near_blind

Found some more variants of the AAA-1. The Double Line doesn't appear to be present in the 1984 version (Tape 111E/P7E), but is present in the 1997 version (Tapes 115B/P15B). It seems a copy of the accompanying AAA-1A would be required to determine anything more meaningful.

Clearly HB needs to make a spin off: F-14 Depot Maintainer so we can properly experience all the permutations

From what I understand the D models were given the lowest priority for PTIDs until after the retirement of the As and some Bs as the RIO had an MFD that was 'good enough' for the task.

What's your plan to simulate the diverse effects of multiple generations of ECM emitters spanning 50 years on the ECCM suite of a semi analogue radar when the EW infrastructure in DCS currently consists of Jamming: Yes? / No? It doesn't help that the F/A-18 is a modern set where ECCM is largely automated, and the effects of DECM on ownship are modelled incorrectly. Even then: why would you want HB to step in and try to hit a moving target while the EW model as it is, and how it interacts with weapons is in a state of constant flux as ED tries to mess with it, knowing that this will inevitably mean that HB will have to waste more time to fix it again at a later point down the road. I'm sympathetic to the issues caused by the blinky DECM, but the rest should be left to a later date when ED has solidified what it wants to do in this arena.

In PSTT it doesn't get post launch guidance instructions. At best it gets pre-launch antenna cueing instructions if the target is > 30 degrees off bore.

It'd definitely be nice to have a intermediate copy of the NATOPs, from either the late 80s or early 90s. The ones you can find online are either from 1972 and reference the initial configuration of the A, or from the early 2000s and reference the F-14B post adoption of the PTID and newer navigation system.

Take it with a grain of salt (I've been wrong before with that video), but I think that's from VF-301 doing a carrier qual on Ranger in 1986. http://www.gonavy.jp/CV-CV61f.html If that's the case, it should be kosher for our F-14B and late A.

It should be tied to the ACM cover, but that functionality isn't working right now for some reason.

Is there any chance things like speed (and possible AAR) callouts could be enabled or disabled via a jester menu option? These are things that I imagine would fall under the formal or informal contract between crew members. If it were a real person this is something we'd discuss before takeoff or during startup, and its something I could ask for or ask to stop. Jester insisting on doing it 100% of the time moves him from appreciated team mate to 'that guy who has to find his own table in the wardroom' territory.

F-111 or I riot privately manage my disappointment, I guess.

Is there anyway that ED could host the database files where it is externally accessible in such a way that it cannot interact with the game but that we still have visibility into the structure and values? Something like GitHub or ED hosted site? Reiterating what others have pointed out, losing visibility into the values and structure of those files is crippling to modding and trying to troubleshoot potential bugs. I'm far more concerned about the latter than any impact potential cheaters could have.

I can confirm the bolter calls on CVN-75 at least, the kneeboard page also failed to record a captured wire. AIM-7Ms are still defeated off the rail when shooting at aircraft with jammers (e.g. SU-24M)

A correlated track will still receive the active signal if it's supported. The target might be out of the acquisition basket, it might not, it all depends on how early the track was lost and how violently the target maneuvered, but the there is always a chance, however small, that the missile will find something. A lost PD-STT Phoenix will never hit a target.

A TWS launched AIM-54 with a correlated track has a small chance of achieving a kill. A PD-STT launched AIM-54 with a broken lock has no chance of achieving a kill.

I interpreted the issue to be the same one I reported here: If that's the case then it's not a radar issue so much as a jester issue. After the first request to transition from PD to P-STT he will respond affirmatively to all subsequent requests, but he'll never actually attempt to make the transition. Its not that the radar is having trouble finding the target in pulse, it's that Jester isn't even trying to use it in the first place. If I had to guess somehow Jester is getting into a state where the pulse lock code function isn't being called.

Confirmation bias is a cruel mistress, but I'd sure love to get my hands on these imaginary Phoenixes. They sound amahzing, real dart beaters and flanker abusers. A strange way of ignoring it I guess, but to each their own.

IIRC, missile flight path and hits are determined by the client that launched the missile, not the server or the target. The longer the time of flight, the more network latency, the greater the apparent desync to other clients: this is an inherent issue with DCS netcode that is exaggerated in the AIM-54 due to its longer flight times. If the missile off by 15 miles on shooters's track/tacview, than that would be an issue.

Looks like the TACAN wasn't set for the carrier in the mission.

Jester will only give you one P-STT lock per aircraft. After that he won't leave PD-STT for P-STT for whatever reason after that.

The AWG-9 is a look down shoot down radar. You can verify by observing that RWS, TWS and PD-STT are able to see targets below the horizon. The first combat operational look down doppler set was on the F-4J.

Huh, so it does. Well the I guess the current behavior would presumptively be a bug, because I certainly have never seen an AIM-54 reacquire a target after losing it.

Two failed off the rail because safety pins had not been removed from the missiles before takeoff. The third was kinematically defeated.

The CS is Csgo stands for 'Counter Strike'. Csgo Oh Yeah has not 'Combat Simulatored', you can't just compare these forum members as if they were the same thing. It's called the "Csgo Oh Yeah" and not the "Dcsgo Oh Yeah" CS is NOT "same as DCS but better" !!@#!@# Yeah, doesn't make much sense when I apply it to other subjects either. Shame. There are valid arguments for differing interpretations of IMU and Command Inertial mean in relation to the AIM-54C. "RaYtHeOn DiDnT cALl It ThE ApHeOnIx" isn't one of them. Try again.

Heatblur's missile is a copy of ED's missile. Its ED's issue to fix.

Off the top of my head. Use RWS instead of TWS. You get a larger scan volume, you don't have to wait for the radar to build tracks and any 'hit' is going to be where a target is rather then where it was or where the computer thinks it is. Make sure you're not trying to lock DL contacts instead of own ship radar contacts Try and fly as steady as possible. Any introduced azimuth deviation will probably mess with Jester When in doubt, use PAL. PAL will reliably lock up most BVR threats at 15 miles. It'll find Floggers and Fishbeds at ~12NM. Against an AA-10C that's well behind the timeline and I'd probably start thing about defending. Against AA-10As and AA-7s, you should be competitive with a healthy crank. Also I know it's outside the bounds of the question, but 30 miles is pretty close to start an engagement. Even pushing that back to 40 gives you a much more comfortable timeline to sort and lock your target.