Leaderboard

Airplane Simulation Company C-130J

This demonstrates what the radar roughly looks like, but it's from a simulator, also they only go into acquisition not track. Here is a video of the AN/APQ-120 with the DSCG screen, in flight.

Ну если Р-51 сделан эталонным, то и Ла-7 тоже надо делать эталонным. В этом же бюллетене про доработку неплотного прилегания предкрылка доработка имеется

Все таки сразу задам уместный вопрос , это будет эталонный Ла-7 как Р-51 или серийный ( т.е конкретный из известного отчета) ? По всякому можно относится к этому самолету , но очевидно только то , что летать и тем более воевать на нём уже было подвигом , без какого либо преувеличения ! про его создание .

Hi Some news...

DCS: F-16C Viper | January 2023 Update (COMING SOON) COMING SOON What map is this? A preview of the upcoming DCS: Sinai Map. NOTE: Multi-Threading is enabled in this video, but DLSS is not (forgot to enable it). Purchase DCS: F-16C Viper from: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.co... In this DCS: F-16C Viper update, we’ll talk about the primary new features coming to our Viper: new ALR-65M radar warning receiver features, an animated tail hook, and the alternate landing gear handle. First, we’ll look at some of the new features coming to the Viper’s radar warning receiver, or RWR. Some of these items may have been introduced a bit earlier, so I’ll cover them all in this video. In the center of the RWR display can be indications for the Search and Low Altitude functions that can be enabled next to your left knee. When the S is flashing on the Search button, acquisition radars are not displayed on the RWR display. This can help declutter the scope. But, if you press the button and the S becomes steady, acquisition radars will be displayed, and an S is displayed in the center of the RWR scope. When the Altitude button is pressed and LOW is displayed on it, low altitude/short-range ground air defense systems are prioritized, and L is displayed in the center of the scope. If LOW is not displayed, then air emitters will be in priority. If both SEARCH and LOW are both enabled, then the S and L on the scope will mipple. Also please note that symbol sizes have been slightly reduced and Early Warning Radars, or EWR, are now displayed as a dish symbol on the scope. To see them, the SEARCH button will need to be enabled. New air and ground emitter visual and audio indications have also been updated. Newly detected emitters will pulsate for a few seconds between half size and full size to grab your attention. When a new airborne emitter is detected, you will hear a high frequency alert tone and when a ground emitter is first detected you will hear a lower alert tone. When you are locked by an airborne or ground-based radar in tracking mode, the scope symbol will now have a square around the emitter code. As before, if the radar is guiding a missile, there will be a flashing circle around it too. Speaking of radar-guided missiles launches… The missile launch tone is also now quite different. Rather than continue to sound if the radar is guiding a missile, it will now have a high-frequency launch alert tone of about seven beeps and then it will go silent for 15 seconds. If after 15 seconds a missile is still being radar-guided on you, the tone will repeat but at a lower tone. This pattern will continue until the radar is no longer in missile guidance mode. The target separate button now correctly separates a group of over overlapping emitters along the azimuth rather than incorrectly spreading them along heading. Only the priority emitter will be at its “true” scope location. Upon pressing the SYSTEM TEST BIT button, the RWR TEST BIT will run and display on the scope. Later, once we have a library of the pulse repetition frequency, or PRF, tones for each radar and operating mode, we will add the handoff mode that allows you to cycle the priority emitter and hear the PRF audio of it. In this next update we’ve hooked up a couple new items in the cockpit. The first is the tail hook. By setting the hook switch to the down position, the hook will be lowered. If then set to the up position, the hook will be slightly raised, but you’ll need to land and request a repair from the ground crew to fully raise it. Before you ask, we’d like to include the ground arrest system for airfields later, but there are currently no plans. I’m sure many of you will try it with the carrier though, good luck. The other cockpit item is the alternate landing gear handle, left mouse button clicking will allow the landing gear to drop using the same air pressure bottle as the tail hook. Note that the pressure is limited, and you probably cannot do both.

