toilet2000

From the description: During Early Access: Additional interactive training missions covering the most important aircraft systems. Additional chapters for the DCS: F-15E flight manual A free story-driven campaign built by Baltic Dragon More Instant Action missions, Single Missions, and network missions. As can be seen, the product does not match the product page description. Also, a product description is not only on its sales page, but everything that was shared by the vendor. Finally, EULAs are never, ever above local consumer laws.

Yes, as per the definition of a "refund". For a product which does not match the description, stores generally (and often are legally required to) refund in the original purchase method.

Leaked conversation between CptSmiley (Razbam's FM dev and a long time employee/contractor of Razbam) and Nicholas Dackard, CEO of Heatblur. You can't pick and choose sources depending on how you feel.

Go check for yourself on their Discord. It's not an assertion without evidence. The evidence is all there.

Razbam has said over and over again in their Discord that they asked for the F-15E to be removed from sale, so your “theory” is completely invalid.

Any update on this coming to the Tomcat?

I have not attacked you in any way. I have provided my evidence in the exact post you are quoting.

It doesn’t say anything when it’s standard procedure. He’s an optical physicists and who did optical physics contract work before for other companies. It’s like saying it says a lot about ED that they put DRM and requires online activation on their product. By the way, you’re not stating facts, just opinions. You can hop in on Razbam’s Discord any time if you’d like to get the same exact info I just shared from the developers themselves, not the opinion of some random on the internet.

Not at all. It'll display all detected targets, be it moving or static.

Already posted a request some time ago, so I'm going to link it here to keep track:

What I'm saying is not that it is not a 3D problem, just that making some hypothesis or constraining the problem to "the target has to be on the ground given a certain DTED" or "the target has to be at system altitude 0", it can be solved as either a 2D or 2.5D problem, meaning there exist additional equations to solve the problem. Also, as I hinted at, using multiple measurements can also solve the problem without additional receivers. I'm not talking about what it's currently doing in DCS (we don't know that) or what it's doing IRL (I and probably no one here knows, and if they do, they probably can't talk about it here). An under-constrained problem can be solved with multiple measurements under some state constraints. That's a possible answer to OP's question.

AFAIK, the problem doesn't need to be a full 3D problem at all. Either through a digital terrain elevation database or simply a sync'd target altitude between the different receivers (F-16s in this case), this adds a constraint to the height dimension which could be used to solve the problem. There would be a positional error associated with that, but that error could very well be within the accuracy of other parts of the measurement system. Also, there is no requirements for a single measurement. Assuming a certain "target" or emitter model, such as a static one, we can take multiple measurements where the different position solutions for each combined (over all receivers) measurement can be filtered by their state properties. For example, a target assumed static (as would be the case for an SA-10 search radar for example) should move very little over multiple combined measurements and that movement should be somewhat random since it would be linked to measurement errors and noise. Using @KlarSnow's example, even with 2 receivers, only one of the 2 position solutions for the emitter would stay static over time, the other position solutions (intersections of the circles) would move w.r.t. the position of the receivers, not w.r.t. the position of the emitter only. I might definitely be missing something though, so feel free to correct me.

This was also reported/discussed in:

As far as I've read, you're absolutely right. My apologies for misunderstanding the -34.

Page 1-86C describes what "lockon" means in this context. It is not performed by the WSO and is automatically done to provide ranging information. It is again very similar to the A-4E where the radar scans the range gate until a significant return is detected along the boresight line. It does not do any angle tracking.