|
Truga posted:i haven't flown a fighter with INS alignment yet, can't you just take off anyway? like, just ignore/mute the warning and take off and fly? you don't need the instruments anyway, that's why there's these 3d graphics out the window If you don't care about having a functional heading reading or even flight path marker: sure! So in a Viper you'd be able to... take off, fly around for a bit and do nothing, and then probably eject. Landing an F-16 is hard enough with a flight path marker that does point where the jet is going. Also: what warnings? If you forget to align, or forget to switch from align mode to "finished aligning, time to navigate" mode, you get no warning at all, you just find yourself flying somewhere over Russia at a random heading, instead of where you thought you were going. Found that out the hard way!... Hyperlynx fucked around with this message at 10:28 on Jun 28, 2023 |
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 10:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 01:56 |
|
|
for the heading you have a magnetic compass somewhere, surely? and a map of the region so you can easily see where you are unless the weather's all hosed. VFR in fighters is the easiest poo poo ever thanks to the bubble cockpits for landing just line up the runway, then use radar alt for help touching down gently if you don't have a feel for it yet
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 10:52
|
|
|
Truga posted:for landing just line up the runway, then use radar alt for help touching down gently if you don't have a feel for it yet You've done that in an F-16, huh?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 11:03
|
|
|
i've done it in other dumb things, but not in f16 specifically, no
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 11:05
|
|
|
I guess you could do a very dumb, low landing by feel, and if you're very, very good not run out of runway trying to slow down. But trying to do a proper landing would be very difficult, and it's already a hard jet to land. You really want a landing bracket with a FPM so that you don't exceed 15 degrees AoA and tailstrike the runway. The alternative is to keep looking between the AoA gauge between your knees and the runway, which would suuuuck. And I guess you could flare by feel, maybe? Basically, you have to use the whole plane as an aerobrake, which means managing your AoA carefully. Your wheelbrakes aren't very good, and your airbrake isn't good enough. So you need to slow down as much as you can by using aerodynamics without pointing up so high you break your engine nozzle on the ground, but also without going too slow, stalling and crashing before you reach the runway. The jet pretty much can't go slow and stay in the air. Hyperlynx fucked around with this message at 11:21 on Jun 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 11:15
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:are they also launching two mirrored HCUs for the rear cockpit in the strike eagle? bc i'm still trying to figure out how to map that stuff properly. (i will not actually buy HCUs for the strike eagle) There’s a button in the binds to toggle to the other hand controller, and another one that is changes so long as it’s held. Bind the left controller as normal, and then bind the held one to a switch - I’m using the boat switch on a warthog throttle fully forward. It works well enough, and I can tell by feel which one I’m using.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 12:53
|
|
|
unless you are absolutely turboing hauling rear end in the f-16, which you shouldn't be landing anyway, you don't need to aerobrake while in your descent just once you're wheels on ground once you're on the runway the horizon is more or less the same no matter where you are, so eyeball it it's more complicated then the f-18 for sure but as long as you know you have to flare to stop it isn't that difficult
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 13:11
|
|
|
Hyperlynx posted:I guess you could do a very dumb, low landing by feel, and if you're very, very good not run out of runway trying to slow down. But trying to do a proper landing would be very difficult, and it's already a hard jet to land. You really want a landing bracket with a FPM so that you don't exceed 15 degrees AoA and tailstrike the runway. The alternative is to keep looking between the AoA gauge between your knees and the runway, which would suuuuck. And I guess you could flare by feel, maybe? You just need to get the jet on speed in the downwind of the pattern. Use the AoA indexer to the left of the HUD. The high attitude isn't for aerobraking, it's to increase lift so you don't stall at low speeds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 13:18
|
|
|
Obligatory https://i.imgur.com/mAbIedQ.mp4
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 16:12
|
|
|
A full startup is just cargo culting if the actual underlying systems aren’t modeled in depth. No DCS module has working circuit breakers, or in depth failures. You don’t need to memorize any abnormal checklists, since your plane is either 100% functional, or breaking apart and on fire. Does the plane simulate proper load shedding if you lose a generator? Does it model a slow hydraulic leak? If you can’t simulate a non-fatal systems failure, it’s not a study level sim. The biggest offender IMHO is the F-16. The devs take all this time modelings a JHCMS alignment, yet a single stray AK round causes an immediate fatal fuel leak, no matter where it hits. Let me have a single channel FLCS failure! Let me have a slow engine oil leak! Etc. etc. INTJ Mastermind fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Jun 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 21:43
