Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 13 of 14 1 2 11 12 13 14
#4496803 - 11/10/19 10:05 PM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: GrayGhost]  
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 690
reconmercs Offline
Member
reconmercs  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 690
an island
Originally Posted by GrayGhost
Could it be the enormous SA enhancing capability of the data-link, the anti-radar capability with HARM, stand-off capability with JSOW and plenty of ability to drop guided weapons? Man, I just don't know.
Lately real pilots are telling us they call TWS 'Track while lie' and 'don't really use it' ... it's funny that you're trying to pawn these things off as the most (combat) important capabilities.

Originally Posted by ricnunes
Well, DCS Hornet doesn't have an A2G Radar and it also doesn't have a TWS A2A Radar mode. Those are two of the most (combat) important capabilities if not the most important capabilities of the real Hornet when it comes to real A2A and A2G combat.
So if a Hornet without such capabilities is considered by you to have "lot of capability" then I would really like to know what would be for you a Hornet that doesn't have a lot of capability?? rolleyes




Regardless if "real pilots" use it or not, both aircraft have these systems do they not? Yet they have not been implemented nor is there any timeline on when they may be implemented, especially A/G radar. For the Viper, its only been a month so ok, fine but the Hornet ....seriously, when exactly is it acceptable for customers to be irked they paid $80 for a module still stuck in early beta going on almost 2 years now???

Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4496814 - 11/10/19 11:20 PM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: Winfield]  
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,584
Force10 Offline
I'm just a
Force10  Offline
I'm just a
Senior Member

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,584
CA
Originally Posted by Winfield


I am actually surprised that Force10 has not already stepped in to warn members here for the barrage of attacks that NineLine has had to put up with, yet he comes back and weather's the storm.



I'm impressed with how NineLine is handling the harsh criticism as well.

He is representing the developer, and as long as the harsh criticism is focused on the developers actions (or, his actions as a community manager) then it's valid. If it gets to be personal attacks...then it's a problem.

Most folks around here know there is no love loss between ED and myself (still have a 70% warning level wink )...but I think the re-hashing of old wounds is getting tiresome. This is just my personal opinion. The problem is the money aspect. I've said before...I have seen good friendships end over $20. It will make someone not let things go...forever.

I have been seeing words like "fanboy" being thrown around...let's not do that. I really don't want to ban anyone, but you ALL know better...don't go there.


Asus Z87 Sabertooth motherboard
Windows 7 64 bit Home edition
Intel I5 4670K @ 4.4 ghz
16 gig 1866mhz Corsair Vengence Pro memory
EVGA GTX 970 Superclocked 4gb Video Card
Intel 510 series 120gb SSD (boot drive)
Samsung 840 1TB SSD
Onboard Realtek sound
______________________________________________________

Oddball from Kelly's Heroes: "If we're late, it's cause we're dead"



#4496815 - 11/10/19 11:23 PM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: reconmercs]  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,045
GrayGhost Offline
Hotshot
GrayGhost  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,045
Originally Posted by reconmercs
Regardless if "real pilots" use it or not, both aircraft have these systems do they not? Yet they have not been implemented nor is there any timeline on when they may be implemented, especially A/G radar. For the Viper, its only been a month so ok, fine but the Hornet ....seriously, when exactly is it acceptable for customers to be irked they paid $80 for a module still stuck in early beta going on almost 2 years now???


The do have them, and they are being worked on. On the Viper you do have SAM at least, which is considered to be superior to TWS.


--
44th VFW
#4496904 - 11/11/19 08:12 PM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: GrayGhost]  
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 690
reconmercs Offline
Member
reconmercs  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 690
an island
Originally Posted by GrayGhost
Originally Posted by reconmercs
Regardless if "real pilots" use it or not, both aircraft have these systems do they not? Yet they have not been implemented nor is there any timeline on when they may be implemented, especially A/G radar. For the Viper, its only been a month so ok, fine but the Hornet ....seriously, when exactly is it acceptable for customers to be irked they paid $80 for a module still stuck in early beta going on almost 2 years now???


The do have them, and they are being worked on. On the Viper you do have SAM at least, which is considered to be superior to TWS.



I don't care what is "considered superior". I want the module (Hornet) to be complete with the features it was advertised to be getting when I purchased it well over a year ago.

