Jump to content

MBot

Members
  • Posts

    3768
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

Everything posted by MBot

  1. I see that ED is endorsing the Pimax Crystal now, so I feel that I need to drop a warning here about Pimax's business practice. Last summer I brought a Crystal which did not function according to specifications (battery lasted only for 2 hours playtime even with power cable connected). After some back and forth, Pimax has ultimately acknowledged the defect and agreed to my demand for a refund. What followed is a half-year odyssey of Pimax resisting to accept my return shipments of the Crystal, with shipments not being picked up by Pimax and getting returned to me. They say they will not refund me until they get the Crystal back, at the same time not actually taking the Crystal back. After half a year, this is still ongoing. For anyone considering doing business with Pimax, especially with this endorsement by ED, I encourage you to consider these business practices.
  2. I think it it is interesting how strongly many associate the F-4E with Vietnam. From the Heatblur F-4E manual: In detail, the USAF confirmed 21 kills. In combat, the Israeli Air Force downed 116 jets. The IRIAF shot down 83 aircraft.
  3. So after many years I got back into the Hornet a bit. And to my dismay, bomb salvos are still aimed first bomb on pipper instead of center of stick on pipper. 5 years later! I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
  4. Maintining a lock/track is the job of the AWG-9 and the pilot (by remaining within the limits). There is nothing the RIO can do about that.
  5. Tracks on which a Phoenix is being guided should be held and extrapolated even when they are "lost". The sole purpose of this functionality can only be that a Phoenix is supposed to keep guiding on the extrapolated track. If the real target happens to remain adjecent to the "ghost track" it should still be hit. I don't think this is working in DCS though. When a track is lost the Phoenix (A) is gone.
  6. I basically stopped at some point last year. There were just too many insurmountable AI problems. I could never get the AI to do what I envisioned DCE to be. Instead I have been actually flying a lot more for the last 1.5 years and had a good time. I spend a lot of time in multiplayer, for example on Enigma. But after many years of trying hard, I basically abandoned the belief that a realistic (semi-)historical scenario "grand campaign" is possible with DCS.
  7. New development. At first the life of both batteries seems to have gone down to about 2 hours worth of DCS (with powered USB-hub connected). Now the headset has developed a new trick. When one battery was getting low, the headset started to constantly dim and shut down. I just changed the battery and also with the other (which is about 3/4 full at the moment) the headset keeps fading to black and shut down. Extremely disappointing! I have already opened a support ticket at Pimax. One thing more to add to the list...
  8. Modern bombers equipped with tail guns (Tu-95, Tu-142, Tu-22M3) take evasive maneuvers when attacked by fighters. This is a fruitless maneuver against a fighter and will actually make the bomber easier to catch-up to and shoot down (turning aircraft present a larger profile). In the case of the Tu-22M it is especially counterproductive as its high speed should force any trailing fighter to slowly creep up from dead astern in its tail gun field of fire. Instead it will try to turn against fighters. Bombers will also lose mutual protection from defensive fire from any wingmen. Reaction to threat setting has no effect (to be expected, works against ground threats only). Restrict Air-Air Attack will stop them from maneuvering against air threats but will also prevent them from shooting their tail guns at all. The WWII bombers in DCS actually fly straight and level while engaging with defensive guns. The modern bombers should do the same. Attached track shows no particular outcome. It just illustrates that modern bombers go evasive while WWII do not. EvasiveBombers.trk
  9. May I kindly ask about this again? I am doing a lot of bomber intercepts and this is a very common problem. The target is non-maneuvering and the interpolated track remains in the target vicinity, yet the Phoenix stops to guide.
  10. Please allow me add some of my own recent experiences. I got the Crystal about a week ago. Unfortunately I must say I am pretty disappointed. Yes when it works, it provides very impressive clarity. But unfortunately I encountered quite a few problems. 1. With the provided USB-hub, just starting the headset was a huge problem with constant connection failures. Each time this required multiple unplugging and re-plugging of the connections to eventually get the headset to be recognized by the Pimax software and start-up. 2. I could somewhat solve this by using my own powered USB-hub (the Pimax provided one is apparently very low quality). The headset now starts up pretty reliably but the connection problem still exists sometimes. Just yesterday I had the Crystal spontanously disconnect while playing DCS. 3. Even with either the Pimax provided or my own powered USB-hub, the headset empties it's batteries in 2-3 hours of playing DCS. It just seems as if the powered USB-hub is not charging the battery at all. This is a show-stopper for me, as this will not cover the duration of my regular multi-player sessions. Hotswapping the batteries is no option, as this will crash DCS. Other makeshift solutions with extra cables is not what I am looking forward to either. This is a premium product I paid $1700 for, which I expected to use for the next several years. I am not interested in having a makeshift solution for years. These are things which just need to work for a product of this price. 