Hobel
-
Posts
2628 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Hobel
-
-
vor 52 Minuten schrieb Keta:
Hey, thanks for the replies I appreciate it.
In terms of INS, this happened both after the 3 minute quick INU and the 20 minute precise INU. I'm not sure what else I could do if it was an INS problem. I shouldn't have to in flight course correct via way points just after takeoff.
And no, I do not flip that switch. Only started messing with it AFTER it started turning hard to try and align mid flight.
I'm not having any problems with other aircrafts. Only the KA 50 3. Still trying to figure it out. Flew it again last night and no problems. Flew it again later that night and it did it once. Just so random.
Send a track of it when that happens.
-
1
-
-
Kann man so stehen lassen
vor 4 Minuten schrieb Gizmo03:Spielerzahlen waren aber in allen Genres geringer als heute. Denn wenn es vor 25 Jahren selten war, dass ein PC zu hause steht (was übrigens Blödsinn ist)
nur, in meiner Bubble hatten damals sehr wenige einen PC im vergleich zu heute wo das ding Standart im Haushalt.
-
vor 20 Minuten schrieb Default774:
Heres another track showing off the comically high aiming error on the hawk, featuring the missile missing and flying straight past a target flying straight and level.
hawk_aimingerror_2.acmi 30.5 kB · 0 Downloads hawk_aimingerror_2.trk 61.64 kB · 0 Downloads
is there information from when the PF igniter should trigger?
-
vor 48 Minuten schrieb twistking:
Mhm... i politely disagree: BORE mode already allows you to target with HUD and refine on the Mav seeker feed. VIS mode for JDAM and DTOS for other bombs definitely have TGP for refinement in mind. The F-16's quirky "feature" to not allow multiple sensor points only makes sense, if you have modes that let you point the TGP via HMCS. In the end it boils down to this: How do you point the TGP via HCMS? -> You select the appropriate weapon mode that lets you do this: DTOS or VIS.
Maverick and TGP are highly integrated, i cannot believe that the Mav implementation would not allow "HMCS to TGP to Mav" flow...yes, MAV should also follow the TGP in VIS mode because the TGP provides a SPI.
-
1
-
-
Ja Natürlich, FLUGSiMs gab es deutlich mehr, aber es ging mir eher um die Spielerzahlen, vor 25 jahren war es sogar selten das ein PC daheim steht, dass hat sich doch deutlich geändert und somit ist der Potentielle Kundenbereich erheblich breiter geworden.
und was heißt Flugsim sind die damals alle schon derart tief gewesen? oder hieß es bereits Flugsim wenn eine SIM damals so tief war wie ein WarThunder(was im SIM Modus nicht übel ist) heute?
-
vor 7 Stunden schrieb QuiGon:
(Militärische) Flugsims sind halt nun mal eine sehr kleine Nische (anders als noch vor 20-25 Jahren),
öh, war der Flugsim bereich vor 20-25 Jahren Größer?
ich hätte jetzt gesagt das ist genau andersherum, sowohl Militärische als auch Civile haben doch im laufe der letzten jahre Ordentlich zulauf bekommen.
-
vor 32 Minuten schrieb cw4ogden:
So maybe you were in a bird with no mw50? Going into mw50 with no mw50 onboard, or having it off will cook the engine.
That's the thing at the moment, the engine starts with MW50 rather to boil without it runs better
my tests are a while ago, maybe something has changed, but a while ago a fresh engine died with 50MW after 10min which was strange.First of all, I would like to know exactly what are the limits of our D9?
the manual says that the engine can run at 3250RPM 30minwithout MW50 this is no problem with the time shortens drastically.
-
1
-
-
-
vor 14 Minuten schrieb buceador:
Understood. What about this though? "What surprises me is how close to the minimum distance marker I get before the caret drops?" Is that the norm?
~0.8M, 25.000ft and ~ 6nm I would say this is fine for a ballistic drop from lvl flight.
