deadpool
-
Posts
604 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by deadpool
-
-
3 hours ago, KlarSnow said:
MIDS voice has nothing to do with the ARC-210, separate systems completely
Roger. Thanks for the feedback.
-
Another mission feedback from a technical point of view.
We try to fly realistic missions. Today I was part of a package with CAP/SEAD mission. SAMs weren't always active, but turned on and off during the mission. Parts of the SAMs were at prebriefed positions, parts not.
One consistent thing was, that you had problems nagging you. I don't think there is nothing beside PvP that might actually work as intended half decently.
Here is my writeup:
Overall issues: - Readability MFDs, especially altitudes of contacts and TWS notations. - Cluttering of the HSD page with overlapping SAM circles that ultimately lost to a degredation of SA, especially where which waypoints were located. - Inability to hook waypoints on the HSD page with the cursor, leading to manual flipping through to find the right waypoint for a potential SAM site. - SAM sites or AI air contacts locking someone still lead to RWR warnings everywhere on the map. This causes complacency in pilots ignoring those calls as they are desensitised. (this has been an issue for A LONG time) - Betty telling you "CHAFF FLARE" when you're not really dropping flares as you have deactivated them. Specific issues: - HARM in F-16 did not show 11/SD even though RWR did see it and show it. Not even after a full scan cycle with the aircraft pointing at the site (which was launching missiles). - HARMs in the F-16 fly towards the waypoint they were meant to in PB mode, but then make a 90° turn to head for a totally different SAM site. - HARM turned itself off in flight. Was active on the SMS page, but WPN page showed that it was off. - CAP flight was guiding an AMRAAM and flicked into DGFT mode, losing lock and trashing the missile. This defect is reported from December 2019 and was "as intended" until this year.
(oh and the second SA-2 was only briefly on .. so it got detracted from the actual site and then couldn't hit the other one as it overflew it harmlessly)
-
2
-
1
-
-
Just for confirmation. That will stay the say the same even with us getting the AN/PRC-210 that the hornet's use?
-
Screenshot while it's here
-
3
-
-
There is so much wrongness here in the last few posts. I can't even. Please continue.
-
On 4/28/2021 at 9:07 AM, =52d= Skip said:
Your Bombs collide, explode and in doing so frag (User Name checks out here
) your Plane.
And there are people that wish for greater Splash Damage. Or Airburst Fuzes - can you believe it?
You can avoid that if you consider to either up your spacing - 75Ft and more works well - or bring just 2 TER´s on the outer Pylon.
Bug or Feature?
That greatly depends on your point of view. Arming delay is not simulated by ED, thus the Fanbois will tell you that this is a missing feature at best. Move to "Wishlist" please.
Then again - Bombs colliding does happen in RL as does premature Explosion; so it´s actually added realism
You decide.
I don't have the limits for release in front of me. But for release or jettison events there is a sequencer that will take care that stuff doesn't bump into each other. A lot of care and a lot of trials are flown to prevent these things from happening!
So if it's an acceptable loadout dropped in the limits for release-parameters, then it should not collide.
That said: The F-16 is EA, I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't taken into account, yet. But I'm still happy about the bugreport, as it serves as a reminder of what still needs to be fixed. Just don't expect a quick fix soon.
-
On 5/25/2021 at 3:24 AM, G.J.S said:
The F-16 (for myself anyway) is one aircraft that exhibits good persistence, two bags being good for a very long run.You really don’t need to be firewalling the throttle all the time chap.
As for checking tank contents, look for this panel down by the HSI . . .
you can turn the selector and select a tank group, and look at the fuel gauge on the right for the readout on the needle.
That selector knob should be part of a pre-flight checklist anyways
On 5/25/2021 at 4:05 AM, SCPanda said:BTW, the Viper uses very little fuel if you cruise at 23000-35000 ft in mil power. Use your fuel flow indicator, it's very helpful. I also recommend set your DED to bingo page (list 2) so you can monitor your fuel better during air to air combat.
I also had some nice experiences with just CT at 35+' in lower regime AB. Surprisingly good economy for a constant supersonic cruise.
