JaBoG32_Herby

Ramsay, I’ll make one last attempt. The method to calculate a true bearing (TB) is to take the magnetic bearing (MB) and add the magnetic variation (MV) to it. TB = MB + MV For your example I suppose, since you seemed to be tracking perfectly towards Batumi Tacan, your magnetic heading to be 119° and without any wind your magnetic track to be 119° as well. The magnetic variation at your present position in game is 6° East. The convention is to express easterly variations as positive and westerly variations as negative. For the above given formula we would get 119° + 6° = 125°. With that 125° is your True Ground Track. Now we look at your image and we realize that Ground Track Pointer as well as the Ground Track Digital Readout indicate 125°. This is what the manual says: This pointer indicates the aircraft true ground track. Whether your compass rose is oriented to true or magnetic is irrelevant. It doesn’t change the value for your True Track. So, to summarize the above: we were able to calculate the expected True Ground Track to be 125°. We were able to confirm the Ground Track Pointer as well as the Ground Track Digital Readout to show 125°. And we were able to derive from the appropriate AFM that the Pointer and the Readout present the Pilot with a True Track. I’m not sure how much more it needs to acknowledge that this is in fact not a bug but a system feature. However, I rest my case here. There’s nothing more to be said about this.

Well, sir, I certainly understand, what you’re up to. And as I’ve mentioned in my initial remarks, I’m not sure how to make good use of a track pointer that is referenced to true north while my compass rose is referenced to magnetic north. But we might agree that user comfort is not the point here. You show us the function of the TRUE Push button in 23.9.34. This paragraph describes the change of compass reference from magnetic to true. Here you seem to accept the fact that, in the context of this manual, True used in conjunction with a direction indication is meant to be as opposed to magnetic while you decline the same concept in 23.9.7 for a True Track? Well, I’m sure you see my point. As a side note for the image you’ve picked from the NATOPS manual, it shows an EHSD presentation for a Day Attack Harrier. And another side note for the CDI tutorial, it is your interpretation of how the Ground Track Pointer should work. The manual nowhere mentions that on this aircraft the Track Pointer is used to show the Aircraft Track in degrees magnetic.

Excellent read. Thank you for sharing.

@Shadow_1stVFW I appreciate your effort to try and explain all those terms to me, but I think, you shouldn’t invest more of your time in doing that. I’m an active aviator for the last 27 years and I make a living out of flying airplanes for the last 23 years of my life. For that I’m quite familiar with the concept of headings and tracks and references based on true or magnetic directions. The NATOPS manual I referenced to uses the term True Ground Track exactly the way it’s meant to be used, as an explanation for an indication that is based on the reference datum true north. Ramsay posted two images, the first showing an EHSI with a Track indication to Batumi Tacan of 119° magnetic with a Ground Track Pointer and it’s associated Ground Track Digital Readout showing 125° true and the second showing the EHSI set to TRUE now indicating a true track of 125° to Batumi Tacan with the Pointer and the Readout still at 125° true. I’m not sure, where you gentlemen see the bug. The system does, what the Airplane Flight Manual describes. It shows a True Ground Track. That it does this with the EHSI in either TRUE or Magnetic is self explanatory.

Thank you very much, Sir, for the well meant advice and the link. I have to disagree however, I’m afraid, since the video as well as your description illustrate the difference between Heading and Track, as you rightly noted. In aviation terminology, “True” used in conjunction with a direction points out the difference to this direction in “Magnetic “, where, and I’m sure you’re familiar, the first is based on the geographical North pole while the latter is referencing to the Magnetic Pole with the difference in the positions between the two contributing (among other local magnetic factors) to the local magnetic variation. This would explain, what the OP showed in the images he posted. Referencing his EHSI to Magnetic Heading, the True Ground Track Pointer regards the magnetic variation, which is supposed to be 6° East. What I have no explanation for, I admit, is, what the practical purpose of this feature could be on the battlefield.

23.9.7 Ground Track (Digital Readout) and Ground Track Pointer This pointer indicates the aircraft true ground track. On Radar and Night Attack aircraft ground track is also a digital readout. Trainer aircraft with H4.0 have a digital readout of ground track as well. This is from the A1-AV8BB-NFM-000 manual making me believe, the described system behavior in game is as per design.

:lol::thumbup:

@mvsgas You’ve asked the question whether the airframe simulated has 65 or 100% LERX. I’ve used Figures 11-3 and -4 in the -000 Manual and more specifically the buffet onset curve at low IMN to figure this out. I presume, based on the results, that RAZBAM modeled a 100% LERX variant. But again, this is more of a speculative nature derived from my observations than it would be scientifically proven.