Erich_Parte_ENG_V2.pdf

yes, the images will be later

The F4U-1 already had a two stage supercharger that gave it very decent high alt performance. With water injection it gets about 430mph at 1975HP at 20000 feet. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-17930.pdf Of course the F4U-4 had a better engine and better supercharger. F4U-5 even better in some aspects. But F4U-1 is already a very capable high alt flighter. Btw I even found a very good photo of the test airplane, good coincidence

Как любят говорить школьные учителя: "Звонок не для класса, звонок для учителя.". Вот так и новая система: ее главное достоинство в основном для разработчиков. Стало намного проще и безошибочнее собирать любые разумные схемы систем. Стало проще иметь дело с любыми граничными состояниями системы. Но есть и приятное для пользователей. Если раньше кипение жидкости было сделано достаточно схематично, и получилось оно практически необратимым, то теперь оно стало намного более приближенным к реальности и вполне обратимым. Если раньше у всех была вода, то теперь - антифриз с физическими свойствами (температура ккипения, теплоемкость), зависящими от применяемого состава. Полностью новая функциональность - объемное кипение при продырявливании системы. Теперь количество жидкости в системе, неумолимо падающее с течением времени, тоже физично рассчитывается, и количество времени (и не такое уж ничтожное, кстати) до полного опустошения системы достаточно физично зависит от многих факторов. Если повезет, и пулька аккуратно продырявит только верхушку бака, а звезды встанут так, что останется достаточное количество жидкости, ваша система превратится в ОТКРЫТУЮ, и даже будет как-то справляться с задачей охлаждения.

+ Да с серийных (строевых) ваще никто графики не снимал))) Там ведь целая процедура с подготовленныи приборами. Нонсенс. Все такие? Или в конце квартала? Или с этого завода? Или какая то серия? Конкретнее., чтобы мы не сочиняли. А отчёт Лерхе можно использовать?

I tested the AIM-54 HoJ capacity, here is what i found: - Target doesn't JAM initially but JAMS after the AIM-54 is fired: -1) Missile fired in TWS: Missile gets an initial loft since the target is not jamming at the time, once the target starts jamming, the missile is trashed (it will try to get to the last known position of the target before it started jamming, but it will never go active). -2) Missile fired in PD-STT: Missile gets an initial loft since the target is not jamming at the time, once the target starts jamming, the missile goes in HOJ mode, keeping its initial loft and making path corrections using target jamming emissions and impacts target if within good parameters. - Target JAMS initially but stop JAMMING after the AIM-54 is fired: -1) Missile fired in STT-JAT: The missile does not launch with a loft (unless manually lofted) as it is unable to determine the range of the target. If a lock on the target's jamming emissions (STT-JAT) is not maintained, the missile tracks the jamming emissions passively. When the target stops jamming, the missile is unable to detect any emissions and becomes active (it does not make any course corrections until it detects the target at a maximum range of 10 nautical miles, which is the maximum detection range for the Phoenix missile in DCS). If the target begins jamming again, the missile will not regain a lock on the jamming emissions. If a lock on the target's jamming emissions is maintained, the missile can transition between HoJ and PD-STT depending on whether the target starts or stops jamming. PH Active / Norm doesn't matter when it comes to HoJ, the behaviour is the same: the missile will use target's jamming emissions to determine its trajectory. - RWR Behaviour of jamming target: Based on my personal testing in multiple multiplayer environments, utilizing both the F/A-18 and JF-17 aircraft, I have determined that the RWR behaviour is consistent between the two aircrafts. It is reasonable to assume that this behaviour would be similar for all fourth-generation aircraft. When locking the target in STT-JAT, it will get a lock warning like in P/D-STT. Once an AIM-54 missile is fired, the target will receive a missile launch warning, EVEN if the STT-JAT lock is no longer maintained and the AIM-54 seeker is passively tracking the target's emissions. Conclusion: It is possible to fire passive-tracking AIM-54 at jamming targets, but the use is extremely limited since the target will receive RWR warning of a missile launch and could just deactivate and reactivate the jammer to trash the missile. However, it's a particularly useful tool if you keep your STT-JAT / PD-STT lock since the PH will make transitions between HoJ and PD-STT automatically depending on whether the target is jamming or not, thus making you able to push jamming targets well beyond their jammer's burnthrough range, especially with manual lofting. TWS firing is weird, the PH doesn't get into any kind of HoJ if target starts jamming and is trashed directly when the target starts to jam, the missile doesn't even go active. I hope that the TWS issues will be fixed (unless that's realistic) and i would also have some questions about PH behaviour in P-STT: When firing in P-STT, the Phoenix isn't capable of being guided by the radar. However, i thought that it would receive at least target's heading/altitude. In my testing, it will just go active, and if it sees the target within its gimbal (and within 10nm), then it goes at it. If it doesn't, then it just continues the path is being fired on, even if the target is 30° on the left as an example. Is it a normal behaviour? I have another question. In my testing, the TgT Size Switch did not have any effects on the AIM-54C missile, which is consistent with what IronMike stated when the last major update for the AIM-54 was released. However, when flying the JF-17, I noticed that there is a TgT Size option that can be selected (large, small, or normal) which affects the range at which the SD-10 missile becomes active. This may be different for the AIM-54C variant? But in the case of the AIM-54A, the maximum range at which the missile could track a target is 10 nautical miles, and this is a limitation imposed by the API. However, the SD-10 missile can become active at a range of 13 nautical miles, and it can track targets at this range, not just become active. Can we expect a similar capability for the Phoenix missiles, specifically the A variant?