#4496968 - 11/12/19 04:47 PM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: GrayGhost]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,829
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,829
Portugal
Originally Posted by GrayGhost

On the Viper you do have SAM at least, which is considered to be superior to TWS.


Even if that is to be the case on the F-16 (namely pre-Block 60/70), that's definitely not the case with the Hornet which as far as I know, doesn't have SAM mode. The Hornet uses TWS mode for multiple aircraft tracking and this mode in the Hornet is a very good one which it can even prioritize up to 8 targets.

And even regarding the F-16, define "SAM considered to be superior to TWS"??

On the Viper, SAM can be better than TWS in terms of scan rate but on the other hand SAM doesn't track multiple targets (it only shows the relative position of targets in the area). So and for example, with SAM you can only obtain flight direction information (track) of a single target while with TWS you can obtain this same info for several targets (even on the Viper). As such "SAM considered to be superior to TWS" is quite relative.

#4496984 - 11/12/19 07:37 PM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,045
GrayGhost Offline
Hotshot
GrayGhost  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,045
Originally Posted by ricnunes
Even if that is to be the case on the F-16 (namely pre-Block 60/70), that's definitely not the case with the Hornet which as far as I know, doesn't have SAM mode. The Hornet uses TWS mode for multiple aircraft tracking and this mode in the Hornet is a very good one which it can even prioritize up to 8 targets.


Correct, it has LTWS instead which IIRC is not good enough for L&S. Same reasons as TWS.

Quote
And even regarding the F-16, define "SAM considered to be superior to TWS"??


Longer dwell time means getting an accurate vector reading at the time the target is scanned. This is in constrast to TWS which requires several hits to build a vector and from there on the vector is composed of the average direction computed by where the hits appear. Add to this radar ambiguity that isn't present on any of our simulators, and SAM is much superior.
If we then get into ECM and CMs, STT/SAM is further much more resilient than TWS where TWS can confuse tracks if two contacts cross paths relatively close. Even a heavily maneuvering contact can cause its track to time out while creating a new one.

Quote
On the Viper, SAM can be better than TWS in terms of scan rate but on the other hand SAM doesn't track multiple targets (it only shows the relative position of targets in the area). So and for example, with SAM you can only obtain flight direction information (track) of a single target while with TWS you can obtain this same info for several targets (even on the Viper). As such "SAM considered to be superior to TWS" is quite relative.


SAM can track up to two. This is a game, so YMMV with all these modes. IRL they don't care about TWS multi-target for the most part since contacts are sorted and you have everyone in the flight STT a contact. They don't care about tripping the RWR either - that's what I got from relatively short conversation, so there are nuances I didn't have time to clarify - this, however, was the prevailing attitude WRT TWS: Use for specific briefed situations, otherwise WTF are you using that.

I could see going after bomber/strike gorilla with TWS.

In any case, I'll just re-iterate that TWS builds tracks from successive hits and due to how tracks are built and maintained, it is quite vulnerable to interference by anything in the track radius including other aircraft, countermeasures, ECM etc.

I'm not saying the ED modules shouldn't have these features - they should and they will - just saying don't build them up to something they're not. I get it, I used to do the same thing, then new info surfaced.


--
44th VFW
#4497230 - 11/15/19 07:43 AM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: Sokol1]  
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 855
Winfield Offline
model citizen
Winfield  Offline
model citizen
Member

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 855
QLD
I think GrayGhost is ahead currently by half a point.

#4497475 - 11/17/19 03:48 PM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: GrayGhost]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,829
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,829
Portugal
Originally Posted by GrayGhost

Correct, it has LTWS instead which IIRC is not good enough for L&S. Same reasons as TWS.


How can you say that TWS (on the Hornet at least) is not good for L&S since this is the mode that a Hornet pilot will use the most/more often to release an AMRAAM against an enemy aircraft??
The Hornet can only "illuminate" and fire at targets with an AMRAAM either with TWS/L&S or STT. For obvious reason, this is done the vast majority of times with TWS/L&S (for example due to not triggering enemy RWR as opposed to STT).