3 hours ago, Kayos said:I always go three bags and jet the centerline when I reach altitude because it doesn't last long
Given a pretty deterministic ascension profile, there is one poor farmer who's land now looks like this:
-
4
-
-
On 5/23/2021 at 8:58 PM, Bunny Clark said:
The primary factor that determines the outcome of any air-to-air engagement is the pilot, not the aircraft. Yes, each aircraft has advantages and disadvantages, but a skilled pilot will know how to fight with the plane they are in to it's strengths while avoiding it's weaknesses. Both the Viper and the Hornet are capable BVR fighters, but each has strengths in slightly different areas. Neither is really better than the other, just different. Survival in BVR combat means playing to those strengths, and in DCS it makes some sense to fly the aircraft with strengths that most closely match the way you want to play. Others here have done a good job describing each aircraft's capabilities, pick the one you think sounds like the most fun.
That's a common legend, but not entirely true. The YF-16 was indeed intended as a lightweight purebred dogfighter, but the role changed before the design was even finalized. The F-16 was a purpose-built multirole strike fighter before the first production aircraft came off the assembly line.
To be pedantic, the Hornet replaced the F-4, A-4, and A-7. Hornets served along side F-14s for decades. The Tomcat was replaced by the Super Hornet.
Also an interesting fact and maybe something to "unite" the Hornet and Viper enthusiasts in mind even more: They were born out of the same program. The Hornet has it's beginnings in the YF-17 for that very same program that the YF-16 competed in. And both planes were taken to more diverse directions afterwards!
3 hours ago, Kev2go said:PRF does not have the option be changed manually in the APG68 , Its automatic cycles based on radar mode.
IIRC HI PRF is only able to used on VS mode, but even then it interleaves with MPRF . otherwise RWS/,TWS are M PRF only
While most Viper documents are so readily available, the -34-1-1 isn't. Would be cool to know for sure, though.
2 hours ago, Exorcet said:They're both smaller radars, essentially in a similar class. The Hornet's is stronger but not by much as far as I'm aware. I think for the Hornet to really shine over the Viper DCS would need some better ECM modeling as the better radar would compound with an internal jammer.
Not only ECM sadly, but also RCS.
I have no idea how it is in 2.7 but modelling RCS based on a fixed value per plane (that is grossly squashed into unrealistic values) and then *maybe* adding a modifier for aspect to it is nowhere near what should be done in the 2000s.
Option 1:
Take the plane, use simple radar equations (the russians should know https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Ufimtsev) to get RCS values automated for every 10° in AZ and EL.
Store that in a matrix and have that loaded together with the airframe (once per airframe-type on the server).
This gives you a quick-lookup option for a proper RCS from any angle.
Option 2:
Take the plane, use simple radar equations (the russians should know https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Ufimtsev) to get RCS values automated for every 10° in AZ and EL.
Do this on the fly during loadout changes!
Store that in a matrix and have that loaded together with the airframe (once per airframe(-loadout combo) on the server).
This gives you a quick-lookup option for a proper RCS from any angle including stuff like fueltanks added etc.
This would be a fantastic work to give out to a masters student in physics / computational sciences that wants to graduate in a company over topics like physics, rendering, radar and stuff while having a meaningful impact.
----
And to contribute some facts to the debate: The hornet has a bigger RCS, that will also play a factor in when someone is picked up.
But this is not a peeing contest on paper
If you look at previous conflicts with airforces that didn't have the training standard of the USA (or comparable nations), you will see that BVR timelines and tactics were not that great and their pilots paid for that.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Bankler said:
The Litening has been carried on the cheek station on USMC Hornets. Though it is extremely rare. I don't really have an opinion on whether it should be a thing in DCS or not (doesn't really matter much when we have the ATFLIR). In general though, I kind of like it when ED leaves plausible things like these in the hands of the players (just like they let us carry fancy infrared Mavericks on our Hornets) instead of disabling them on their end. If it's technically possible I tend to vote for allowing the players to enjoy it, even if it's not really a thing operationally IRL. Granted it doesn't eat up development time from other things (which it doesn't in this case, as it's already in there).
Not plausible for the year our Hornet was build and to when it was updated. The wiring for the adapter wasn't there. I layed it out in the defect thread.
-
4 hours ago, Bunny Clark said:
USAF Vipers pretty much run two wing tanks 100% of the time in combat loadouts. Wouldn't be much reason not to take the wing tanks for A/A, since you can't put missiles on those stations. Unless you were planning on getting into a fight very close to your base, which isn't something that really happens to the USAF ever these days.
Right now there isn't much reason not to take a centerline tank other than weight and drag, there isn't much else we can do with that station. When we get the jammer pod, then it'll be a tradeoff.
