Karon

Late to the topic, but: If you look at a syllabus from the 70s for the F-4 and the P-825 version 2002, what do you notice? Quick answer: they are very, very close in terms of contents. The main difference is that the RIO/WSO has more to do and a good human AIC / GCI is required (I never used an AI AWACS anyway) to provide the information that the avionics does not give you but, besides that, the basic stuff is very similar: BDHI, drift, Maths. Where do I sign / throw money at?

Ah sorry, I didn't mean to sound nitpicky, buddy Yeah, point-and-assess was very helpful in this regard. It simplifies the maths, although now we are getting the fancy readout Speaking of which, the TA readout is bugged at the moment, but it has been fixed internally (ref gyro in Feedback Thread). It will be very helpful, we can forget the bloody MagVar and the Maths for once (I guess it uses the True heading of the F-14, along the course of the target, so no MagVar involved - correct me if I'm wrong).

Ok, let's have a look: FH = 035 looks like from the BDHI (pro tip: to avoid parallax effect, use snapviews). I don't know which map we're in, let's say it's marianas, so magvar ~0 (alternatively, you can get the TH of the F-14 form the CAP); BH = 215 as you said, so BR 035 Three ways to do it now: 1- standard with TA = BR → BB: TA = 035 → (035-0) = 0 2- simplified, considering that ATA = 0 (Cut) TA = FH → BR = 35 → 35 = 0 3- even easier, we are in a zero cut / parallel head-on situation and FH = BR, ergo TA = ATA. I can add the details if you want, but in all cases the target aspect is zero. I mean, you can tell it right away from the TID: you are in GS and the target is coming straight at you. Also, @sLYFa added a very good point: we know that the F-14 is unprecise, but discounting 5° of TA, which may add up to all the other intrinsic imprecisions of the F-14, it's something I'd avoid when possible (it's not always necessary, but I guess it's a good habit). @gyrovague: absolutely no problem Sir, I was just curious because the patch notes sometimes forget about the best-module-in-dcs-until-you-guys-make-the-F4 (but I'm probably biased)

EDIT: the forum ate the quote, neat. This was meant to be a reply to @bonesvf103, who said that the second row looks fine. It still looks bugged to me.

/u/PALLY31 is that you buddy? FH → BR is the Cut; you are looking for BR → BB. Then, when Target Aspect = Relative Bearing from the TID (RBRG = Antenna Train Angle or Angle Off) but opposite in sign, you have collision, but only if you are co-speed. Otherwise, you need to compensate because it can be really off depending on other parameters and the scenario (such as low speed and high Cut). I'd guess that using the vector in TID AS, the Collision button (if STT or if you manage the TWS centroid) or the drift (if in PSRCH) is simpler in those cases, cut TA = ATA works too as a starting point or when the Cut is low.

Hey mate, how are you? Thanks for the patch, the TID double readout is a blessing! I'm trying to understand how the TA works, though. I didn't have much time to test, just a couple of scenarios. For each of them I calculated the TA empirically with GIMP and using TA = BR → BB and I can't understand how it works. I noticed two things: the value changes instantly when the F-14 manoeuvres. This shouldn't happen. the sum of the ATA (Relative Bearing) and the displayed value is 180 (or very close, probably due to approximations) Scenario I: Scenario II: Thanks! EDIT: just seen you reply, @Naquaii . Thanks for confirming that it's bugged atm!

From /r/hoggit.

Added another simple article about Rate of Closure (Vc).

Fair enough. He did not say anything incredible in my opinion, at least in the videos he posted. I guess that the sensibility of the military can be quite diverse, especially in such a critical period, so I do understand and respect your point. If you think about it, men have been enjoying and dreaming about others' old sea stories since ancient times. Speaking of which, when will we hear yours? (well lads, I tried, now I'll see myself out!)

Well, so far he did not talk about anything that is not a personal opinion, common knowledge or freely available (procedures-wise, for instance, the P-825, rev 2017 and 2002 come to mind, on top of others, and unless I did miss something). I hope at some point he will go more into the details of certain procedures barely mentioned in the available docs; perhaps later when he is up and running with DCS. The thing is, at least of me (an enthusiast with no military or aviation background whatsoever), it is sometimes hard to discern the line that separates the "better not divulge" from what is freely sharable by former or active duty personnel. Moreover, when the source is not official (e.g. a random YouTube content creator), even discerning the apocryphal from the genuine is sometimes not really immediate either. Ward has great communicative skills, he is a pleasure to listen to, and his background gives him authority; hence solving one of the points I raised above. The former, instead, depends entirely on him. About the flight suit, it is not necessary, but plays a part in constructing his persona, which totally makes sense considering he is on YouTube and the focus is on entertaining. I'm really looking forward to seeing him flying.

