Tacview – Understand what happened during your last flight! (alternative ACMI viewer)
-
For example:
- Vertical turnrate is off
- Angle of attack is waaay off in certain regimes. Tacview displays numbers way outside of the possible CAT I limitation of the FLCS.
- compare turnradius and -rate with ingame replay (acmi).
- CAS is missing
- etc etc etc
Study the performance capabilites of the F-16 and compare with the data read in tacview (or just compare your instrumental read-outs with the tacview data).
I am confident, that you can find those flaws easily yourself with a little bit of investigation.Graphically its a great tool to visualize tactics…i dont disagree there. I would not have bought it, if i would not believe in it, but it needs work.
-
For me this is great,but i almost never look at telemetery data. I just like to see what hapens around me after mission etc… and what killed me
But yes, there is room to improve
-
For me this is great,but i almost never look at telemetery data. I just like to see what hapens around me after mission etc… and what killed me
But yes, there is room to improve
I understand. Knowing your jet (performance envolopes or telemetry) in different regimes is the foundation of good flying.
-
@A.S:
For example:
- Vertical turnrate is off
- Angle of attack is waaay off in certain regimes. Tacview displays numbers way outside of the possible CAT I limitation of the FLCS.
- compare turnradius and -rate with ingame replay (acmi).
- etc etc etc
Study the performance capabilites of the F-16 and compare with the data read in tacview (or just compare your instrumental read-outs with the tacview data).
I am confident, that you can find those flaws easily yourself with a little bit of investigation.Graphically its a great tool to visualize tactics…i dont disagree there.
Thanks
Are those parameter good in native BMS acmi viewer? If so maybe TACVIEW could be inproved in the telemetry aspects.
I am going to play devil’s advocate so don’t kill the messenger here…
When you say study the performances of the F- 16 and compare: Are you talking about real performances with real EM charts?
Because if what you are comparing is real data vs tacview data, the problem could be in the “TRANSLATOR” aka as flight model.
So is TACVIEW to be blamed of those discrepancies or is the fligt model? Or both?
To assert that Tacview data is not good, it has to be compared with actual SIM performance, not with real data.
Just my 2c
I seldom use TACVIEW to analize individual performance of a jet. Instead as I told before it is more of a “big picture” analysis tool. Thats why my overall opinion of it is so different from yours.
-
No.
Ok one try more with AoA example.
The F-16 has a CAT-1 limiter, meaning that for each G pulled a certain amount of AoA can be achieved (HFFM manual).
If you fly with your jet ingame in BMS and look at your Gs and your current AoA …(HUD or instruments) … compare that data (Gs and AoA) with what you see in tacview replay.
Tacview will give your AoA reading waay above the ability of the F-16 (real or ingame). -
Knowing your jet (performance envolopes or telemetry) in different regimes is the foundation of good flying.
Man, we never agree…:):):):):):)
Being able to process a lot of simultaneous information and decision taking capabilities are the foundation of good tactical flying.
Good hands are desirable, but give me a pilot with a good brain to build SA, even if he’s not able to fly the jet that slick, and I will always choose him (eyes closed) for my sqn over the perfect hands but brainless pilot (believe me, they exsist).
Who cares if my F-16 can’t pull 46AOA if my AIM9X can?
Sad, but true. good old finesse flying has become less and less important.
After all, name of the program is TACVIEW, and not PERFVIEW…;);););););)
And, in the end, tactical flying is what tactical fighters are for.
-
I agree, If you want to analyse numbers, then tacview is probably not the best Tools
but if you want to analyse tactical flying, tacview is perfect iMHObeen using it for training TE’s, and the possibility to load the DTC on it is supergreat and tactically interesting
Granted tacview could use some better handling in the numbers, but to me it’s by far Superior to the ingame acmi viewerPersonnaly I never quite bothered the numbers
-
I think we really get distracted here in different likes and tastes.
It is simple the FACT that the telemetry data in tacview for BMS is WRONG and everyone able to compare simple data can confirm this.
It might be not important for many, but accurate telemetry IS FUNDAMENTALLY IMPORTANT for real pilots or advanced vpilots and ACMI IS about telemetry mostly, not only the “wingtip trails” in order to visualize flight geometries afterwards.
INFACT one pays eta 50 euros JUST for visualized TELEMETRY (as graphs) in the pro version of tacview (among other minor details between the standard and the pro version).
There is another attribute to accurate telemetry (onboard or external). It reflects, honors and appreciates the accuracy of the flight model (planes or weapons) in numbers.
Not only do numbers not lie (well, in tacview case they do lie), but they are crucial for the understanding and the improvement in flying and developement.I can only emphasise post #79
-
After all, name of the program is TACVIEW, and not PERFVIEW…;)
I do agree also.