You're not alone in that opinion about the F-14. I pre-purchased the Tomcat and although Heatblur did a mind-blowingly good job on this iconic jet, the micromanagement of Jester AI is one of the main reasons that module never truly got me hooked. I don't regret buying it, but it did make me more alert that new multicrew modules might not be for me. I'm confident that Razbam will come up with a smart WSO AI communication interface. As far as we even need one

В отчете речь идет о конкретном борте хххх139. С неплотным прилеганием предкрылка, их несимметричным выпуском и т.д. Т.е. борт бракованный. Даже указано, что свыше 550 км/ч тряска сильная, что совсем уж не нормально для самолета с максималкой больше 600 в горизонте. В общем нормальная такая работа летчика испытателя по контролю качества выпускаемой продукции. Разумеется он будет выбирать наихудший борт в поиске брака, а не лучший.

the Tu-28 is an old Soviet interceptor I'd like to see in DCS, I think it could be nice in an FC3 style where it has a nice model and whatnot but without the need for the whole high fidelity thing. the cockpit seems to be pretty typical Soviet style and I think I've already seen a lot of the gauges on the Su-25 or something similar, so I think it could be plausible, though maybe it would not be practical for a low fidelity module. If that is the case, then I would also like to know what it would take to develop a mod of my own and model all this kind of thing and all that. I also think it's a very nice looking airplane, and haven't really seen it in other simulators before. It could also carry 4 R-4 air-to-air missiles so it could be okay at bomber hunting (which i suppose was its historical purpose) which could be fun, and it is also decently fast (1,929 km/h according to Wikipedia).

Corrected the jg 301 group marker. added jg2 tailband template but will have to slim it down cause uvw´s.. enlarged the swastika Also some more dirt blockout.

