Pilotasso Posted February 20, 2006 Posted February 20, 2006 It's definitely challenging, especially if you need to maneuver! When you see the target come close, just switch to STT, save yourself the trouble. I don't know if the 63 will be improved. I -suspect- at some point in time it may be, if ED decides to port the 15 into the new 'pit tech and AFM, and the new sensor/systems tech that would undoubtedly come with the F-16. I certainly hope that will happen :) It would be suitable and logical to go along with the Su-27 in an eventual (and hypothetical) Second addon to the F-16 SIM. :) It would increase the games lifespan as with LOMAC :) .
S77th-GOYA Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 Trust me, at 10nm you want STT :P Not if you have more than one bandit, you don't. And having more than one bandit is the main reason for TWS in the first place. Lack of warning is secondary to multiple engagement capability, IMO. The proper modeling was not possible. So, ED chose to take the time to under model it rather than to leave it over modelled.
Pilotasso Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 At 10 miles you better not loose any time trying to keep a lock on 2 bandits at the same time (unless it doesnt break all the way from greater distances), just go for bore mode, shoot one, and then point to the other one, shoot and keep watching both visualy. I do this and I make sure at least one of them has 2 AMRAAM's timely shot at him so theres good chance that I will only deal with just one survivor (or none). Anyway you do it, is extremely dangerous for multi engage WVR . .
GGTharos Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 ED Fixed a bug. The proper automation would have no less trouble keeping multiples in the zone if they decided to split at close ranges. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Pilotasso Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 Well the first designated target would be prioritized? .
GGTharos Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 Exactly ... the scan zone would be centered on the PDT. If the secondary (And any other) targets exited the scan zone at that point you would lose them. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
S77th-GOYA Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 ED Fixed a bug. ED implemented a different inaccuracy in place of a pre-existing inaccuracy. If the navigation worked correctly, that would be fixing a bug.
Weta43 Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 There were TWO bugs: 1/Radar cone doesn't follow PDT & 2/TWD tracked outside scan cone. Now there is only one: Radar cone doesn't follow PDT. One bug fixed, one bug remaining. Upside: one less bug & one more step towards accurate modelling. Downside: increased pilot workload till the other bug is fixed too. Cheers.
Kula66 Posted February 27, 2006 Posted February 27, 2006 Ok ... so when is this bug in the 63, created/unearthed in the latest version planned on getting fixed?
GGTharos Posted February 27, 2006 Posted February 27, 2006 It isn't a bug ... it's a missing feature, there's a difference. The radar tracking beyond its anglular limits IS a bug. That should be pretty obvious. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Kula66 Posted February 28, 2006 Posted February 28, 2006 Now that is funny GGT! Next time I get an upgrade to Word and MS remove the carriage return feature but don't fully implement the replacement I should be happy! All my docs become one long paragraph ... but its not a bug! Well, this is one paying customer that is not impressed ... sorry! 1.12 was not a good vintage.
Kula66 Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 Ok, this again ... I online, tracking a target in a 15 ... I've locked the target at 40ish miles and I'm manually following the target closing head-on, with the cursor, noting the alt and keeping the cone centered ... and still the lock drops at 20ish miles. Target closing headon ... Im on the 169th so watch target on external ... not changing course at all .... Anyone? Is there something else you now have to do?
S77th-konkussion Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 along these lines... The TWS mode in the RF planes.. there is no altitude or speed info- not even on the PDT. Obviously it's quite useless for multiple engagements with no ARH missiles,I understand that- but I can't help but wonder- is it really lacking all this info in RL? Same with the datalink.. hard to beleive there isn't more info available to the pilot. [sIGPIC]http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=43337&d=1287169113[/sIGPIC]
Recommended Posts