Jump to content

Terrificfool

Members
  • Posts

    82
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. There seems to be a lot of swirl about this chart, the criteria used for the chart, and whether or not it can have any error in it. This looks like a range chart to me, which indicates the range at which the missile needs to be launched to impact the target with some kind of termination criteria. Keep in mind that just because it's a range chart, it doesn't mean that it isn't a DLZ chart. A launch range chart with the same termination criteria used in the DLZ implementation would represent the launch ranges the DLZ would indicate. Setting a certain Pk can be as simple as selecting the termination criteria to have some excess kinetic energy, TOF margin, etc. However, without knowing the explicit termination criteria, you won't know how to interpret the chart. What is the consensus on the termination criteria for the chart in question? Some are arguing that the missile needs to impact with +150m/s of velocity and others are arguing that it needs to have that velocity margin plus meet the constraint of the missile being able to maneuver at some load factor. Keep in mind: to satisfy both constraints you only need to find a velocity that meets both constraints. If the +150 m/s velocity at impact already allows the missile to maneuver at the specified load factor (some say 2-3 G?) then there is no additional speed required... the +150m/s meets both constraints! And to add more confusion: the chart has no obvious discontinuities, so are the termination criteria at both head-on and tail-chase shots the same? Or is there a different termination criteria for head-on vs tail-chase? Without answers to these questions, you cannot interpret the chart. There are too many unknowns to draw any meaningful conclusions. In the absence of answers, you may want to make guesses, but 477 pages later no one can settle on a set of guesses to agree on. Meanwhile Chizh has performed a CFD analysis of the missile, which is rooted in physics rather than a chart. He claims it closely matches the DLZ simulator he has access to. His analysis is immune to the pitfalls listed above because it relies only on the estimates of the physical properties of the missile, rather than a chart with many unknowns. If someone wants to challenge his CFD modelling with an analysis based on this chart, they need to rigorously define their guesses to the above questions and their interpretation of the chart. Simply saying that the chart has to be right because the manufacturer would know better is not going to be an adequate assertion. You need to know the answers to the questions above to know what the chart means, and even then it could still be in error because there's no reason to suspect the manufacturers would have a perfect chart.
  2. We use the default scripting engine to build, at runtime, a complex dynamic MP scenario and then execute a wide variety of functionality over the course of the scenario: save the state to a file for reloading, manage AI aircraft assets, assign missions to players based on a loose ATO, run a more complex IADS environment, track lossed aircraft, etc. We don't really see the need to use things like MIST, CTLD or what not, because they are primarily wrappers designed to make the use of the functions easier. Rather, we wrote an entire lightweight execution engine and management toolset to ensure that our scenario, basically a dynamic campaign, can run with a fixed amount of overhead and minimally impact the server performance. We agree with most of the things Drexx from DDCS requested. Being able to repair airfields, update the warehouse data, etc would be invaluable. But on top of that, we think that we would like to see some more robust options for user I/O with the scripting engine. Right now we use a hackish kind of workaround which allows the players to enter alphanumeric data into the scripting engine. Boy, would it be convenient if there were a way to give the players a "terminal" style interface or a way to input something into the chat log so our code could read that data. Other than that, our biggest complaints are actually more with the mission editor and DCS limitations. For example: why is it that in the Mission Editor a single ship group can only have the first digit of it's callsign number edited? In the actual .miz file lua, you can change that number to 2, 3, or 4 and the game still works and actually treats the single ship as, for example, Uzi13 or Uzi 14. Another great example is the datalink organization being based on groups for the F-18 and F-16. Having single ship player groups is actually incredibly convenient from a scripting standpoint, and a lot of MP servers rely on this constraint. But that breaks the way the datalink is organized for those jets. Can it be changed so that it can be adjusted in the game via the UFC/DED, or some other tool? The A-10C allows you to configure the datalink effectively in game, so it doesn't have this limitation. My 2 cents, Terrificfool of Virtual VMFA-169
  3. Wow, this sure has gotten heated. Looking at Nighthawk's graph it seems a compromise had to be made... whether or not the part of the curve that is most important to match is the part before the missile motor cutoff, or after the missile motor cutoff. For dialing in the maximum range of the weapon, obviously getting the part after the motor cuts off is going to have a much larger effect on the achievable range. And considering it closely matches an outside party's CFD results lends credence to the change. Nighthawk has published some compelling evidence that suggests his CFD analyses are pretty accurate. Just a reminder to everyone in the thread: if someone wants to claim that their analysis is superior/more accurate, they typically have to provide hard supporting evidence. If you claim 'our analysis is right' without providing objective supporting evidence, then the claim cannot be accepted on anything but blind faith.
