correct as is The MIDS symbols appear not "on" the A/C

[nickos86]

Attached a screenshot. The B of the wingman is way above him. Seems like the bug that was reported in the past and kinda got solved - reappear. 

[oldcrusty]

I also ran into this.  Started in the air,  INS on IFA.  Single player.

 

 

[oldcrusty]

Ok, I made a simple track and a vid to show where I was looking with my HMD (in case someone watches the track in VR)

At the start of the vid I was approaching an E2 and the Link 16 update rate was sluggish but fairly 'accurate'. Next, I approached an S3 and things got really sluggish. It looks like the update process gets stuck occasionally. I wouldn't think E2 was the cause... I don't know.

The vid starts at 3:44 (on S3)

https://youtu.be/NXwyb0TUZf8?t=224

DL lag.trk

 

[BIGNEWY]

Thanks for the track, the information we have is there will be delay in the datalink display and it will be more noticeable at closer ranges. I will run it by the team again however.

 

 

[oldcrusty]

2 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Thanks for the track, the information we have is there will be delay in the datalink display and it will be more noticeable at closer ranges. I will run it by the team again however.

 

 

 

I think I know what might have been causing the DL 'black outs' that lasted for more then 30 seconds sometimes, since this was my main concern.  The E2 was orbiting at 26.5K feet (I couldn't find an option to setup a racetrack pattern). S3 was also orbiting, at a lot lower altitude though, 7k feet and laterally they were between 10 ~ 20 nm apart. 

I have to verify this but there is a chance the tanker flew into the blind zone on occasion.

I'm not really sure if this was related to the OP's problem... it looked like it at first so I piled up on it, hehe.

[BarTzi]

5 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Thanks for the track, the information we have is there will be delay in the datalink display and it will be more noticeable at closer ranges. I will run it by the team again however.

 

 

There is a delay, but it's not the isue that's reported here. It's completely inaccurate for almost all ranges. Should it really be like that? In that case, it's better to turn it off.

[nickos86]

You can compare to the A-10C2... It's not 100% accurate and there is a delay... but both parameters makes sense for the A-10. They don't feel exaggerated. As for the F-18? Feels like a bug. Bad coordinates to show on screen due to a some reason. It doesn't really feel 'intended'

I'll appreciate to hear the teams answer, thanks! 

[oldcrusty]

Yep, from fairly close distance it is creeping all over the place. Every few seconds it regenerates and creeps away between 50 to 100 feet. 

I marked the vid to show this.

From a distance, it worked well. If you watch the whole vid it shows contacts anywhere from 3 to 80nm and the DL is spot on.

 

https://youtu.be/LJzovhEmwYA?t=162

 

[nickos86]

Please take a look at 3:23 - note how the DL is close to the A/C itself... not 100% but very close - that's make sense... Current situation - doesn't. 

ED, please review it. 

 

 

BTW, 

Note how a sec earlier, the ATFLIR is in PTRACK mode and the operator moves the camera to auto lock on...

 

[Tholozor]

54 minutes ago, nickos86 said:

Please take a look at 3:23 - note how the DL is close to the A/C itself... not 100% but very close - that's make sense... Current situation - doesn't. 

ED, please review it. 

 

 

BTW, 

Note how a sec earlier, the ATFLIR is in PTRACK mode and the operator moves the camera to auto lock on...

 

Please note that's a Super Hornet at a point roughly 10 years newer than the version our Legacy Bug is supposed to represent. A lot can change/improve in a decade.

[nickos86]

Perhaps. But think of it as a pilot. Would you use a system that give you such big errors? That you can't really trust to give you the location when needed?

In this video it's still not 100% but it's very much like the A-10C_2 - there is some lag, it's not spot on but it very close and don't drift much... And a few updates back - it was actually the case for the F-18. It got bad again. 

Why not assume that the correct situation is as shown in the video instead of assuming the current state (for which you don't have a video or any other proof) is true?   

[Coyle]

14 minutes ago, nickos86 said:

But think of it as a pilot. Would you use a system that give you such big errors?

 

When you consider the alternative was simply not having any magical symbology approximating flight positioning in an attempt to maximize SA like it used to be prior to this kind of tech, yes, I'd very much so use such a system. It's good enough, and is better than having nothing. Pilots had have to make due with out it for so long.

[BarTzi]

1 hour ago, Coyle said:

When you consider the alternative was simply not having any magical symbology approximating flight positioning in an attempt to maximize SA like it used to be prior to this kind of tech, yes, I'd very much so use such a system. It's good enough, and is better than having nothing. Pilots had have to make due with out it for so long.

I will take the alternative anyday, if the system provides false information. I get it that the refresh rate plays a role here. However, it seems odd, as nickos said above, that it just deteriorated over the last few patches. 

There are probably zero videos of legacy hornets with JHMCS from that time period anyways, so we can't prove anything.

[nickos86]

At the moment there is a video showing how it actually looks. If anyone got proof - doc/video showing it shouldn't be like that - please put it here or send by PM. 

 

[Beamscanner]

I imagine that the accuracy would be dependent on the source and number of sources.

 

A friendly networked in Link would likely be very accurate as its INS is providing a very accurate position at a high update rate. 

A target from a donor would only be as accurate as the APG-73, and would likely be updated via trackfile extrapolation more often than a real position update (radar scan rate) 

A target from the AWACS (surveillance target) would only have its position refined once every 10 seconds (scan of the AWACS radar), with all other updates being extrapolations. 

 

Additionally, MSI fuses all of these sources together if multiple radars are tracking the target. 

 

So, I believe a friendly should have its position be very close to accurate since its true position is constantly provided into the network. 

 

Non-cooperative targets would likely be less accurate. 

 

[Hulkbust44]

I imagine that the accuracy would be dependent on the source and number of sources.
 
A friendly networked in Link would likely be very accurate as its INS is providing a very accurate position at a high update rate. 
A target from a donor would only be as accurate as the APG-73, and would likely be updated via trackfile extrapolation more often than a real position update (radar scan rate) 
A target from the AWACS (surveillance target) would only have its position refined once every 10 seconds (scan of the AWACS radar), with all other updates being extrapolations. 
 
Additionally, MSI fuses all of these sources together if multiple radars are tracking the target. 
 
So, I believe a friendly should have its position be very close to accurate since its true position is constantly provided into the network. 
 
Non-cooperative targets would likely be less accurate. 
 

Absolutely, this also goes with the data refresh rate. It's stated that the maximum L16 track update interval is 12 seconds from a SURV source. In DCS that's the standard across the board... It's stated that a F/F link (therefore local PPLI) is 1/3 the time of a SURV source. So at absolute maximum the update rate is 4 seconds... Then yeah, with that all the data sources are talking to each other helping to build a more accurate picture.