Blinky.ben
-
Posts
399 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Blinky.ben
-
-
100% agree, have a special feature turn align off or add this as a standard to all ED modules. Why the hornet being a ED module doesn’t share the same requirements to align MAV’s or have the same level of error in the GBU-38 is odd. Items like these should be across all ED modules to maintain a standard.
-
2
-
-
10 hours ago, Blinky.ben said:
however this has got a little off track, as this post wasn't meant to be about the TGP but just to see if there was a standard between the modules which you have answered. however, one last question for you @NineLine is the plan to implement the 2000+ version of the Lantrin? if it is it sounds like there will be next to no difference between the image and zoom quality anyway.
the 2000 upgrade
- A quantum well, third-generation FliR sensor;
- A 40,000-foot altitude, diode-pumped laser;
- A more compact, more powerful computer system.
2000+ upgrade
- A laser spot tracker to improve target identification and limit collateral damage.
- A digital disk recorder for battle damage assessment and reconnaissance mission support;
- An automatic target recognition system to reduce pilot workload by classifying high-priority targets;
- A TV sensor, which has been successfully tested and flown, provides added capability around the clock.
@Wags does ED know if the Lantirn will be a 2000 upgrade or 2000+ version?
-
however this has got a little off track, as this post wasn't meant to be about the TGP but just to see if there was a standard between the modules which you have answered. however, one last question for you @NineLine is the plan to implement the 2000+ version of the Lantrin? if it is it sounds like there will be next to no difference between the image and zoom quality anyway.
the 2000 upgrade
- A quantum well, third-generation FliR sensor;
- A 40,000-foot altitude, diode-pumped laser;
- A more compact, more powerful computer system.
2000+ upgrade
- A laser spot tracker to improve target identification and limit collateral damage.
- A digital disk recorder for battle damage assessment and reconnaissance mission support;
- An automatic target recognition system to reduce pilot workload by classifying high-priority targets;
- A TV sensor, which has been successfully tested and flown, provides added capability around the clock.
-
2
-
10 hours ago, NineLine said:
LANTIRN was used by most USAF units in 2007. It was not until the later 5.2 OFP that Litening support added. Ours is a 4.2 jet.
Open-source information and through the help with USAF members in the community about the Lantirn is that they tested the Lantirn on the F-16B’s, once approved the F-16C squadrons being blk30/32 40/42 used the Lantirn in the USAF in that time period. There was also a difference between the blk 40's and 42's also, one only carried half the system while the other got the full system mostly due to the war HUD from my understanding. A F-16 engineer for blk 50 said they did not use Lantirns because they mostly had the SEAD role and only used more capable TGP’s, earlier days with litening being lighter and cheaper for SEAD missions which integrated better with the HTS (not one person can speak for all squadrons tho, I’ll give you that), in the end they flew almost exclusively with sniper pods. Creek blk 50’s used the Lantirn unless ED is talking about the Lantirn ER but I know nothing about it, there was a training unit that used the Lantirn in the USAF I have a very lost memory they were blk 50’s but I wouldn’t expect that to be an indication on standard equipment. I 100% am aware I am not a reliable source for information here but I cannot find anywhere that blk 50's in the USAF frontline squadrons used the Lantirn. As do the members in “the viper crew” community helping me out here which is run entirely of F-16 pilots, F-16 ground staff and engineers.
I also found through my travels that the litening was mostly integrated with a Common Configuration Implementation Program (CCIP) which quoted by the program development officer all F-16C blk 50's had commenced their transition in 2002 which also included the full integration of the sniper XR targeting pod, F-16.net - The ultimate F-16, F-22, F-35 reference. someone smarter than me could expand more on this.
-
3
-
-
6 minutes ago, Tholozor said:
TGP on the Viper is not being removed; LITENING is being replaced with LANTIRN.
Yes I meant to say something along those lines. Just slipped through my bad
-
I think this needs to be addressed.
It seems the F-16 requires more documentation/evidence to implement stuff than other ED modules. With the recent news of the F-16’s litening being removed for the Lantirn due to lack of evidence, JDAM’s having an impact error zone that just isn’t being implemented right but will do one day I guess, MAV’s having to be bore-sighted and so on and so on, the list is bigger. yet none of these items are implemented on other ED modules and in fact ED said they do not have the required documentation to to properly implement MAV’s on the F-18 such as bore-sighting so why are MAV’s not being removed from the hornet for the same reason the litening TGP is being removed for the viper?
in the end implement whatever realism you want but just have a standard between the modules.