Originally Posted by GrayGhost

Longer dwell time means getting an accurate vector reading at the time the target is scanned. This is in constrast to TWS which requires several hits to build a vector and from there on the vector is composed of the average direction computed by where the hits appear. Add to this radar ambiguity that isn't present on any of our simulators, and SAM is much superior.
If we then get into ECM and CMs, STT/SAM is further much more resilient than TWS where TWS can confuse tracks if two contacts cross paths relatively close. Even a heavily maneuvering contact can cause its track to time out while creating a new one.


Of course that TWS requires several hits to build a vector since SAM mode doesn't build vectors for targets at all, except for the L&S targets!
As opposed the Hornet TWS mode (APG-65 and APG-73) tracks and thus builds vectors for several targets (I don't remember how many but it's a dozen or so if I'm not mistaken) and can prioritize and "tell" to the pilot which are the eight (8) targets with the highest priority and thus more threatening. In this line of reasoning, it can tell the pilot which target of them all should be the most threatening and it should allow multiple AMRAAM engagements (more than 2 at the same time) something that SAM is "light-years" from accomplishing! So and then again, in this regard TWS is "much superior" compared to SAM.


Originally Posted by GrayGhost

I could see going after bomber/strike gorilla with TWS.

In any case, I'll just re-iterate that TWS builds tracks from successive hits and due to how tracks are built and maintained, it is quite vulnerable to interference by anything in the track radius including other aircraft, countermeasures, ECM etc.

I'm not saying the ED modules shouldn't have these features - they should and they will - just saying don't build them up to something they're not. I get it, I used to do the same thing, then new info surfaced.


I'm sure there are ways or techniques to limit the impact that EW can have of TWS and the ability to track targets.

Anyway, suffice to say that in terms of the more modern aircraft such as the Super Hornet, Typhoon, Rafale (and this not to mention the F-22 or F-35 which work differently due to sensor fusion) their pilots use TWS - They rarely seem to use modes such as RWS, not to mention SAM. I not even sure if aircraft like the Typhoon and Rafale have RWS modes while none of the aircraft previously mentioned seem to have SAM. And BTW, the same also applies to the F-15 (including F-15A/C and Strike Eagle variants).

Bottom line, if the SAM mode was as good as you mention than I'm sure all other modern aircraft would have it, don't you think?

But the fact is that no other aircraft seems to have SAM mode. And one of the reasons for this is that you seem to misinterpret what TWS mode really does. Basically and as you previously said TWS requires several hits to build a vector, yes that's true. But what happens when the TWS hits a target without the necessary number of hits to produce a track?
The answer (which again seems to be the point you're missing) is that it builds a track/target but without the vector or resuming, just like the SAM mode would do! So basically the TWS is a SAM mode with more capabilities or looking on the opposite perspective SAM is a TWS mode with much less capabilities. And perhaps this is the reason that no other aircraft apart from the F-16 seem to have such SAM mode and preferring to have TWS instead. Resuming, TWS not only shows targets as "trackfiles" with vector - TWS also shows simple target tracks as a RWS or SAM modes would do (which requires the same "amount of hits" to produce, independently it we're talking about RWS, SAM or TWS).
Or even putting things into a 3rd perspective, a well capable radar (both in terms of hardware and software) can have a TWS which does the exact same things that a SAM mode would do (but again with far more capabilities) but of course with much more capabilities on top of that.

#4497541 - 11/18/19 12:56 AM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,045
GrayGhost Offline
Hotshot
GrayGhost  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,045
Originally Posted by ricnunes
How can you say that TWS


I said LTWS.

Originally Posted by GrayGhost
Of course that TWS requires several hits to build a vector since SAM mode doesn't build vectors for targets at all, except for the L&S targets!
As opposed the Hornet TWS mode (APG-65 and APG-73) tracks and thus builds vectors for several targets (I don't remember how many but it's a dozen or so if I'm not mistaken) and can prioritize and "tell" to the pilot which are the eight (8) targets with the highest priority and thus more threatening. In this line of reasoning, it can tell the pilot which target of them all should be the most threatening and it should allow multiple AMRAAM engagements (more than 2 at the same time) something that SAM is "light-years" from accomplishing! So and then again, in this regard TWS is "much superior" compared to SAM.


Prioritizing is for easy use. The pilot already knows and decides priorities by himself.


Originally Posted by GrayGhost
I'm sure there are ways or techniques to limit the impact that EW can have of TWS and the ability to track targets.