Not sure about G loadings with empty tank on centerline. I'd love to be educated on this!
(empty tanks on wing I know)
-
1
-
-
are you flying in VR?
In VR you might be experiencing a stronger adverse effect due to the so called moiré effect. This is reported already.
-
1 hour ago, Strider1_Trigger said:
One of the biggest problem I have with the F-16 is that it has poor fuel endurance. I had several incidences that I'm running low on fuel in the middle of an air to air engagement and having to disengage and RTB because I left the afterburner running for too long (I blame War Thunder for this /s). I usually run two fuel tanks so I'm wondering whether running three fuel tanks is worth it. Also, how do I when a fuel tank is empty so that I can jettison it?
I have no idea with what loadout you are flying or what speeds you do. The F-16 has very very long legs and that's with just 1 centerline tank and/or 2 wingtanks.
22 minutes ago, Mower said:Where ever the Vipers go, tankers are not far behind. Its a race car. Fast but crappy endurance.
No kicking ass without tanker gas, but still .. definitely not a bad endurance!
Maybe OP can upload a Tacview file of how is flying?
-
2
-
-
/bump
One can see in my videos that it's not JHMCS alone, but lagging / losing lock in HUD as well.
This happens just in the Viper, not in the Hornet. This is also not connected to line of sight change as can also clearly be seen in the videos.
-
4
-
-
This video is also a good example of how well the lock is established in a dogfight.
Since this bug report got squashed as "correct as is":
I have to assume that the entire greek video must be fake! /sarcasm
-
6
-
-
On 4/17/2021 at 11:52 PM, AvroLanc said:
No it won't.
Still realistic for a Spanish Hornet (although the rest of the aircraft isn't equivalent to an EF-18, but anyway). Also, sort of authentic for a USMC Hornet.
I filed a bugreport about station 4 though.
But I look forward to the G limitations for carrier ops being taken into consideration for the damage model.
-
On 5/23/2020 at 8:49 PM, Ahmed said:
What I wonder is how the F-16's HTS is going to turn up.
More: When ^^
On 5/23/2020 at 10:44 PM, hein22 said:Yeap, you're right. However, how sure are we about how it should work in that regard? Maybe signal intensity isn't something the RWR wants to show the pilot. Are we certain that IRL it is that way? We'll never know.
According to this book: https://books.google.de/books?id=RjZTqYTEADYC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false American RWR are suggested to be programmed also for mission profiles. It sounded in the book as if high altitude missions would classify threats that can't reach that high differently then when flying a mission with lower level altitude parts.
I am not sure if modern RWRs aren't connected to altimeters etc. to make those decisions more or less fluidly, but the book at leasts suggests a pre-programming of such a kind before the mission starts.
On 5/25/2020 at 12:33 AM, Bunny Clark said:From what we know, ED has to walk a fine line between national laws (Russian MoD), other national governments (mostly the USA), international laws (ITAR), private corporations (Boeing, ect), and individual air arms (USAF, ect). At every level they seem to have regulations or agreements on what can and cannot be modeled, and what documents they are and are not allowed to use. It's possible that on a granular level any agreement ED has with Boeing to develop the Hornet may or may not have any bearing on Northrop Grumman and LITENING development, for example. To make matters more complicated, third party developers are only subject to some of the same restrictions ED is, and have their own relationships with organizations at different levels. It's not remotely surprising that this results in a somewhat convoluted and difficult situation to both explain and understand. I'm guessing even NineLine doesn't have the full picture of the contracts and politics that dictate these things behind the scenes.
I wish ED were more open about the restrictions they are under, but it's probably prudent that they are not, and it's possible they simply aren't allowed to be.
Don't forget the folks on the forums here that want "balance" and such.
-
Just now, Stearmandriver said:
This, uh... is a video game ;).
So again, if you want your Hornet to not have a pod on the cheek, why can't you just not put a pod on the cheek? Why would this seem to require some response from the devs?
I answered it here:
39 minutes ago, deadpool said:It's not up to me to decide whether this will be taken out of the game or not. I know that historical accuracy has been an important topic especially for the F-16CM modelled in DCS.
I simply gave realistic input on the situation in the hope of making the overall game a bit more realistic.
But I understand that you do not necessarily want a realistic FA18C then. Noted. I don't need to argue with you then, because we have different ideas about what this games goals are.