The problem Loading any mission, even small ones will rapidly clutter up the control measure database. This leads to the crew being unable to add their own CMs as well as be general clutter and unhelpfulness during the mission. The fact that every group creates it's own control measure is the most pressing issue. The fact that the mission editor option is to "Hide from MFD" is not selected by default, or rather that it's not "Show on MFD" and deselected by default. Causes a lot of extra clicking to hide extra units from the map when in reality the mission editor probably only wants to show a few of them by default and, at least the missions I fly for, simply don't bother to click that hide checkmark. It also doesn't help that FARPs and Airbases are taking up a good chunk of the CMs, even though it is very unlikely that you'll ever go to them, especially enemy held ones or those that are very far away and not anywhere near your waypoints. Furthermore, every enemy control measure appears to be Enemy armor, friendly armor or friendly air defense. The apache has a great many different control measures to place down depending on the type of vehicle used. Overall the generation of the control measures is too aggressive, incoherent, cluttered and has no real logic to it. For instance when I placed a couple of trucks down, the contoll measures were generated in order from furthest away to closest, when in reality the one furthest away is probably the least concern. They were also classified as armor, when in fact it was just ural utility trucks without any weapons. The solution Make the option Show on MFD opt in, instead of opt out. By default units are hidden unless they are explicitly marked. This prevents excessive clutter from units that do not need to or make no sense to make available on the MFD, such as units which are mobile and on the move at the time of loading into the aircraft. Generate control measures in the order of relevancy to the mission. For example prioritize units along the planed route of flight. If no route is present, generate them based on distance from the starting position. Generate the control measure type of the most defining unit in the group. For example: - If there is infantry and a BTR, it's mechanized infantry - If it's a tank and a BMP, it's armor - If it's artillery and air defense, it's artillery - If it's infantry, bmp and air defense, it's air defense - if it's infantry and a brdm, then it's a scout - If it's an aircraft in the air, do not generate a airborne control measure because that aircraft is probably going to move. - If it's an aircraft on the ground that isn't just sitting there is is going to take off, don't generate that control measure either Some more thought needs to go into that of course to come up with a reasonable list of units and combinations of units and what you'd classify them as. It might be reasonable to shift that to the mission editor though to only group units that make sense to be grouped and have a different group for a different purpose in the mission. Still a group of BMPs is different from only infantry, and that's different from infantry with a BMP. If there already is a control measure of the same type in a given range (say 2000m), then do not generate a new control measure. So 50 groups of one infantry men do not generate 50 control measures in one spot but rather just one of them. Limit the number of automatically generated control measures to 40 or so to allow the users to add their own if they need to. Generate the control measures once, when the PLT joins the aircraft.When this is eventually implemented, generate them again when they load the data cartridge after a ground rearm/refuel, at which point the cartridge would have been updated. Then when the (human) CPG joins, synchronize the points with him, and not let him generate his own points, potentially different from the PLTs points, as it happens now. Do not generate control measures for enemy farps or bases, or bases very far away that are not near your waypoints. If enemy units are near those, then add those as CMs, if they are of high enough priority (near your waypoints or starting position and of sufficient capability to out prioritize other units) Obviously out of those solutions some need to be tweaked and more thought put into them. But I think it should be relatively easy to implement a few of them, such as the maximum limit to allow some space for user CMs.

If that last more than 4 hours, the Bowen needs to consult a doctor.

Agreed. It should be easier than it is for the E with Razbam as they had to do all the FM work from nothing. ED has a FM for the C without CFT's, working on a FF Eagle might leave them enough time to do a CFT based flight model. I also wouldn't mind seeing some of the proposed FAST packs beyond extra fuel for what if scenarios.

Posted on MSFS that he's unaffected.

;D это третья акула? Может тоже ещё не настроено взаимодействие шасси с некоторыми поверхностями. Хотя она же акула с другой стороны, всё в порядке.

So far 6 missions in the books now, thoroughly enjoying this one!

And yet best selling aircraft are from the modern era. Where did you get that idea? many ppl love modern tactics, BVR and long range SAM engagements. JDAM, JSOW, LGBs working with TGP to find targets communicating with JTAC etc. Many ppl are not voicing out on the forums. Maybe you got the wrong impression of things.