TWS is a peculiar radar mode with a number of limitations (check the manual for further details). Often adjusting the antenna elevation solves the issue. I understand you tried both higher and lower targets, but the TWS radar volume is so limited that it may not be enough unless you pretty much nail the angle. Try 4B, it's usually simpler since the setting of the correct AZM is immediate. You can also find the correct angle in different ways, by using a mnemonic formula for instance, or a pre-calculated table, for example. When you are "seasoned" enough, you'll mostly rely on your guts. There may be other parameters, such as the VC switch but, on top of my head, none affect similar radar modes (as they are both HPRF PD modes) as much as the volume limitations mentioned above (Disclaimer: I'm terribly rusted, so I may be missing something). Reiterating using your post: Let's say you are flying at 35,000ft. Range let's say 35nm, to illuminate a target flying at 10,000ft you need to set the antenna at -7.8°. If the target is down at 5,000ft, then the angle is -9.3°. Follow up question: were they appearing in LINK4A, but what about RWS? Were they appearing in such mode? See if this helps mate.

Not really much has changed since the launch of the F-14 in this regard. It took a very long time to see the first implementation of the API, and it's incomplete yet (HB folks, feel free to correct me here if I'm wrong). Another example, the fact that the lost target in most scenario reverts to the old "flat" guidance. On top of that, there's a lot of work that should be done by ED imo, for instance turning the current countermeasures into physical entities. Unfortunately, I'm afraid all these improvements and overhaul will take quite a lot of time.

It looks like your LINK4 is saturated, it happens quite often in crowded servers or missions. I mean, it's not a big loss anyway, as your radar is the primary source of information, but it is not ideal. The real issue is the logic behind what is displayed that is awful and, as most of the data coming from the AI, it lacks proactivity. If you have a wingman, switch between LINK4A for general SA and LINK4C for section coordination and attack. Again, DL is handy, but hardy a necessity: remember that you have a guy behind you, and his primary task is controlling the F-14's stupidly powerful radar

Added Part X of the Intercept Geometry study, which concludes the brief overview of the P-825/02 and the techniques used at the beginning of the millennium. Next stop, a quick at how things looked in the '50s through the '70s.

Were you replying to my post? Because no one expects all bugs to be quashed, that's impossible, but dealing with the game-breaking ones and the exploitable, it's a way to make it more "competitive"-friendly. I agree on the rest of your post

Probably, that DCS is not, at this stage, a platform solid and reliable enough to ensure a fair and bug/exploit free experience to every player, and it will take a while to fix it. Certain applications are more prone to suffering from those issues, and "competitive DCS" is one of those. By playing, you should accept and understand that these issues exist at the moment. If you don't like it, then play a different game (I'm saying "you" but I'm not referring specifically to you). On a personal note, I've been invited to play in a few "competitive" teams but, besides the lack of time, I refused: I don't mind losing as it's always an occasion to learn and improve, but losing because of a bug or exploit, oh my, I'd be royally pissed off. Therefore, I don't play competitive DCS: there are other games around, more stable, reliable, with fewer bugs and more suitable to competitive gaming. The situation will surely improve in the next few years but, at the moment, it is what it is.

It's a bit weird at the moment. I did not spend much time on it, but sometimes the missiles is guided and activated correctly, sometimes it doesn't. The distance seems like an important factor. Here, for example, the two '54s were guided and activated correctly. A couple of days ago I launched an AIM-54 in TWS a relatively short range, and it went dumb (looking back, I should have used PSTT, but that's another story). Any way, it's still WIP, so I wouldn't lose my sleep over it. It'll get fixed.

I'm going to get a lot of hate here, but DCS modules could easily cost 3x or more than their current price. Why? 1- since 2008 I played two modules: Ka-50 and F-14 as RIO. Hours of fun / Cost tends to +infinite. I bought multiple copies of the F-14 to gift to friends or modules I never even launched just to support ED and the devs. 2- the same CoD every time or FIFA cost as much as a module, not to mention a premium whatever in the various war thunder / wot. A DCS module takes an incomparable effort to make instead. 3- sales are recurring and quite well distributed during the year. That being said, these are personal considerations and, moreover, a steep price increase would make DCS inaccessible to many people, which is something no one wants. In the specific case of the F-14, we get three variants of the F-14A and the F-14B and a ton of other stuff. It's well worth the price!

