norman99

I have another ATFLIR tracking question. When auto tracking a moving target, if the aircraft turns to block the LOS to the target, even for extremely long timeframes such as 1-2min, auto tracking immediately works and tracks the original target upon regaining LOS. Is this correct? Wouldn’t losing LOS break the ATFLIR auto track? Or does the ATFLIR calculate expected movement when LOS is lost in an attempt to reaquire an auto track when able? If so, it kinda works too well. It currently seems like there’s a magic all seeing auto track that knows where the moving target is at all times. I haven’t yet tested what happens when a moving target changes directions whilst the ATFIR LOS is blocked, but it should definitely not reacquire an auto track in this situation.

This is because fighter-to-fighter tacan only provides distance information, whereas fighter-to-tanker provides both distance and bearing, the same as ground based tacan stations.

Apparently in Wag’s latest interview, he made a comment along the lines of: “Need to be extremely mindful of sourcing, and some F/A-18 functions (namely MIDS) doesn't have enough information to model.” Can anyone confirm this? Have our hopes for a more complete MIDs simulation been dashed for good?

VOCA/B works on SRS works because of how it is integrated into DCS, not because the bug is intermittent. VOC is not simulated at all internally in DCS. All changing the channel does is change the number displayed on the MIDs page, nothing more. Currently this is broken (hence the bug reports), the channel numbers don’t change. SRS works not by reading the MIDs channel (which isn’t implemented), but rather by identifying the UFC inputs, and subsequently changing the SRS VOC channel, which is completely independent of DCS.

Directly from the NATOPS FM: IN FLIGHT • Internal fuel tank pressure low above 20,000 feet. Possible fuel pump cavitation above 40,000 feet High rates of descent may damage fuel cells

In DCS terms, most of these ‘convolutions’ are less about the clunky design of the system, and rather about missing a data cartridge function which would automate this. But you’re right, there are a few things that we’ll have to keep doing ’the hard way’ until DCS can implement the DTC.

Yep. I only expect one or two more small updates to fix critical bugs, or add simplistic versions of a couple of the big missing items. After that it’ll be out of EA and put on the shelf to collect dust. (Yes I know it may receive small incremental updates once released, but with everything else on EDs plate, they will be few and far between.) It would seem what we have now is basically all we’re going to get.

If you mean the sixpack, (positions 1-4 below), the following from the Hoggit wiki explains the spawn logic well. “On the Stennis and Nimitz SC objects there are 4 spawn points that are available only at mission start. These 4 are in the "six-pack" part of the ship. When there is a PLAYER skilled aircraft set in the editor the player will ALWAYS spawn in the first position. Anything that spawns at least one second after mission start will spawn in the next available spawnpoint.”

Just remember in the Hornet, you should only be trimming laterally, and only to counter the affects of an asymmetrical load. Pitch trim, and lateral trim on a balanced aircraft, are not required, and should not be used. (Obviously takeoff/landing not withstanding).

Given the carrier always steers in an attempt to generate 27-30kts down the deck, "different" wind setups are kind superfluous. That is unless you want a nill wind and therefore slight crosswind setup, or a 40kts+ gale.

This is absolutely not true. So many people believe that they can buy or upgrade their way to AAR proficiency. The only tried and true way to get good at AAR is practice, practice, and more practice. I use a Saitek X55, with out any curves applied, simply placed on a desk either side of my 17” laptop, and I can AAR just fine. I’m definitely no ace when it comes to DCS, I simply focused solely on AAR for a couple weeks, doing nothing else.

Exactly! To make it worse ED still haven’t described any features or functions that the Briefing Room/Airboss will include. @BIGNEWY Can you please update the community on what sort of new features we can expect with the Briefing Room/Airboss, or even just their general purpose? It doesn’t have to be detailed or exhaustive, nor does it need a timeline, simply the minimum functions ED has considered as part of these new developments. This may help improve the mood here, generating some interest and excitement rather then the complaints and despair presently felt. It would also help customers better understand some of the reasons behind EDs development priorities. Absence of any details, we can only conclude that ED has no idea themselves what they are capable of delivering. Surely that is not the impression ED wants it’s customer base to be left with?

Exactly this! Honestly, it wouldn’t be that hard for any component 3D modeller to simply add some sticks to the models. Even if they weren’t visually perfect, and simply appeared/disappeared with the same trigger as the rest of the carrier lighting, that would please almost everyone as a short term fix. We don’t need an overly complicated solution, such as the animations pulling wands out of their pockets. We just need something simple we can see at night.

Hypothetically, assuming current EA modules were completed, if ED refocused all their resources onto the core, and didn’t develop any new modules for a year or two, how much additional revenue do you think that would generate? Compare that to starting a couple more EA modules and selling them immediately? Nick has openly stated they need the EA business model to financially sustain the company, that alone is a good indication it drives the bulk of their revenue, and core enhancements don’t. Unfortunately, most users are not like yourself, they buy modules regardless of the poor state of the core sim, and then complain vocally afterwards (myself included ). There isn’t a huge pool of users holding off from buying the Hornet/Falcon simply because ATC is poorly implemented. We customers are half the problem, because our actions help sustain the business model we love to hate.

