It seems like there is no real reason for the ATD not to work with Yame. But I hear from different people that something at works for them, doesn’t work for others. It is really wierd.
Right now I have a quick fix, and is using that…
Thanks
Posts made by BOCOWA
-
RE: Advanced Threat Display extraction
-
Advanced Threat Display extraction
Hi all.
I use the YAME64 in conjunction with RTT for my MFD and instrument extraction.
Here is my question:Is there anyway to extract the Advanced Threat Display (ATD)?
After 4.35/4.36 YAME is no longer able to extract it. So I’m stuck with what RTT can give me. Thanks to a friend I have botched together a semi ATD using the YAME and RTT.
-
RE: Vipergear ICP and rotary axis for QNH
@jayb
Right now I have placed it on the backburner. It is not worth screwing with all my other settings to control QNH on my rotary -
RE: Vipergear ICP and rotary axis for QNH
Unfortunately this IMMIDIATELY started fucking with my BMS. so this is not an option for me. I’ll just use the keybinds for now.
Thanks anyway -
RE: Vipergear ICP and rotary axis for QNH
@SemlerPDX
Thanks dude.
Seems a bit advanced. But I’ll poor me a big coup of coffee and give it a go. -
RE: Vipergear ICP and rotary axis for QNH
@jayb
Thanks anyway. I’ll browse the manual, and leave this post open, And see what turns up.
I’m guessing there is a way to change this. -
RE: Vipergear ICP and rotary axis for QNH
I think this might the reason it doesn’t work.
Mine is an axis, and as far as I understand what yours is, is a DX key to emulate a button press.
Or am I mistaken?My rotary isn’t registrering when I try to map it to the Increase/decrease function
-
RE: Vipergear ICP and rotary axis for QNH
@jayb
I’m not quite sure I’m doing this right.
I added the line
set g_nKnobAccelerationDelta 250
at the end of my
/////////////////////////
// Config.exe Settings //
/////////////////////////
I did not chance anything in my keys.
Unfortunately it didn’t have ANY effect what so ever.
So I’m guessing I’m doing something wrong. Could you walk me through it? -
RE: Vipergear ICP and rotary axis for QNH
@jayb
I will give it a go. thanks -
Vipergear ICP and rotary axis for QNH
Hi.
I hace a Vipergear ICP. And I want to map the BRT rotary switch to control altimeter setting. Unfortunately the axis is to sensitive. So for each “notch” on the actual rotary, the altimeter setting jumps by 5. Any idea how to set the axis to be increment with 1 pr physical “notch”?
I tried the ingame saturation with no effect.
thanks -
RE: AWACS/COMMS Discussion – What Would You Have Changed?
**@Eagle-Eye:
Is that USAF or NATO brevity? I know the Americans / FAA like - or at least allow - their numbers combined, like pronouncing 622 as “six twenty-two” instead of “six-two-two”, but ICAO (and I believe NATO) always uses separate numbers, i.e. “Group bullseye two-seven-zero, two-three miles, two-six thousand…” to avoid confusion with similar-sounding words (especially words ending in -teen and -ty).
It’s not incorrect to round up or down to the nearest 5, AFAIK.
- Usually, by the time you get sensors on target, an exact BE call won’t be correct anymore, so a vicinity-call works well
- BE is a picture builder and a max error of 2° or 2NM is good enough at ranges where you use BE
- It’s a lot easier to remember “BE 275 / 35” than “BE 276 / 34”, especially in BMS, where current AWACS gives BE calls on every single group, instead of relative positions to the first group
BRAA, on the other hand, should always be exact, though, especially range, since a few miles may make the difference between fight or flight.
Both the USAF and NATO use the bullseye calls like this: Two-seven-zero/ twentysix/ twelve thousand. so tactically you use the range and altitude without calling out each digit. (I am not sure what the FAA/ICAO regulations are on this, however I have heard both ways of saying range used)
And regarding bullseye accuracy…I’m kindda with you on that. and then not at all.
In BMS a proximity call regarding bullseye 235/45 instead of 233/42 will certainly make it easier for your brain to process the information, (and maybe it is easier to code IDK) And true that your sensor will most likely get the contact regardless.