And STT will still be better at it. I don't care about your speculation.

Quote
Anyway, suffice to say that in terms of the more modern aircraft such as the Super Hornet, Typhoon, Rafale (and this not to mention the F-22 or F-35 which work differently due to sensor fusion) their pilots use TWS


They use SWT which has more in common with SAM than it does with TWS. Not that any of those are particularly similar to each other aside from superficial resemblance.

Quote
And BTW, the same also applies to the F-15 (including F-15A/C and Strike Eagle variants).


Funny thing, my information comes from a beagle WSO active right now. He's active in DCS as well. They use STT on the old mech-scan radars as well as RWS to determine general formations, target heading and cut-off angles etc.

Quote
Bottom line, if the SAM mode was as good as you mention than I'm sure all other modern aircraft would have it, don't you think?


Nope. In the end, maybe it's not necessary at all.

Quote
But the fact is that no other aircraft seems to have SAM mode.


So? F-16s TWS might be particularly weak for a bunch of reasons. Incidentally, I've got the eagle's radar manual in front of me and it does have a SAM mode.

Quote
Or even putting things into a 3rd perspective, a well capable radar (both in terms of hardware and software) can have a TWS which does the exact same things that a SAM mode would do.


No. They don't even do close to the same thing.

Last edited by GrayGhost; 11/18/19 01:00 AM.

--
44th VFW
#4497775 - 11/20/19 05:07 PM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: GrayGhost]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,829
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,829
Portugal
Originally Posted by GrayGhost

I said LTWS.


LTWS is essentially a RWS layout/interface with a TWS "back-end". It shows targets like the RWS mode but once or when the pilot slews the TDC over a target that same target will show up like it would in TWS mode. But again in the "background" LTWS is a TWS - for example it still prioritizes the 8 most threatening targets like the "normal" TWS does.

I can imagine that modes like either LTWS in the Hornet or SAM in the F-16 would be useful decades ago when the processing power and overall hardware and software capabilities were very limited. But now in modern times with much better hardware and processing power and software do allow detailed modes like TWS to work just as well as more traditional modes such as RWS, not to mention SAM or LTWS.


Originally Posted by GrayGhost

Prioritizing is for easy use. The pilot already knows and decides priorities by himself.


Yeah right, makes me wonder why those "fools" at the US military such as the USAF are pushing to sensor fusion which allows the aircraft (like the F-22 or F-35) to show the pilot vast and extensive information details (which goes well beyond prioritizing) and all of this when "the pilot already knows and decides priorities by himself" beforehand? I guess that sensor fusion is for easy use as well. Guess you could also add air-to-air missiles, EW systems that deploy ECM and Chaff/Flare automatically and so on... to that list as well rolleyes


Originally Posted by GrayGhost

And STT will still be better at it. I don't care about your speculation.


Yeah right, apart from triggering the target/enemy aircraft's RWR/ESM like a freaking Christmas Tree, the STT is indeed better... rolleyes


Originally Posted by GrayGhost

So? F-16s TWS might be particularly weak for a bunch of reasons. Incidentally, I've got the eagle's radar manual in front of me and it does have a SAM mode.


Care to share that (F-15) manual? Thanks in advance.

#4497793 - 11/20/19 09:13 PM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,045
GrayGhost Offline
Hotshot
GrayGhost  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,045
Originally Posted by ricnunes
LTWS is essentially a RWS layout/interface with a TWS "back-end".


... which is not considered adequate for guidance. You have to go to TWS for designation and guidance.

Quote
I can imagine that modes like either LTWS in the Hornet or SAM in the F-16 would be useful decades ago when the processing power and overall hardware and software capabilities were very limited. But now in modern times with much better hardware and processing power and software do allow detailed modes like TWS to work just as well as more traditional modes such as RWS, not to mention SAM or LTWS.


No one cares what you can imagine. That sort of thing is king of making up capabilities that don't exist based on an incomplete picture.