-
9
-
-
4 hours ago, Pvt Hudson said:
What car is being sold for $1 ? Hint for when you join the real world: none. Cars cost many 1000s to the consumer and they'll likely sell far more per copy than a DCS module.
These guys and gals will be using hardware used to scan textures, record sounds, write code, create 3d models etc, need licences for the software they use, pay rent and other bills if they have physical presence.
How rude of the developers, managers, testers, artists wanting to get paid.
Never mind some profit for the company to conduct future R&D, expand, pay employees for products in early development.
This attitude that all software must be free or $1 is offensive, plain and simple
Lol talk about purposely missing the point. where did @VpR81 say it MUST be $1. They wrote
”In theory, they could sell each copy for $1.”
If you read the whole thing it has a non mistaken context to it, either you agree with it or not is another point. However not once did they say it must be free or $1. No need to be offended for your own reason anymore.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Yeah i put 4 inglas in one huey and zero damage, one even got a direct hit on the tail rotor and still nothing at all was damaged.
-
1
-
-
On 12/7/2022 at 11:11 AM, CybrSlydr said:
I've been using the radio 4-way to work as my brake/rudder control (downward brake, left/right for rudder) before. But I really like twist-axis for rudder control.
They are making a updated version of the Z-axis just don’t know when it will be out but they confirmed it will be more expensive
-
2
-
-
Is there information or a update for this being added? It doesn’t seem to be a Wishlist thing to be honest, if it’s how the radar is meant to work with the information being a available it seems like a fairly important feature to not implement.
-
5
-
-
On 11/12/2022 at 6:35 AM, Crashdown2 said:
I noticed that there are two trim command sets, one for the stick and one for the wheel on the left panel. I have the trim hat set on the hotas and the trim wheel is left alone on the keyboard commands, however when I used the trim hat, the wheel moves as well, even though it's not assigned to it. Is this normal? Could this be our trimming problems?
They are linked because they control the same thing, however the trim wheel I believe allows you to more fine tune the trim.
-
47 minutes ago, Furiz said:
It shows NO RAD cause it waits for you to release TMS Forward, as soon as you release it it should snap the closest target in the ellipse and lock it.
Haven't tested yet tho.
Ok thanks for the info
-
39 minutes ago, NineLine said:
We need tracks guys. If you feel you have an issue, a short track showing what you think is wrong and the expected behavior is needed. Thanks.
As soon as you press TMS forward it instantly shows NO RAD. I’m not having any luck locking in this mode either. It does seem as soon as TMS forward is pressed the Radar is set to quiet mode or similar effect. I will post a trk later today but the Devs will easily replicate this.
-
2
-
-
I’m not sure if this has changed sense the update or I’m doing something wrong, however when I lock a target the laser on I press DLink target and send mem. I target reset then press DLink target vehicle 1 and the yellow DLink ingress then uncage. This never goes back to the target I have selected, it always goes somewhere else. I watched a lot of tutorials to see what I’m doing wrong and can’t figure it out. I used to be able to do this all the time but for the life of me I can’t get it to work sense the last update. Thoughts? Or is this a bug?
edit: I worked out when doing this it will always slew the camera about a mile to the right of the target. Weird!!!
-
26 minutes ago, nickos86 said:
It's the same silly arguments every time... It's political... make vulkan first...
ED invest 3D modelers time to re-create pilot model for their aircraft (F-16/8 at the moment per their statements) - so creating a woman face or black face - ain't that big of a task.
It got nothing to do with vulkan for that matter. Absolutely different engineers.
Moreover, there is nothing political about it. The community contain black people and woman. Be it my daughter that fly's the sim from time to time or anyone else. With that much effort being invested to increase immersion - that is an important feature (BTW, there are black super carrier crew... So it's already on their minds?!).
RAZBAM could be the first one to do it and that could be very cool.
Immersion, are you pretending the F2 view is a drone looking back at the pilot? That is not immersion it’s just political issues being made up. Yes spend the money on staff and time to create a decent engine that performs better for everyone.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, nickos86 said:
I've asked for a female and black pilot models like 5 years ago
Still no progress by ED. Maybe RAZBAM will do it... I guess there are female or black pilots in the sim community...
this is a FLIGHT Sim, this doesn’t have to be turned into a political problem for no reason.