4. I have noticable chromatic abberation starting about 1/3 away from the center of the screen. When looking straight ahead in DCS and glancing down at the instruments with just my eyes, I can see a green copy of the white instrument needles about 1/2 needle width above. Unfortunately this greatly takes away from the otherwise great visuals. I saw quite a few reports online about chromatic abberation problems while others apparently do not have it. I wonder if this is a quaility issue in the manufacturing. 5. The headset is heavy and bulky (which I knew beforehand). Unfortunately it is also quite uncomfortable to wear. I haven't contacted the Pimax support yet as I am dreading the process ("yes I have connected the cables, yes I have updated the firmware... "). But I guess I will have to do it soon in order to deposit any potential warranty claims. Franky I have serious doubts that support will be able to do a lot about my issues. Looking online all of them seem to be very common without any real solutions. Frankly at this point I am already regretting the purchase and would really just like to have my money back. This is not a $1700 experience.
  11. What is your experience with the battery life? Today I had both batteries, initially fully charged, drain in about 2-3 hours of playing DCS, with my own powered USB hub connected (the Pimax supplied USB hub had terrible connection problems). This is awfully short and you cannot hot swap either without crashing DCS.
  12. In the Falklands War, Argentine Roland SAM shot down two 1000 lbs GP bombs. So the possibility exists in principle.
  13. Whenever the AI is tasked to attack, it will first decelerate (using air brakes if available) and immediately accelerate again (using afterburner if available) to ultimately attack with exactly the speed it had when the attack task was given. The deceleration and acceleration is completely unnecessary. This pretty annoying AI quirk exists probably since the Lock On era. Demonstration track attached. AI_Attack_Slowdown.trk
  14. There is a problem with lofting Phoenix against low supersonic targets. I tried to engage SS-N-19 Shipwreck missiles. If the Phoenix lofts, it comes down too late resulting in a terminal perpendicular dive from which it has no chance to hit the target. It would need to dive earlier and flatter to hit the target head-on. The only success I had was launches under 20 NM where the Phoenix doesn't loft at all and goes straight for the target. If it lofts it is a guaranteed miss. No track because they don't play back correctly anyway, but you can check out the test scenario in the mission below. Phoenix_Shipwreck.miz
  15. Another 20 years old request from me that I think is worth repeating every now and then. Please add a text area to the debriefing screen. The current end mission screen we have since the Lock On era is basically just an events log with no mission oriented debriefing. There should at the very least be a text area where the player can be given the outcome of the mission he just played. From a simple "Congratulation on destroying the nuclear reactor, the world is safe now" to a small novel, whatever the mission designer wants to put in. This text area should support conditional text blocks, so that various mission outcomes can be covered. Ideally the text string for the debriefing should be editable by script during the mission, which opens almost unlimited possibilities. In the same vein, conditional pictures should be addable to the debriefing screen. A debfiefing screen must also be viewable after ending a multiplayer mission, to support mission oriented coop play. This is all pretty basic (for any game) and rather simple stuff, especially the text. 3D briefing rooms or other bling, while being nice to have, is not being asked for here. Frankly if DCS wants become a better game, this should have been implemented since Lock On.
  16. Our recent discussion on the Rb 04 made me think about better ways to allow single players to execute saturation attacks on warships (not that this is currently needed with the Rb 04 ). So I went ahead and put together this little script. What this does is to allow AI wingmen that are in formation to launch their Rb 04 anti-ship missile on cue when the player launches his own. No further radio commands or mission editor task setting required. Setup for mission: Initialize the script using your preferred method in the mission editor (Do Script or Do Script File trigger). That's it. Use: If your AI wingmen are in formation (considered within 200 m of player altitude and within 5000 m distance), they will automatically launch their Rb 04 when you do and immediately return to formation. Having your wingmen in a stable formation and aiming precisely at your target helps everything to go as smooth as possible (just like you would do with a human wingman). Due to the way DCS works, AI can launch anti-ship missiles only on actual targets (no bearing launch only). The script will consider the closest target within 10° of your nose to be your intended target and that is what the AI will attack. If you launch into empty ocean, you wingmen will not launch as they need an actual target. Beware, if you launch on a friendly ship, your wingmen will do so too! The default setting is that everybody in the flight launches on the same (the closest on your nose) target (saturation attack). If you want to attack a group of ships that are close together (convoy attack), you can change the first variable in the script to single_attack = false. Now your wingmen will distribute their fire amongst the targets. The script is fixed to Rb 04E, as it is a very simple weapon to aim. It won't work with other missiles (RBS 15) as it doesn't really make much sense with more complex targeting. Of course the AI might still show some wonky behaviour, but that just is DCS AI. I didn't really stress test this that much, so if you find any scripting errors please let me know. I hope you enjoy Rb04_AI_LaunchWhenIDoScript.lua
