Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rubberduck85

  1. I agree but this should be applied all across the board to DCS modules, updating the rearming interaction. Older gbus remain older gbus and should be set by the ground crew for all modules. Regards Rubberduck Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk
  2. Thank you! Yes, that was what i meant and is also specified in the documents i mentioned. One has to enable through M-SEL the CRUS HOME to see cues on the HUD and "activate" the Steerpoint. But if CRUS HOME is not enabled through M-SEL we should be able to change and monitor the home steerpoint indipendently of the currently active one. As of now there is no way to select HMPT on the DED it with the "dobber" switch and change it with the ICP rocker switch. Regards Rubberduck
  3. Hi, one of the document I was thinking of has already been mentioned by user itn. Yes, it refers to mid-life upgrade of older variants and i think it makes sense also for block 50. I can also refer to block 50: unsure if these are classified so i will not post excerpts. I do not intend to be cheeky here, this consideration is based on logic: it is at the very least impractical and potentially dangerous IRL to have the plane change course just to check remaining fuel estimates. Also, the HOME subfunction should trigger a FUEL advisory on the HUD (bottom left) if the estimated remaining fuel over HOME Point is less than 800 lbs, telling the pilot that it's really time to go home. Edit: this is pretty much similar to the FPAS page on the F/A-18C. Kind regards Rubberduck
  4. Hi, this maybe be a bug or a WIP. With the last open beta (v ED modeled the cruise page, accessible on DED by pressing ICP button 5 (thank you!!!). The submode "HOME" should give me the optimal cruise speed & altitude to a specifically designated HMPT wich I believe stands for Homeplate, or my designated location for landing and ending my flight. However i noticed that the steerpoint (STP) selection for this submode is the same for the currently selected (active) STP. Example: if i have a 10 STP flight plan, with 10 being my homeplate, if i'm flying the leg between 4 and 5 (with 5 selected as active STP), HOME shows optimal data for STP 5. I cannot select a different STP in the submode without changing my active STP. Shouldn't the selected HMPT be indipendent from my currently active STP? While flying with autopilot (alt hold + strg sel), in order to see the optimal profile i force the plane to make deviation from the flight plan. Regards Rubberduck
  5. Hi, i got my orion2 with F-16 grip last week and i set it up like this regarding throttle motion range: 1) i never touched the DCS settings of the specific axis (RX i believe), except maybe inverting it. 2) in the SimApPro tool i calibrated that axis from idle to max by moving it forward and back as required. Note: from idle to max, whereas max is Full afterburner and not MIL. 3) i set the DCS control of Idle and cut off to match the position of the throttle ( in the SimApPro tool you see that those positions are actually BUTTONS and can be mapped! Result: i do now have the throttle physical range of motion matching the the sim range of motion (verified by enabling the Ctrl+enter combination). I can start the engine by freeing the throttle from cutoff to idle when rpm reaches 20% and it works 1:1 in the sim. It's pretty cool, i love this piece of hardware! Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk
  6. Ok thanks! I also see it has been tagged as " coming soon" Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk
  7. Hi, is the AG radar supposed to assist in ranging in CCIP mode? Should it "ping" the terrain to offer a more precise distance calculation to the CCIP aimpoint? Regards
  8. Again, realism as you intend it is only about how ANG use it as standard loadout, just doctrine. Again, this is not a doctrine simulator. You ARE telling people how to have fun by saying that the way they use it is not realistic enough, hence your idea of realism should translate into having them play as the ANG flies by their doctrine. This is called presumption. About the "sides" argument, i really don't get it. No one literally cares if you mount 1 agm65 with Lau-117 or 2/3 with lau-88. To me, it's even hilarious that someone is frustrated by it to the point of wasting time on it, still you do. So yes apparently it only applies to your "side". I will always stand against this "doctrine police" mentality, regardless of which game/simulation/module is discussed. I know, it's a lost cause with some people but then again maybe I'm presumptuous, maybe i don't realize that pretending to be a ANG pilot that flies according to a specific doctrine is the only true emotion in an otherwise dull existence. Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk
  9. The current mav implementation is possible but not a standard loadout. ED's word. Possible =/= unrealistic. Not standard =/= impossible. No one is being unrealistic, someone likes using non standard loadout if they want. And guess what? It's not my case. Again DCS is a sandbox simulator, not a doctrine simulator. I would never dream to tell people how to have fun. If this fact represents a problem to the point that it's unbearable, this is called "OCD" in the clinical field and might require professional counseling. Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk
  10. Even better, more time for ED to focus on issues as this isn't one. Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk
