Jump to content

Rex854Warrior

Members
  • Posts

    605
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rex854Warrior

  1. That's definitely not on heavier missions though, some friends of mine barely reach ~30fps per eye with 2080Tis playing them with a PD of 1.6-1.7 (Rifts) and medium settings. Which is playable but if you turn up the PD not so much. Anyways this is sort of off-topic.
  2. Although even a 2080Ti will have issues running those screens, around 9 million pixels to push which is more then 4k and you have to account for more performance required because of VR, although this extra required might drop considerably soon for DCS hopefully.
  3. Honestly I think people are so pumped about getting a true VR 2.0 headset, and why wouldn't they be after all, that they are way too enthusiastic about anything that comes out. As for your problem, I can say that you'll run DCS in VR with the Index without any issues if you can currently run DCS in 4K at 50~60fps or run a Rift or Vive at about 1.6* upscaling or a Vive Pro comfortably. For the VR headsets it's roughly equal to the amount of pixels rendered on the Index with 1.2* upscaling which is standard I believe for the Vive Pro and will be plenty to reduce aliasing enough. And lastly, since I think any VR fan, with some ressources :D, will buy the true 2.0 headsets with the proper computer to go with them, I really wouldn't recommend going all out just yet, unless of course you want the best thing out there now as it indeed might take some time for 2.0 stuff.
  4. I asked for GGTharos to send those documents to me if he could of course, so hopefully you'll have your answer soon. As for the documents I already have, since they're not enough on their own to prove the functionality was removed, I'll wait before sending them all to you. If it was then indeed the CW flood on the F-14 was useless with the 7M. I guess this mode wasn't very important anyways and that the AWG-9 of the F-14B and A were no longer considered when making design choices for the AIM-7 after the 1980s. Maybe the AN/APG-71 had a PD flood illuminator ? EDIT : I'm also wondering how do you enter flood mode in the DCS : F-14B ? Also since you're here and I've become an opportunist 3 seconds ago, when is TWS AUTO coming ? :D
  5. Inside out tracking is awesome for DCS because it's easy to setup and for using controllers in front of you there will be no issues; the knuckles will be hard to work with because you have to lock them and in DCS it won't be easy to switch between stick and controller; but the resolution on the index is better which means in theory less SDE and that's a very good thing for DCS; the sound on the Index is better as well and in some circumstances outside tracking will be better. Lastly the price difference is insane. At this point I'm lost because both have advantages and both have things I don't like, at least if DCS is the only game taken into account because the knuckles are awesome for pretty much every other game and would have sold me immediately. I'm thinking since this isn't a true VR 2.0 experience anyways I might as well buy the Rift S waiting for a Rift 2 or a Valve index 2, I also really like the Oculus software plus ASW 2.0 Is coming for DCS hopefully. EDIT : I forgot to mention the FOV bump on the Index, I read an article saying it wasn't very noticeable but it did seem rather sceptical so I'll wait for some others.
  6. Nope, later variants of the sparrow can only guide on Pulsed signals. As GGTharos said in the AIM-7 post I sent, the AIM-7F was the only and the last sparrow to have both CW and PD homing, after that only PD. I have a couple documents about late variants of the F-15 that say it uses a PD flood illuminator operating in HPRF, which confirms that CW was no longer required or standard. I'll try to get more documents specific to the AIM-7 but so far it's what I have.
  7. Ok so it's not that easy. The difference between P and PD is simply the processing done by the host radar on the returns, which means that when you switch to P-STT or PD-STT you're still sending a pulsed signal which every Sparrow from the F Variant can home onto. You also have a separate CW emitter in the cat if you desire to use it with the AIM-7F or if it is necessary for the particular variant of Sparrow you're using (any Sparrow before the F). So this Sparrow switch in the back seat is only relevant when using Fs.
  8. From my understanding no. I was slightly dissapointed to see that the current AIM-7M on the F-14 tracks in P-STT. Only the AIM-7F, which will hopefully be added soon, should be able to home in either STT mode.
  9. Depends on what Sparrow you are using, the AIM-7F is the last Sparrow to be able to home on a CW signal (it could also home on a PD signal which is why there is a switch to toggle between PD and CW guidance I think). After this one, the AIM-7M, AIM-7MH and AIM-7P could no longer do so, you have to use PD-STT for them to home in. PD enables the missile seeker to acquire targets at a longer range amongst other things. Radar homing was more reliable in general using PD. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=195679&page=3 EDIT : I think this is not modelled in game yet, I hope it will be.
  10. EDIT 2 : Since I am terrible at explaining, this cheat sheet I just added basically gives you the changes in altitude of you scan volume (noted ∆Scan altitude in FL or hundreds of feet) with changes in antenna angle (noted ∆Angle in degrees) and with the range at which you are scanning (noted Range in nm). Added a Cheat sheet which gives you, as a function of distance and antenna angle difference (difference between centerline of the radar and the antenna angle you will be using), the difference of altitude between your aircraft and the altitude crossed by the center line of your radar with the given antenna angle difference and the range at which you are scanning. For example say you're trying to keep a target in your scan volume but have no clue what angle you should put your antenna at but you do know the range to target, your altitude and it's altitude. Go to the chart, go to the range of your target, get the altitude your scan volume will go up by with the different angles (by default you have 1°, 5°, 10° and 15° but those can be changed so can the ranges on a your own local copy of this document) choose the one closest to the difference of altitude between you and your target (perhaps multiply the angle and the ∆Scan altitude to get closer to it) and you should in theory never loose your target, at least not because it went out of you scan volume. Now this will in theory be less useful when TWS Auto comes around but it can still be useful when searching. This in combination with the Dynamic chart (same google sheet) is quite literally killer :D. Hope this helps :thumbup: Cheers, Rex EDIT : I'm also planning to make kneeboard sized versions of the charts in order for you to have access to these more easily in game, I printed mine but in VR it is slower to use.
