amalahama
-
Posts
1813 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by amalahama
-
-
I expected it in the next patch but according to newspaper it doesn't seem to be the case anymore...
I really love ED putting some care and attention to the hornet, because it's lagging behind the F16 and the Apache in realism
-
10 hours ago, Muchocracker said:
Seeing a sidelobe band that doesn't actually have a purpose is a bit of an exaggeration of a "Basic feature".
You haven't got the point. It's not a sidelobe. The main beam has a certain limited aperture that only allows to 'paint' a certain band in the radar scope. This is because AG Mode is a 1bar , and that's why managing radar elevation in AG modes (it also applies to GMT mode) is so important.
-
1
-
-
This is a basic feature in any RBM mode that still is missing in all ED's modelled radars (of course Heatblur and Razbam have done this right).
Currently radar elevation does nothing in MAP mode in the Hornet, basically all terrain extending from below the aircraft up to the radar limits is visible all the time
This is very unrealistic. AG modes in mechanically steered radar antennas use 1 bar search patterns with limited aperture that eventually only allows operator to see a small "band". See for example the fantastic F-15E radar, but you can see similar behaviours in the M2000, F-14 and F-4.
ED, I think it's time to solve this basic missing feature in the AG radar.
BR
null
-
1
-
-
On 7/18/2024 at 7:35 AM, LastRifleRound said:
I reported a bug in offsets a few months ago. The real problem with offsets is designating anything overwrites the offset, killing the purpose for them in the first place.
Let's say INS has drifted. There is a target a known distance and bearing from a radio tower. This radio tower is a waypoint, and we've added the offset data to it. I designate the OAP which should be a large radio tower. I can see in the TPOD the designation is off, so I SCS then slew the TPOD onto it, and hit designate. I then hit offset.
Expected behavior: I am now looking at the target.
Actual behavior: Nothing changes. The offset is now the designation point. The offset data has been changed to reflect the designation. The tail is effectively wagging the dog.
There is nothing in any documentation that suggests slewing a designation on a designated OAP should overwrite it's attendant offset data but that is exactly what it does. This feature cannot be used for its intended purpose until this is fixed.
I think your are expecting the F-16 behaviour in the F-18, but they handle offset points differently. Not sure if what you describe (that's possible in the F-16) is actually applicable to the hornet
-
1
-
-
What the AG radar need is a realistic implementation of a 1 bar scan including antenna limits, not a colour scale stick on the screen
-
Any word on that? The lacking in modelling AG radar beam limits is ridiculous, ED really lags behind other thirds parties in AG radar modelling
-
5
-
-
Hi, it's quite annoying that both DCS flagships, A-10C and F-18, still has very simple INS implementations, which make GPS-denied scenarios useless. Both lack INS update methods and in the A-10C, not even drift is modelled, and in the case of the Hornet, GPS-denied navigation is very buggy. As BS3 and F-16 were upgraded with very detailed INS systems models, and pretty much any other 3rd parties have excellent INS modeling (special mention to F-14 and M2000C) question is: is ED planning to upgrade A-10C and F-18 INS sooner than later?
-
6
-
-
So the Viper got a highly detailed, fully modelled INS coupled with a realistic simulation of GPS, when can we expect the same with hornet?
-
3
-
-
The Viper is the one that ED seems to care about lately, Hornet has been neglected for so long. Currently Viper is quite better simulated than Hornet, so better stick with it
Regards
-
1
-
-
Hi,
In the Hornet roadmap, it's indicated that the INS and GPS simulation has been completed. But the INS modeling in the hornet is very lacking, INS fix methods are not present (even if in GPS-denied missions the INS would drift) and the DMS also lacks functionalities like the option to pan around the map. Can we expect some additional features in the INS modeling in the future? In the F-16 for example, various INS fix methods have been implemented.
Regards
-
8
-
-
I have the feeling that the viper is in a more finished state and with less bugs, but also the hornet has a number of advanced features that the viper doesn't have. But overall I think the hornet is a better choice to invest your time in, but be ready to some frustration with bugs and incomplete features
-
19 hours ago, Atazar SPN said:
I would never use a MAV-F on a ship unless it is an undefended ship. Anything approaching a frigate or armed destroyer above 10 feet above sea will be intercepted. The Harpoons are working well now due to saturation. If used well, at least one in four achieves its objective. Regarding designating moving TGP targets on the road, it is true, the light poles are a big obstacle and I think it should not be like that, since a moving vehicle concentrates more heat than the lighting. I could be wrong but it's my reflection. Although accuracy has improved, the FLIR designation and IR pointer of the MAV-F has a level of desynchronization that requires de-designation to make precise adjustments, otherwise the MAV-F would never be exactly on the target and could not be used .
