deadpool
-
Posts
604 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by deadpool
-
-
On 4/26/2021 at 2:57 PM, GGTharos said:
Yes, but it may also be possible to remove the filter in such circumstances. Does that actually happen? We don't know.
In the old F-14 radar (also in DCS) it would remove that filter (MLC) if the target is sufficiently above the horizon.
In the F-16 (in DCS) and more modern jets, tankers can notch the radar when flying above you at ranges where I can even do LIDAR with my cockpit flashlight. This as well as the AIM-120 in general is somewhat broken right now. And has been for ages.
-
- Put a cold F-16 on some apron
- Autostart via Win+POS1
- After the Jet is aligned and autostart has set the INS Knob to NAV, go to the INS page (LIST -> 6)
- Press SEQ a 5-6 times and suddenly it will trigger an IFA, and at the least mess up your alignment.
-
HUD projection in front of the new clouds is also kind of the same deal in VR at the moment.
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, Hulkbust44 said:
Could you elaborate on the built in HTS in regards to the Hornet with AGM-88C?
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
I was exaggerating a bit. But in the Hornet the AGM-88C will magically indicate the emitter with quite some precision on your HUD. so you just have to slew your Tpod on it and are good to go for whatever.
There is (or used to be) a thread on the hornets forum about how physics involved for typical radar wavelength, aperture size of the dish inside the 88C, etc. and what the angular errors would be.
-
The Maverick (not unlike the AGM88) feeds a video stream to your video processor in the plane.
Yet you will still see big differences in behaviour between airframes in DCS (A10,FA18,F16). HARMs have an inbuild HTS in the Hornet, Mavericks do auto-boresight alignment in the A10 / FA18 / AV8B. Maybe they are really this different between airframes, maybe some day we will have consistency, which in turn can pave the way for trust in what's modelled.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-
1
-
-
Radar servos are very, very fast. This is from an old AN/APG-66 and you can see the vertical barshifts happen with very low repositioning time.
(53 seconds in)
-
On 5/6/2021 at 10:31 PM, Machalot said:
I don't have a reference in front of me, but it seems like the nozzle opening should also depend on altitude, Mach, and air temperature. Not solely on the thrust lever setting
The reasoning for why the nozzle was opening and not going for a more optimal constricted form that I have heard is that this would cause pressure and more importantly temperatures to climb too high inside the engine.
-
-
2 hours ago, Machalot said:
Yeah, I posted quickly on my phone from a campsite, and in hindsight what I wrote was pretty stupid in response to @deadpool.
All good, mate.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 5/4/2021 at 12:27 PM, ebabil said:
I wonder how new feature implementations are going.
Since the hornet has got what it should get in terms of features, engineers, coders should be employed on viper as ED said.
This is essentially a list of changes (excluding minor fixes for things) of end of 2019 till now:
Quote14.04.2021
Added EOM (Equation of Motion submode) and PB (Pre-Briefed mode) for POS Mode HARM17.12.2020
Added POS (Position) mode, RUK (Range Unknown) submode for the AGM-88C HARM04.11.2020
AGM-65G/D/H/K adding missing options (let's just say that the mavs never really reliably worked, though)
Boresight (BSGT) option
Uncage (allow Maverick gyro to complete 30 seconds earlier)
It is possible to lock on with two missiles prior to launching the first missile23.09.2020 Mavericks and Harms!
Added AGM-65D/G/H/K26.09.2020 TGP Litening
15.07.2020
Crash when adding new waypoints fixed!02.06.2020
Added ability to create new waypoints.19.05.2020
FCR Hostiles returning Friendly - Fixed19.03.2020
Fixed Dogfight Mode (I highly doubt that, you will find lots of forum thread entries regarding how radar tracks lag and aren't useful)13.02.2020
Added EEGS Level 5 gunsight
19.12.2019
3D cockpit model. Eliminated some gaps and stitches in the forward part of the cockpit.
3D model. Corrected wing flex animation with lights and pylons.
As you can see the big ones are (as were promised) New waypoints on the go + Litening Tpod + Mavericks and Harms in 2020. Those were "our" three big updates.Now it's been 8 months since anything big hitting the F-16 (minus the clouds, which are awesome, but more of a general thing).
We haven't had such a "calm" period since ever ..
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Machalot said:
I appreciate the speculation and assumptions, it's fun to come up with ideas and possibilities, but I was asking a real pilot for the actual answer.
