Jump to content

gyrovague

3rd Party Developers
  • Posts

    189
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by gyrovague

  1. It can perhaps do with a bit of clarification in that paragraph, but the Operation section further down clearly describes how to use it.
  2. I double checked our manual, it seems correct to me? Under the "TCS Operation" section it describes having to use half and full action with AUTO etc.
  3. Some of the older NATOPS versions still have the TCS info, seems it was removed in later versions for whatever reason. The manual mode has a much smaller area that it searches for contrast lock, the NATOPS recommends to use that for ground targets that may be in close proximity to other contrasty items. The AUTO mode searches a much larger area of the screen (70% of height and width, i.e. 50% of total raster area), and AUTO SRCH adds a bit of a search pattern to that to increase the effective area that it can find objects. That said, I don't think we support locking onto ground items with TCS in DCS F-14 yet, as well as a few more missing features like ability to be knocked out of alignment, requiring a boresighting process onto a co-operating radar locked target (wingman) and the trim knobs. Another reason for the semi-automatic nature (i.e. requiring half-action) is so that the RIO can slew the TCS onto the desired area of interest using the HCU first, and not just always lock onto things dead ahead.
  4. According to the NATOPS we have, in the absence of STT it requires half-action HCU to move the TCS LoS and initiate so-called semi-automatic acquisition (in AUTO or AUTO SRCH).
  5. We use a custom 3D model, which is also rotated axially 45 degrees. The default DCS one clips into our aircraft, the F-14 uses a different way of attaching the missile than most other aircraft.
  6. Interesting info, do you have a publicly available source for this?
  7. Thanks for this tidbit! The NATOPS mentions navigation grid sector voice codes, but doesn't explain how they're formed. I had guessed (correctly it turns out) that it was 2 digit relative bearing and range/50 from A, based on the few image examples, but it's great to have further confirmation of this. These sector voice codes are also displayed next to hooked targets when nav grid is enabled (alternating with altitude every 2 seconds).
  8. Thanks for the detailed post! I'll take this into consideration and bump up the priority. I haven't heard any passionate pleas for this feature prior to yours :), I've heard of more people that want the AVIA page for instance (which is also a lot easier to add). Maybe there will still be time for it this year, but no promises. One option might be to implement it initially without the TID cursor offset, this will make it much easier I think. This will allow the relative position readouts (w.r.t. YY/bullseye) to function, just not allow the "map" to be "panned" essentially.
  9. I can take a look. The lead cue is based on average missile speed and intercept geometry using the target's velocity vector (from STT info). Perhaps the DCS indicated average missile speed for sidewinder is too far off, or there's some other bug.
  10. Thanks for all this effort! We use the standard DCS AIM-9M, nothing custom, so I think the differences you're seeing are just due to small sample size. As Airhunter said, the DCS missile countermeasure susceptibility is just chance based, the different sidewinder variants use slightly different values for this for instance.
  11. In the TCS position, the TCS is slaved to radar, and from what I can see in the NATOPS, that means it cannot track with the TCS. The HUD will only show the TCS line-of-sight when TCS is either tracking, or under HCU control (i.e. when RIO has TV mode on the HCU selected, and moving HCU with half trigger). I'll look a bit further, but right now it doesn't seem like a bug to me.
  12. I'll look into it, thanks for the report.
  13. That was a typo, it should've been EIG (Engine Instrument Group), guess somebody smooshed together EIG and EGT (Exhaust Gas Temperature) when typing that. The F-14B with F110-GE-400 engines didn't have the analog tape gauges that the F-14A with P&W TF-30 engines had (similar to this) , instead it had more like digital bar graph style gauges for RPM/EGT/FF.
  14. The navgrid is still on our list, but it is lower priority than the things discussed in this update. It might be done this year still, but not that likely at this point (the year is running out very quickly!). It should be quite useful for bullseye relative navigation (a.k.a. YY in the F-14 -1 NATOPS), but quite a lot of work for a fairly niche benefit.
  15. Thanks, only noticed this report now! Guess it got buried a bit. It's tracked on our side now, should be an easy fix (famous last words).
  16. Thanks for the post, agreed that this looks like a bug. It is logged and will be fixed in due course. The fix is trivial, but testing to ensure it doesn't affect other things might take some time.
  17. We'll look into it, but my guess would be similar to draconus' : probably the mission has multiple wind layers with varying speeds and/or directions. The F-14 INS calculates wind only at own altitude, and uses that for the impact point calculations, so if there are layers beneath you with different enough parameters, the bomb will impact somewhere else than predicted.
  18. FWIW, I've tried reproducing this in MP (human pilot and human RIO) at various airports and with various radio calls (ranging from neither slot doing anything and just receiving the default automatic DCS ATC progression from taxi onto runway and takeoff, to doing various ATC request/replies from both pilot and RIO) and so far have not had any crashes, using latest openbeta release (from a day or two ago). I guess there must be something unique to the crashes others are experiencing here, so would really appreciate a crash log.
  19. This has now been implemented (need to keep weapon selector pressed when moving between GUN and OFF), with a new special option to enable this behaviour (default off, i.e. behaves as before unless you change the option).
  20. This is fixed internally now, seems to have been only for multicrew. Unclear when it will make it into a DCS release, should be within two weeks.
  21. I think quite a few of the items on first post have been implemented already, it would be immensely helpful if this can get cleaned up so that remaining items can be seen more clearly. @maverickturner (and thanks again to the community for starting and maintaining this thread)
  22. Unfortunately we have no control over this, DCS picks the page based on the aircraft name, not the multicrew seat slot. We'll add more toggles over time, but each one requires a bit of code, it's not just extra lua config. It's easily around 10minutes to code, compile and test each new toggle option, multiply this by (what feels like) hundred switches, and you can feel our pain a bit :) (and deduct this time from fixing more important bugs or implementing missing functionality).
  23. While it is a typo, it is not a bug as such, as the same variable name is used later: 15: main_back_dmper = 160000; --190000; 89: amortizer_back_damper_force_factor = main_back_dmper, 128: amortizer_back_damper_force_factor = main_back_dmper,
  24. Thanks for the report, do you perhaps have a miz handy that we can reproduce this with?
×
×
  • Create New...