That's an odd issue, OP. As @zildac said, make sure you press Clear every time you want to start a new input of command. Actually, pretend that every new command must be preceded by it. For instance, new WP: [CLEAR] [1] {type Lat} [ENTER] [CLEAR] [6] {type Long} [ENTER] [CLEAR] [4] {type Elevation} [ENTER] Now, pressing Clear is not always necessary, but initially helps to avoid a ton of issues. Similarly, after working on a WP, do an half-action on the HCU. It will de-select your WP or track, so you don't end up positioning the wrong WP or, even worse, your own AC location accidentally! About the NAVGRID, make sure you are in TID GS mode and the NAVGRID is selected. Press clear and do what you need to do. So: HCU half-action CAP to D/L Select NAVGRID [CLEAR] [2] {type number of sectors} [ENTER] [CLEAR] [8] {type orientation} [ENTER] [CLEAR] [4] {type width} [ENTER] Again, all these half-actions and [CLEAR] are overkill, but they make sure you are not working on something you don't want

I don't think Devs and SME will feel offended by your sentence. As you may have noticed, they spent a great deal of time trying to reason and educate you. If the fact that your account is brand new is not fishy enough, I think it's clear to everyone now that you are not interested in a constructive discussion, even worse, you are just trolling and wasting others' time. Which sucks even more because devs open to discussions are not really common at all. Added to the ignored list, no offence ofc.

Wow. I am astonished. Seriously, I wish I had the patience that Mike, fat and rest of the team and SME have when I deal with my clients Jokes aside, a discriminating and critical (but not hostile) approach, if supported by sources, knowledge and documentation can be healthy and constructive and can actually help to spot bugs, inconsistencies and other issues. However, a good understanding of the discussed topic is necessary, otherwise it's really not productive. There's nothing wrong in being ignorant (in the original meaning of the word, not the modern), but when an "expert" corrects the party that lacks knowledge, the latter should shut up and listen, understand, and only then ask for clarifications and discuss. When I shake the box of Whiskas, my Cat arrives at Mach 3.

That's not even enough to start to scratch the superficial layer of the surface of the cover of the first book or the collection of docs about the RIO role! Jokes aside, that's great for you. I spent a few more hours than you in the backseat and I still don't feel close to be proficient enough to feel confident saying that "I know how to RIO" Can you show me where I said that you should orbit over an AF, or that "flying around" means banzai, please? I never wrote such silliness. There's an infinite number of tactics you can use to improve your effectiveness (after you have improved your SA, of course). None of them involves orbiting and employing from the other side of the map or sitting under a SAM umbrella or over a friendly AF. Your reply to @WelshZeCorgi shows me again that we speak different languages. Follow what Tharos says in his posts, he's a great source of info since forever, basically. Actually, print and frame his suggestions about the SA, those are golden advices. Good luck out there, whether you'll be flying with the glorious Tomcat or the JF-17

A parte la mappa in sé, scenari come settings Korean war o early Cold War ci sono giá (Korea 1952 e il server di Alpenwolf per citarne due). Sono un po' casual ma ci sono anche communities dedicate che volano in timelines o settings definiti. Gruppi che simulano fedelmente procedure RW o FW, volo VFR o IFR, procedure CV, AA/AG e via discorrendo, esattamente come per la questione delle voci femminili, ci sono giá da anni. Se non qui, sicuramente all'estero. É solo questione di commitment e dedication, che é dove di solito la stragrande maggioranza si tira indietro.

Ho addocchiato i video ma non ne colgo il senso. Riguardo alla voce, cerca un gruppo con altre donne e cosí non hai bisogno di mods o workarounds (a parte R&R, va beh). É nettamente piú facile che spendere tempo facendo mods: cosí hai altri piloti, ATC, AWACS con voce femminile e che parlano con te e il realismo ne guadagna di netto. Il primo video lo capisco meno ancora: ho visto sia il documentario di Paco che Jetstream, e le donne non hanno mai capelli al vento nel cockpit. Non é sensato né pratico, probabilmente é anche un safety hazard. L'unico giveaway che il pilota / RIO é donna visivamente é il taglio degli occhi al piú. La voce si risolve cercando un gruppo come quelli di cui sopra che conta donne nel roster. Riguardo al terzo video, a parte il fatto che é scenico e non realistico e tu parlavi di simulazione (oppure non ho capito io il tuo intento), beh, molti aggiungono dettagli per decorare AF e CV. Di solito ne trovi quando il gruppo é piccolo: piú si ingrandisce il gruppo, meno la gente vuole perdere fps su qualcosa che vedi per 5 minuti e per il resto delle 2-3-4 ore di missione non conta nulla. Inoltre, é qualcosa che giá puoi fare, solo che DCS é un sandbox e quindi non lo fa di default. Alla peggiore puoi creare dei template, o una missione stessa da usare come template. Al che ripropongo la domanda: nel caso in cui tu non lo faccia giá, perché non cerchi un gruppo dove volano altre donne? Non so in italia, ma all'estero ne trovi molti. Puoi anche creare il tuo, ovviamente.