In the flight manuals, F4U-1D uses the Mark 8 that was reflected in a glass that also served as bullet proof, this afaik was the most common configuration: in Il2 1946 it was correctly modelled: In the DCS images I saw the gunsight is reflected in a more classic way, this configuration might have been used too but I think it was more common in early war. About 1943. Something cool would be if player can choose what configuration to use. Maybe some developer can tell us why they choose this configuration? @Hiromachi For example we can see it in a early birdcage 1943 british corsair: F4U-4 also used Mk 8 in a smilar set up as F4U-1D, but it was directly reflected on the windshield. F4U-5N uses a similar gunsight configuration as F4U-4, called Mk20: null This is from an F8F-1 that used the same gunsight, it gives an idea: Finally F4U-5, AU-1 (F4U-6) and F4U-7 used MK 8 lead computing sight, similar to the K14 you mentioned:

How people use those aircraft is up to them. If they want to use Tornado IDS as a ghetto Tornado ADV, they're free to try. Yes, the F-14 makes for a pretty good bomber, this is why they were used that way IRL. So will the F-15, although unlike the F-14, this capability was not a big deal until someone came up with the Mudhen. Tornado, by all accounts, made for a pretty meh fighter even in the ADV version, but it worked. If a mission maker wants an air to air mission with Tornado IDS, it will be possible, as it was for the real Tornado. Two Sidewinders and the guns could get you through the day, if you're smart with how you use them. European conditions are irrelevant since we don't have a Cold War era map of Europe, except for Caucasus, which was Soviet territory at the time. Our maps focus on different places, where the ATO could be much less comprehensive.

А снижение характеристик, согласно недостаткам, указанным в отчете будете требовать у разработчика? Например снижение скорости из-за плохой герметизации

Thanks, I just tried moving my head closer to the gauges and you're right, they do get much clearer at a point. Not sure I can fly on a flat screen again!

Das ist zwar korrekt aber Updates laufen dann trotzdem nicht über Steam. Ein Punkt der für mich relevant ist, ich brauche nicht noch mehr launcher und co

This is Great stuff! as long as the maverick boresight issue is also fixed when they release the new stuff

the De mayo is still being worked on and hopefully will set sail in the near future

Hello All. I have a version 1 Landing/Parking update for CDG/Rafale. But there is good news and bad news. The good news is I've got 6 aircraft landing and parking. The bad news is aircraft 7/8 will land but instead of taxing they simple disappear. This might not be a bad thing as it will prevent circling and wave offs if you are trying to land more than 6 aircraft. I need to check the Nimitz carrier and see if the same thing is happens there when 6 plus aircraft try and land. Also planes 5 and 6 are taxing through some of the static deck crew that can't be removed. I think this can be fixed. Below is a text file with the new parking code. Just copy and paste into the CDG lua you are using. As always, back up your files and use at your own risk. For version 2 I hope to shorten taxi routes so the second plane in a group will not wave off on it's first try, stop the planes from taxing through deck crew and to see if the 6 plane limit is really a limit for all carriers. Google translate J'ai une mise à jour Atterrissage/Parking version 1 pour CDG/Rafale. Mais il y a une bonne et une mauvaise nouvelle. La bonne nouvelle, c'est que j'ai 6 avions qui atterrissent et se garent. La mauvaise nouvelle est que les avions 7/8 vont atterrir mais au lieu de taxer, ils disparaissent tout simplement. Ce n'est peut-être pas une mauvaise chose car cela empêchera les cercles et les vagues si vous essayez d'atterrir plus de 6 avions. Je dois vérifier le porte-avions Nimitz et voir si la même chose se produit là-bas lorsque plus de 6 avions essaient d'atterrir. De plus, les avions 5 et 6 imposent une partie de l'équipage de pont statique qui ne peut pas être retiré. Je pense que cela peut être corrigé. Vous trouverez ci-dessous un fichier texte avec le nouveau code de stationnement. Copiez et collez simplement dans le Lua CDG que vous utilisez. Comme toujours, sauvegardez vos fichiers et utilisez-les à vos risques et périls. Pour la version 2, j'espère raccourcir les itinéraires de taxi afin que le deuxième avion d'un groupe ne s'éloigne pas du premier coup, empêcher les avions de taxer l'équipage de pont et voir si la limite de 6 avions est vraiment une limite pour tous les transporteurs. CDGLandingupdate.txt

