deadpool
-
Posts
604 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by deadpool
-
-
they have short and long depress functionality.
Functions are all not implemented yet and range from enabling/ disabling the datalink to sending out targets via datalink.
-
We are united in that neither of us got any fix he had desperately wanted :-)
I have no idea how ED orders the bugs to be fixed.
-
Default belt has no tracers. Change ammo loadout if you want tracers.
Everyone else will see tracers but you. Even from all angles and directions looking at the bullets. I believe this is because for everyone else guns are just always rendered with tracers.
So if you're selecting something other than tracers to be sneaky .. don't .. ^^
-
That is correct, you have the options in the special menu to choose whether you want the hmcs to be display in one eye or in both.
Just for your interest RL pilot only see the info in one eye. In my personal case I started using it with VR when that option (in 2 eyes i mean) was not available yet and now i'm totally accoustumed to it, since in both eyes i got a bit more distracted and is harder for me to spot aircrafts covered by the HMCS layer.
And that's also - to the best of my knowledge - the reason why it's only over one eye for real. To keep the other eye 100% for spotting.
-
Is it? What experience leads you to this conclusion?
He possibly thought something along these lines:
class ExamplePlane { private: 3DCoords[MAX_WPT] _waypoints; public: 3DCoords getWaypoint(int index) { ... } void setWaypoint(int index, 3DCoords waypoint) { ... } } class F16 : public ExamplePlane { private: 3DCoords[MAX_WPT] _TGPwaypoints; public: 3DCoords getTGPWaypoint(int index) { if ( index >= MAX_WPT ) ...; if ( _waypoints[index] == NULL ) ...; if ( _TGPwaypoints[index] == NULL ) _TGPwaypoints[index] = 3DCoords.makeImmutableCopy(_waypoints[index]); return 3DCoords.makeImmutableCopy(_TGPwaypoints[index]); } void CZTGPWaypoint(int index) { if ( index >= MAX_WPT ) ...; if ( _waypoints[index] == NULL ) ...; if ( _TGPwaypoints[index] == NULL ) ...; _TGPwaypoints[index] = NULL; //we have garbage collection, right? ^^ } void setTGPWaypoint(int index, 3DCoords waypoint) { if ( index >= MAX_WPT ) ...; if ( _waypoints[index] == NULL ) ...; if ( _TGPwaypoints[index] == NULL ) ...; _TGPwaypoints[index] = 3DCoords.makeImmutableCopy(waypoint); } }and thought: yeah, that should be fairly simple.
-
I guess the problem is more general than a viper vs hornet scenario, rather that right now viper and hornet are detecting lets say, a mig29 at almost the same distance, while in reality, the hornet should have higher detection range (given same scenario/aspect) based on antena size and power.
MiG29 the other day I didn't see on the scope until it was at about 30nm (hot) in the F-16.
-
WCMD is given assumed wind conditions over 1760 bus as part of the information download before release. There would be no reason to do that if the dispenser didn't offset its burst point upwind to correct for submunition drift.
It doesn't in the A10. So it certainly won't in the F16.
-
Oh .. symbology and TWS in this game's Viper is interesting. You need a magification glass to figure that out. Given that you pick targets up at 40nm and your closure rate is FAST for a good launch, you don't have much time. Hurry! :-D
-
When you are using Tpod, the weapon system should only take consideration of that "spi" Tpod provides. When you return to Nav mode, makes more sense your waypoints are in there own position, that is what CZ would do anyway.
Welcome to the Viper, my friend.
It's a preliminary status of the TPOD and it is being worked on.
Improving the TPOD was actually one of few points that are supposed to happen this year for the Viper. So you might still get the proper TPOD /CZ / Delta-slewing in 2020!
-
I don't presume to know what was specifically ask but I interpreted it in such a way that the question was:
What does the ownship RCS has to do with the ownship radar dish size/power.
It would only make sense if you put viper against hornet and if it's head-on then I guess they would see each other at pretty much the same range.
If that was the question. But my answer is just a guess anyways.
-
Well, I had about 3-5° changes in flight vector from throttling up and down. But I guess that's not it.
If you don't have a track file, could you make a video of it?
-
I think the hornet is planned to have it, too.
So once it's on the hornet, you know it's a step closer to being on the F-16.
-
I have written a mission which involves an F-16 taking off from Sukhumi, flying north over the sea at low-level (250 ft 420kias, before coasting in north of Sochi to attack Maykop - the load is a C/L tank, and 8 Snake-Eyes.
I have flown this mission about 4-5 times, and each time I have experienced the same phenomenon. As I cross the hills, the ac starts to suddenly and randomly pitch down. The pitch is fairly severe, but very short lived and now that I am used to it quite controllable, although I give hill tops a greater margin that normal. After 3-5 minutes it tapers off and eventually disappears. The effect is similar to a terrain-following radar, except that this pitch is down and not up.
Because it happens around 20 minutes into the sortie, any Track that I try to check on, has long since flown the ac into the sea. I use the autopilot over the sea but disengage it before turning to coast-in.