Bittersweet, dude.
-
4 minutes ago, Machalot said:
That's interesting.
What method do pilots use to rendezvous with tankers IRL?
You could google for AJP 3.3.4.2 as a document.
You have a described catalogue of rendezvous procedures ranging from ground based radar, using ranging information together with your stopwatch to figure out an approximate derivation to target, ownship radar, etc.
But if you can ask AWACS, easiest thing.
Otherwise a good kneeboard would contain also the trackinfos of the tankers, or you even had a steerpoint or two to spare. Heck .. later into early access you'll even be able to draw the tanker track as a fancy dashed line if you feel so inclined.
-
Just now, ZeroReady said:
I have heard this before, maybe about the Y band. But in DCS the A10, F14, F16, and AV8B all give azimuth to the tanker. Is that really not accurate to IRL TACAN?
Technically one side would need a rotating antenna for that. (or multiple antennas which are electronically steered to "fake" the rotation without the moving parts).
-
11 hours ago, spinbirdman said:
Really? I didn't know that.
I'll change the tanker and revert back asap.
Thank You
Edit: It worked like a charm, I didn't know of this bug.Thank You Once again!
I think in this case you have been classically razbamboozled
-
On 4/23/2021 at 10:17 AM, Youda said:
Be glad the switch increases the permited G load only to about 9. In F-14 you can still turn 17 Gs
In F-15 12.
If the F-15 (F100?) was with full cockpit you'd also have everyone pull the VMax every time.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Mover said:
Air to Air Tacans are DME only, no azimuth.
True for IRL and thanks for pointing this out!
Not much support for some of the RVs in DCS sadly.
Yet within the constrains of DCS, the tankers seem to have the (electronically) rotating bit of the TACAN-installation as well. It should be removed for realism sake, yet if it is left in, it should work correctly, which it didn't.
-
-
On 5/3/2021 at 7:27 PM, Lace said:
Why would you fly beyond Vne? Why would you need that? It's hardly essential to model as it is something you should be going out of your way to avoid. If you want realism, then fly to the prescribed limits and you won't have those issues. They are hardly a priority as most users will never put their aircraft in that state to begin with. This is a discipline issue, not a modelling issue.
Personally I would consider flying beyond Vne if I otherwise die. It would be not on the top of my list. It would be a conscious decision.
Very much like overriding the G-limiter in the Hornet or vmax in the F-15 (irl).
In the F-16 you are not being pampered, you are the brains of the operation, you need to keep it in shape. You have no G-limiter, but you yourself have to know the loadout remaining and it's G-tolerances and fly accordingly. Same with speed.
If you want to fly realistically, start doing all the stuff that's not required, but realistically good for you now. Check cabin pressure when climbing, keep an eye on speed, keep an eye on Gs, etc. Do that fighter pilot stuff. It's incredibly rewarding!
-
1
-
-
My intention with this thread was - contrary to some other postings of me - not to be passive aggressive, but just to give a feedback on how I subjectively were affected during a mission that was aiming to be realistic. Just to help ED with seeing how even small bits might interconnect with other stuff in prolonged missions.
I am sorry it took such a turn tbh. Even though I can understand the individual posts.
-
1
-
-
On 4/27/2021 at 2:11 PM, 104th_Blaze said:
I think this is a problem of the HMD refresh rate for some reason. If you lock someone, even at long ranges ( 30 nm+ ) and the target dives aggressively you will see roughly up to date target designation on your HUD. However if you do the same thing while in a crank, monitoring visually the target designation box on the HMD he will lag behind.I can double check later on but I'm about 90% sure that I looked into this in the near past and this is what I found and it is rather odd. If the radar mech was so slow to not keep up with the target maneuvers you would alltogether lose lock much more likely than just have a lag, especially for such extended periods.Edit: hmm, looks like it's actually struggling the most when you're also maneuvering hard.. at longer ranges the HMD seems fairly stable, but when you pull hard the HMD will get pretty jumpy and can be off the location too.
I have the problem in the HUD as well though. Not only HMD.
-
It's a given that FLIR isn't perfect. (We don't have any of the environmental effects of desert, etc.) but it's weird how different it is from airplane to airplane, even with the same pod.
And my suspicion with the F-16 is that it's the "raster" effect on the MFDs that also plays a huge part there, together with what Antialiasing and other things do with the textures then.