Quote
Yeah right, makes me wonder why those "fools" at the US military such as the USAF are pushing to sensor fusion which allows the aircraft (like the F-22 or F-35) to show the pilot vast and extensive information details (which goes well beyond prioritizing) and all of this when "the pilot already knows and decides priorities by himself" beforehand? I guess that sensor fusion is for easy use as well. Guess you could also add air-to-air missiles, EW systems that deploy ECM and Chaff/Flare automatically and so on... to that list as well rolleyes


Wow, you're on a roll smile Sensor fusion is about SA. SA helps you prioritize better. TWS priority is about missile firing order and for very good reasons the pilot has a target step/priority reassignment switch.

I don't particularly care what priority TWS assigned to the contacts that I have already sorted and assigned specific targets to specific aircraft. If I haven't sorted something, I'm in trouble and TWS prioritization isn't going to help me there.

Quote
Yeah right, apart from triggering the target/enemy aircraft's RWR/ESM like a freaking Christmas Tree, the STT is indeed better... rolleyes


They're not concerned about that. I know we covered this.

Quote
Care to share that (F-15) manual? Thanks in advance.


No, you're welcome. Not everything out there can be shared, for a bunch of reasons. At this point I'm not even sure I should post a snippet.


This conversation isn't going anywhere. Find yourself an RL fighter pilot that you can talk to, I'm not going to argue this stuff with you. You'll get information that you don't have to argue about that way.

Last edited by GrayGhost; 11/20/19 09:16 PM.

--
44th VFW
#4497813 - 11/21/19 02:51 AM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: Sokol1]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,580
mdwa Offline
Member
mdwa  Offline
Member

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,580
Way over in Perth, Western Aus...
You may find something here:
F-15 manuals

Last edited by mdwa; 11/21/19 02:52 AM.

mdwa
#4498192 - 11/24/19 06:43 PM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: GrayGhost]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,829
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,829
Portugal
Originally Posted by GrayGhost

... which is not considered adequate for guidance. You have to go to TWS for designation and guidance.


So now you're implying that TWS is better but without admitting that it is better. LoL rolleyes

Originally Posted by GrayGhost


Originally Posted by ricnunes
I can imagine that modes like either LTWS in the Hornet or SAM in the F-16 would be useful decades ago when the processing power and overall hardware and software capabilities were very limited. But now in modern times with much better hardware and processing power and software do allow detailed modes like TWS to work just as well as more traditional modes such as RWS, not to mention SAM or LTWS.


No one cares I don't care what you can imagine. That sort of thing is king of making up capabilities that don't exist based on an incomplete picture.


Here, corrected it for you. Speak for yourself and not for others. You may not care about what I think/imagine but others might.

You see, as opposed to you that want others to believe in you just because you say things such as "I spoke to pilots..." or "I have the manual..." and this without showing any evidence of this, my thinking or "imagination" is based on the ABSOLUTE FACT that TECHNOLOGY EVOLVES and as such a technology (such as TWS) that had limitations yesterday, today it doesn't have them anymore (because and again, technology evolves and this is specially true for electronics/hardware and software).

It seems to me that you're stuck in the 1970's and this at the same time seem to fit your narrative as a staunch almost fanatic follower of ED/DCS.


Originally Posted by GrayGhost

Wow, you're on a roll smile Sensor fusion is about SA. SA helps you prioritize better. TWS priority is about missile firing order and for very good reasons the pilot has a target step/priority reassignment switch.


So TWS with its much better and detailed information display about all the targets ahead doesn't give the pilot a better picture?? And a better picture doesn't mean a better SA?? LoL, you're a piece of work indeed duh

Oh and by the way, when the pilot sees a bunch of targets and know which ones will be fired at and at which order, this gives the pilot a much better picture of what lies ahead of him or resuming gives the pilot a much better Situational Awareness or SA. That's the objective of TWS mode (compared to other modes)!

The diference about TWS and SA is that the information shown on the former comes solely from a single sensor alone, this case the Radar while the information from the later comes from merging data from several different sensors (such as for example, Radar, EO, IFF, AWACS, etc...). In the past this "merge" (SA) was done mentally in the pilot's head while the most modern aircraft automatizes this process and shows the merged information to the pilot (again automatically).


Originally Posted by GrayGhost

I don't particularly care what priority TWS assigned to the contacts that I have already sorted and assigned specific targets to specific aircraft. If I haven't sorted something, I'm in trouble and TWS prioritization isn't going to help me there.