However, TGP+MAV-F synchronization on static targets is very good and the IR pointer updates following the FLIR designation without the need for corrections.
I only had difficulty with moving targets.
I hope I expressed it well. I don't speak English and this is a translation.
The de-synchronization in moving targets make sense as the Hornet doesn't have a Handoff function like the Viper. In fact, for static targets some misalignments should also be perceived, needing a final fine manual adjustment on the target, specially at long distances where the hot spot is small. Alignment is perfect by default in Hornet so this manual fine adjustement is not necessary. Mavericks boresight can also be adjusted in flight like in the Viper to improve alignment between TGP and the Mav, but for whatever reason ED has decided to not implement this functionality.
-
I absolutely believed that PF zones could be transmitted through the DL, but Wags video didn't show it.
So, can we expect to have the option to send through the net lines and zones, or that's not applicable on the Apache version we're getting?
-
On 9/16/2023 at 8:31 PM, VDV said:
will that update include MIDS page and DTC
I doubt it
-
HARM's unrealistic angular accuracy in the Hornet is known by ED and promised to be revisited at some point, ED time
-
Yeah it absolutely looks like a bug, specially if that keeps happening even when the radar has switched to AG mode
-
Why are IFF and countermeasures going to be simplified in game?
-
9 hours ago, Ignition said:
Why shouldn't the RWS correlate contacts? It generates tracks as TWS.
That's correct in the Hornet but it's not in the Viper
-
3 hours ago, Tholozor said:
PP missions can loaded via MUMI, but can also be created/edited from the cockpit, nothing prevents you from doing that (there's just a small handful of things that can't be created/edited from the cockpit, such as the name of the mission). I should've specified in my previous post that we currently can't make PP missions outside of the cockpit.
Due to inherent inaccuracies of TOO coordinate generation IRL (that aren't simulated in DCS, such as Dilution of Precision, and User Equivalent Range Error), pilots are recommended to create PP missions when passed coordinates from ground controllers for precision strikes.
Exactly, when exact coordinates of the target are available, only PP would get the best CEP, since TOO relies on the imperfect aircraft capability of geolocate the reference point.
If the CEP differences between one mode and another were modeled in DCS would be great. MAybe a topic for the wishlist
-
1
-
-
Are MSI improvements also included in this "Radar refactoring" task?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, BuzzU said:
What's the reason for for using dumb bombs in CCRP? Do they work better than guided bombs?
For delivery of high drag ordinance under strong cross winds I can see AUTO becoming more appropriate, since CCIP pipper will probably offset in excess, maybe out of HUD FoV, making aiming kinda funky
-
6 hours ago, oldcrusty said:
Now I see what the issue was when it was reported long time ago... the ASL doesn't show the lateral offset required 'at release point' and it gradually and constantly creeps toward the target as it gets closer. Currently, we have to anticipate and lead the ASL just before release. It creeps rapidly at very close range. So... it's pretty much 'Kentucky windage', ;).
This become very obvious when dropping high drag bombs. When aligned with the wind, no problem. At 90 deg., stay ahead of the game. Yea, I still used 40 kt wind, I guess I was too lazy to change it. So for now, it's probably better to figure out an ingress route and attack direction more aligned with wind. Another thing... I released at only around 450 kts., since I wasn't sure if DCS factors in the limits for any kind of HD bombs or not.
I ond't understand your point? You followed the ASL, the bomb dropped at the exact moment, you scored the hit. Where is the issue?
-
On 4/15/2023 at 8:30 PM, oldcrusty said:
It was nice to be able to see the target designation on the ground when using CCIP. As we all know Auto mode was consistently causing short hits. With CCIP we could time the release just right to compensate for this. Well, forget the target designation box. What would make a hell of a difference is the ability to see multiple marked points (at least 2 or 3 ) on our JHMCS displays, sort of like A/A contacts. In situations requiring constant turning and rolling in/out, having marked points (designated or not) saves time and makes it a lot easier to acquire targets visually.
Call Boeing with your suggestions to imporve Hornet HMI
Regards
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Hulkbust44 said:
For what it's worth, the CEP of a CCIP dropped iron bomb for a Hornet is 1m. A well-dropped Mk82 should beat a standard JDAM.
That makes no sense and unless you provide some evidence I wouldn't trust that data
-
1
-
Updated INS modelling
in Wish List
Posted
Bumping this, now that it seems that Horner is receiving some well deserved love
Regards