|
|
|
Purely out of curiosity, what actual process is happening during that 8 minute or whatever countdown in real life? Like what mechanism is taking place? Is some sensor sampling a bajillion times to calibrate or something?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 21:46
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:A full startup is just cargo culting if the actual underlying systems aren’t modeled in depth. No DCS module has working circuit breakers, or in depth failures. You don’t need to memorize any abnormal checklists, since your plane is either 100% functional, or breaking apart and on fire. Does the plane simulate proper load shedding if you lose a generator? Does it model a slow hydraulic leak? If you can’t simulate a non-fatal systems failure, it’s not a study level sim. To be fair, A-10 and Mi-8 say “hello!” But yes, it's pretty darn inconsistent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 21:47
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:Purely out of curiosity, what actual process is happening during that 8 minute or whatever countdown in real life? Like what mechanism is taking place? Is some sensor sampling a bajillion times to calibrate or something? A gyroscope is trying to measure the earth’s rotation. That’s why an alignment at high latitudes takes longer than one at lower latitudes - less spin. At least IRL. In DCS it’s just an idiot timer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 21:48
|
|
|
uwaeve posted:Obligatory lol every time
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 21:48
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:A gyroscope is trying to measure the earth’s rotation. That’s why an alignment at high latitudes takes longer than one at lower latitudes - less spin. At least IRL. In DCS it’s just an idiot timer. Cool, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 21:50
|
|
|
You guys know you can just make your own missions or host your own server where every plane spawns ready to go, right? Every briefing room mission I've ever made starts on the runway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 21:50
|
|
|
I can’t stress enough how much flying with goons makes DCS bearable. Having a hosted server run by responsive goons means you can minimize the DCS silliness as much as possible. Also many aircraft have stored heading alignments or special options to reduce the tedium.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 22:17
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:Purely out of curiosity, what actual process is happening during that 8 minute or whatever countdown in real life? Like what mechanism is taking place? Is some sensor sampling a bajillion times to calibrate or something? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYsG-lXfih8
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 22:22
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:Purely out of curiosity, what actual process is happening during that 8 minute or whatever countdown in real life? Like what mechanism is taking place? Is some sensor sampling a bajillion times to calibrate or something? The inertial navigation system is figuring out where it is by first figuring out where it isnt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 22:58
|
|
|
Bondematt posted:The inertial navigation system is figuring out where it is by first figuring out where it isnt. That’s likely a fairly long checklist, 8 minutes seems reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 23:28
|
|
|
My dad's cable box takes longer to boot after a power failure than a 70s jet's INS system takes to fully align.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 23:35
|
|
|
Shoigu! Gerasimov! Where is our loving aircraft???
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 23:35
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:My dad's cable box takes longer to boot after a power failure than a 70s jet's INS system takes to fully align. And they are basically the same thing so that's just outrageous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 02:42
|
|
|
dialhforhero posted:And they are basically the same thing so that's just outrageous. They're not and that's what dumb about it lol. The cable box is less complex and much newer, and yet?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 03:02
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:They're not and that's what dumb about it lol. The cable box is less complex and much newer, and yet? The cable box has no way to determine where it isn’t so of course that process will take longer in that case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 03:21
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You just need to get the jet on speed in the downwind of the pattern. Use the AoA indexer to the left of the HUD. Actually that's a really good point - I haven't actually learned to do proper air force landings yet 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2023 07:57
|
|
|
Did Chuck stop making his guides?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2023 20:52
|
|
|
They still get updated from time to time. I saw a few airframes had a revised June 2023 (F-5 and Huey to name a couple).
