Beamscanner

Is it confirmed that some missiles are getting an overhaul?

I hope they are not working on the RWR (considering the F-5E's current RWR) Funny enough, the upcoming AV-8B, F-14B and F/A-18C all use the AN/ALR-67 RWR. I hope they collaborated so they could get the best simulation without redundant efforts.

I'm all for more accurate 'randoms' placed in the HUD. What I'm more concerned about is nothing being put in but real contacts. After watching that video I can see that the sensor is anything but trustworthy. I also hope they plan to include airborne IR contacts from active AI or Clients.

Add a few randoms and call it good.

Nope. So we can join just fine. But after hitting the "fly" button in the briefing nothing happens. Normally you hop into the jet, but all that happens on my screen is the fly button darkens slightly indicating that its been depressed. If you start clicking around the Microsoft 'program not responding' window pops up. I've turned off all my mods, ran a repair, and it still doesn't work. EDIT: Before hitting "fly" I am able to chat with players in the server. Once I hit fly, everything freezes

I am having the same problem

good choice with the thumb mini-stick. how much range of motion does the throttle have?

Supposedly it can see SA-8 and ZSU-23 emissions (7-15GHz). Most fighter radars fall between 9 and 13GHz. So it should be able to see them. However, as I mentioned earlier, it probably doesn't perform well against a radar that is scanning. I think for there to be a chance of homing in properly, the fighter radar would need to be locked on to you. It would also only be a forward aspect missile. It for sure uses PN guidance, just like the AIM-9M. It needs to have a similar fuse as well (IDK if it does or not). If it doesnt have a fuse, then you could probably lock on and launch the missile but considering it uses PN guidance with a 20Hz conical scan seeker in a head on engagement, it will probably miss the target. That scan rate is too low IMO considering the high closure rate between the missile and the target for it to directly hit the aircraft. For those naysayers, who think that because the missile isnt meant to hit air radar that it cant, here's a good read on its much more sophisticated predecessor hitting a B-52 tail gunner radar. http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/10314/the-time-a-f-4g-wild-weasels-anti-radiation-missile-blew-apart-a-b-52s-tail EDIT: in case it wasn't clear. the AGM-122 was not designed to hit airborne radars. The real question is what measures were put in place to physically prevent the seeker from tracking an airborne emission, if any? In all likely hood, I think the aircraft using it did their best to stay out of any airborne fight. So i doubt it has any measures to prevent the A2A engagement, because the helo or strike pilot was the biggest denier of an air engagment.

I think the real question is 'how good is the ARBS sensor at A2A'.

R-27EP http://aviationweek.com/awin/russia-details-passive-air-air-missile

Because antenna gain is dependent on the antenna aperture size vs. the wavelength of the signal of interest. Small antennas technically can feel the force of low frequency emissions. However, using a small antenna to receive low freqs has significant problems. As the freq gets lower the beam width expands allowing noise to seep in from all directions, cancellation can occur from impedance mismatch and standing waves disrupt reception. Overall sensitivity becomes so weak that signal reception, identification, and direction finding becomes impractical. Based on the AGM-122s role (small, cheap, consumable, short range anti-radiation missile), its very unlikely to receive signals from anything emitting on a low frequency. (I would feel obliged to debate anyone who thinks it can track a signal operating below 5GHz.. 7-15GHz seems like a rational guess) An EW radar (operating between .15-3GHz) is completely out of the question. Especially considering the era were talking about. This was my assessment on the AGM-122 from a few months ago. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3084941&postcount=45

Will the adapter let me use the MCG PRO on a TM base? I really want the 4 way button+push where my thumb rests, but I also just want to add it to my TM Base.

where will the mini-stick be located? thumb or index finger?

Want to make it as a RIO/NFO? 1. Buy a flight jacket. 2. Attach as many patches to it as possible.

The search button lights up a green "S" on it when selected. A reference for the pilots so that they know that if they want to see emitters identified as "S", to press that button. SA-6 Target Acquisition emitter is not identified as "S" on the display.. Its identified as "6". As per the ALR-87 lua file "S" radars are Search radars should be displayed when the search button is selected. Not search modes. Something the other side of this debate haven't considered is the fact that in order to verify if something is a search radar or not, the emitter must be identified in the first place. So you'd have to be saying that the RWR knows a threat emitter is locking/or firing at the aircraft but decidedly choosing not to display the information.

If you're trying to improve FPS, I recommend putting terrain textures to medium and keeping your cockpit textures high.

Please, see my post!!!

Yellow version is the best by far. Only problem is making it past the first gym leader.

I disagree.. -The Clutter points are all the same size, shape and intensity -No Chaff or cloud clutter -Theres no CRT glow effect -The return of any aircraft is the same. (RCS isn't factored in the render) -I dont think there is a 'visible beam sweep', but it only looks like there is one because of the azmiuth scan sweeping across clutter (if that makes sense) (heres what I'm takling about http://i.imgur.com/XXNjD6e.gifv it only looks like a visible line but only because our brains interpret the line. But in places where theres no clutter you shouldn't see the bar. You can only see one sweeping bar in all the APQ-159 images, but it may just be clutter being highlighted at that moment. This is what I think the APQ-159 should look like, based on the above images.

2019 Tornado would be awesome!!

100% agree I think more devotion needs to go to the subtle details from CRT displays (including CRT fed HUDs).. from all devs.

Ah, thanks. Asking questions makes you a 12 year old..? This is the discussion thread on the AV-8B dude. You should expect more substance than 'looks great'. Nice find

Is this really accurate? Shouldn't the edges of the projection be rounded, because the CRT projecting the image is round? Also, I dont think a CRT can project black/grey images without a black background. I thought these HUD FLIR images were projected green.

Everything sold here is optional. The WW2 assets pack is optional to buy.

What I think is reasonable is not necessarily the same as what ED thinks is reasonable. So I will continue to ask until ED explicitly states what can and cannot block server access.