Unless you have evidence to the contrary
-
1
-
-
vor 8 Minuten schrieb buceador:
Yes, I fully understood this point. I flew this scenario 8 times, changing altitude and laser guided bomb loadout, every time but one, mínimum distance was reached before the second caret dropped to release point, which was causing the problem, the attached screen grab shows the ONLY time it worked and then only just. So? Which mission parameters are incorrect?
track from the mission?
i tested the GBU10 and others yesterday and in this scenario i actually had no problems
-
1
-
-
Am 2.3.2023 um 17:15 schrieb oncomms:
The engine get cooked after using MW-50. I don't know what I'm doing wrong. As far as I can see I think everything was fine. I'm adding two video. Both videos start with the plane on the ground. On the first one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O13tmPIuF2s&t=1080s at the very first time I started the MW-50 the engine get broken, while on the second one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYi8tz01jxs&t=895s while I kept the plane speed in range - I think - for some reason it got hotter and hotter till it broke.
I'm attaching also both tracks.
Thanks for any comments
This is the original thread
WOLF_PACK_US_WWII_DYNAMIC_BASE_CAPTURE_v4.2.1-20230119-234852.trk 22.57 MB · 5 Downloads WOLF_PACK_US_WWII_DYNAMIC_BASE_CAPTURE_v4.2.1-20230122-222616.trk 23.74 MB · 4 Downloads
Can you make new tracks?
-
1
-
-
vor 46 Minuten schrieb Grennymaster:
sowohl als auch,
wenn ich feuere ist das Trefferbild inzwischen deutlich besser. Bin nicht ganz sicher warum aber jetzt treffen auch Raketen aus der Bewegung und auf kürzere Distanzen. Bin ehrlich gesagt Ratlos warum das so ist
musste mich wohl doch irgentwie umgewöhnen .)
George ist da etwas unkonstanter. Habe sowohl schon 16 Treffer in allen möglichen Fluglagen, als auch keinen einzigen Treffen gehabt.
Würde da jetzt aber keinen Fehler an der Software, sondern eher am Piloten (mir selbst) suchen. Hat sich ja doch ein bisschen was geändert.
Am Mittwoch fliegen wir meine selbst gebaute Mission. Sollten da dann alle anderen auch Ähnliche Probleme haben müsste man das evtl. nochmal genauer betrachen
Die ki hat je nach Situation derzeit Probleme zuverlässig die limas auf das Ziel zu bringen daher ist es am besten das selbst zu tun, vorallem aus der Bewegung.
Auch gibt es wohl Probleme mit der INU weswegen man diese reseten muss damit die limas ihr Ziel finden.
-
Am 21.5.2023 um 15:40 schrieb Grennymaster:
sooo, habe noch ein bisschen intensiver damit getestet. Es scheint mir eher so das die Lima probleme damit hat die Daten während des Fluges zu korrigieren.
Wenn ich im Hover feuere und nicht unter 2000m Entfernung bin, ist die Trefferquote bei 98 Prozent. Egal ob auf statische oder bewegliche Ziele.
Wenn der Heli sich mit 40-70 Kts bewegt sinkt die Quote schon auf 60 Prozent. Je schneller ich selbst werde desto geringer die Trefferquote.
Ich bin nicht sicher ob das so sein soll oder da evtl. noch ein bisschen was an der Steuerdynamik der Lima gestellt werden muss .)
Werde dann die LIma erstmal aus dem Hover einsetzen, man kann ja schön mischen
falls ihr für euer Team mal ein Trackfile braucht. baue ich mal ne kleine Mission zum darstellten, ihr müsst ja nicht 25 min Anflug anschauen
hast du die Lima von hand abgefeuert oder war es die KI?
-
vor 1 Stunde schrieb Tshark:
I have not been able to get any reliability with the Lima Hellfires when I act as CP/G with a friend flying the same Apache. The Lima's either impact off target by about 200 feet or hit a different target than the one designated. We have ensured the INU is below .0012 accuracy, both LOBAL and LOAL, and IAT on/off without success. I have tried the Lima's in SP and they never miss, so I appear to be doing the launch procedures correctly. At one point I even had eight in the air at once in SP and all hit. Attached is at track file.
so you have the INU reset from time to time?