To answer your question, Sir, as far as I’m concerned, predictable and as expected. Well, more precisely, as expected if you’ve cared to look at the appropriate manuals, like you did, but which is presumably something not anyone commenting here invested some time in. Creating an asymmetric loading will result in requiring corrective steering inputs by either the pilot or the automatic flight control system. That at least is the experience I gathered in flying several different aircraft types in the real world, with the AV-8B not being among them. As a side note, since some people apparently tend to believe, an airplane is supposed to fly straight and level naturally, not even a fly by wire aircraft like an Airbus A320 keeps its attitude precisely without corrective steering inputs. To give an answer to the OP, I’m inclined to belive, based on my experience with this module so far, that the Flight Dynamics for the RAZBAM AV-8B are a fairly accurate simulation of what could be expected from an airplane with the given characteristics.

You'r required to set CHAFF mode to P. It is in S on default. The mode selection can be found on the MPCD ECM page.

Thank you two Gentlemen for your remarks. Would you mind then to share your test results in order to provide some inside to answer the original question?

We did a test yesterday using an F/A-18 as the radar platform and the Pod didn’t seem to make any difference regarding the Harriers visibility on his radar screen. I presume, functionality is not yet implemented.

On the risk of annoying anybody, I'd like to bump this again. I agree with the previous speakers on the importance of this bug.

In fact none of the above has been touched with the latest update. There is another thread here listing as well some synchronisation issues.

Roger that. Thank you, gentlemen.

While trying to reanimate a number of scripts in a templatemission that i carried over from former DCS versions i encountered a problem with LUA-scripts in general. Including a longer script like MIST or CTTP ends with the mission editor cutting the text at what is equal to line 92 in Notepad++. This phenomenon takes effect for Trigger Action "DO SCRIPT" as well as for INITIALIZATION SCRIPT CODE. I´ve tried a new and empty mission with the same result. Mission is attached, however as stated above, a new mission generates the same effect. Best regards Herby Testtemplate128.zip

Hello Raf, I just checked the CPU demand for jawa and found it pretty high. I use an i7 2600k processor and the jawa process takes about 12% of the CPU capacity which equals one core. I don't understand however why this has such an impact on DCS performance since the whole CPU is used by perhaps just 35% or so. Regards Herby

I've tried that addon today and find it a brilliant idea. But what i've realized is a huge drop in frames. Framerate is reduced to 25 with the MFCD displayed whereas the rate is above 40 without the display. Regards Herby

Well, i raised the voltage as a first approach to get stability with the extra bit in frequency. Since that didn't work i lowered the freq as described and as the temps are no problem for that card i just left it running where it was stable. I've got the DHS version as well btw and i find it remarkable, how far they overclock that thing beyond what's being advertised. The card takes all the powerconsuming benchmarkings and runs ARMA for example without sweat on the higher frequencies, but fails only with DCS. Whatever the reason might be. Regards Herby

Got the same issue with an Inno3d Ichill GTX780. The card comes heavily factory overclocked and out of the box gives a GPU frequency even 10% above the numbers guaranteed by the manufacturer, but that seemed a bit too much. I raised the voltage a bit since temps are no factor and lowered the frequency at the same time and it all runs stable since then. Regards Herby

Hi Grimes, may I add one remark and one question. The command iads.addByPrefix() as refered to in your documentation should correctly be called iads.addAllByPrefix(). Is it possible to remove Groups from an IADS-Network? I'v tried iads.destroy(), but have perhaps used the wrong syntax. If this is the command to remove part of the network, could you kindly give me an example on how to use it correctly. Thank you and best regards Herby

After searching the forum I think, that this has not been reported before. Bug description: Using the ABRIS Menu options to change the presented distances from Kilometer to Nautical Miles converts with a factor of about 1.6 rather than 1.852 as appropriate. So the conversion is factored for a Statute Mile and not for a Nautical Mile. Steps to reproduce: See above for DCS 1.2.6 PC config: n/a Attachments: none Best regards Herby

I was able to solve the problem by uninstalling the Geforce Experience application in total. That also deinstalled the Nvidia Network Service and everything works again as it is supposed to. Regards

Hmm, this hasn't changed in 1.2.6!?

Hello Gents, the new charts have been updated in regards of runway designators for almost all airfields. The version 3.5.0 showed the runway tracks as they would be perceived from the A10-C cockpit based on its compass indication. After the release of the FC3 module we realised, that not only the BlackShark but also all FC3 aircraft had a heading indication of 6° more than the A10-C and, as we see now, the Huey. To compensate for this we decided to correct the charted runway designators to what the pilots can see painted on the respective runway threshold. The difference between the DCS:World charts and the DCS:A10-C/UH-1 Huey charts is the above mentioned different compassreading. If you fly with lets say the huey, the appropriate chartversion will give you the tracks for the runways as well as the tracks for the approach and departure routing tailored for the compassreading of that aircraft whereas the DCS:World version shows you the correct tracks for BlackShark and FC3 aircraft. Furthermore did we include a conversion reference table on every VAD-chart that gives you an idea of what the metric values for the posted altitudes in feet are. This is obviously helpfull for those who fly eastern aircraft. And the last bigger change are the corrected taxiway designators. This affects primarily the Tbilisi airports, since either Lochini and Vaziani are presented with taxiway designators in game. The charts now reflect the in game designation, which was not the case in chart version 3.5.0. I hope this helps a bit. Best regards Herby