Notso
-
Posts
932 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Notso
-
-
2 hours ago, David A Sell said:
Seems like the smoke is back to lasting about 5 minutes, is that how it is intended?
I would hope not. See my post and the videos above. IRL, Its a very small short duration puff of spoke.
-
1
-
-
On 2/6/2024 at 12:56 AM, BIGNEWY said:
Please ensure you are using the laser to get the correct range for the target, this will ensure the CEP is much smaller.
thank you
I know you later found the culprit of this bug as being a Blue vs Red GPS quality issue. But I just want to address the laser thing. Firing the laser is NOT (or should not) be required if you are transferring accurate coordinates to the bomb from the NAV system. Using the TGP at all is not required to deliver accurate JDAMs, as long as the coordinates and elevation in the bomb are accurate.
However, if you are targeting and transferring coordinates derived FROM the TGP - then YES you should fire the laser to have accurate slant range to correctly produce the coordinates. I just didn't want people being confused into thinking they HAD to use the TGP with laser ranging for accurate JDAM delivery.-
1
-
-
On 8/5/2023 at 12:58 PM, YoYo said:
Is it possible to get such a newspaper for the WSO during boring missions?
My first question is: Why are you flying boring missions?? Its a simulator. You can make it anything you want it to be.
-
Related to potential AIM-7 errors, I've been noticing a lot lately that AIM-7s go "stupid", i.e. discontinue tracking completely, when the Target passes through the beam, even if only for a moment. This is incorrect behavior, at least for the newer 7M and MH. I'm pretty sure the 7F as well. If the RDR itself is able to handle tracking the TGT through the beam, the missile will continue tracking the TGT. It does NOT get automatically "trashed".
I don't know about other jets, but the F-15C and E both have a part of their A/A WEZ display called Rtr - "Range Turn and Run". This WEZ display exists for both AIM-7 and AIM-120. The definition of RTR is:Quote"Rtr indicates the maximum launch range against a target executing an evasive turn and run maneuver at launch. This zone assumes that the target executes a maximum g level maneuver with instantaneous g onset in the shortest direction to tail aspect".
So there is no way to turn and run from a HOT aspect to a tail aspect without turning through the beam. Ergo, the missile should be able to continue tracking the TGT even if it passes through the beam momentarily. And the F-15E has track memory that will allow it to maintain track on TGTs as they pass through the beam. Obviously, it the Maneuver breaks the RDR lock - the AIM-7 will lose guidance. But with a good track, currently in DCS - any momentary beam maneuver loses the missile completely.
If you need further supporting documentation, please DM me. Thanks.
-
3
-
3
-
-
Disregard. Moved to its own thread....
-
2 hours ago, corvey said:
Nah, merely coincidental. It's stupid stuff like text at the bottom of the MPD screen being cutoff. Example, attached, just purely a bug. Makes it a bitch setting up my bombs
Align the INS and your screen won't be cut off by the ATTITUDE caution, Senior Dumas. Definite skill issue
-
5
-
-
The Swooping at 800 kts exceeds the Dash-1 speed limits. Since its difficult in DCS to model exact failures that you might see from an overspeed, the wing snapping is the next best thing to punish players for breaking the limits of the jet. This is not ace combat. The FM was designed to as closely as possible replicate the real limits of the real jet. Otherwise players will exploit these areas if they are not punished.
Easy fix: Don't do that.No bug, correct as is!
-
4
-
-
Aliens, obviously!
-
On 6/5/2022 at 12:16 AM, Nahen said:
Did I write somewhere that WSO is the F-15E pilot ??
Can you tell the difference between "pilot" and "F-15E pilot"? - it's a pilot and it's a pilot.
Can you tell the difference between "driver" and "formula one driver"? - it's the driver and that's the driver.
Can you tell the difference between "doctor" and "vascular surgeon"? - he's a doctor, and he's a doctor.
Can you tell "soldier" from "special forces soldier"? - he is a soldier and he is a soldier.
Can you tell the difference between "ship" and "aircraf carrier"? - it's a ship and it's a ship.Someone else doesn't understand?
