toilet2000

Great post Beamscanner! I'm curious if the tracking algorithms of radars use only a motion model like you seem to imply. Considering the Hornet's radar is capable of NCTR, I would assume some kind of appearance model (based off of the return waveform or the likes) could be use to enhance tracking and discriminate between closely spaced and maneuvering targets.

One of the use of that is something that I found to want to be able to do often: Whenever a target goes defensive and notch the target, it is often possible to still see it on the TCS (especially in narrow FOV) if below 40-50 nm. It still tracks the target with TCS but no radar track is available. Switching the radar to Pulse mode and slaving it to the TCS should therefore permit reacquisition of the target. So even outside of a jamming environment, this option would be quite useful.

The Kiowa Warrior does have a laser designator that can designate for other LSS/T and laser guided weapons (LGBs and Mav E's) IIRC.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=250863 Already reported.

Thanks Santi! @NineLine I added a track (as short as I could make it) to the original post!

I will try and make one as soon as possible! :)

That's weird, I have a worse config than yours and performance is ok (I'm not experiencing micro stutters). My specs: i5-8600K@5GHz, 32 GB CL16 3200MHz, RTX2070 (slightly OC'd), running on an NVMe SSD (4x). Are you running with MSAA?

Re-center your screen. You're looking the wrong way! (Numpad 5 by default IIRC)

As with the Hornet's LTWS (though it was partially fixed), the SAM mode of the radar displays symbology relative to the HUD frame, not World coordinates. As such, the TD box moves with the aircraft, but should stay pointing in the same "world" direction (at least updated as fast as the INS/Air Data Computer can update the pitch ladder/orientation). This makes SAM almost useless during any kind of basic maneuvering (a 15 degree bank will throw the box far away from the real target due to the lower refresh rate of SAM). See this Hornet bug thread for a good explanation: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=238656 f-16_SAM_box_bug.trk

The last one is still on Saturday, contrary to what the person I responded to said.

Last one was Saturday at like 10:00 GMT-4, not Sunday.

Here's what it says: It is in regard to a post (closer to an essay, both worth a read) made by a hoggit user. It was clearly laid out, generally respectful and I think he put on words what the general feeling was for a lot of people, but in a well worded and constructive manner.

Nah, this can be seen as a "transparency" paper. I've been on Polychop's Discord for a while, and that paper translates really well the general feeling of being there. Bug reports are either blantantly denied (e.g. the mouse-controlled camera for the minigun that does not work in VR, but supposedly that's a "feature"), or simply brushed off with "we'll fixed everything in the future, be patient" but without any actual fixes coming up. EDIT: on top of that, fixes that are said to be "in the hands of ED" while a community member proves that it is not the case just goes on to say that these community put effort backing up the point they're trying to make.

Yeah it shouldn’t be picked up at all. The limited range is due to scattering, so a floating designation point makes no physical sense. And I remember linking some public data on older targeting pod (like the LANTIRN) having a range requirement for designation of 15 nm, with newer pod being like 20. I’ll try finding those links again.

In Afghanistan? Sure, they’re basically flying CAS only. In Desert Storm? Nope. They’re actually actively searching for targets in the desert. This is where the AG radar is super useful. That, and low-level night strikes, which haven’t been used as a tactic since Desert Storm (because it just makes no sense to do so when your target might have at best an old rusty MANPAD).

The biggest problem with that point of view arises from "new school" pilots that have almost never used the AG radar because they mainly did low intensity CAS with all the intel they needed and with possible collateral damages. AG radar doesn't really serve any purpose in low intensity asymmetric warfare. In a full-blown war where targets are moving, strikes happen in the middle of the night or during bad weather, where big infrastructure are targeted, a AG radar is definitely an invaluable tool. There's a reason why every single attack aircraft (except light attack and CAS aircrafts like the A-10) nowadays have AG radars. An AG radar gives you: - AGR: ranging info, solving the height of target problem - RBM: mapping through inclement weather and target detection - DBS1 or 2: higher detail, "zoomed in" view of a patch, in which you can see parked aircrafts or hangars for example, with a lock capability - SAR (the F-16 doesn't have that though): range-independent even more "zoomed in" (except at close range) view with better details - GMTI: automatic detection and tracking of moving targets on ground, e.g. detecting a convoy or a tank line moving - TF/TA: terrain following (giving a curve generally coupled with autopilot for low-level flight) and terrain avoidance ("contour" plot of terrain above, at and below the airplane) - SEA: Similar to GMTI but for targets at sea (does not need to be moving in this case) Example of use case: - Finding a convoy - Detecting SCUD launchers in the desert - Targeting an outpost - Low-level strike - Strike with less than ideal intel - Strike in a 80s scenario (where satellite imagery was more difficult to obtain or simply unavailable) - Anti-shipping/anti-piracy - Search and rescue And the list goes on.

I don't know what's happening, but for me the Lysbomb just aren't working. I got to release them, but they didn't emit any light.

Can't wait to try and get that thing to continue flying while doing my troubleshooting master technique: turning every switch off and on again. Honestly, I can't wait to fly that thing! :)

Yep, same for me. I'd rather get the module sooner with WIP textures than latter. I'm much more ok with WIP textures than WIP systems to be honest.

I’m sorry but it’s not a feature request. The current implementation is extremely buggy in VR and just not usable.

The best way to contact the devs (I think there’s only one or two left or active) is via their Discord. Although the only thing they reply to bug reports is "we will try and take a look" or "we have other priorities."

From what has been released in terms of info and in-game demos, I trust Deka much more than other third parties in releasing a good product. For once it's not all flashy trailers (cool, but useless at actually demoing what the module is) and stupid hype trains. They're showing they can do a good job at simulating a module (ground radar, MITL CK missile, FCS/FM demos) rather than a good job at making videos and choosing the right image filter and music.

The Walleyes we’re getting, like some people said, are much newer datalink capable weapons. They’re man-in-the-loop capable and the launching aircraft can offload the targeting to another aircraft (eg orbiting safely away from the target). Much more interesting than a Mav missile.

One small thing about rule 1.15 that I think the team doesn’t get: Comparing how systems are implemented in other games is indeed pointless, but here’s an example that isn’t and IMO should be allowed: X game has Y implementation, and I’ve seen Z performance increase, this would be interesting to see in DCS. Naming X game gives a reference. Right now it’s incredibly difficult and frustrating to reference game mechanics and visuals/performance, because we can’t reference any game. Eagle Dynamics is still making games (no professional flight sim, at least not DCS) and a such, I think it is fair to say that we should be able to talk about other games and reference them (specifically on video game-related things). This is so ED can have access to the best info its community can give.

The reason why this is "beyond the scope" is that those percentages are exactly that: percentages, not units. Doesn't matter what you're working with, as long as it acts like most metals: a first mostly elastic deformation (up until yield strength) and then a plastic deformation part (up until ultimate strength). If say you're at 150% load limit with both an aluminum structure and a titanium structure, the actual strain (in units) might be at 70 kpsi for the alu structure and 128 kpsi for the titanium structure. Below Average's comment was just a general rule of thumb on strain and deformations caused to airframes over-g'ing.