-
6
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, Pede said:
It should be noted that this is a US Army TRADOC website. TRADOC is not 100% reliable when it comes to capabilities and specifications, and that is doubly true for platforms in other branches. Please attempt to avoid using them as a citation for USAF platforms.
it’s a fair statement pointing out that they can be talking about foreign F-15’s for equipment used but suggesting the army are idiots and are wrong about USAF is just strange opinion. Anyway no I plan to keep using an offical US government for information about US equipment.
-
1
-
-
On 7/10/2022 at 10:01 PM, FoxTwo227 said:
Because wikipedia is wrong, USAF Strike Eagles don’t employ SLAM-ER’s
I’m not saying this comment is wrong or right. But the US Military data base expresses a different opinion.
https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/F-15E_Strike_Eagle_American_Multirole_Strike_Fighter_Aircraft
under missiles page, option 3
2x AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER
-
13 minutes ago, scoobie said:
Wheels are great provided you have them
I believe he’s talking about the wheel in the cockpit. It’s on the left side towards the rear. This is the same one I use also after someone mentioned it to me. It trims much more smoothly then the hat trim.
-
1
-
-
So how do we get this planned? Can we run a community vote to feel how much of a interest this could have?
-
Over time the fuel flow increases by itself without any change to altitude or throttle input or change in speed. I have no idea if this is correct or not, I figured it might be related to increase in heat or something but I have no idea.
-
Having the same issue, it’s almost as if the range doesn’t matter, it seems like the white box has to be displayed for awhile before it can be selected. I haven’t actually tested this just more of a observation during a online session.
-
5
-
-
40 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:
Well, 13º vs 14.7º is only about 13% difference ... so, yeah, I find this quite a bit of nitpicking
Other way around would it be the same attitude? Just a statement, No answer required as this will always be considered a biased topic.
however in the Gaming world with members competing would you happily accept your opponent have a 13% advantage which shouldn’t be there?
There is more comments from real proven fighter pilots which are qualified and experienced in both airframes that state the difference between the two is wrong, which aircraft is wrong no one seems to point out which. The problem tho is the F-18 flight data seems to be harder to come across so it would seem ED have had to fudge some numbers for guess work, The F-16 seems to have more data available so it seems they can get closer to the real thing. Now if anyone points out the difference is wrong between the two ED simply shut down the topic and say prove it with data that your not allowed to us to prove anything, so we have a situation where your not allowed to prove the current situation incorrect by the rules created by ED which are for valid reasons.
personally I only fly both in war style servers so guns only fighting means nothing to me but double standards grinds my gears.
-
4
-
-
20 minutes ago, Wile E. said:
I wanted four HARMs on the mission so I could learn the process by repetition. With the HARM launch I did use an excessive amount of afterburner. I needed the afterburner to even get up to 30,000 ft with that load. And with HARMs I read that I should launch them at 30-40,000 ft and supersonic. The mission is launching at an SA-10 site, which easily shoots down the HARMs, so I can go back, land, refuel and rearm, then return to launch more missiles. That also allows me to practice takeoffs and landings. I ended up moving the mission to a closer airfield, so I don't run out of fuel. I now get the Big Bird warning before my gear is even up.
If I'm practicing bombs, guns, or mavericks, I stay subsonic and keep my fuel rate under 10k and can stay in the air for much longer, or fly much farther to the target site.
If your going to do a longer mission with no AAR then you need to more fuel and energy management. If I am doing a similar mission I don’t use afterburner on takeoff, however that comes with other factors to consider. Stay out of afterburner during your climb also, your climb will be slower and once the fuel tank is empty drop it. Climb higher then needed so when your approaching launch zone nose down slightly to gain speed while out of afterburner, then use afterburner only for a short period to get to your desired launch speed. You can get some fairly good range using something like this.
-
1
-
Is The Air To Ground Workflow In The Real F16C Blk50 Really This Clunky......
in DCS: F-16C Viper
Posted
I have markpoint bound to my controller. You can be in any mode doing anything and if you see something I press markpoint then make hud soi. Look at what you want then TMS up and there you have a the location and a wpt set to that point, plus your Tpod will also be looking at the location.