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2023 21:44
|
|
|
He moved hosting to his own website (https://chucksguides.com). From his Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/chucksguides), it looks like he's working on the mirage f1 at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2023 22:03
|
|
|
Ah nice, good to hear. I was concerned. I hate watching videos and the official manuals are poorly organized and often full of errors. As for me, I'm still in this toxic love hate relationship with this stupid game. I found that splash damage script mentioned earlier and good lord does it ever improve the game! I can finally fly low over a column of BMPs and ripple off a dozen high-drag bombs and blow up like six of them instead of one or zero! It's the way the game should play! In the ED forum thread for the script, where people said this: quote:Thank you man for fixing what ED couldn't care to get done. some company man showed up to respond with this: quote:You can enjoy this mod without taking shots at us. We want to do this properly, but a proper fragmentation model needs to wait on updates that we are doing such as Multithreading. Also, some of the things listed in this script are already done in DCS. Thanks. go gently caress yourself! Also, I am zooming around with the F-16 and couldn't get the laser-guided bombs to drop properly. It turns out that the current implementation is wrong and you have to be lined up within 5 mils (0.28 degrees!) of your target for the computer to release them: quote:Some weapons are supposed to have different lateral release constraints. Precise bombs like MK 82 should be "5 mil" which allows 5 miliradian lateral miss angle while GBU-12 are "3/9" which means you just have to pass through the solution's 3-9 line (abeam of it). This is essentially unlimited lateral angle error. But right now it looks like everything is set to 5 mil constraint so make sure you have the ASL and FPM exactly aligned laterally to ensure release with all bombs. and of course the company man says: quote:Please PM me your evidence about the release behaviour. gooooooo fuuuuuuuuuck yourseeelllllllfffffffff I (sometimes) have a blast with this game but god I hate the loving company Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Jul 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2023 23:06
|
|
|
lmfao (edm file is the 3d model format the game uses) gently caress you
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 00:16
|
|
|
Yeah, shame on them wanting to protect all their hard work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 01:03
|
|
|
Of all the things you should never accuse an ED Beta Tester of, it's definitely hard work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 01:07
|
|
|
No, but a lot of effort went into making the 3D models and they most definitely have the right to protect that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 01:09
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:As for me, I'm still in this toxic love hate relationship with this stupid game. I found that splash damage script mentioned earlier and good lord does it ever improve the game! I can finally fly low over a column of BMPs and ripple off a dozen high-drag bombs and blow up like six of them instead of one or zero! It's the way the game should play! I wonder what is the real effect of splash damage, considering the recent case of Ukrainian Bradley that suffered a direct hit from a 122mm Grad and is undergoing repairs. I seen many mentions of the incorrect performance of missiles, but I haven't seen a proof that they are wrong. Or even clear explanation what if wrong with them. Do we have a real information of missile performance from the amount of missile combat we have experienced. Does even Raytheon know it for real?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 01:14
|
|
|
Saukkis posted:I wonder what is the real effect of splash damage, considering the recent case of Ukrainian Bradley that suffered a direct hit from a 122mm Grad and is undergoing repairs. It would be a more accurate model to simulate a mission kill rather than hard kill. This is of course hard to quantify, and even harder to do so from the air. It's not like it's Wargame where the status effects hover above the unit (Panic! 20 seconds Optics Down 60 second Tracked) and a Bomb Damage Assessment will only tell you if there's still a vehicle there or if it got moved. Even if you do manage do this, realistically a mission killed APC or tank can still become a pillbox formerly on wheels and cause your infantry grief.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 01:23
|
|
|