Most important though is what ED's goals are. As I said, my suspicious are that they wante it as realistic as can be. If I am mistaken, then I'll accept that and not bother with any further reports on realism. But I am quite sure that my perspective is more in line with ED's than yours. No offense.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Hulkbust44 said:
Wait, this is contradictory to what you were previously saying. Now you are saying that we should have x because it was added later and the 2005/2007 Hornet is the "minimum"?
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
No it is not.
The Hornet ingame is - according to the post from ED I quoted - in a state from ca. 2005.
Now what can that mean?
165407 was build in 1998 (I think).
So assuming it had every upgrade that was available in 1998 and that earlier lot numbers got via upgrade kits it had from the get-go that still leaves the time period of 1998 to 2005 in which it would have been continously upgraded. With which kits, we don't know, but I assumed that we got really really lucky and that it got all of the big and important kits.
Now even if that was the case, there is no chance - except for wrong documentation to congress, failure for me to understand the documents, or violations of causality in this universe that a financial requested enhancement for the FA18C fleet that was thought up and requested in 2007 ended up happening before congress was asked for money for it in 2005. (As said by me earlier, even 2007 itself as a year seems unrealistically short duration between requesting (and not necessarily getting) the money, and then acting upon that with development, test and rollout to the fleet).
While I really have no problem explaining it more, it starts to reach a point where I would expect everyone who takes flying the virtual FA18C seriously and realistically would understand it.
@BIGNEWY might want to close the thread I assume.
-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, Hulkbust44 said:
We have F/A-18C lot 20 165407. This is the last and most modern USN Hornet. (165408 went to VMFAT-101)
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
I understand that, but it's not a factor. Even the 165407 will have been upgraded further with upgrade kits, OSIPs, etc. (as you can read from the financial reports).
This is important alone as to keep the airframe structure flying safely until the FA-18C is replaced fully from US DoD inventory.
The 165407 was build in 1998, right? So it wouldn't have had that capability from the get-go either. So my reported issue stands valid for all I know.
-
It's not up to me to decide whether this will be taken out of the game or not. I know that historical accuracy has been an important topic especially for the F-16CM modelled in DCS.
I simply gave realistic input on the situation in the hope of making the overall game a bit more realistic.
---
that aside: I understand that the Hornet takes a lot of liberties already in terms of availability of certain modules / upgrade kits that were not available in big numbers for the Lot XX F18C in 2005. The one we have in our game is one of the few airframes (most likely United States Navy, as the Marines upgrades always lagged behind a bit) that received almost all of the bigger upgrade kits (which seems to be a very lucky coincidence for those that fly the FA18C in DCS). (You can look through the financial budgets here for more details).
I am not also not here to question the decision to add foreign operated pods (which as I understood it was taken purely for legal matters as for documentation, etc.). That is absolutely understandably answered by NineLine in the post about the pod.
-
3
-
-
duplicate report of by the looks of it
-
Just now, Stearmandriver said:
I believe that, and you're making my point. We don't HAVE a 2005 US Hornet. We don't have ANY particular Hornet. We have A Hornet lol.
What I understand is:
- We have the US Marine Corps / United States Navy Hornet
- We have a spanish TPod for it.
-
2
-
-
42 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:
Well, except for the fact that the Lightening pod ours is modeled after in the first place is Spanish, and other examples...
Point is, our Hornet is a bit of a mishmash of tech from different eras and services. It's just a matter of where data could be found.
Doesn't matter.
What matters is where the umbilical is for the pod to even go. And that's not the Station 4 for 2005/2007 Hornets.
Fun story. The FA18C wasn't able to take advantage of digital connections for the AIM-9X on the wingtips until it received an upgrade to digitalize the wingtips. Before that it would only run in fallback analog modes. Again, the weapon didn't change, it was the pylon / connector that was at fault. Same for the Litening pod connector here.
-
1
-
-
Here is how far we are in 2020 with AI image enhancement:
But this is not something you'll find in the pod, mind you.
Ultimately image enhancement is trying to infer information from where it doesn't exist raw. Either because you know the model very well, or because you don't mind conjecture in the data.
HARM switching itself off during flight
in Bugs and Problems
Posted
Track file is massive. Doesn't make sense to upload it as it's almost at the end of the mission.
Generally speaking: Suddenly the HARM turns itself off, got a WPN off page .. and the missile is on according to the SMS page.
Power cycled the SMS page and it worked again:
Makes no sense and is broken.