  17. There are performance discrepancies between the player and AI version of Rb 04E. Burn time: 76s vs. 65s Cruise alt: 9-10m vs. 15m Speed: the AI version seems to be accelerating throughout the burn I understand that the AI version has simplified guidance, but hopefully the performance can be made to match.
  18. I have been trying to look more into the SA-N-4. Being the primary anti-aircraft system of the Grisha V and Krivak II in DCS (and a secondary system for the Slava CG), it is especially relevant as a target for the Viggen and Rb-04. From what I could find, OSA-MA was introduced in 1979 and had a minimum target engagement altitude of 25 m. This is the capability we currently have in DCS. Though we don't realy have a specifc naval OSA. The ships simply have a copy-paste of the land system. The improved OSA-MA2 was introduced in the mid-80s and had a minimum target engagement altitue of 5 m and was thus capable against sea skimmers. From what I could find, the initial Krivak II were built with the earier OSA-M, the later units were built with OSA-MA. The Grisha V were apparently build with either OSA-MA or OSA-MA2. Slava (Moskva) was built with OSA-MA and her sisters with OSA-MA2. I could not realy find good info to what extend these units had their OSA systems upgraded to the latest level during their service. Does anyone have any information on this? I think it would be realy interesting to know whether the ships we have in DCS should be able to intercept sea skimming anti-ship missiles.
  19. I guess it boils down to this and this is were we disagree. I am far from being an expert on naval matters, but from all the things I have read on the subject this is exacly what I would expect. Even if that means that you have to spend 3 or more SAMs to reliably hit a sea skimmer, which with VLS is not a fundamental problem. With the introduction of AEGIS (and later similar systems) and VLS in the 1980s, saturation is essential to defeat a modern warship. Of course you still want a layered defense and ultimately CIWS for the holy-mary save against any leakers. But I do not see how indivdual or pairs of subsonic sea skimmers have any reasonable hope to penetrate a modern, prepared(*) SAM defense. And I don't want to see it in DCS either. *This of course exludes major goofs such as Moskva.
  20. Unfortunately this is getting way beyond the fidelity of the naval envorinment in DCS. We only have a very generic SM-2, the Perry class has SM-2 instead of SM-1, the naval S-300 situation is a complete mess, most Russian naval SAMs are mere copies of the land units, the fire control radars are not correct etc. In any case, RIM-66M SM-2 Block III introduced fuze improvements for low altitute targets and entered service in 1988. That is 2 years after the introduction of the first Ticonderoga VLS and 3 years before the first Arleigh Burke we have in DCS. I think it is safe to say that these ships are designed to defend their fleet against contemporary threats (including sea skimmers from 1975). I will just say that I think it is wrong to see such potent wessel as Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke depending entierly in last-ditch CIWS to defend themself against Rb-04.
  21. First let me say that I highly appreciate that you continue to engage in this discussion. Hopefully we will be able to reach a more satisfactory solution. But I think you are mistaken regarding the ability of "long range" SAMs to engage sea skimmers. Here for example is a video of SM-2 engaging a GQM-163 supersonic sea skimming target. According to wiki the GQM-163 cruises at 9 m.
  22. While that is true, there is also a practical side to it. That engagements are successful if the target is 0.1m above a threshold or fail if it is 0.1m below it, is due to a simplified simulation model. I think it is extremely unlikely that ED will change this. Asking ED to lower the altitude thresholds of SAMs (which to that degree of precision are rather artificial anyway) because Heatblur's missile happens to fly a couple of cm below the threshold, is very unlikely to result in any ED movement. Therefore insisting on a specific cruise altitude, even if it is factually correct, will continue to result in an unrealistic outcome. The question therefore is, would it be so wrong to increase the Rb 04E cruise altitude by let's say 1 meter, on order for it to be consistently above the discreet 10 m threshold of a number of important SAMs, if such change would result in a more realistic outcome in an imperfect model? I don't mean this as a rhetorical question. I am not sure myself.
  23. It's the hen and egg question of bug reporting in DCS. If I make a bug report to ED that SAMs can't engage Rb 04E, they will say that Heatblur should fix it (if the report ever even gets looked at in the black hole that is ED bug reporting). If I report it to Heatblur, they say that it is an ED modeling issue. It is an all too common situation unfortunately. I have little hope that this will be looked at by anyone unfortunately..
  24. Just out of curiosity I just had a quick look at the game data. The only naval SAMs in DCS which are currently capable to engage Rb 04E are SeaRAM with a set minimum target altitude of -1 m and HQ-16 with 5 m. Sea Sparrow should in principle also work with a set minimum target altitude of 1 m but it wont engage Rb 04E for some other reason. SM-2, Tor and S-300F have set minimum target altitude of 10 meters and will therefore not be able to engage Rb 04E which cruises between 9 and 10 meters. All the other SAMs are higher. So except for the Supercarriers and the Chinese frigate, Rb 04E is currently uninterceptable in DCS.
×
×
  • Create New...