Recluse

Using ATFLIR and LMAVS. There is now a countdown timer for the laser firing. It seems it times out before the Maverick reaches the target and it falls way short. I have tried it several times. - When IN RANGE cue is achieved (about 10 miles) (2.7_lmav1.trk) -MIndful of previous reports that the Laser is only good to 8 miles, I waited until range was 8 miles despite the IN RANGE cue being there. (2.7_lmav2.trk) -Wait a little longer firing at about 7.8 miles. Laser times out while Maverick is still in flight and then the missile falls short. lmav_atflir.trk I realize that the range might actually be shorter, but, in that case there is still a bug with the IN RANGE cue showing up sooner. I tried it with the LItening Pod. Same laser countdown, but the Litening Pod seems to give the laser more time to fire and I got hits at ~10 miles when IN RANGE cue appeared (lmav_litening2) 2.7_lmav2 2.7_lmav1 lmav_atflir.trk lmav_litening2.trk

So, for me, I designate a WP and I see a Diamond in the FLIR. I slew, and, like you, hitting TDC Down doesn't give me a Diamond, but it DOES seem to update the designation. If I go SSS right twice to Point Track, TDC DOWN and then SSS right again, it gives me the Diamond. As I said, though it did SEEM to update the Designation upon SLEW-->TDC DOWN even though the diamond did not show up. At least the AGM-65F snapped to the new point. Interestingly when I did SSS LEFT to the MAVERICK page, the diamond appeared in the FLIR! Agreed it is probably a bug.

I did notice something interesting. I Point Tracked a stationary vehicle and attacked with AGM-65F. Unfortunately, the Maverick decided to lock a neighboring vehicle. After the neighbor was destroyed, the targeted vehicle started to move, and the ATFLIR FOLLOWED IT!! I don't recall the Litening pod doing this, so MAYBE the ATFLIR does have better moving vehicle tracking. I originally locked just out of MAV range ~12-14 miles, fired when in range and pulled off target, so by the time the MOVING vehicle was being tracked it was quite close ~4-5 miles

I haven't tried it yet in 2.7 but since this seems CORRECT AS IS, why does the Changelog for 2.7 say: Not sure what was FIXED...

Did you possibly Declutter? Click the SETUP button and cycle through the options for the COORDS on the top right. I tried it and got the coords, but they didn't show up until the target was in GIMBAL Limits (at least the first time). I designated a WP and didn't see any coordinates until the FLIR was actually able to point at it.

Or if you are just using the FLIR, you have to Lead the ship. Go to POINT TRACK just ahead of the ship and when it sails through the Point Track bars, the FLIR will pick it up and continue to track. NOTE: You may have to do this several times to get the lock. SEA MODE slaving is so much easier, but the GIMBAL limits of the Radar are less than the FLIR so as you get closer (e.g. for a L-GBU drop or L-MAV) you might lose your lock. There are some threads with work-arounds to make the FLIR lock primary. Note: I don't know if 2.7 or the ATFLIR change any of this behavior.

Haven't tried it yet, Just took the Hornet up to gawk at the clouds and try the CPL ASL mode. Will get into the Harrier later and report back. Definitely looking forward to the Tarawa re-texture.

I have a Thrustmaster Cougar...but it is aging. I did put Hall sensors in stick and throttle but my stick springs are getting soft and the throttle friction holds are getting sloppy). Also TM RCS pedals. As mentioned, I have the Nozzle positions on the Antenna rotary of the TQS which is a bit sensitive. I am interested in that potential Sticky Zone! I'll keep practicing. I agree 100% with everything above!!! I will play with those settings. My curvature on pitch and roll is around 15 and my deadzone is higher because my stick has a bit of center wobble. Not sure if it was your mission or not, but I have also been using this mission: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3301741/ AV-8B FCLP Trainer - Caucasus (rev 2) for practice, but figured I should get comfortable (!!!!) with the boat. I did see Draken's post to an Assets Pack that more closely recreates the deck for FCLP, but I haven't picked it up yet.

This was sort of the reason for my post. When I get the nozzles >70% I cannot control the witch's hat. TRIM doesn't seem to do it, and stick inputs don't seem to act quickly enough. I have tried doing a hover takeoff and trying to just STAY IN ONE SPOT with the witch's hat on the horizon, but it gets away from me every time. Probably just boils down to practice, but I do not feel like I have any control of attitude in those situations. BTW, I was talking about a curve for the Nozzle position not the throttle so it isn't so easy to overshoot 82 degrees.