BUT in RL you always say the correct bullseye position. This is due to engagement restrictions, if AWACS and fighter does not have the exact same bullseye position of the group. 267/12 or 270/10 will not make that big of a difference, but 177/97 and 175/95 will make the declaration from AWACS invalid to shoot. Therefore you always say the exact position of the group, and you don’t round up or down.BRAA on the other hand is fine (to some extend) to round up or down
- 278/8, this will chance so rapidly in a turning fight at it is fine for the controller to say 280/8 - as long as the target is moving towards the 280 position - in some cases it is even ok to help the fighter by leading the target - 285/8. The fighter will then turn to 285 and the target will then be on his nose, because the target moved while the fighter was turning.
But I’m totally with you on the range thing - USE EXACT RANGE - unless it is way out there 30-40 miles…but then again you would use bullseye for that type of call.
Regards**
-
RE: AWACS/COMMS Discussion – What Would You Have Changed?
I too love the new AWACS. I really like that there are no longer increments in the bullseye calls, ie 5-10-15-20-25 miles. It is now 23 miles or 17 miles and so on. And the ATC really is quite amazing. Well done there guys!
From a tactical point of view, some small things should be tweaked, for the AWACS/GCI to operate more like RL.
1. in 4.34.4 AWACS calls: " Group bullseye two-seven-zero. two-three miles. twentysix thousand…." - The correct way is: “Group bullseye two-seven-zero. TWENTYTHREE. Twentysix thousand……”
2. I find it confusing that AWACS calls “Multiple groups, range and azimuth split” - Range what? azimuth what?, and then AWACS calls out North group, and northwest group and so on. it is massively confusingNot that BMS should implement the entire AFTTP 3-1 comms chapter. But in the example above a simple “core” info would work better and be more realistic, if correct picture labeling is not used: - “Group B/E xxx/yyy/zz thousand. Group B/E xxx/yyy/zz thousand. Group B/E xxx/yyy/zz thousand”
I think that implementing correct picture labeling into AWACS is unrealistic (I don’t really know) So a few tweaks, would go a long way in my book.CYA
-
RE: YAME64 suite
Anytime brother. I just hope we do not need this workaround, after the next YAME update.
-
RE: YAME64 suite
@Tul:
My Yame is crashing on startup….:(
This is what I have found to work in 4.33 at least regarding the crash.
1. Start BMS and chose the "full BMS (or what is is called) keyfile in the setup/controllers menu.
2. close BMS
3. Start YAME64 (it started with no issues with me as long as I took a standard .key file first and loaded it.)
4. Start BMS and now select your own key file (while YAME64 is still running)
5. Go blow stuff up.Hope it helps you out.
I know it is only a work around, and I haven’t had any luck getting Yame64 to work with 4.34 yet. I think I’ll wait for an update. Messing around with both Yame, .33 and .34 resulted in me having to do 2 complete re-installs.MIL
-
RE: YAME64 suite
Same here. I can’t start YAME64 It crashes immidiately after startup.
I tried uninstalling and installing.
(following the above advice for 4.34 compatabillity)
Updated GPU drivers
rechecked visual studio drivers
Ran as administrator
nothing works. any idea? -
RE: JanHas Models & Skin Thread -Compatible with 4.36
Starrats posted a video how to do it in theater conversion thread.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T818A using Tapatalk
do you have a link?
-
RE: JanHas Models & Skin Thread -Compatible with 4.36
yup. and I have tried to do what is says, But I still can’t use LODEditor. I know I’m doing something wrong but what??
It now says it is updated, but instead of LODEdtor giving me and HDR 4 error it is now HDR 3 error??? -
RE: JanHas Models & Skin Thread -Compatible with 4.36
And just how exactly do you update the database using the 3ddb. I’m going thru the manual and I’m none the wiser.
-
RE: Russian dual pylon bug
Yeah… I have reverted back to an old objects folder so “The Dance” wasn’t necessary. But I am installing one MOD at a time now and seeing where it goes wrong.
Thanks for the help all. -
RE: Russian dual pylon bug
I have found it is usually only with “larger” missiles AA-7 AA-10 AA-11 AA-12 and only russian ac
as you can se on the SU-27 is uses no fewer than 3! pylons for 1 missile