  11. The AIM-7F is not supposed to loft so no issues here and at closer ranges the sparrows enter a dogfighting mode which disables lofting, if I remember correctly this range should be 5nm. In any other circumstances you should be able to disable loft which is currently not possible indeed. Edit : Some good information there https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=195679&highlight=AIM-7&page=3 It is even said the AIM-7M is not supposed to loft either. While I couldn't find any sources that would confirm this, I also didn't find any that confirmed it did loft.
  12. Had three consecutive crashes all in the same circumstances, MP with a human RIO (me), pilot switches to PAL and gets a lock on something that is overlapped with ground returns, RIO crashes. No logs. Seems if PAL is used over water there are less or no issues but this doesn't happen all the time over land either, perhaps it only happens when two returns are perfectly overlapping ? I've had a fourth one where I crashed when switching from P STT to PD STT by pressing the button for PD STT, target was over water. MP and human RIO (me), no logs. Fifth one when pressing the PD STT button after having hooked a track (over land) on the TID and getting a succesful PD STT lock. MP and human RIO (me), log for n°5 is attached.
  13. Hello guys ! Here is a handy (in my opinion) dynamic chart, by that I mean you can change most the values to really make your own depending on your needs. The purpose of this is to give you the an idea of the antenna angle to set depending on your own altitude, your bar setting, the minimum scan altitude you desire and distance. The angle given is always in order for the lower scan limit of your scan volume to intersect the point at a given distance at the given minimum scan altitude. Here is the link : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I8x61NQBIM0iTgksOZgvA5zLzdUUORqFvm6GKOqUmNA/edit?usp=sharing You have two columns separated each into five boxes, each column is independant. A box within one column depends on the parameters set above and inside it plus the parameters at the top of the column. Beware that you will need to copy this to your own drive to be able to edit it. I've also made sure it fits on an A4 sheet of paper so you can print the chart after you've edited it :). Hope this usefull, it certainly helped my RIO :thumbup: Cheers, Rex.
  14. I don't think that's a bug, it's the advisory (ADV-) lign being moved from the left DDI to the MPCD.
  15. I have not tried it, a feeling is worthless unless you're a SME. If you are a SME, please provide a clear explanation as to why this feeling is relevant.
  16. Do you have documents to support your claim ?
  17. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/farmer/
  18. I'm pretty sure it'll be made available for everyone soon
  19. Probably more like 5-10 seconds, maybe more. If you urgently need your Datalink to help you find an aircraft that is less then that amount of time from you, you're doing something wrong or not using the correct procedures.
  20. Not sure that's relevant, very likely doesn't tie in at all with the hornet's systems, probably someone else's code, it is likely very simplified,... It's harder then just copy pasting.
  21. Most likely the IFF Logic used by the D/L along with other items related to the Datalink, it's where most of the effort is going right now. The TWS is also a very important system that is necessary in some ways, since only tracks can be datalinked. While you don't have to be in LTWS for those informations be acquired and formated I think, the creation of tracks needs to be coded anyways for the D/L to not be useless :).
  22. It's works correctly in SP now with the OB from the 16/01, still not synched in MP though. Please ED, I know it's not a high priority but this synchronisation issue is a global issue with most spawning/remove functions and DCS in general.
  23. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=227816 It's been fixed internaly but is still present in 2.5.4.
  24. ED might as well remove the Rne indicator then, it's entirely possible to use the missile performance in game and a very simple definition of the Rne cue to get a correct indication (if you're within Rne, the missile can't be defeated kinetically, you can't "outrun" it even if that term would be better suited for Rtr). Though it is of course easier said then developped. It's still one very important and usefull cue for Air to Air. I have an idea, it's only an idea and is very likely wrong but, for Rtr, lets say you have multiple sets of two graphs which you could get by doing tests in game, first one with Missile speed as a function of time and the second range travelled as a function of time, each set would correspond to data taken at different altitudes (lets say 0, 5000, 10000, 15000,... all the way to 45k feet), what you'd need to know is at what range will the missile be at the same speed as your target for a given altitude. You select the set of graphs closest to the given target altitude, you get the target speed, get the time after launch at which the missile will be at the same speed as the target, then run the time through your range(t) function and you'd get Rtr, crude Rtr, no turn radius taken into account, nothing else except pure target parameters and missile parameters, the graphs would also need an offset to take in account launcher speed, altitude difference is also an important factor,... As for what other parameters Rne takes into account I don't know, but if Rne tells you at what range the missile cannot be kinetically defeated then it should be smaller then Rtr in most scenarios, if not all. Please feel free to add to this discussion, I'm not claiming the idea I shared is correct or practical but with the Hornet becoming more and more intresting (Thank you ED :) ) I'd really like for A/A to not suffer from this problem.
×
×
  • Create New...