Waypoints bug.

[jetkid]

I noticed that switching from nav to combat mode the HSI freezes...

This affects all planes...

 

I hope this will be fixed! :cry:

[Nate--IRL--]

This was by design apparently, and is not likely to be fixed.

 

Nate

[nomdeplume]

I think "design limitation" is more accurate than "by design", but yes, the indications were that it wouldn't be fixable within FC2.

[WH_Boomer]

By design? I can't imagine why it would be designed this way.

 

It sure makes following directions from a human FAC harder than it should be. Below is an exerpt from a discussion we had on our War Hawks forums about using the Blackshark in a FAC role. The same theory can be applied to any fixed wing FAC, such as the OA-10, as well.

 

The following quote is taken from the debriefing on the May 15th FAC Training Session we had with Flaming Cliffs 2.0 and Blackshark.

Getting into a good overlook position in order to provide targeting information was my first task. Using the ERBL function of the ABRIS I was then able to provide information, such as distance and bearing from the preplanned IP's to the target and my location, etc., to the strike element. Then once the strike aircraft were called in on target, I had to place smoke rockets on or near the target (a difficult task from a hover at over 2km away) then estimate the offset of the target from the smoke in order to provide accurate guidance information to the incoming pilot.

 

 

This thread should be used to help develop the procedure we will use for operating the KA-50 as a FAC. The attachment below is the starting point for this procedure and are to be considered a work in progress.

 

A few key points I noticed from our initial session in no particular order:

1. IP's need to be established a bit farther from the target area than I had originally planned. We were using 2 pre-planned IP's, Alpha was 11km, and Bravo was 9km. I think 15 to 20km might be better.

 

2. Cloud cover needs to be considered when planning the holding altitude at the CP as well as the ingress altitude from the IP in order to better aid the fast movers in establishing contact with the FAC's mark on target.

 

3. Fast movers run in heading from the IP needs to be established prior to crossing the IP as displayed in the following graphic:

 

 

 

This insures the heading and distance to target from the IP as established by the FAC is flown as accurately as possible by the fast mover pilot. The Blue line shows the appropriate flightpath given the heading and range information established by the FAC. The red line shows the offset and possible miss of the target all together if the turn is started after crossing the IP. The error is dependant on several factors including both timing of the turn as well as airspeed. (ie. Larger or smaller turn radius)

 

 

Attached is a pdf of the Forward Air Controller Concepts we are using in our flights as well. Taken in part from the information provided on SimHQ about the subject.

Forward_Air_Controller_Concepts.pdf

[Speedbrake]

I believe this was brought up before. ED said that it would not be fixed but that the new DCS A-10C simulation would read the correct values regardless of mode.

[Nate--IRL--]

I think "design limitation" is more accurate than "by design", but yes, the indications were that it wouldn't be fixable within FC2.

 

Forgive me, yes you're right, it is a Design Limitation of the Lock on Avionics model. It is not deliberate, but rather a consequence of the design used.

 

Nate

[combatace]

Forgive me, yes you're right, it is a Design Limitation of the Lock on Avionics model. It is not deliberate, but rather a consequence of the design used.

 

Nate

 

 

Yes thats right but then why should ED testers go on telling people that its by deliberate design. See this SIM is really got and as noting is perfect whats bad in accepting the drawbacks. Do you think the die hards fans or even casual simmers who love FC would leave just because FC has drawbacks that are even by will not repairable. Well as far as I'm concerned I straightly prefer the truth.

[GGTharos]

Which tester told you it was by deliberate design?

[Nate--IRL--]

Yes thats right but then why should ED testers go on telling people that its by deliberate design. See this SIM is really got and as noting is perfect whats bad in accepting the drawbacks. Do you think the die hards fans or even casual simmers who love FC would leave just because FC has drawbacks that are even by will not repairable. Well as far as I'm concerned I straightly prefer the truth.

 

I don't think there is an intent to deceive, it is more a question of semantics. The Avionics model was designed to have compromises, LO is a survey sim after all, thus it could be said to be deliberate.

 

But it is not like ED went out of their way to deny users this functionality. It was a consequence of the deliberate and necessary decision to have design compromises.

 

Clear as mud huh? :)

 

Nate

[combatace]

Which tester told you it was by deliberate design?

 

Read the thread pal.

[GGTharos]

My question stands as you have not named said tester in this thread.

 

Read the thread pal.