I don't know if there even is a "real" effect of splash damage. Can you define a deterministic, repeatable effect of something as chaotic as an explosion on a battlefield? The ED guy above says that they need a "fragmentation model" to do splash damage "properly," but how on earth do they plan to validate this? It's not like they're going to go out themselves and set off 2000 pounds of tritonal next to a bunch of old BMPs and do some sort of analysis; even if they did, national militaries spend billions on exactly that sort of thing and still don't have perfect models. ED is going to base this either on whatever public documents they can find (i.e. incomplete or superficial data), or assumptions and calculations they make themselves (i.e. bullshit). The idea of this somehow being an "accurate representation" of reality is laughable. But that's the stupid standard they think everything has to meet before it can be put in the game (despite there being a zillion other simplifications and inaccuracies that they just ignore or hastily justify). DCS is a video game. Ultimately I think the modeling of everything in it should be measured against these three parameters, in order: 1) Is it fun? 2) Is it plausible? 3) Is it accurate? And the game and its players should be permitted to bend both accuracy and plausibility in service of fun. Is splash damage "accurate?" Who knows. But it is fun! And it's plausible! Two out of three ain't bad. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Jul 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 01:31
|
|
|
quote:122mm Grad Is that a lot? I've never been exploded before, but Wikipedia says those are like 20kg warheads. That's closer to a zuni hit (~7kg) than a MK-82 (~90kg warhead). I guess a somewhat wonky rocket isn't totally out of the realm of possibility given the state of things over there either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 02:17
|
|
|
AI aircraft damage models exacerbate the problem too. AI helis ignoring crippling damage/being on fire is a common thing that requires scripting workarounds which shouldnt be necessary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 03:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 01:56 |
|
|
skooma512 posted:It would be a more accurate model to simulate a mission kill rather than hard kill. This is of course hard to quantify, and even harder to do so from the air. It's not like it's Wargame where the status effects hover above the unit (Panic! 20 seconds Optics Down 60 second Tracked) and a Bomb Damage Assessment will only tell you if there's still a vehicle there or if it got moved. Even if you do manage do this, realistically a mission killed APC or tank can still become a pillbox formerly on wheels and cause your infantry grief. Weeeeeeeell… yes, it would be hard to do realistically and based on combat statistics. But. It wouldn't actually be hard to do in the DCS code we have right now. It would basically require three things: 1. In every way and sense, replace the current “unit dead” trigger with a new one called “unit destroyed”. Its main purpose would be to flag the unit for clean-up for advanced scripting but it would have pretty much zero use for actual scoring and AI processing. This will happen when the units HP is reduced to zero, like the “unit dead” trigger does not. 2. (Re)create a new “unit dead” trigger that functionally works like the current one does: it's what determines when pilots are credited for a kill; it determines when the unit starts burning and begins to “bleed” hitpoints; it determines whether the unit is part of the enumeration of units in a zone — e.g.. for the purpose of flipping base ownership — and whether it gets any AI processing (it can no longer target or be targeted by other units). This will happen way sooner as the unit's HP is reduced. For some particularly fragile ones, it may be as soon as 90% HP. Trucks, for instance, have a pretty huge span between “no longer functions as a truck” (it's got a broken engine) and “goes up like a roman candle”. For other unit types, the threshold may be lower, for instance to simulate that it can still do some things even if it can't really move around a lot. Which brings us to… 3. Separate and create clear trigger states for systems being disabled and movement being disabled. This is already something that happens in ground units, but you never see it in action because the margin between these states triggering and the unit blowing up are too small. To make it even better, these state thresholds could be moved around and differ from one unit type to another, not just in terms of at which percent HP they trigger, but in which order they happen. Taking out a mobile armoured anti-air radar doesn't require a whole lot, but making it stop moving is a different matter. Maybe something like the SA-15 will have a “system disabled” threshold of 90% but a ”movement disabled” at 75%, whereas that tank-becomes-a-pillbox situation would happen if you flipped them around. For extra bonus funpoints, being system-disabled could actually give the AI a speed bonus (or speed priority at least) so they can run away better when they no longer serve their original purpose. Basically, at the moment, the HP pile of a ground unit is treated something like this: 50% HP = systems disabled (yellow) → 25% HP = movement disabled (red) → 10%:ish HP = burning, bleeding HP → 0% HP = dead. It should be pretty darn trivial to make this make more sense, and let weapons have more effect, if it was done as: 90% HP = systems disabled → 75% HP = movement disabled → 50% HP = dead, burning, bleeding HP → 0% HP = destroyed. There are code stubs in there that suggest that the game already has stuff like damage mitigation and arcs of vulnerability, so there is no inherent issue with units being disabled at much higher HP levels, but it may occasionally require something with a bit more oomph to actually chip away at those hitpoints and reach the new higher threshold.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2023 04:10
|
|