Yes the Antenna Rotary is an axis. I think I will play with Saturation and Curves to see if I can get it to be a little less sensitive. That's the crux of my issue. When the nozzles rotate forward much past 75 degrees, the pitch goes all over and I cannot get the witch's hat stabilized so that I can use small pitch increments for forward motion or any roll inputs without lots of oscillation. The latter, I think is just PRACTICE but the Witch's Hat stabilization is the key and it is driving me crazy. That's why I (so far) have been making approaches <70 degrees as I seem to be able to stabilize the witch's hat there and use a last minute correction to ease down. TOTALLY not by the book, I realize, but I will work toward that once I get some confidence that I can control things throughout the process.

So a little thread resurrection because I didn't want to start a new one when this seemed an appropriate place. I wanted to ask about Harrier Trimming on low speed approach for STOL or Rolling Vertical landings (and pure Vertical as well). I am used to the Hornet where i can trim to on speed AOA and adjust altitude with throttle and make small lateral corrections without messing up the trim. In the Harrier, it seems that I cannot seem to get a stable trim position, like getting Witches Hat on the Horizon while manipulating the velocity vector and altitude. I realize there are a lot more forces at play at slow speeds with nozzle changes, so I don't expect it to be exactly like the Hornet, but hoping there are some best practices. So, I am making an approach at around 60-70 knots with nozzles at ~65 degrees with witches hat near the horizon (maybe a few degrees down) and the velocity vector on the runway or deck. As I get closer, I rotate the nozzles to about 75-80 degrees to slow further, and try for a hover transition and despite trim and/or stick input the witches hat and the nose pitch wildly up leaving me totally screwed. I'd love to blame my aging Cougar, but I think the problem is the brain behind the HAND and not the Throttle and Stick. As an aside, I wish there was a HOVER STOP for 81-82 degrees. I use the Antenna Elevation rotary on my throttle for Nozzles and have ruined some otherwise good approaches by over rotating the nozzles to 90+ degrees so that instead of a nice touchdown, I get pitched up and start flying/rolling backwards. Like in the attached TRK. Not a pretty approach, but it got there. This was the AV8B Instant Action Carrier Landing mission which starts way too high, hence the initial mad dive to the deck to set up the approach with a slightly better altitude above the deck. Av8B Rolling TarawaLanding.trk

I did not know that..... thanks!! NOW I know why it was blinking.. I usually put the hook down when entering the pattern, but when I take off and immediately turn downwind, I often forget the hook.

Just wondering why there is no HOOK indicator on the HUD, and the COMMS with the LSO never includes a "LOWER YOUR HOOK" in the event that it is not down or didn't deploy. Nothing more frustrating than boltering because I never put the Hook down. Not to mention the DOWNCHECK for failing to follow the checklist. I realize that the Hornet cockpit is a much smaller place than it seems in my 2D monitor representation, so possibly the HOOK handle position and indicator is more than enough of a reminder to the absent minded pilot. Seems like the kind of warning indication that would be useful.

Sorry for the delayed response. I finally got to check this out. Thanks! Looking much better now. Oddly enough, the experience I had that led to the original post might have been some kind of glitch, as since then, even before optimization, the symbology is looking much brighter/clearer. Maybe I had selected Night Mode instead of DAY mode and never noticed. In any case, looking good now. Thanks again for your reply!

So I have finally decided to play with the NIGHT ATTACK capability. First trying to use NAVFLIR and TPOD (vs. NVG). I am finding that the symbology in the TPOD is very hard to read, including the CROSSHAIR which makes targeting a little problematic. Tried messing with the SYM switch as well as the Brightness, Gain, Day/Night switches and using various settings for the other cockpit lighting. Still very hard to read the symbology overlays. Other DDI's are also kind of hard to read, but the TPOD page is the worst, and the crosshair visibility is really needed. Am I missing something obvious? Thanks in advance!

Yeah, me too! I bought the Hornet and SuperCarrier (and SU-33 which I already had from FC3) as a bundle on a really good sale. The only way I noticed this is playing MP with a friend who didn't have Supercarrier and hosted so the Stennis replies were different than the ones you get with SuperCarrier.