  4. Ideally you bring a wingman or three so that you can execute more complex tactics. Much like we used to do when we flew on DoW ;). Assuming you're rolling solo, I would recommend trying to get a beam/stern conversion intercept. Take an offset and see if the bandit reacts. If he doesn't, increase the offset to generate a good bit of separation, and then cut back in to intercept him from the side/rear. And always be watching the bandit's aspect so if he starts to react and come for you, you can fire on him first and force him defensive.
  5. As long as it remains an option and doesn't become the only way to set it. I vastly prefer the existing Hornet implementation to having an absolute axis.
  6. Unfortunately I don't have them handy... and you can't search for just 'radar blah blah blah' because the footage is contained within various other videos, like cruise vids, etc. Ultimately the angular resolution of the radar is going to be so much worse than that of your TGP, or your eyes for that matter, that you'll pretty much have little use for it as long as you can use one of those other sensors. Optics are just that much better.
  7. At least the mission cartridge will save me a lot of heartache every time I want to go use the jet in the game. As opposed to the A/G radar which will just be an intermediate step I'll use only when on a minority of flights. P.S. I've seen a few Youtube videos of modern day usage of A/G radar (ODS and OIF) in the Viper, the Hornet, and the F-15E. The vids appeared to use the expanded modes and every video wound up with the pilots ultimately looking at the target either through their HUD, or through their TGP. Take that for what you will....
  8. The way to interpret those words is this: "Certain launch conditions will cause missiles in DCS to overperform. Also, certain launch conditions will cause missiles in DCS to underperform."
  9. Got the Air Force blues? IOC not what you thought it would be? Or perhaps you're watching your existing virtual squadron turn into nothing more than a roundtable of single engine suckers? Get your mojo back! Join vVMFA-169 today! Formed in December 2018, vVMFA-169 strives to build operational excellence and have an overall good time flying the F/A-18C Hornet (and to a much lesser extent, other modules) in DCS World. So far we've been having a great time and made the rounds on many of the popular MP servers, both PVP and PVE. Our focus is on flying in public MP environments so we can keep the flying time up and the mission editing time down to a minimum. We do have one mission project in the works, but we are definitely not a squadron that spends all week making a canned sortie for a Sunday play-date. Our only hard requirements are that you own the Hornet module, a microphone, and are willing to use SRS and Discord. If you're interested in knowing more please hop on over to our Discord here: https://discord.gg/U3wEqnj You can also read through our charter here to learn more about the squadron as well: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1037Xh6CnZc8TJ14QEE9Skkd9FrFkvpUn_KNtz6eydKs/edit?usp=sharing -Terrificfool, CO, vVMFA-169 Obligatory recruiting video:
  10. Don't USN pilots routinely spar against each other in training sorties? I'd say they are routinely 'fighting' against one of the most competent air forces in the world, wouldn't you? ;)
  11. In regards to the OPs issue about how to center the antenna elevation: The antenna elevation is centered when the altitude readouts on the TDC are equidistant from your own altitude. No need to switch to 1B scan and use the caret, simply adjust your elevation until the altitude volume is centered around your altitude. This can be done with the increase and decrease antenna elevation keybindings without requiring a separate button to center the elevation.
  12. It's complicated and different jets have different implementations (with varying quality/utility) as I understand it. There's probably no way we'll see something very 'realistic' in DCS imho. Even the 'realistic' implementation for a particular jet may not be worth much at all... I recommend you ignore the DLZ and determine your own engagement guidelines in the meantime... One question I have: is the F18C supposed to display an estimate of 'no escape' or should it be an estimate of 'turn and run' in the Lot 20 hornet dlz?
  13. Hey everyone! If you're interested in flying the F/A-18C hornet I have stood up a new virtual squadron: VMFA-169 "Fightin' Puppers". We aim to fly together online in popular multiplayer servers while keeping the administrative overhead to a minimum! Come check us out on our Discord if you're interested. In the pinned messages you will find our draft charter which you can read at your leisure. https://discord.gg/U3wEqnj
  14. Are you sure it's not due to multiplayer de-sync or your track degrading (MEM cue flashing)? I observe consistent IFF performance so long as I keep it in the HUD ladder. Aspect does not seem to matter as flank, hot, and cold aspect tracks all properly show the IFF response. Check the attached screenshots. I followed all of the targets for a sustained period of time with the target cue in the HUD ladder. It was a solid box the whole time. In particular I followed the cold aspect target (first screenshot) for a long time with time acceleration on and did not observe the box reverting to a diamond except when I let it drift outside of the HUD ladder.
×
×
  • Create New...