OutOnTheOP Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 So, it appears that if you use DM or DG radar mode to lock a target, the gun pipper does not compute lead for the LCOS reticle. I'm not sure if this is correct behavior, but if so, it certainly makes the F-5E a less effective dogfighter. Having to use the heads-down radar display to lock a target in order to get a lead computation seems very, very wrong to me. I suspect that correct behavior is that DM, DG, or normal radar operation is used to determine how a target is locked, but that the pipper behavior AFTER lock should be determined solely by the sight mode setting; so that after locking a target with the DG radar mode, the pipper should give an LCOS lead solution. Otherwise, DG is a useless mode; it just gives range data for a fixed gunsight, which is less than helpful. I suspect this is a bug.
ФрогФут Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 In DG the sight is automatically switched to A/A1 mode, which is currently not completely done. "Я ошеломлён, но думаю об этом другими словами", - некий гражданин Ноет котик, ноет кротик, Ноет в небе самолетик, Ноют клумбы и кусты - Ноют все. Поной и ты.
OutOnTheOP Posted July 24, 2016 Author Posted July 24, 2016 In DG the sight is automatically switched to A/A1 mode, which is currently not completely done. You guys should probably get on that immediately, then; I strongly suspect DG will be the most commonly used gun mode in the F-5. It's extremely impractical to use standard RWS-type radar mode to lock up a target in dogfight, and unless the target is extremely cooperative, chances are it will at some point leave the radar gimbal limits during a dogfight and need to be re-locked to get the guns solution.
dotChuckles Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 You guys should probably get on that immediately, then; :megalol::doh: I'm sure they'll take that under advisement. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
OutOnTheOP Posted July 24, 2016 Author Posted July 24, 2016 (edited) :megalol::doh: I'm sure they'll take that under advisement. Oh, I'm sorry, did you want to actually CONTRIBUTE something of VALUE to the conversation? Here, let me rephrase it in a way your simple, sarcastic mind is more likely to understand: the highest priority and greatest developer programming time should be given to fixing the AIM-9P5, with the close second priority given to implementing A/A1 gun mode, and all other extant bugs a distant, distant third. With such a crucial feature of the aircraft not yet even implemented, F-5E isn't even in Beta state yet, it is at best a late Alpha. Better? Edited July 24, 2016 by OutOnTheOP 1
dotChuckles Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 Yes, much better. Entirely more respectful. Appreciated. Well all except for the personal insults... but hey ho. I should have guessed that would be the form given your original attitude. But thanks for trying. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
darrentoogood991 Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 Better simple and sarcastic rather than down and out ignorant. I too have nothing of value to add. 1
Sarge55 Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 Actually I would prefer the Dev's continue the development as they see fit rather than some forum denizen... [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] i7 10700K OC 5.1GHZ / 500GB SSD & 1TB M:2 & 4TB HDD / MSI Gaming MB / GTX 1080 / 32GB RAM / Win 10 / TrackIR 4 Pro / CH Pedals / TM Warthog
OutOnTheOP Posted July 25, 2016 Author Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) Yes, much better. Entirely more respectful. Appreciated. Well all except for the personal insults... but hey ho. I should have guessed that would be the form given your original attitude. But thanks for trying. My "original attitude" was to ask a simple question, point out what I believed to be a bug, and then to state my preference and reasoning for why I felt that should be an immediate priority. YOUR immediate attitude was to flip a shit attitude complete with sarcastic "smileys" and nothing of substance to add to the thread. Funny thing about respect: if you want it, you have to give it. You can't expect to come shit all over someone else's thread, make mocking comments, and then expect them to treat YOU with respect in return. So you'll excuse me if I have precisely zero sympathy for your bruised ego. Edited July 25, 2016 by OutOnTheOP
dotChuckles Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) Cool story brah. I'll "get on that immediately" :megalol: I guess that at the altitude you're flying at on that high horse, the air is a bit too thin to understand that entitlement and demands of developers aren't that respectful. ESPECIALLY as it's mentioned in the release notes and that they are working on it. But that's cool... you go ahead and kick the straw man. I'm sure you'll have a few more ad hominem attacks to get in. But seriously... Do you need a nap? A cookie maybe? Stick in champ, you'll get there. I'm sure once you feel better you'll be handing out self entitled and opinionated development imperatives to all and sundry like the forum pro that you are without anyone picking up on your rudeness. Happy times. Oh! Almost forgot... :thumbup: Edited July 25, 2016 by dotChuckles 3 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Manuel_108 Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 Oh, I'm sorry, did you want to actually CONTRIBUTE something of VALUE to the conversation? Here, let me rephrase it in a way your simple, sarcastic mind is more likely to understand: the highest priority and greatest developer programming time should be given to fixing the AIM-9P5, with the close second priority given to implementing A/A1 gun mode, and all other extant bugs a distant, distant third. With such a crucial feature of the aircraft not yet even implemented, F-5E isn't even in Beta state yet, it is at best a late Alpha. Better? They also haven't implemented the BIT test mode yet. Literally unflyable! (beware of sarcasm)
Recommended Posts