TACREF is something needed for flight and mission management analysis like IRL but has nothing to do with a telemetry system used by flight engineers during prototype development and flight tests.
AFAIK, RL ACMI instruments are not able to give you your airspeed nor your AOA etc … mainly “only” your position vs time and basic flight info … and there is also the AVTR tapes.
but for others accurate telemetry IS FUNDAMENTALLY IMPORTANT and ACMI IS about telemetry
Only available on simulation. No such tool IRL.
-
chck pm Dee-Jay
No such tool IRL.
I think you would be suprised how wrong you are although you fly for real. Building new jets like F-22 or F-35 is all about telemetry analysis in the testing-phase.
Just because you haven`t exprienced anything like it for yourself for real or in the airframes you tasted, doesn´t mean it doesn´t exist.Accurate telemetry is important because:
- many advanced fighters actually look at the numbers
- it honors and reflects the accuracy of the flight models
- it serves as a reconstruction tool (revers data) to catch cheaters
- it helps understanding the jet better
- it helps improving stick discipline and tactics aswell
- it serves developers as confirmation tool (FM)
- heck, without accurate telemetry sensoric most modern fighters would not even be able to fly
- list goes on….
We have the ability to improve the ingame (and tacview) ACMI telemetry data …so why not ?? Afaik, Mav-Jp will look into this topic after having a long discussion with him.
-
It might be not important for many, but accurate telemetry IS FUNDAMENTALLY IMPORTANT for real pilots or advanced vpilots and ACMI IS about telemetry mostly, not only the “wingtip trails” in order to visualize flight geometries afterwards.
No mate, it’s not because it’s important to you that it’s equally important for all real or Advanced vpilot
I’m both and it’s not ‘that’ important to me
it all depends on what you want to analyse !!
And I guess there’s still the ever lasting difference between flying naturally and flying by the numbersIt might be important to aeronatical engineers or Vtest pilot but much less for tactical vpilot
True the numbers in Tacview are wrong
Still tacview remains a great tool for tactical analysis -
@A.S:
chck pm Dee-Jay
I think you would be suprised how wrong you are although you fly for real. Building new jets like F-22 or F-35 is all about telemetry analysis in the testing-phase.
Just because you haven`t exprienced anything like it for yourself for real or in the airframes you tasted, doesn´t mean it doesn´t exist.Accurate telemetry is important because:
- many advanced fighters actually look at the numbers
- it honors and reflects the accuracy of the flight models
- it serves as a reconstruction tool (revers data) to catch cheaters
- it helps understanding the jet better
- it helps improving stick discipline and tactics aswell
- it serves developers as confirmation tool (FM)
- heck, without accurate telemetry sensoric most modern fighters would not even be able to fly
- list goes on….
You are talking about the future. Nothing like this in Red Flag or in conventional squadron. Doesn’t mean that real pilots are worse than you are in flight simulation A.S.
I understand what you mean and what you are requesting. I’m just thinking that you have a wrong ideal about how RL (regular) pilots works and are trained… quite different than in Formula one.
- many advanced fighters actually look at the numbers
- it honors and reflects the accuracy of the flight models
- it serves as a reconstruction tool (revers data) to catch cheaters
- it helps understanding the jet better
- it helps improving stick discipline and tactics aswell
- it serves developers as confirmation tool (FM)
- heck, without accurate telemetry sensoric most modern fighters would not even be able to fly
… and what is proving you that data will be more accurate than the one in TACVIEW? Do not think that, because it is professional tool that it will be better, more accurate … etc …
I can tell you that a LOT of RL pilots will be happy do have a tool like TACVIEW for their RL training mission.
Faaar enough for them … be sure.
We have the ability to improve the ingame (and tacview) ACMI telemetry data …so why not ?? Afaik, Mav-Jp will look into this topic after having a long discussion with him.
Didn’t said that we shouldn’t! But IMHO, far from being needed to refelct RL experience.
-
@Red Dog and Dee-Jay:
… there is no basis for arguing here - not really.
Sure Tacview is a great tool (otherwise i would not use or even have bought the pro version of it),
but IF the telemetry data can be improved inside BMS or fixed in Tacview… WHY NOT DOING IT?
Here a brief story what actually happened…
I was watching my own flying in Tacview…and i noticed that i was able to pull 8Gs at around 28°degrees of AoA. I was like… “OMG, WTF” … HAAAAH? WOW. My jet is alien-über-amazing".