  11. Now it ain't about what we like or don't like? You explicitly mentioned arcade players and arcade way of playing, their mere existence ruining your personal immersion, influencing server missions. Had you refrained from such expressions i would have believed you. By the very same logic (simulating USAF/ANG 2007 BLK50 viper) let's remove Greek and Turkish liveries, as they are not operated by US air force. I'd go even further: let's make it impossible to play this module unless a 800€ force sensing stick is detected by the sim. I really appreciate ED's renewed progress on the module, I don't care about "only" 2 harms, and it has been discussed to death that mounting 2 Mavs per wing is not valid because by 2007 the only thing they were bombing were middleastern insurgents. Still they are there, man hours of development have been sunk into it and I'm perfectly fine with it and thanks to ED i have the privilege of choosing to go John Rambo style or pretend to be part of an air force. Again, do we want to simulate a warplane or a doctrine? I say let's stop telling people what they should do, give options and live a happy life. Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk
  12. And i don't see the sense in your proposal. Because arcade players exist, and they enjoy the product even with 6 mavericks whether YOU like it or not. Arcade/simulation liberties are even taken by ED, Just look at BS3, a "what if" of a prototype. You, with your proposal are telling other people ,unrelated to you, how they should have fun, and this is illiberal. The bit about: "These players would very likely still fly their singleplayer missions with 6 Mavericks" is really golden. As if Average Joe, playing singleplayer dcs on Friday night after a week of hard work is acting against nature by flying with 6 mavericks. My proposal allows freedom of choice and believe me, you are not alone: there will be multiplayer servers oriented to full hardcore realism. Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk
  13. How about creating a "checkbox system" in the editor where in a mission, specific weapons quantities are allowed/forbidden? So you can have a mission where only 1 agm65 per wing is allowed, or 2 or 3. This way everyone wins: those who wants to be "one man air force" and those who cannot sleep at night knowing that "one man air force" people exist. ED could also call it "enforce the righteous realism upon those who err" checkbox, so it can make mission editors feel empowered. Also: can we have this consistent across all modules, even 3rd parties? Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk
  14. Maybe with markpoints created through TGP one could be able to cycle them after each JDAM release? Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk
  15. It's a simplification, it's the same on the A-10C. Other modules such as F-14, F-16, Mirage, etc model this "correctly" as you have to change the code on the ground using the kneeboard. (You should be changing this in the rearm panel IMHO) Maybe this is a game design decision due to A-10 and F-18 being the flagship modules, to not overwhelm new users. I'd rather have consistency across modules but that's just me. Also cluster bombs burst altitude should be only selectable on the ground while the setting in the store management page is to have the bombing computer give the correct solution for the previously set BA. Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk
  16. I never run 3 fuel tanks, mostly in preparation of the upcoming (202X) ECM pod. Also probably the drag of 3 tanks negates the benefits of additional fuel but i could be wrong. Generally, I try to fly as sleek as possible for greater range/endurance and speed. Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk
  17. Hi, A question. As mentioned by =Panther= the pylon currently used is not part of the aircraft but part of the external fuel tank. Is this being accounted for in the currently on-going FM review? I mean: 1)the current "pylon" is removed together with the tanks if tanks are jettisoned (reducing drag) 2)A new pylon is offered to mount weapons Thanks Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk
  18. M-SEL completly missed! This time I was able to set it and with good results. Thank you!
  19. Hi, I've noticed that the VRP function in F-16 has been somewhat enabled after finding this video on youtube: however when i try, i cannot obtain any visual cue on the HUD. my workflow: target steerpoint currently selected (in my case STP 2) list -> 9 (VRP) dobber right to select "VRP to PUP" data entry for a PUP circle: STP 2, TBR 220.0° RNG 24000 feet, alt 6000 ft (roughly 4 NM to SSE of a STP located on the southern lakes in Caucasus Map) master arm is on, AG selected, CCRP selected. tried with CBU-87 and MK-84 but no luck. Can someone tell me what I'm doing wrong? Regards
  20. Afaik all litening tgp are modeled in the same way, no matter what aircraft is lasing. You should try again and if you have problems post a track in the bug section. Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk
  21. Yeah it's a shame there is not code to enable "dual mode" refueling for the MPRS, would be neat! Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk
  22. Not gonna subtract from your post, just a thing about not being able to find a suitable object for boresighting. Have you considered placing a allied vehicle at a steerpoint between starting airbase and fence in? You can then use it to boresight. And if in a multiplayer public server, have you tried finding an allied vehicle and write down its position as reference for steerpoint editing/creation? Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk
  23. So June 41st is "correct as is"? Is the calendar based on Mars revolution around the sun? Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk
  24. Yes It's a ACM only thing, apparently even HAF Vipers have it, you can see here in this video I found: During this mock dogfight (sim mode is engaged) at 0:39 switching to vertical scan, then bore and obtaining lock (with VMS " lock" call) at 0:52. I said apparently because of the description contained in the video. Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk
  • Create New...