@Fenice59 Long story short, non é un problema di simulatore di volo quanto di management, planning e sopratutto resources allocation, piuttosto che engineering o art department. Ci sono voluti 13 anni per avere nuvole synchronized in MP. 5-6 anni per avere EDGE (non ricordo l'esatta release date, tbh). Tutti vorrebbero piú dettagli e quant'altro, ma infilare tutte queste cose in sprint giá strapieni di altre cose (assumendo usino un development process piú o meno moderno, tipo Agile) é veramente dura. DCS é: - in primis un prodotto commerciale (almeno per noi); - in secundis, un gioco vecchio (simulatore di volo). Immagino che top priority sia ció che manda avanti la baracca (sales). Seguito da frontend (se l'engine si puó chiamre frontend) e backend probabilmente (netcode e affini). Poi features varie (ATC, AWACS, etc). Il resto ha priority zero o quasi. Come hai notato, non c'é alcuna considerazione riguardo ai dettagli da te citati. ED non é in grado, vuoi per le motivazioni espresse finora, vuoi per scelta, di allocare resources per mettersi a gestire dettagli non rilevanti ai fini del mandare avanti la baracca. Se il team fosse molto piú grande, beh, magari potrebbero anche trovare le risorse, ma questo non é lo status quo, e lo vediamo tutti i giorni. Provo a passare il concetto in un altro modo: tu vorresti vedere degli "omini" muoversi negli elicotteri e a terra. Vedo inoltre che citi warthunder, che é un titolo ridotto dove nulla é simulato. Bene, é facile, son 4 poligoni in croce da fare ma, ci sono anche tante considerazioni che magari sfuggono. Partiamo dalla piú semplice: sostenibilitá. Hai quantificato il toll sui pc e sul server? Perché questi blocchi di poligoni andrebbero renderizzati, ma anche sincronizzati e, sebbene le cose in termini di engine e netcode stiano migliorando, tutti questi orpelli, sommati a una simulazione giá pesante di suo, rischiano di mandare il lag fuori scala in MP, o di mettere in ginocchio il tuo PC in SP. Visto che giochi da tanto, sicuramente ricorderai scene del genere, classiche una decina di anni fa in DCS, non appena si metteva qualche unitá di troppo: Il mio punto, se non fosse chiaro, é che DCS ne ha cosí di strada da fare prima di riuscire a implementare in modo sostenibile e funzionale maggiori dettagli. Tant'é che temo che questo punto sia uno dei freni all'espasione di CA: immagina avere ogni veicolo con un damage module accurato e sincronizzato. Addio servers! Ora, il netcode é appena stato ritoccato ed é molto meglio (70 umani e zero lag sono un bel achievement), ma ancora non ci siamo. Detto questo, chiosa personale a conclusione, francamente non mi importa minimamente di vedere il mio personaggio. Anzi, mi dá fastidio, magari copre parte dell'avionica o switches e non posso levare il braccio dai piedi (presente quanto le fa girare svegliarsi di notte con un braccio addormentato? Eh, sem lé). Idem per voci femminili, o anche pelle di colore diversa, localisation e via dicendo, almeno fintanto che non sistemano le core issues: l'ATC é inutile. L'AWACS é incredibilmente ancora piú inutile! Certo, potremmo avere una bella voce italiana come ATC, cosí avremmo un ATC inutile, ma che parla italico. Cheffortuna, eh? Ora, sarcasmo a parte, capisco il punto della discussione ma di nuovo, ancora prima di pensare al fatto che quelle idee piacciano o no, ci si scontra con la ED, e costoro non hanno le risorse o la volontá; e con DCS che, attualmente, faticherebbe non é in grado di rappresentare tutto ció che chiedi (peró stiamo migliorando, un passo alla volta). C'é una mezza soluzione peró: entrare in un gruppo che simula tutto ció che chiedi, con ATC e AWACS umani (abbiamo avuto donne a fare sia piloti che ATC e ATC e JTAC che lo fanno di professione, per esempio). Visto che hai menzionato CSAR, magari un gruppo che ha piloti reali che lo fanno di professione (ne abbiamo uno di Mi-17, per dire, e planning ed execution di certe missioni con lui é veramente fenomenale). Certo, non risolvono il problema degli omini che zampettano in giro ma, overall, il boost all'esperienza é innegabile. Personalmente é molto meglio che avere un blocco di poligoni muoversi dietro di me quando sono un Mi-8. Alla fin della fiera, de gustibus