The reason why core updates and improvements are so few and far between is simply due to EDs business model. As long as DCS worlds remains “free to play” core development will provide little to no revenue. For any company working in a niche market on a tight budget, there simply aren’t the resources available to allocate to non revenue generating tasks. Unless ED start charging for the core DCS world, either as a one off fee for major version releases, or as a subscription, I can’t see anything changing.

Which server? Sounds like it’s restricting the weapons to 80s/early 90s only.

I never once said that a dynamic campaign has been planned for 10+ years. I was only referring only to the planned upgrades that were mentioned previously. Those being “AI, ATC, multicore, updated 3D assets, etc.” Upgrades to these areas within the DCS world have been mentioned for much longer than the 3-4 year window of the dynamic campaign. In some case much, much longer. Unfortunately little to no progress has really been made in many of these areas, to the point that some things are literally the remnants of LOMAC. These core areas are fundamental to the implementation of a working dynamic campaign, and the glacial pace of their improvements simply doesn’t bode well for a expeditiously developed dynamic campaign engine. I’m not trying to make false claims, but simply highlighting that if past behavior is the best predictor of future behaviour, than a dynamic campaign is a very long way away, as ED don’t have a great record of timely, consistent core improvements. EDs focus is revenue generating modules, and I don’t expect that to change.

There are a lot of people here obviously not very excited about the Briefing Room and Airboss features, especially when they seem to be prioritised over what many deem as ‘quality of flight’ issues such as wands, auto into wind steering, expanded & more realistic comms, etc etc. Maybe ED could de-escalate some of this tension, and even gain some support for their chosen development path, if they explained a few of the features and functions we can look forward to with both the Briefing Room & Airboss. Currently, we don’t have a clue, because no one has ever told us. That’s despite it being asked for multiple times, even in this thread alone. How can ED expect users to get excited about features they know absolutely nothing about? The only conclusion I can come up with, is that ED is completely unsure themselves on what they can deliver. So much so there’s not even the internal confidence to release a list of expected features and functions, however short or brief.

The doubts arise because these “planned upgrades” have be mentioned continuously for 10+ years, we’ll before the current Early Access modules were even started. It’s all well and good to have plans, but at some point you have to actually implement them. That seems to be ED stumbling block, no doubt due to their business model/commercial reasons. For context, the SuperCarrier ‘might’ get light wands in 2022. A dynamic campaign, haha, before 2025 is overly optimistic!

Or even if just the BIT pages will be completely functional on completion?

Happens to me too. Landing with AI aircraft other than on the carrier is broken, and basically always has been. I’d recommend get to 10nm, give them an RTB call, and let them go do their own thing. That’s about the cleanest way to arrive back with AI wingmen. Attempting anything else just turns into a big mess. Unfortunately this has never been a priority for ED, so don’t expect a fix any time soon

I completely agree. At first glance, the new carrier ATC seemed great, but it very quickly became obvious it was just a simple set of trigger activated voice comms. If you hit the triggers as designed, it all appears to work, but if for some reason you don’t, it can easily fall apart. Beyond these preset triggers, ATC doesn’t really exist; it has no idea where you are or what you’re doing. There is absolutely no “control” aspect to it at all. All if this doesn’t even mention the at times confused and inaccurate, comms and procedures.

Trim set correctly? 12° is only used on takeoff from land. On the carrier, the following, based on aircraft weight, is used:

Is it just me, or are all the images in the OP thumbnail size and hence unreadable?

How do you eat an elephant?…………One bite at a time! In other words, pick one small task you’d like to learn, and only do that for a week. Weather it’s simple navigation, landing patterns, BVR with AMRAAMs, dropping dumb bombs, Carrier recoveries, a particular precision weapon, it doesn’t mater. Just pick one specific topic, read the manual/Chuck’s Guides, watch some of Wags videos, (not GR…), and then just practice only that for a few days. (For this, being able to setup up simple practice missions in the ME helps, such as a 1v1 vs a MIG, or dropping a weapon on a static ground target.) Once you’re up to speed with that particular topic, move on to the next one. But don’t forget to keep refreshing your knowledge of things already learn along the way. Personally, I learned carrier ops, AMRAAM BVR, and basic unguided bomb employment before ever starting a campaign of any sort. If I come cross a mission that needs an additional skill I don’t have, I pause the campaign, and spend a few days to learn, only afterwards continuing. To this day I’ve still never dropped a JDAM/JSOW, or fired a MAV, and definitely need more practice with HARMs and Harpoons/SLAMs. You don’t need to know everything to be competent in a DCS aircraft. Simply try to enjoy the small steps along the way. Lasty, avoid missions/campaigns that just throw everything plus the kitchen sink at you all at once. There’re nothing but frustrating. You gain no skill or confidence with a mission loaded with multiple layers of unknown SAMs, waves of enemy fighter aircraft, all triggered to engage just as you’re trying to drop your first LGB.