dispenser... the CBU 103/105 are fitted with a guided fin package but not the 87/97.
  23. Thanks for the workaround and explanation Frederf. Do you have any speculation as to what would have been changed (or why) that made this issue suddenly appear over the summer? I have been using the same MFD profile since the week of early access release until now it worked as an on/off toggle that whole time...
  24. This thread from a month back essentially covers most of the main point here. Personally I wouldn't be using the TPG for this; there is a Nevada instant action that sounds much the same in concept and I have had good success observing the targets out the window and dropping ahead of them using CCIP.
  25. Played it, loved it. The slightly reduced visibility and ceiling made striking the red FARP seem much more claustrophobic (in a good way), particularly with the Migs racing in. Aircraft spotting was fine, just normal DCS. I went on top of the weather from Maykop to the FARP. I wouldn't mind having the upper layer slightly lower, maybe like the overcast from 15000 to 17000, just so one wouldn't have to drag a full load of rockets all the way up into the low 20's to clear the weather. I can see some fun scenarios working out if F5s are willing to fly inbound to the targets in IMC- the MiGs will have to either actually use radar missiles or have a good GCI to conduct the intercept, and it might be fun to see some high altitude fights above the clouds. All of that is just one man's opinion though, however it works out some variation in the scenarios was great, so thanks!
×
×
  • Create New...