Jump to content

amalahama

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1802

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Posts posted by amalahama

    INS / GPS full simulation [completed]?

    in Wish List

    Posted

    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

    • Like 8

    Best starter multirole fixed-wing aircraft?

    in DCS 2.9

    Posted · Edited by amalahama

    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

    AGM65F F/A18C

    in DCS: F/A-18C

    Posted

    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.

    data link on AH-64

    in DCS: AH-64D

    Posted

    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?

    pp mode vs too mode

    in DCS: F/A-18C

    Posted

    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

    • Like 1

    Is Auto delivery from level flight the most accurate method for dumb bombs now?

    in DCS: F/A-18C

    Posted

    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?

    CCIP when WPNDSG

    in Bugs and Problems

    Posted

    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

    • Like 1

    Auto bombing

    in Bugs and Problems

    Posted

    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

    • Like 1

    Real Black Shark 3

    in DCS: Ka-50 Black Shark 3

    Posted

    On 12/19/2022 at 9:59 AM, dimitriov said:

    This is not plausible arrangement because you lacked for a number, a variable or the exact shape of a vertice line on your MFD. This is an upgrade which is sold as something realistic while nothing about it ever existed and its arrangement in the cockpit with other already really existing systems is utterly incoherent. The level of plausibility and realism is the same than for an X-Wing module. The difference between a partial simulation and an invention is not only about semantics. 

     

    I simply state that it should be written in the module description when you buy it. Else it's consumer misleading if not a pure and simple lie. And I litteraly and morally don't and can't buy this. When you sell something telling it's realistic while you know that you literally made up everything about it, you're in a kind of business scheme which does not lead me to want to work with you. Therefore they must write it, this is everything I say, as this is morally the right thing to do. 

     

    So instead of this "DCS: Black Shark 3 is a further development of the well-known Black Shark and Black Shark 2 projects, which are dedicated to the Russian Ka-50 attack helicopter."

     

    Write this : DCS: Black Shark 3 is a fictionnal further development of the well-known Black Shark and Black Shark 2 projects, which are dedicated to the Russian Ka-50 attack helicopter.

     

    As actually, you tell me "don't buy it", if I was not to know about this stuff I would buy it thinking it's an actual real thing, further misleading my judgment on the value of my investment. This is an elementary worldwide business rule and is even decorrelated from the actual product which is in question. A good deal is a fair one. Anyway I go back on 3DS max, forum chat never changes anything ^^

     

    Although I'm absolutely happy with BS3, I think you made a very valid point. Nowhere, neither in the shop page or in the official documentation, it's mentioned that BS3 new features are fictional and non-existing in real life. Since DCS mantra is "as real as it gets" I think it's fair to at least create awareness to the potential buyer that this product deviates even slightly from the regular addon full fidelity policy

    • Like 2

    Trying to figure out if this unorthodox procedure to target low-level helicopters is possible (slaving radar to TGP)

    in DCS: F/A-18C

    Posted · Edited by amalahama

    11 hours ago, falcon_120 said:

    But shouldn't we have a TPOD search function through the AZ/EL display? As far as i know the flir in the hornet can work as a mini IRST looking for targets and showing them on the AZ/EL, totally missing now in DCS F18 hornet

    I don't think your statement is correct. The Litening cannot automatically look for targets, it's not that 'smart', it needs to be manually (or via radar) pointed to the boogie and then perform a contrast gate lock to track it.

    ARC-210 Radio Status

    in DCS: A-10C II Tank Killer

    Posted

    On 10/30/2022 at 12:07 PM, Hive said:

    It will get bugfixes, but no more features after the radio. That is what I understood. Not happy about it, too.

    I'm hopeful that eventually we will get updates on the TAD display, specially when the Mission Cartridge Utility is out.

    • Like 1

    Mavericks don't remember lock state when STEP

    in Bugs and Problems

    Posted · Edited by amalahama

    Hi @BIGNEWY

    It's difficult to find direct proper evidence, but I actually got some info that might be useful.

    In the TAC-000 Harrier manual, which share many commonalities with the Hornet avionics, it explains in detail what happen when STEP is pressed. The Maverick circuitry is reset and the camera is boresighted, cancelling any lock that the missile may have at that point.

    This is the current behavior of our hornet, so I would lend to think that current implementation is right and the F-16 may have some additional circuitry in the store management system to keep two missiles locked at the same time.

    In fact, the manual also adds that the QTY value has no effect, and the missile can only be launched single

    Best regards

    • Like 1

    Mavericks don't remember lock state when STEP

    in Bugs and Problems

    Posted

    Hi there,

    I just did a quick check and, opposite to the F-16C which does maintain the lock when stepping between missiles, in the F/A-18C the lock is instantaneously dropped when stepping into another missile.

    Since lock is done by the missile seeker and not by Hornet's MC, it's quite likely that the correct behavior is that lock are kept even if pilot select another missile for the attack.

    This would allow effective multi-target attacks in one pass with the Maverick, without using the cumbersome markpoint method (just aim each missile independently and then launch in ripple)

×
×
  • Create New...