And now I retort what you replied to me earlier/above: I don't care about what your care.
The objective of TWS mode is to provide the pilot a much better picture using the radar and thus providing the pilot with a much better SA. Target prioritization and target vector provides a much better picture and therefore a much better SA to the pilot compared any of the other modes (RWS, SAM, LTWS, etc...)
And better SA is always better for the RL pilot and not necessarily you hence again that I don't care about what your care.


Originally Posted by GrayGhost

They're not concerned about that. I know we covered this.


What do you mean by this?? You mean that "your pilot" or "pilots" are not or wouldn't be concerned at all by alerting the enemy RWR and as such would be using STT without any concern and use it instead of L&S??

If this is the case then sorry but it's becoming increasingly hard to believe in anything you say! Now you just sound like the ED guys and their justification for not having the implementation of the Air-to-Ground radar as their top priority for the Hornet and F-16 rolleyes


Originally Posted by GrayGhost

Originally Posted by ricnunes
Care to share that (F-15) manual? Thanks in advance.


No, you're welcome. Not everything out there can be shared, for a bunch of reasons. At this point I'm not even sure I should post a snippet.


This conversation isn't going anywhere. Find yourself an RL fighter pilot that you can talk to, I'm not going to argue this stuff with you. You'll get information that you don't have to argue about that way.



You know, those manuals that you're talking about are all over the internet, right? Just look at mdwa's post!
So I'm pretty sure that posting a link (or sending it by PM) won't be a breach in National Security of anything like that...

Bottom line is:
- You cannot (or should not) just come here and argue with someone who's been posting you facts and say that those facts are wrong just because you talked with a pilot. I can't speak for others (as you've done) but after this, I surely cannot take you seriously.
- Finally, who told you that I don't communicate with real pilots?

#4498193 - 11/24/19 06:46 PM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: mdwa]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,829
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,829
Portugal
Originally Posted by mdwa
You may find something here:
F-15 manuals


Thanks very much mdwa for the link!

From now on, be careful! You'll probably have "black helicopters" flying/hovering next to your window biggrin wink

#4498256 - 11/25/19 03:43 AM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,045
GrayGhost Offline
Hotshot
GrayGhost  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,045
Quote
You know, those manuals that you're talking about are all over the internet, right? Just look at mdwa's post!
So I'm pretty sure that posting a link (or sending it by PM) won't be a breach in National Security of anything like that...


I have all of the ones that he has, and stuff he doesn't ... and isn't all over the internet.


Quote
Bottom line is:
- You cannot (or should not) just come here and argue with someone who's been posting you facts and say that those facts are wrong just because you talked with a pilot. I can't speak for others (as you've done) but after this, I surely cannot take you seriously.
- Finally, who told you that I don't communicate with real pilots?


You're not posting facts. The joke's on you.


--
44th VFW
#4498269 - 11/25/19 05:09 AM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: Sokol1]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,580
mdwa Offline
Member
mdwa  Offline
Member

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,580
Way over in Perth, Western Aus...
I don't have any.


mdwa
#4498445 - 11/26/19 11:10 PM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 621
Sobek Offline
Professional scapegoat
Sobek  Offline
Professional scapegoat
Member

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 621
Originally Posted by ricnunes

You see, as opposed to you that want others to believe in you just because you say things such as "I spoke to pilots..." or "I have the manual..." and this without showing any evidence of this, my thinking or "imagination" is based on the ABSOLUTE FACT that TECHNOLOGY EVOLVES and as such a technology (such as TWS) that had limitations yesterday, today it doesn't have them anymore (because and again, technology evolves and this is specially true for electronics/hardware and software).

It seems to me that you're stuck in the 1970's and this at the same time seem to fit your narrative as a staunch almost fanatic follower of ED/DCS.


The theory behind TWS has been understood well since the 1960s (it was developed by NASA for the Apollo programme). There's really not that much that more processing power and memory can do for you on a mechanically actuated radar. The biggest progress has been made in the field of antenna design and power electronics, resulting in PESA and ultimately AESA antennae, which allows much faster beam steering and even splitting of the radar beam.