Waay above the ability of the F-16 (CAT I limitations). For a second i even was concerned that there is something wrong in the FM.Then i contacted Mav-Jp and we had a great discussion in teamspeak for over 2 hours and among other interesting topics, we (or i in this case) just figured, that Tacview is simply waaaay off.
Sure it still servers has graphical re-visualisation tool, but as a telemetry tool (math/numbers) and as the basis of every flying or its validation… it is horribly wrong. So, why not trying to fix it.
Then we looked at the ingame .vhs accuracy… and Mav-Jp found out, that the sampling (conversion into tape-data) could be made much much better. Additionally the topic was how to average that data not to blow the tape-size out of proportions. That being said… i asked for the addition (as it is possible due to existence of that data anyways) to implement G-forces, AoA and dynamic current GW additionally into the BMS ACMI replay tool.Simple as that RedDog and Dee-Jay. It is really not about what we like or what or prefer individually… or whos christmas-wish is more important. Of course we can also deny all that and tend to say “we dont need or use it” or “in real it doesn´t exist”, but that is not the thought or idea here. We found details, which are able to be improved and in the name of realism (which BMS strives for) … why not doing so?
Every moderate to ace BMS dogfight-pilot out there i know and am aware off is watching “the numbers” very well btw. Let´s forget the planes for a second and let´s look at the missiles.
You both (i am sure) might have often read posts about the missiles being “wrong” or not “accurate”. My question here is how can anyone KNOW without accurate or missing telemetry data?Get my point?
If it comes to flying and physcis (especially in simulations) NUMBERS and the MATH is your only truth and not “opinions” and “feels” even if coming from real pilots. Even real pilots might be subjectively “wrong” aswell sometimes (and that happened more than once as you may know), … but numbers or math never lies.
-
INFACT one pays eta 50 euros JUST for visualized TELEMETRY (as graphs) in the pro version of tacview (among other minor details between the standard and the pro version).
Tacview is free, the payware extension is optional. BTW there are levels of inaccuracy…
-
… there is no basis for arguing here - not really.
Not arguing my friend. discussing.
So, why not trying to fix it.
No reason.
Just I do not agree when you are saying :
It might be not important for many, but accurate telemetry IS FUNDAMENTALLY IMPORTANT for real pilots or advanced vpilots
Not necessarily for the fighter pilots I know because they simply don’t have such tool most of the time.
You approach of combat is mathematical… your choice (furthermore, you can! since it is simulation)
But I have some friends behind me who are “smiling” because you seems to overestimate what is the reality of real life is concerning how they are managing a combat.
Not everyone is US fighter pilot using the most advanced tools and technology … doesn’t mean that they can be defeated by less equipped guys. … and even US, I doubt that they have all access to such telemetry and debrief systems.Red Flag … Maple … TPL … Never saw such advanced systems.
-
Not necessarily for the fighter pilots I know because they simply don’t have such tool most of the time.
I understand this
-
@A.S:
I understand this
This was simply my point. Not more
Of course, if we can have a 100% correct Tacview, if would be useful … especially for DEV purposes.
-
You approach of combat is mathematical… your choice (furthermore, you can! since it is simulation)
But I have some friends behind me who are “smiling” because you seems to overestimate what is the reality of real life is concerning how they are managing a combat.
Not everyone is US fighter pilot using the most advanced tools and technology … doesn’t mean that they can be defeated by less equipped guys. … and even US, I doubt that they have all access to such telemetry and debrief systems.Red Flag … Maple … TPL … Never saw such advanced systems.
Myself and what you say there is completly irelevant, because the point is just about improving/fixing a tool already available to us.
-
Tacview is a nice tool, but like everyone has stated its data feedback is really awful. It’s a cool graphical user interface that enables the viewer to review basic aspects of their flight, and try to fill in gaps in their situational awareness recorded on a mission. Everyone agrees that it can be improved.
For vpilots that want to reviews specific, or detailed aspects of their flying in regards to performance telemetry feedback on aircraft/weapon system performances, it leaves much to be wanted. For this type of review and training analysis tacview is garbage, and the ingame ACMI viewer is a better choice. Both GUIs aren’t perfect, but the capabilities of each together can be used to help the vpilot improve their flying and experience. Military aviation in the US and around the world use various tools to provide this information to the pilot so that they can become more proficient at what they’re doing.
It just all depends on what your purpose is. Some are just happy looking at the basic geometry and basic elements of a recorded flight, and some require more detailed feedback that enables them to increase the proficiency and accuracy of what they’re trying to achieve on their flights.
The more accurate your telemetry feedback is, the more accurate decisions you can make in regards to improving various aspects of virtual combat flying.
-
Vyrtuoz has received the message … maybe one day …
Meanwhile … you can still choose F4’s ACMI or TACVIEW.