Most WSO's are not rated pilots either. Not even civilian PPLs. Some are, most are not. They get almost no actual formal stick and rudder training beyond the basics. I'm a former WSO. I had a commercial ME rating by the time I retired. It still did not make me a USAF manned pilot. I never considered myself a "fighter pilot" in the strict sense of the word as in doing the JOB. But of course fighter WSOs are "fighter pilots" in the community sense. But that's a different topic for another day.
There are WSO's that literally go their entire career in the SE and never touch the stick except for brief times. Some don't want to fly. Some but not many. And it's not expected of them. Riding along in the back seat doing your WSO job and occasionally flying the jet for <profanity>s and giggles doesn't make one a pilot even in the loosest of understanding of the word.
It is clear that the only one here who is not understanding is YOU.
FFS!
-
2
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Digitalvole said:
Thanks @Notso
Sounds fine for sp DCS then, woop woop!
Yeah, it should be great for SP. But the REAL fun is to go crewed in MP. If you get two guys working well together, it will be unbeatable IMHO.
-
2
-
-
One thing to add is that Suites are not tied to engines or other hardware like the radar type. The F-15E fleet is roughly half and half 220s and 220s. They are also currently a mix of APG-70 and -82. Yet all the jets get the current suite OFP. So at the time, All jets had S4+ OFP, but they obviously didn't reengine them. Suites in the -15E are nothing like Blocks in the Viper - where you have both SW and hardware unique to a particular block.
-
2
-
1
-
-
On 1/7/2022 at 5:59 AM, A2597 said:
whow, now that is a detailed post!
Thank you so much! And now I really want my CH Fighterstick to have a push button on the castle hat...lol
Actually, you don't need the push IN on the Castle. There are two ways of taking command of a display. The first is as described above: Castle IN and release and then castle short press towards the screen you want to take command. The 2nd method is just a LONG press >1 sec towards the desired screen. Both methods work to do the same thing. So if your stick doesn't have the IN option, the long press should work just as well. That's in the FCP only btw. The WSO take command is simply coolie towards which ever screen you want to take command of for that side. So for instance if I want to take command of the R MPD, then I would go coolied LEFT on the right HCU. If I wanted to take command of the R MPCD, then I would go coolie R on the Right HCU.
-
On 5/27/2022 at 1:48 AM, Digitalvole said:
Hehe I was hoping this thread would tell me if I could control most/all the F15E’s systems from the front seat.
Yes, you can. Most everything system control wise is controllable from both cockpits once turned on and set up correctly, with a few exceptions. For example, the Auto-Acquisition radar modes are pilot only. As is changing the Master mode. The WSO has some controls in the back like power and mode setup for the TGP, RWR, CMD, ICS, EWWS, etc. But once they are all turned on and set, then either cockpit can use those systems interchangeably. There are a couple of HOTAS functions the Pilot doesn't have that the WSO does and vice versa. But those are the exceptions. I would say 90%+ of the HOTAS can do the same things in either cockpit. The HOTAS switch sequence itself is usually different due to the different control configs - i.e. Front stick & throttle vs The two Hand-controllers in the back. But the end result of the HOTAS sequence is the same.
Now "could" a solo pilot fly in combat without a WSO? No, not really unless he didn't need the systems that can only be turned on in the back. Maybe if the Crew chief turned them on once #2 motor was started and before the canopy is closed and before #1 motor was started. Even the story of the reporter flying in "combat" was a very carefully managed event in a very low threat scenario and they really didn't do much except support the wingman. And I'm sure they had to teach her to turn on certain switches in the back once the jet was running and after takeoff. So I wouldn't use that example as proof that pilots can fly the jet solo in combat. My understanding is the EX was redesigned such that they could manage it by themselves in a mostly A/A fight, but retained the rear seat for more complex missions where a WSO would be value added.
-
4
-
8
-
-
On 5/24/2022 at 3:16 AM, Nahen said:
I am not interested in officer ranks, markings etc. used in USAF aviation. WSO is a man with documents confirming the completion of aviation training as a result of which he can fly / drive the planes for which he has been trained. For normal people, this means nothing less than a PILOT.
Oh jesus, what have I walked into???