Can anyone suggest a possible cause for this, or has anyone experienced anything similar?
Have you reduced your speed before crossing the mountain?
-
Wow.. I'm sure that will be super helpful, in the premier SEAD platform in DCS... :cry:
premier SEAD platform in DCS? You mean the Hornet?
With the HARM in the Hornet you apparently even get a box indication on your HUD where the target is (minus range). You just slew the TGP on that and then can do classic attacks. Essentially using the HARM as HTS.
-
Granted it is for the APG-66, but you have to realize you arent gonna double the detection range just from better electronics, not over this kind of timespan anyway. To get that much of a boost you are going to need a bigger radar dish/higher power, and at least as far as the dish is concerned the APG-66 and 68 are the same.
EDIT: also you have to realize that in addition to the F-15/18s bigger more powerful radars, they have HPRF, while the APG-68 is MPRF only afaik. This will really hurt detection ranges vs hot targets.
The F-16s radar automatically switches between MPRF and HPRF automatically.
We definitely have HPRF. But I am open for sources.
-
We have this from this doc:
There are also a few other sources, such as the Forecast International's archive for the APG-66(V)2, which in detection range should be fairly similar to the 68(V)5 we have. And it lists a range (presumably against fighter sized targets) of 24-36nm lookdown, and 29-48nm for lookup.
Also, source for that 10% figure?
Page 10 shows that this isn't even about the AN/APG68 at all.
It's about the AN/APG66 for the F-16 and the AN/APG65 for the F-18.
I will try to find the 10% source.
-
Many DCS F-16 users swtich to Hornet and don't fly anymore, but ED seem to be updating the F-16 as seen in GOLAN STRIKE video
Just out of curiosity. What have you "seen" in the golan strike video that told you the F-16 was being updated?
I am not asking to be negative, but because I might truly have missed it.
-
Firstly, in terms of detection range, the Viper radar should actually be well below the F-18. There are various sources that confirm this, and its pretty obvious when you consider dish size and power. Now in DCS, its way too good actually, and will pick up targets almost as far as the hornet. As for the "struggling with its contacts", could you provide more detail? What range is it struggling? Is this struggling in the form of loosing lock? If its past 40nm yes I have found it to be a bit finicky detecting and keeping a lock on targets. Inside 40nm I rarely have any issues tho.
The F-16 radar seems to have a hard limit of 20nm for cold contacts. If it really is supposed to be lower than that, I'll have to think the Viggen is better tasked for A/A BVR.
Also the numbers I saw for the time being indicate a less than 10% smaller detection range for the F-16 AN/APG-68. Though I am not sure if it is the (9) version which we don't get, or the (5) version.
I'm glad to see this solidified with sources, as I don't seem to find any reliables online.
BR,
Deadpool
-
So what's fair?
Financially? I think purchasing the license to the module should end right there. You have the ability to purchase at any time after ED allows you to hit the buy button. You can buy during EA, and you can wait until full release. Also... you could wait until after that to be sure the product is as polished as you are willing to accept.
Let's talk availability.
The multiplayer community is on open beta. So if you want that, you have to go open beta.
Now as for the your Early access you can buy when you want argument. That is quite true.
The only modern jet out of EA is the Mirage2000. So that's the only one you could buy.
Everything else is in EA. So if you want to participate, you have to buy EA.
Thank you for explaining me the theoretical freedom we have here.
What is the community's part in fostering a good open communication relationship with ED? I've gone over what ED's part is... and they haven't been perfect at it. The community's part is to be respectful, realistic and forgiving.
Please have a look at the F-16 forum where forum posts with people that feel - I think very understandably - deserted and left alone get closed and/or moved.
Yet at the same time you will not get comments on defects posts, so posts where you actually try to HELP ED do get a much slower response and you usually feel like you have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that you're correct.
I opened a forum post with a friendly plea to get some comment on the communication there, and it got moved away into the wishlist, without any comment.
It feels bad, man. It feels very unappreciated.
And if you want to have ED's higher ups commenting, you have to go to hoggit anyways.
-
My track file sadly seems to be broken after a short while and would be over 2 hours long in total. Sadly not useful.
So, I can provide a track file if track file generation is fixed ^^
-
I asked for a bit of change in communications. (a bit more feedback on defects, etc.) instead of being fast mainly with closing or moving threads.
But the thread itself got moved into wishlist and is now kind of aging there:
-
Normal overhead after a normal 2h training. Coming in high for reasons!
-
Sometimes if a missile goes pitbull, instead of getting the (M) on the RWR for the missiles radar, you will just see the launch platform (even if it's turned cold) appear as "I'm shooting at you in STT like a Fox1" ..
-
Please guys.
If this thread ends up about that topic instead it's going to be closed again.
I meant it honestly when I posted this and would like some response.
So far sadly the thread was just moved to the wish list part of them forum without comment.
And I am not trying to interpret that as an act of satire.
Upcoming updates for the Viper
in DCS: F-16C Viper
Posted
It's ironic that what we seem to want is a new date, after the old date was completely not held :-)