-
Am 24.3.2022 um 19:00 schrieb FalcoGer:
I like to fly around with TADS as sight and GHS as acquisition source, so when I see something I can quickly slew the tads over and identify and potentially engage. But sometimes the pilot sees stuff before I do. Then I need to look down, press R6 and R1 on the MFD to get my acquisition source to PHS, which takes like 2-5 seconds, in which the pilot can't take his eyes off the target.
Is there a quicker way to do that?
I use Macros for this
-
vor 9 Stunden schrieb Floyd1212:
I see that video is from the Target Range. Have you flown on a large MP server?
No not yet but I understand your point and will do this soon.
-
vor 24 Minuten schrieb Dniwe125:
AGM 114 L in real life: we can hit absolutely any target, and under any conditions
L modification in DCS : you accelerated more than 20 km / h , I'm sorry I won't hit , you have too much distance I need 3 kilometers , zero hits out of 16 , thanks ED , everything is very realistic, it looks right if it's supposedly the correct use of rockets ,
then I feel sorry for youIf you have problems post tracks of them and we can help you. And also see if it is a user error or bug.
In my opinion, it works great so far and even with crazy things....
-
Very cool!
but here you have not posted it first
-
vor 32 Minuten schrieb Pavlin_33:
I am not 100% sure that this in deed is lofting. The missile pulls up to 3Gs in order to correct the path towards the target.
I could be wrong also.I thought it was also called loft when you give it manually with the plane, has that changed?
Tacview-20230520-000003-DCS.zip.acmi Tacview-20230519-235840-DCS.zip.acmi
-
vor 1 Stunde schrieb SharpeXB:
Having certain players able to adjust visibility in a way that others can’t is cheating. Plain and simple.
And what do we do with people who set their resolution to 800x600 or similar to gain an advantage?
-
7
-
3
-
-
vor 44 Minuten schrieb okopanja:
You are correct in terms of end effect, but from pure technical point of view, this should not be called loft, and besides will usually work only in certain scenarios.
Before the change that roughly coincided with HOJ fix, ER had been a guidance low which I would describe as used a simplified proportional navigation with range dependent proportional factors.
After this change it appears the missile is actually using PID controller (proportional, integration, derivation factor). The guidance law defines the desired trajectory as a function. In case of the R-27 this is a straight line between missile and target. In case of AMRAAM/SD-10, depending on range this is either ballistic trajectory or direct line. What happens next is that PID controller measures the deviation from expected trajectory which is used to apply the correction based on P-I-D factors. Since R-27 originally had only P component(s), the end result was that any attempt at faking loft would result to immediate rapid correction and therefore rapid energy loss with no benefit. So back then we had to make sure we actually to but the dot into the circle.
However, by selecting I and D component you can control how quickly the missile returns to the desired path and this is how lofting effect was produced with R-27ET. It is worth to note that ET still uses the old system. so no lofting is recommended here.
Here is not too much technical explanation:
Of course, this does not always work but if it is possible you can use it and depending on the situation you will get a good result.
My test was 20° loft in.
In past tests I have also tried others and depending on that the missle arrived at the target with the same conditions also with 1.0M more, which is quite clear.
-
vor 11 Minuten schrieb GrEaSeLiTeNiN:
Had a go with it just now - I find the hit rate of the radar HFs to be quite erratic whether LOBL or LOAL. For now, the Ks are far more reliable.
It would be interesting in what scenarios you use the RF to come to this conclusion, my experience is that the RF is quite reliable.
Also, you can see that in the video here well the RF works very reliably.
-
1
-
-
vor 28 Minuten schrieb Pavlin_33:
There's no loft on the Alammo. If you try to pitch up, the missile will just loose more energy trying to pull Gs.
is that so?
-
vor 4 Minuten schrieb Ian Boys UK:
Just flew as pilot and let George shoot - at very slow speeds (like 17 mph) he scored hits every time. Seems you cant run in with the Lima like with the Kilo.
that has then probably rather something to do with George
AGM-114L: LOBL vs. LOAL
in DCS: AH-64D
Posted · Edited by Hobel
My current assumption would be that the TADS only transmits a specific coordinate as the missile flies to the last Data Target point and does not fly an intercept course.
I would assume that the FCR, when it comes later, has the ability to transmit a specific intercept point based on the speed and direction of the target
wild guess on my part