theinmigrant
-
Posts
199 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by theinmigrant
-
-
I believe this is the cause of the problem for most people. ED has correctly modeled the mechanical detents of the hornet throttle system. When weight is off wheels two metal tabs extend to prevent the throttle being pulled to true idle or “ground” idle. Ground idle is around 64 percent rpms and flight idle is around 72 rpms and the fan at that power setting is a significant amount of thrust the brakes are working against.
One downside of this being a simulator is that our rpms will stay at the incensed power setting until weight on wheels is achieved and you increase throttle shortly and then fully retract them.
Hope this helps.
No, I always put ground idle and still the effect of the breaks is close to nothing
-
No, it is needed when you are programming the selected weapons. So its in the JDAM/JSOW display.
Duh, I now saw your video, sorry for wasting your time :doh:
-
Should'nt I see the STEP button in the stores page?
-
Brakes on the DCS F/A-18 are definitely wrong. You need approx 50% more landing roll than the real F/A-18.
The problem seems to be the wrong antiskid simulation since the DCS F/A-18 needs the same distance with antiskid and without antiskid and locked wheels.
This problem has been reported quite a few times already but for some weird reason ED doesn't consider this a bug and moves such threads into the whish list ?!?!?
This 120%
I never understood why ED discarded this so quickly every time. I know they know much more than all of us about the Hornet, but when something is really off maybe it is worth looking.
-
I noticed this when landing on the dirt in the middle of the desert by emergency
-
I just don't understand why this wasn't thought before. I mean, come on, ED has a lot of experience in this industry to have this slipped through.
-
Track attached by Jak! Thanks Jak.
NL, let us know what the team thinks.
cheers.
-
Unfortunately, this also applies to A-10C. Maverick and TGP catch street lamps (also during the day). Which is quite a serious mistake and is very annoying. The problem has existed for a long time, it has been described, but unfortunately there is no answer.
Not quite true. There are a lot of pilots (real ones) that told stories of about mavericks locking bushes and stuff like that.
-
Your track might still be an issue, just perhaps a different one, Target Points with the TGP can be a little sketchy right now it seems.
Right now I am seeing:
With Realistic TDC: Skews to target properly, but if I re-cage and try to skew to the same target it won't do it.
Without Realistic TDC: Seeker will skew, but will be trying to lock the whole time and most likely lock on something it shouldn't, it shouldn't be trying to lock at all as I understand it.
For me target points with the TGP are exactly 100% in the same position as if it was a waypoint, so the TGP works perfect as of now. I tested it A LOT.
The issue in positioning is reported in another thread I made (still unmarked) and it has to do with the MAV F not the TGP. Also tested this a lot.
I strongly think we are talking about the same thing here. But the point here is to help so it doesn't matter what track gets used to show to the team.
Thanks.
-
I watched theinmigrant's track. We're not saying the same thing. The bug I'm referring to is that the seeker will get stuck on a random valid object (contrast is high enough) on its way to the designated target, assuming the object is close enough to be picked up (~10-12nm max range).
This makes the auto-uncage/auto-slew function of the missile completely useless in a lot of scenarios, forcing you to undesignate the target and find it manually with the seeker. It only works reliably when designating from a higher altitude, generally far away from the target.
Same thing, watch the entire track :)
At the end I show how a tank, in the middle of the movement towards a different TGT, is locked by the seeker.
-
Yes, since day 1. WIP I guess.
Still much left to put in the oven ;)
-
Ok, I think the bug is related to the unrealistic TDC option for the Maverick, it seems when using the realistic one, it reacts better, not trying to lock on to anything as it moves or stops. Although I am seeing something else going on that after I skew it to a TGT point once, it won't skew again.
BTW I have realistic tdc and I always had this issue.
-
Ok I am seeing in your track that the Maverick skews past the target point is that right? I didnt see it lock onto something else during the skew like the OP?
Yeah, but the reproduction of the issue is the same IMO: If the mav seeker goes over a target even if it wasnt the point you designated it will still lock it. If you would have had two tanks in that track it would have locked the other one.
I hope it still helps the team. If not, you still have Harker's track now uploaded.
Thanks!
-
In my humble opinion, this is one of the most critical bugs of the AG current simulation. It would be very healthy for DCS if the great dev team ED has could check this.
Thanks and sorry for the bump.
-
D/L frequency is and will not be simulated per the latest update to the manual.
Yeah, I just read that. I'll have to admit, I don't like simplified implementations, I hate classified information. I get the point though. I'm just so dissapointed that the Hornet ended up having so much classified data and so many simplified systems.
To simply matters and avoid sensitive areas, all network options will be configured automatically.Sorry for the offtopic, just needed to get it out of my system.
-
I reported this but it somehow got merged with something that had nothing to do with it, so I guess I'll just put it over here again.
The altitude and mach should be displayed in the radar page when hovering over datalinked symbols.
If the team has different information it will be welcome of course.
Thanks.
-
Hi guys!
I wanted to ask something about this.
How does the D/L freq work exactly? And also, what about the Tacan that now doesn't need to be ON for the D/L to work? (It must be on according to Natops, due to them sharing spectrum)
Thanks!
-
Please no!
On behalf of a big portion of the community I sincerely do not want ED to make stuff up, all we want is as much realism as possible.
-
Can you re-attach the track, moving and such seems to have lost it.
I don't see them either, nor I see the one Harker put in the first post :(
Here the one I had put, hope we can all see it.
-
I will look into, although it sorta makes sense both ways I guess. SA page makes more sense for it. At least just on hover.
Thanks NL.
Imagine you see one or more contacts that are being donated but your current radar cone cannot see it/them. Then the pilot needs to slew the tdc over the donated HAFU and check its altitude so he can adjust the radar accordingly and lock. If the pilot has to go to the SA page, then mentally correlate which one is the one that he saw in the radar page, then hover tdc, then go back to radar, then adjust radar settings, then lock... By the time he did all of that he's dead.
I strongly don't believe America wants their pilots in an aircraft that was built like that :)
Thanks anyway.
-
I sure hope this was just purely worded, otherwise it's coming off quite insulting.
At any rate, what I hear is that MSI should not work in RWS or STT. Only in LTWS/TWS.
I just checked real quick and during STT we still have all the MSI info, which I think is awesome! Are you saying that it should not happen and in the future ED will remove that? :(
-
Nevermind, I noticed that the bug is not with the gimbal but with the aspect of the aircraft with regards of the target.
thanks and apologies for the mistake, I have created the correct bug report.
Thanks ED.
-
Track attached! :):):)
-
I have attached two tracks demonstrating that the MAV F slaves to different points depending on aircraft aspect regarding target.
One track is for TGP and the other one is for waypoint designation.
Please I feel confident you'll see the tracks, please don't disregard this thread so quickly.
Thanks ED.
IR Mavervick Uncage to slew with TGT
in Wish List
Posted
Good catch! I always thought It was intentional behaviour, but if the manual says no...