Sorry (not sorry) but no. A WSO is not an F-15E pilot. They are NOT trained to fly the airplane even though some can and do on an informal basis. But it does not make them Strike Eagle pilots. Could they land it from the backseat - yes probably some could (and have). But it's completely against regulations and is prohibited unless in an emergency. In fact there are a lot of WSOs who are not interested in flying the jet and are content with doing their job well - and their J-O-B is NOT flying the jet.
So for "normal people" a WSO is not a USAF pilot much less specifically a SE pilot.
-
2
-
-
On 5/31/2022 at 7:10 AM, KlarSnow said:
You have already modelled that stuff correctly..... .This is what happens AFTER the bomb releases, and how it gets to the target. this is what everyone cares about. The HUD and symbology will not change other than the LAR if you change the mode. The HUD and jet does not take any of this into account.
This document is what "Mode 1" means on the MFD. There are other things that would happen if you could set Mode 2,3, or 4 but those are not openly available that I'm aware of. All happens in the bombs autopilot based on release angle and altitude.
All setting Mode 1 on the jet means is that the Jet is calculating a generic LAR bucket for a GBU-24 that is going to fly based on how this document lays it out. It does not change and there are no other indications or setting in the HUD or on the MFD's. The bomb automatically decides what it is doing based on your release attitude and altitude as described here. Nothing will change in the cockpit. How the bomb behaves will change drastically as you can see if you read this document.
Agree. That is all about what the bomb does post-release. It's all about the release parameters you are in at the moment you Yeet it at the target. From there the bomb does it's thing. That's what needs to be modeled correctly to have value in the game.
-
On 5/29/2022 at 5:03 AM, AvroLanc said:
There are clearly lots of Paveway III details that ED simply doesn't have access to, which is a massive shame since they did once indicate that a new autopilot would be coming for PIII. Even Wag's video wasn't clear...is there a new flightpath model/autopilot implemented for PIII or is it just the same as Paveway II?? It's clear as mud at this point.
The Range Cue and Release angle settings do have some logic. The way I understand it, Paveway III is a very 'canned' weapon i.e. it's limited to fly in a very specific 'pre-planned' flightpath. It's very pre-planning intensive and the delivery has to be spot on in terms of Airspeed/Dive/Altitude to hit those pre-planned parameters. This is because the weapon has fixed non-flexible fuzing and when you use PIII you want the impact angle and fuzing etc to be planned spot on for the type (hardened!) of target you're going after. This is not a TOO CAS weapon. Therefore the Range Cue and Release angle setting's are there to pre-set a condition to release, they don't influence the actual bomb at all, they just make sure you're flying the pre-planned delivery.
Having said that, the gliding flightpath can be 'shaped' to achieve what you want by making a setting on the 'MODE' switch. On Paveway III, this is a physical switch on the bomb itself. Just like a PII's laser code. The 'MODE' setting knob has positions 1-8. I imagine these are the 8 gliding profiles or trajectory shaping modes. This detail is what ED lacks. But I say, let's make em' up.....
MODE 1. Standard medium/high alt level delivery that priorities range over terminal shape.
MODE 2. Medium alt drop that produces glide path the flattens in terminal stage for vertical targets (you want to hit side of a tower)
MODE 3. Medium alt drop that produces glide path that steepens terminal stage for horizontal targets (hit top of the target)
MODE 4 and 5. Low altitude drops that optimised for <5000ft deliveries for same vert or horiaontal as MODE 2 and 3.
MODE 6. Low altitude LOFT flight path to acheive max range in LOFT delivery for vertical impact angle
MODE 7. Same as 6, but for different terminal stage
etc etc Paveway III needs constant lasing in order to continually know it's relative position to the target. It also has a barometric altimeter, for rate of change of height.
Now, I've made the mode details up, but the 8 position MODE knob is real and I'm willing to bet I'm not too wrong...... I don't see why ED can't bow to a gameplay perspective here. Inactive and non-functinonal MFD buttons and labels should have no place in DCS in 2022. We're not in 1998 anymore and I expect more.
Sorry, but you're way off with your "8 modes". It's a bit more nuanced than that.