It's so funny what we get used to. The A-10C was the first module I bought (after FC3) and I never fly it because the switchology was incomprehensible with all the SHORTS and LONGS and SPIs. I use a COUGAR so, the missing switches (China Hat etc.) had to be compensated for. The Hornet and Harrier were, by contrast easy to come to grips with, though, especially in the Harrier, it took a lot of attention to follow the NEW procedures that have come with each update ( EHSD Designate, TPOD and JDAM changes) but I still find it a lot more straightforward than the A-10C given my VERY limited attention to learning it. I did find that learning the Hornet helped with the Harrier, though there are some really distinct differences in how the avionics work. Sorry for the digression, but Vakarian explained it well. One clarification, once you hand off to the Maverick (IRMV showing) you need TDC ACTION to lock the target as Vakarian said. The SSS has different functions whether the DMT is active or the TPOD is the active sensor: When you are in TPOD DES mode, and do 2X SSS Action, you will see TV or INS show up in the TPOD depending on the last sensor, SSS Forward now commands IRMV as it would from the DMT. I believe the table below represent the current functions

Only if you own SuperCarrier, and, for MP, the person running the server in MP owns SuperCarrier as well. Without SuperCarrier, you only get something like a generic Airfield ATC (which is actually wrong).

According to a post by Razbam_ELMO, some time ago on the BUGS forum: "Note: the MK20 CBU in PRI fuse mode will open and release the bomblets at 1500FT ASL while the OP fuze will open up at 1500FT AGL."

Thanks! Will keep at it. Interestingly, I realize that I read that book (back in 2012 sometime) and I remember NOTHING about it. Maybe time for a re-read. I recently read AV-8B Harrier II Units of Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm (Combat Aircraft Book 90) Kindle Edition by Lon Nordeen (Author), Jim Laurier (Illustrator) Format: Kindle Edition https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01DPPTM2S/ which was another good read. Mainly dumb bombs used (Mk 82, 83 and Rockeyes).

LOL If I could manage that much I would consider the mission a total success Great report!

Usually it gives you a reason for the abort. In my case, it usually happens when I am too far abeam of the ship. In those cases, I usually continue on to the smashing into the fantail perfect 3 wire landing just for the practice. I will often stay in the downwind longer than the Rules allow to give me more time. I don't recall if that aborts the landing or just warns you to turn in sooner.

That's a good idea. They seem to burn pretty well even from splash damage, and I was expecting them to EVENTUALLY explode and register as destroyed, but no such luck. If I can't get a good Damage Percentage to represent NON MISSION CAPABLE, I'll set the extra triggers. Most of them had at least their tail rotors blown off and a good part of the main rotors shredded so it wouldn't be cheating

Thanks for all the insight. Not just me seeing issues with A/C on the ground. For sure they are not indestructible, but it seems to take a LASER PRECISE hit from a Mk 82 class to DESTROY them. I changed the mission success criteria to having them all damaged 60% or greater. Thinking this will allow a one pass salvo of GBU-38 to do the job.

So, I have noticed that GBU-12 seem to do more damage than GBU-38 despite being the same warhead. Possibly this is due to precision of impact point, but in a mission trying to destroy Mi-8's on the ground, I am finding that no matter how precisely the GBU-38 seems to hit, I can't DESTROY the unit with one shot, where a GBU-12 does the job instantly. Both provide a good deal of Splash damage to adjoining units. The attached TRK is a quick demonstration, though hardly optimized and crappy flying too. - First attack with GBU-12. Destruction. - Second attack with GBU-38 which SEEMS to hit the impact point well. (I launched before it was fully aligned... but it hit the aim point and was properly fuzed, so it shouldn't be an issue) I targeted the point where the HELO meets the ground on a unit that seemed to have gotten less splash from the GBU-12. DAMAGE. - Third attack with GBU-38 on already damaged unit. Full destruction. I've tried with GBU-32, and the heavier warhead definitely scores a kill. Have successfully used GBU-38 against other targets (vehicles, small structures) and definitely gotten kills. Something about parked helos and aircraft that always seem more resistant to GBU-38 for me. GBU38 vs GBU12.trk