norman99

Honestly, runway strikes aren't really in the F/A-18s mission set. Normally that would be left to the Air Force and B1s or F-15Es if low level is required. (Especially now the Viper no longer carries Durandals and the F-111 is long retired.)

Maybe this should be in the mission editor bugs section? Ships capable of land attack (such as US ships with tomahawks) cannot use the "Attack Group" option. Currently in the ME, with this option selected, a land group selected as the target, and everything else set to AUTO, ships do not fire. Weapon selection choice only has "Standard ASM" as an option, so it looks like the tomahawk is unavailable, and hence nothing happens. When changing to "Fire at Point", Cruise Missile becomes a weapons option, and the ships fire as tasked. The problem with "Fire at Point" is it is unsuitable for attacking a group of units, such as a large fixed SAM site like an SA-5. Each individual unit (launcher, radars, command vans, etc) needs to be assigned manually, and the missile quantity's closely controlled or the ships proceed to unload their entire battery on the one spot. "Attack Group" should be available to enable easy targeting of a group with multiple units, again, such as a SAM site. This would alleviate having to target every unit manually, and help control the number of missiles used.

No. Also changing the SR to the SA-2/3/5 P19 Flat Face (still incorrect for this system) increases firing range to ~55nm. Still no where near the ~150nm rage the system should have against a non manoeuvring, large RCS target.

Simple mission. SA-5 vs 1 B52, SA-5 won't shoot until within 30nm. Square Pair TR has an in-game indicated range of ~220nm. The missile (V-860PV/5V21P) itself has an indicated range of ~140nm. The incorrectly used Tin Shield SR has a range of 80nm (nerfing performance further). And finally the system won't fire until 30nm. In general, the state of this system is a bit of a dogs breakfast. SA-5 v B52.trk

I found these over at TurboSquad, exactly what we need in DCS! Here’s a link for details on each individual model. https://www.turbosquid.com/Download/513949_3480417 If ED don’t have the resources to develop these models internally, maybe they should just purchase these instead?

Interesting stuff Northstar. Hopefully improved SAM radar & support equipment is still on ED’s to do list.

Fantastic script, though I seem to be running into a problem. When testing the offensive jamming, I can switch it on via the menu, but switching it off doesn't seem to work, it continues jamming. Is there anything I can do to change this? I've tried looking into the lua, but nothing specific stands out to me.

Again, absolutely fantastic work guys. I just have one small request. Would it be possible to make a small revetment, in a similar style and size to the others already included, only straight? I'm trying to make a realistic SA-5 site, but the included revetments don't quite work. If we had a straight piece, we could join them up into numerous different shapes and sizes. A single piece, about 100ft long (circled ) would be enough to recreate the entire site shown below. stic

No matter what I do, I cannot get an SA-5 site to activate and launch beyond ~38-40nm. I even have the following code included: redIADS:getSAMSiteByGroupName('SAM-SA-5'):setEngagementZone(SkynetIADSAbstractRadarElement.GO_LIVE_WHEN_IN_KILL_ZONE):setGoLiveRangeInPercent(150) Can anyone help?

Operationally, I completely understand the multiple benefits to a double ugly loadout. But damn, it looks so hideous, I struggle accept using one in DCS, unless my squad CO insists haha.

AirBoss LSO grading is definitely the better option. Much more accurate and consistent than the default SuperCarrier LSO grading.

@Bonz In your first mission, I’d guess you have another F14/F18 group with a “land” waypoint action assigned. These would most likely not be set as clients, so that they appear and are active during the mission? Try deleting these groups and see if this mission now works.

As the title says, AWACS give contact calls reference °TRUE instead of °MAGNETIC. I'm not sure if ATC vectors are also referencing TRUE not MAG. All calls to aircraft should be made referencing °MAG, as this is what is readily available in the cockpit. It is the real world standard for all aviation direction referencing, except certain wind forecasts and ops in the polar region, which doesn't affect DCS. The following image shows the AWACS call direction in the text at the top of the screen, and the actual contact BRA on the SA page. The 13° difference is exactly explained by the 12° MAG VAR of Nevada (+1° for the slight delay between my bogey dope request and taking the screenshot.)

That was my thought, but it didn’t seem to work that way. Mariana’s mission, so should be UTC + 10, but I needed an offset of +3:30 to match the local time in game. I can’t figure out why it’s this value?

I’m my mission (default SuperCarrier CASE III mission) in which ACLS fails, 2xF18s are air spawned, and land ahead of me. Delete these aircraft and it works. The carrier was obviously added to the mission prior to this update, so I don’t see that being a cause.

I haven’t updated to the latest version, but I’m curious if there are any templates included? I’m terrible at accurately detailing these locations and would love any help I could get haha.

Remember mission editor speed is ground speed, not IAS or TAS. If you want the aircraft to maintain say 250kts indicated, you’ll need a higher speed in the mission editor. I use this site to calculate the speed for the ME (use TAS figure as TAS = GS with no wind). Obviously any change in altitude will have an affect and possibly require a recalculation. https://aerotoolbox.com/airspeed-conversions/ Alternatively, use Mach # instead of a speed. M0.6 works well for turboprops and best endurance for jets. For best range, jets are around M0.8-0.85. The advantage with this technique is if you change the aircraft’s altitude, the Mach # doesn’t need to be recalculated.

@Rudel_chw My mistake. I’ve never used the training missions in DCS. I thought you meant something similar to the missions that come with the Hornet and/or the SuperCarrier.

Simply open the SuperCarrier CASE III training mission, and add the LINK 4 & ACLS triggers as Wags shows in his video. Save as a new file. Done. Probably takes 3 min. ( 2x AI Hornet groups have to be deleted as well due to a current bug.) Attached is this exact mission. My point was that ED should have really included a training mission in the update. C-SUPERCARRIER-HORNET-CASE III RECOVERY - ACLS.miz

No there is not. Currently ME is required to use ACLS. Personally, I think it’s kinda lazy to not include a training mission for ACLS, given it would literally take 5 min to create one.

Just tested this. Seems AI are definitely part of the problem. Original SuperCarrier CASE III mission, with LINK 4 & ACLS triggers added. No ACLS lock on, no MODE 1 indication, or tadpole. Same mission as above, only deleting the 2 AI F18 groups present. ACLS now works correctly to the deck. Now, if only the burble wasn’t so sever as to completely ruin an otherwise perfectly stable approach… But one step at a time I guess.

The current analysis seems to indicate if there are any additional F18 groups in a mission, than ACLS lock on at 6nm breaks. MODE 1 and the tadpole appearing simply doesn’t happen. More info here. https://forum.dcs.world/topic/299704-acls-f18-cpl-autopilot-not-working-as-intendedmy-fault/page/2/#comment-4960684

So ACLS only works if there’s no other F18 Hornet groups in the mission? If that is the case it’s a huge oversight, even if this is still beta, WIP etc… Hopefully a fix is on the way soon.

Not necessarily, depends if you're on overtime that month .

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but my TacView clock is never matching the mission time, when using our squadron server. I can change the time offset, but the value I have to choose never makes any sense. What time does the .acmi file reference? In mission Zulu/Local? Or is it the actual time from the OS hosting the server, again Zulu or Local?