On 5/29/2022 at 9:51 AM, Frederf said:I thought PWIII had 4 modes in the switch. Maybe a newer version has more? PWIII has a barometric sample port and autopilot of sorts. After launch there is a mandatory "bump up" maneuver (most if not all modes) then a decision window after launch where it determines if it's loft/level/dive category. Then it does some shaping stuff depending with possibly some break level alt flight then on laser acquire it G-biases and attempts a certain terminal angle (mode-dependent).
PWIII is a lot like PWII in the sense it's a hand grenade. You pull the pin and throw it with a laser spot to get. But PWIII is significantly smarter, about as smart as a Maverick in that it flies and shapes its trajectory. A big limitation of PWII was low-level delivery (from 500-1000') since the guidance is simplistic and the fins binary in motion. PWIII was known as the LLLGB or low-level LGB. It's normal for the bomb to climb above the launching height when released low.
This ^^
-
On 8/7/2021 at 2:03 PM, SharpeXB said:
The best solution for DCS would be to have a VR-specific version of the sim. There is no good way to make a game perform equally in 2D and 3D. You’d be hampering one version or overwhelming the other. And it doesn’t seem feasible to have such a wide range of graphics options to accommodate both.
Agree with this!
-
On 8/7/2021 at 1:51 AM, Digitalvole said:
I’m going to try hard not to repeat what others have said, but I’ve just woken up so this may become a rambling mess.
So many points here that echo my own thoughts on VR and DCS, pretty much since I started playing in 2016 with the CV1. But what is and isn’t acceptable is such a subjective/personal thing when it comes to VR it makes it a tricky subject of conversation.
For reference, I play SP in Liberation campaigns with a G2, I have a 3090 and a 5900x and 32gb of RAM.
It can certainly feel like the hardware is always one generation behind the headsets, and I don’t know about you guys but for me it can be hard to know that the game could look so much better with what one has, but one has to dial it back in order to get decent performance. Take the brilliant mods that most of us use and the great guides that are made (thanks Speed of Heat and others
). Without those things would be considerably worse but they still in one way or another make things look a little bit not as good. (Sorry still trying to wake my brain up) And as one needs to use quite a few of them now the effects are cumulative.
I think another factor that I for one find myself battling against is that of; I’ve spent thousands of pounds on hardware, surely it should look better than this! If the top end hardware can’t do it then what can!? This is know ones fault but my own of course but it can feel like you’ve bought a Ferrari that’s had the engine limited to 50mph.
Has anyone tried msfs since there performance improvements? Has it got better? can we even say that here?
My worry (for a long time now) is that DCS is heading in the opposite direction. It’s just getting more and more demanding on hardware. I haven’t even tried the Marianas map as I think I’ll find it pretty much unplayable, which is a shame. On the one hand the dynamic campaign is likely to be incredible but on the other I doubt I’ll be able to play it.
I feel more communication from ED on VR in particular would be so very much appreciated. As at the very least it may help us manage our expectations or, if the planets aligned and the right sacrifices were made to the correct gods, offer us hope for the future. A little bit of hope goes a long way! For example, what percentage of the player base are us VR users, and therefore how high a priority is VR in DCS? Are there things that can be done? etc.Just from a VR players perspective I for one feel like ED are building a magnificent palace but sadly on swampy ground. That being said, I find it hard to believe that such clever people would be doing this if they didn’t know that they had ways to make it work. Here’s looking at you Vulkan!
It would be fantastic to hear from ED more often on VR matters, please?
Ramble end.
Nice rant, agree with most. In a nutshell it boils down to this for me...... If ED moves in the opposite direction and makes it MORE demanding on VR to the point where the hardware cannot keep up - I will abandon DCS in a blink and never look back. I'm never going back to flat earth flying. The fact that soooo many other titles out there are embracing VR while Ed seems to consider it a sideshow or an afterthought.
I'm sure they don't actually consider VR an afterthought. But I suspect that they are so far down the road with their legacy engine, that they are finding it hard to keep up and make improvements in VR with an engine that is not really set up for it. Always the conumdrum.
On 8/7/2021 at 2:42 AM, Lace said:I just find it staggering to believe you guys with the 30x0 cards are struggling - I am running a 1070 Mobile in my laptop and it is perfectly playable on a Rift S. Are you running thousand bomber raids? Running all settings at MAX and expecting 360fps? One of us is doing this wrong, I'm just not sure which of us.
