Jump to content

falconzx

Members
  • Posts

    76
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About falconzx

  • Birthday 04/19/1986

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS
  • Location
    Italy
  • Interests
    DCS

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The stuck issue maybe is fixed, but not the re-zeroing/centering on a wrong absolute physical axis value. (I described the re-centering antenna "way to reproduce" in this thread) It continues to happen. When you reproduce with the described steps(or just loosing the target in a real combat situation), the physical axis center doesn't match the FCR gimbal center, and the physical axis max gimbal doesn't match the FCR elevation max gimbals.
  2. Anybody knows about this choice? In a BVR situation machspeed or TAS is just much more useful and senseful
  3. That's because a lot of RL pilots use the hud repeater on MFDs
  4. Squadron: 36°Stormo Virtuale Timezone: 18:00z - 21:00z Maps: Syria, PG, Caucasus
  5. Actually i flew yesterday with my mates in the night using formation lights (Strobe only, preset C) in slightly open formations and it was nice. It's true that if you increase the distance lights tends to suddenly disappear. But we have the same with afterburners. P.S: Please do not turn the F-16 in a christmas tree like the Hornet was some time ago.
  6. Thanks man for your feedback, it would be nice to have some positive feedback from ED on it. Maybe the topic title is a little misleading. The issue i reproduced in my tracks and video i posted is more about a wrong recentering of the axis range over the elevation gimbal. It means that if it recenters -20°, sweeping my axis it will result in a -60/+40 when it should be -60/+60.
  7. There are good examples of amraams losing targets with no reason. Thanks for those. That behaviour before this patch was very rare. I hope ED is going to fix what caused that in a hotfix soon. Some of those examples contains near misses that i think should continue to happen, with the new physics it can be possible that in certain situations(drifting in direction change, noise from a CM) a missile can not reach the correct distance to detonate even if it guided itself to the target.
  8. Oh the topic is "there is no BVR fight with amraam in DCS" so adding your statement it become, since 2 years there is no BVR in DCS with amraams. Just watch a random tacview from any day before this patch and you will see thousands of BVR examples. Trust me
  9. The simple reason of that is: in real life you have just ONE life. Amraams like any other human artifact is imperfect but still dangerous for someone who have just ONE life. Here we have infinite lives, so don't blame ED if they make missiles more realistic. Just understand that here people don't have to go back to base to live another day, you can try and try to die more and more, and learn, until you find a way to survive even in a complex storm of imperfect missiles. Here you will have the opportunity to learn this. And this is something that nobody in real life will never do. So if you act in a "non realistic way" is not necessarily a simulator problem in this case, but a people's choice. So guys, just stop to speak about real life in an amraam topic pretending to know how an amraam would behave and how much hard should be evading it. Fortunately the real world never saw an half of what we see in a single hour of combat in this simulator. Someone speaks about "gameplay" like this environment should be "balanced", or even palatable to a fair "competition". Oh my.. this is not a moba game, this is a simulator, and the reality doesn't pretend to be balanced. And we are speaking about a BETA version, remember it.
  10. It happened to me too when my wingman with pdlt active on him just passed in front of me while i got TWS active. The track file on him was created (and maybe i bugged him switching targets with TMS right on FCR) and PDLT octagon freezed in that position. When this happens if i make HSD SOI and i try to TMS right to cycle, the cycling action stops on the bugged one and do not step more foward.
  11. At the moment i think this issue is the priority, it makes the missile quite useless. For the notching angle window, from what i tested personally it seems a little bit reduced, but i'm not here to say if it is easy or not, and I'm not interested to discuss if it should or not. At least until we speak through subjective statements. In DCS i think the intent is to reproduce a missile with all his flaws and limitations, how big they are and how they impact is not my business, i trust ED choices and its sources. For sure i would not love this simulator, and i wouldn't even call it simulator, if the missiles were a launch=kill weapon.
  12. They still aren't automatically synced. Press 3 times TMS right (OA1->OA2->back to TGT) is a workaround for now.
  13. Ok yesterday night i've made some tests with my squadron mates in MP. What emerged is a problem with the inversion of closure speed. Seems that the missile loses the target easily when the hot target just turn cold. No CM involved, just an extending turn. On the other side in some pure "notching" test the missile was pretty good, you need to be very precise on angles to get a lock loss, and it is quite fast to reacquire you like before. So what we suggest to the team to find the issue is to test the hot to cold target maneuvering cases.
  14. Thanks for the dogfight workaround. ED please, we posted a lot of tracks, a lot of evidence of people reporting this issue in multiple threads. I can't believe it's still marked as "can not reproduce". The recipe is: use the axis for elevation, fight against a target with an huge difference of altitude from you.
  15. In this track you can see two issues: -First, when i roll 180° degree, and i want for example scan the same area the contact is, what you can see from the carets is that radar is struggling to move out of the area i want to scan to retreive data of my bugged contact, this should happen when i search in a different portion of the airspace, and not when i'm searching in the same area. On the other side, when i scan a different area, the radar position is very close to the target... The same happens to the elevation but it's less evident in this example. -At the end of the track i make some rolls keeping my heading quite steady on 360°. Look at the Intercept course, it moves following my rolls, it's something that shouldn't happen. Actually seems that in RWS bugging the Carets visualization and the calculation subdued to that datas (apparently the SAM patterns too), are considering the antenna position before it gets gyro stabilized to match the MFD visualization. f-16_RWS_carets_scannedarea_and_InterceptCross.trk
×
×
  • Create New...