Agree. I'd buy a naval F-4 when it comes out, eventually. But I do like the F-4E more. My current hitlist is Mirage 2000, F-15E, Flaming Cliffs, F-4E, F/A-18. And today on the Mantis Show, I strap 15 7.62mm minigun pods on backwards to see if that decreases my takeoff run.

dont bother him, he doesnt know what he's talking about

Is this what you're looking for?

It would be great and atmospheric even as AI asset, hunting for NATO A-6 Intruders, A-7 Corsairs, Tornado IDS north of Kola Peninsula, also at night or bad weather. But its most common enemies were US strategic bombers of 1960s/1970s like B-52, B-58 Hustler, FB-111 and recon planes. Tu-128 simply looks good and unique.

Those words choice are .... a bit confusing between "in US / in English" or "in Japan / in Japanese" about F-15J/DJ. Based on Japanese publishing, F-15J/DJ are separated in those two groups. Pre-MSIP : Lot C1 - C5, 98x J + 12x DJ, delivered between 1981 - 1984, no modernized (except 1x J), carrying only AIM-7/9s as AAMs first, AAM-3 capability was added after. J-MSIP : Lot C6 - C-17, 67x J + 36x DJ (+ 1x J modernized from Pre-), delivered between 1985 - 1999, modernized many times, carrying AAM-3/4/5 or AIM-120 after modernized. So, no modernized Pre-MSIP group is a bit majority in JASDF F-15J/DJs. Their first built designs were almost same to basic (un-modernized, before MSIP-2) USAF F-15C/D. Difference was RWR and Datalink as F-2 said; they are small things. Later changes were also minimum .... only AAM-3 capability and replacing F100 engine ?

Many thanks for the heads up. This bug is very close to a previous one that used to affect the Mi-8. Issue reported.

22Jan23: Added Things to Avoid and Maneuvering

Mavericks are too long-suffering. Many lances have already been broken about them. Get them сorrect once and that's it)

Поправочка. Испытатель не выбирает борт. Что дадут на том и летит, это верно на 100%. Когда разрабатывают новую машину или просто обкатывают глубокую модификацию, что в нашем случае суть одно и тоже, испытания проводятся параллельно производственному процессу. Есть заводские(ой) испытатель, есть испытатель от КБ и есть "приёмщики" что гоняют машину перед комиссией перед окончательным резюме - быть ей в производстве или не быть. Испытатель от КБ гоняет экспериментальные борта и он первым её подымает в воздух (если она на это способна) выявляя серьёзные упущения. Далее участвует в совместных испытаниях с приёмщиками доводя "напильником" уже меньшие недостатки и выявляя скрытые более существенные. После решения комиссии о начале производства заказывается "нулевая", во время войны она же "войсковая" серия на которой уже на нескольких машинах выявляют полный спектр реальных ТТХ. Не желательные "особенности" устраняют до начала крупносерийного производства. Если это не возможно а машина "ну очень нужна" оставляют её в небольшой серии переводя работу КБ на другой, более жизнеспособный "объект" в заделе КБ. Все борта первой серии, что поступят на службу в строевые части обкатывают как испытатель КБ. Так и заводские испытатели и передают их на попечение прикомандированным строевым лётчикам. Во время войны лучшим пилотам строевых частей. И с ними выявляются и устраняются последние шероховатости ЛА. Изменения вносятся на ходу при изготовлении первой серии, и обычно к началу закладки второй серии, если они удачно довели машину она то и будет большой. И ещё раз, сами лётчики-испытатели не выбирают борт. Только в случае когда над машиной ведётся доводочная работа и пилот первым обнаружил не исправность. Ему вменяется пилотировать её до самого конца выявления и устранения таковой. Если это уже серийные машины, после устранения пилоту передают другую машину из серии. В крупных сериях периодически проводятся испытания пилотом от КБ по методу случайного выбора. Например каждую десятую машину в серии начиная с головной. Заводские испытатели обкатывают машины по упрощённой программе все поголовно.