-
Part of the problem is the weird autogain at the moment / contrast setting, but also the moire effect that comes from simulating a pixel display:
-
We try to fly realistic missions. Today a whole lot of fluid situations developed, so the F-16 flight of which I was a part of had some changing tasks, which made it interesting.
One consistent thing was, that in almost every phase of the flight, you had problems nagging you, culminating with something big time in the A/A-engagement that was midway.
Here is my writeup, of what I'd usually present my crew chief with (in a different form of course):
QuoteOverall issues:
- Readability MFDs, especially altitudes of contacts and TWS notations.Specific issues:
+44m Tanker refueling:
- Tacan shows tanker position slightly left even though the distance is correct and the tanker is right at my right side HUD
- Tanker navlights are well visible in daytime, Tanker refueling guidance lights are not visible at all right side or for left side not very well. (this is a reported bug)+1h18m Engagement:
- AMRAAM missiles do not hit properly, get "notched" very easily (while ownship radar still picks up the target perfectly well and stays on target) and they most importantly do not reaquire.
(theoretically a Sparrow would have had a higher pK at the moment as ownship radar maintained a good lock)
+1h24m Engagement:
- AIM9X uncaged and slewed to radar target, got good tone, but flies entirely straight and misses the target
- Radar lock on target lagging a lot, allowing no good gun solution, and actually working against scoring hits at that moment and is only the case with the F-16 (this is a reported bug)
- Situations right before the merge where ownship radar would not pick up any targets, even when antenna elevation was correct. AWACS meanwhile had clear track of them.+1h26m Hunting the remaining hostile:
- Having the target locked up and running away. Then seeing him turn, and knowing I'm out of missiles, I want to get the DGFT mode ready. Radar then drops lock and I have to painfully try to reaquire the target as it's turning to meet me. (this is a reported bug)+1h40m Second tanker refueling:
- Tanker was in co-alt or high altitude situation, but was "notching" our radar at 20nm.+2h15m Entering target coords into DED:
- Accidentally entered E5 into the lat field, this stucks up the DED allowing no further input, not even RCL to get out of the field and restore the previous value. Dobber left + complete retry is necessary.
- After having entered the coordinates, a waypoint change is necessary to get the Tpod to pull the changed coordinates (this is a reported bug)+2h25m Attacking the ground targets:
- Indication of where the waypoint is located was not correct in HUD, but displaced a few hundred feet, not sure of Tpod should be looking at the point of impact in STRF mode. (this is a reported bug)
- Visibility through TPod especially in TV mode is horrible. Lack of contrast and the moire effect is the biggest problem. (this is a reported bug)This is just a writeup, I understand that not many people will be interested in reading this, but let this be a documentation of how the F-16 is currently experienced by those that try to fly realistic missions with it and not go airquaking (which is just as valid of an occupation!)
-
7
-
1
-
-
44 minutes ago, Snake122 said:
This is more a general knowledge update. I know ED is going to do what they want on the 4 HARMs issue and I expect this thread to be locked. But just though this article was interesting talking about F-15Es being recently certified in 2021 to carry extra bombs that would not be usable in flight to a forward deployment.
There was speculation that this is a reason why the USAF loadout guide would list 4 AGM-88s with the second pair being put on hardpoints that multiple sources say that do not have the wiring to launch was to self deploy ("tac-ferry") with extra HARMs. Nobody was sure if it is actually a USAF logistics policy. This article shows in at least 2021 F-15Es that can be a thing to carry weapons that can't be used in flight so they don't have to depend as much on transport planes.
https://www.airforcemag.com/deployed-f-15es-prove-capability-to-tactically-ferry-bombs/
Just don't take 4 HARMs then.
But HARMs are generally a weird product. On one plane they behave like you read, on another plane they give you magic and physically unrealistical HTS-functionality. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-
2
-
AIM-120C losing targets easily for chaff even at close ranges
in Weapon Bugs
Posted
Some general things:
- If you go for a notch, your ECM pod won't do you much good. It's not covering your 3/9 line. It's covering your front aspect, and maybe your rear.
- marking missiles would be awesome
- With all the desync shenaniganz going on and ED having taken over all weapons dev from all third party devs, why are missiles not simulated as little "AI" aircraft on the server? This makes it much more predictable for everyone involved and the data transfer barrier from client to server would add a proper dimension of datalink to missiles.