Perhaps it's because I grew up on this, I am more willing to sacrifice visual quality for performance. Maybe those more used to fancy graphics are expecting too much from VR?
You have immersion, quality and performance. Pick any two.
Immersion & Performance. of course.
-
1
-
-
On 8/6/2021 at 6:53 AM, The LT said:
Yes, I'm kinda in the same boat. I've started out with the Vive Pro, dismissing the original Rifts and Vives, then sold it shortly after, because I wasn't happy with the state DCS VR was in. Late last year I transitioned to the G2 and a 3090, hoping things would improve (was running a 2080ti before the 3090). Seldom have I been able to achieve a consistent and trouble-free VR performance in DCS. I've since sold the G2 and bought the Pimax 8KX just for the FOV and while I do have some fun offline with it, I mostly fly online on a flat display. I've specifically upgraded my 49' Sony TV with a generic 120hz board so I would take advantage of the 3090 delivering 100+ FPS in flat mode. The same system struggles with VR, delivering roughly 60-68 FPS tops. I learned that you absolutely must have 75/90 FPS for smoothness and Pimax smoothing is pretty crap, tbh.
Anyways, I am finding myself leaning towards the flatscreen more, unfortunately. As much as I want VR to succeed, it just isn't there yet. I also find it ridiculous that modders constantly have to maintain shader mods and ED basically doesn't care to implement them in VR despite all the improvements they make. The shared parser seems to be abandoned too. I kinda lost hope about it. They probably gave up on it until they get Vulkan in, which will probably take ages.
Not in the same boat at all. For me it's VR or nothing. I gave up flight simming back in the early 2000's (MSFS whatever and Falcon 3.0/4.0, etc) specifically because flat screen flight simming to me was nothing more than playing a game. There was no immersion whatsoever. Of course I'm jaded because I flew real jets for a living for 20+ years. So I'm not your typical case study. In any event, I gave it up until VR became mature despite VR just being a gleam in some computer engineers eyes that far back. Anyway, I digress.......
I am running a G2 with a 2080Ti and am loving it. Is it as crisp as a 4K or 8K flat screen? Ofc not. I have most of my settings pretty high and it still runs a good solid 45fps. Could it be better? Sure. But I'd always take a slightly less crisp picture and have the full 3D immersive value i get with VR than EVER go back to flat world.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Rogue. said:
Silicon bumps on the centre of each row of soft keys helps.
I do exactly this, but with little pieces of velcro on the center buttons so you can feel the texture. With some practice, I don't have to look under the headset at all. My fingers just naturally find the buttons.
I've also built the panel for the MPDs to be very close to where I would see it in the VR cockpit. So it feels fairly natural to reach down to the MFDs that I see and the real ones are right there. It becomes a very natural motion.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, dburne said:
Probably wise choice.
Yeah, I think I'd be better off spending that $1500 on a 3090 and look at what comes out in a year or so VR headset wise. Maybe I'll win the lottery and get an XTAL, LOL.
-
On 8/3/2021 at 11:58 PM, speed-of-heat said:
Thanks, that was super helpful! I think I'll stick with the G2 for now. I'd love to have that Huge FOV, but don't want to give up the crispness of G2.
I'm pretty sure the reviewer said he was running it at 2K. I wonder if the Pimax would look different running at 8K on a 3090?
-
Hi all, trying to work through all the posts in this thread. Good info. i'm on the verge of pulling the trigger on an 8KX but wondering if my system will be able to run it decently. I'm running a i9-9900K cpu and a 2080-TI GPU. I'm currently running a Reverb G2 with no issues but am very tempted to test out the 8KX for the wider FOV and higher Rez. Is it worth trying out or should I wait to upgrade the card into a 3080 or 3090 before trying the Pimax?
TIA.
-
Do you need a handcontroller for the 8KX if you're only doing DCS with it? I know you need a base station, but I'm not sure about the controller.
AIM-120 Still Too Easy to Notch?
in Weapon Bugs
Posted · Edited by Notso
The Missile is SUPPOSED to ignore the fighter's radar once it goes active. Once the missile is active, your RDR lock is meaningless to what the missile does or doesn't do.