Ich kann nur meine persönlichen Gründe nennen: Tatsächlich bin ich etwas paranoid wenn es darum geht meine Zahlungsinformationen/Kreditkarteninfos in der Welt zu verteilen und Steam hat die in meinem Fall schon seit vielen Jahren. Die Download Server von Steam sind schneller. Steam Freundesliste ist noch ein Vorteil. Und da ich in VR fliege, läuft eh Steam VR neben DCS. Und ich mags halt einfach wenn mein Desktop und mein Startmenü schön aufgeräumt sind und meine Spiele alle an einer Stelle liegen.

Ну если текстура земли не прогружается и дискорд виснет вместе с этим, для меня очевидно, если б я не сталкивался с подобным я бы наверное не предлагал. Вы хотя бы за себя для начала нормально вопрос сотавили, уже потом с друзьями бы решили. Если уж я по скриншоту не могу определить проблему, разработчики смогут по вашему? Где описание железа? С каким модулем это происходит? Логи? Трек или миссия для воспроизведения ошибки? Конечно я не буду больше отвечать, потому что не на что. Удачи вам и вашим четверым друзьям.

Need some of these, too

Many thanks for your work, Beldin ! This boosts the carrier playability and the Navy aircraft tremendously You are an expert Note : Google Translate makes an excellent work indeed, and it's funny to see that the "cat" (catapult, here) is correctly translated into the "chat" in French (tne animal)......

Our F-4E has dive toss, this is like a pseudo CCRP mode, you have the WSO lock the main lobe clutter from the radar in the air-gnd mode (don't be fooled this is the same as boresight pretty much but the antenna doesn't move when locked and the range scale can be greater than 5 nmi) then the pilot puts the pipper on the target as accurately as possible and depresses the bomb release, this tells the computer what the slant range is and it computes the target point, then using the INS the computer figures out when to drop the bomb so it hits the target.

Frederf is completely right. The GBU-24 has an autopilot (in real life) with mid-course guidance and different modes, extending the range more than just having bigger fins would. The GBU-24 doesn't have an INS nor GPS guidance so it will not be accurate at all without laser guidance in the terminal phase, but it will be able to get close enough to capture the laser. In DCS you literally can't even drop the GBU-24 at its maximum range according to the DLZ. The target will be beyond the max range of your laser designator and therefore the GBU-24 will just fall ballistically and impact way short of the target. I was really stoked for the GBU-24 but it is literally useless compared to the GBU-10 with it's current implementation so don't even bother. You get a slight increase in maximum range in exchange for not knowing what the actual maximum range is since the DLZ seems to be correctly modeled but the bomb itself isn't.

Had 17 aircraft on deck last night, spotting the six pack and 4-row, all 4 cats refused to launch aircraft. Completely ruined the fun when people are forced to deck run and some end up in the water to get around this major bug. Until this is properly fixed, there needs to be some kind of bandaid fix where an F10 option can FORCE a catapult to take you regardless of whatever other logic is used.

Same, I remember winning a huge airfix kit of one when I was about 7-8 I spent hours and hours screwing up building it but this looks really good!

Thanks toan, but I'm no expert, just a gifted hack,lol. Hopefully I'll be able to get everyone's permissions to release all this work as a complete MOD as I've got updates for British, Spanish and American carriers/naval aircraft and planes others have added as well Hopefully I'll have something more complete and refined to post by the end of February, even if it is just lua files and not complete Mod. Fly Safe and good hunting