#4498474 - 11/27/19 10:13 AM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: Sobek]  
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 855
Winfield Offline
model citizen
Winfield  Offline
model citizen
Member

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 855
QLD
Originally Posted by Sobek
Originally Posted by ricnunes

You see, as opposed to you that want others to believe in you just because you say things such as "I spoke to pilots..." or "I have the manual..." and this without showing any evidence of this, my thinking or "imagination" is based on the ABSOLUTE FACT that TECHNOLOGY EVOLVES and as such a technology (such as TWS) that had limitations yesterday, today it doesn't have them anymore (because and again, technology evolves and this is specially true for electronics/hardware and software).

It seems to me that you're stuck in the 1970's and this at the same time seem to fit your narrative as a staunch almost fanatic follower of ED/DCS.


The theory behind TWS has been understood well since the 1960s (it was developed by NASA for the Apollo programme). There's really not that much that more processing power and memory can do for you on a mechanically actuated radar. The biggest progress has been made in the field of antenna design and power electronics, resulting in PESA and ultimately AESA antennae, which allows much faster beam steering and even splitting of the radar beam.


Some of the theory behind TWS

#4498582 - 11/28/19 09:27 AM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: Sokol1]  
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 855
Winfield Offline
model citizen
Winfield  Offline
model citizen
Member

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 855
QLD
I was thinking with all the griping about the delayed update why is there silence when it is released?

DCS: F-16C Viper

Jettison will no longer break SAM designation or STT Lock.
Added damage as a result of an overload of G-forces
Track While Scan (TWS)
Data Link (Link-16 with MIDS)
External Lights (wip)
Countermeasures Dispenser System (CMDS) manual option programming
Fixed countermeasures rearming.
Fixed dispensing on both press and release by wall dispense button.
Corrected RWS Contact Symbols. Now contact displayed as a small square with velocity vector.
Now radar scan area centered about cursor.
Radar cursor is drawn below friendly and foe contacts - fixed.
FCR tracks bugged target up to 20 degrees outside antenna limits - fixed.
FCR cursor jumps from page edge to center even at max/min range scale - fixed.
Added missing SAI pitch trim scale and arrow on the knob.
Corrected antenna elevation axis.
Added 300 gal centerline fuel tank.
Adjusted payloads drag.
MFD Clips text on SMS page - fixed.
The eject sequence animation has been adjusted.
Adjusting the seat animation by height corrected.
Added radio-commands for radar usage to wingmen.
Improved cockpit interior lighting at night.
Added MPO test function.
Added AUTO Steerpoint sequence function.
Long press of the NWS/MSL Step button will now cycle the missile type.
HMCS enable/disable corrected such that it is only DMS switch aft now.
AoA indexer lights control added.
Tadpole (sherm) logic adjusted.
Adjusted engine nozzle animation for short, fast throttle changes.
Added Steerpoint and Heading autopilot modes.
Steerpoints now start at Steerpoint 1, there is no Steerpoint 0.



#4498616 - 11/28/19 03:31 PM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: Sokol1]  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,045
GrayGhost Offline
Hotshot
GrayGhost  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,045
Probably gets in the way of their narrative.

I'd like to see ED add the inaccuracies of TWS in ... I suppose people who complain and call it a bug at first, but this sort of stuff is the real differenciator between an MSA and AESA, among other things.

Either way, the switchology mechanization is nice to see. Now I'd love to see TPOD/RADAR/JHMCS/Link-16 integration for A2A smile

Last edited by GrayGhost; 11/28/19 03:32 PM.

--
44th VFW
Page 13 of 14 1 2 11 12 13 14

Moderated by  Force10, RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Ratnik shovel mini review
by Crane Hunter. 02/26/20 06:27 AM
Smithsonian Open Access?
by Rick_Rawlings. 02/26/20 05:21 AM
When the live song beats the studio version...
by Zamzow. 02/26/20 03:55 AM
Mussolini speaks in Engish!
by PanzerMeyer. 02/25/20 05:08 PM
Brut force melody hacking
by Red2112. 02/25/20 11:41 AM
I just had a threesome at the doctors!
by Ajay. 02/25/20 04:59 AM
Original Longbow Gold on Win 10?
by TerribleTwo. 02/25/20 12:39 AM
What's the longest movie you've seen in the theater?
by PanzerMeyer. 02/24/20 04:18 PM
'Microjets' are so cool.
by MarkG. 02/24/20 05:41 AM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0