near_blind

It depends on what kind of start up you're doing. If you're doing a full alignment then the aircraft is receiving positional data from the carrier via a datalink, and as long as the aircraft does not move relative to the carrier, the carrier's orientation should be a non factor. If you're seeing drastic INS inaccuracy in this situation, that would be a bug. If you're doing an Stored Heading Alignment it's different. Stored Heading works by trusting the aircraft is still pointed in the same direction it was the last time the aircraft was shut down, and thereby skipping an entire step of the alignment process. If you rotate the aircraft from the stored heading while aligning, it will invalidate the alignment and cause massive error. That's not a bug, it's a real life limitation. If I recall, the Mbot campaigns have stored heading alignments by default, but it's been a while so you'd want to check.

We used to send in surface ships to show the flag and to annoy the Russians in the 80's too. This took place south of Sevastopol in '88. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/USS_Yorktown_collision.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Black_Sea_bumping_incident

Earlier on the TCS didn't exist. During the seven or so years between the Tomcat entering IOC and the TCS being adopted, that position on the nose would have either been (briefly) occupied by the IRST, or just the antenna for the ALQ-100. The bullet fairing was there to aerodynamically cover the hole that would be left if the TCS had been temporarily removed for maintenance or some such thing.

An AIM-7E was added to the F/A-18 and F-15 somewhere around June of 2018. It doesn't go very far, it doesn't go very fast, and I have no idea how complete or accurate it is, but it is launch able and it guides.

My understanding is the US never delivered AIM-7Fs to the Empire of Iran and post revolution crews were forced to draw from weapons stockpiled for the F-4s, namely AIM-7E-2s and "Air Force" Sidewinders (AIM-9J/Ps).

What's the logic for track correlation then? I've seen plenty of situations for example where something similar to the following happened: Frame 1 the target has an apparent velocity of 400 knots and a heading of 180 Frame 2 the target has an apparent velocity of Mach 6 and a heading of 160 Frame 3 the target has an apparent velocity of 390 knots and a heading of 175 Frame 4 the target has an apparent velocity of 380 knots and a heading of 180 Why does the track accept that the target in Frame 1 and Frame 2 are the same track, but Frame 3 and 4 are new tracks even though the target is still basically on top of where it was during Frame 1?

Here's a track of Jester doing his thing jester-button-panic.trk

Are tracks going to be more resilient with this refactor? I'm not sure I've ever seen the AWG-9 in DCS recover a track once it's gone into extrapolation. Usually if a target is lost, even if it's for a single frame, the computer will continue to extrapolate the current track along the last observed path while creating a new track when the target is found again, often within a mile or two of the new inaccurate old track. Really plays hell on the shoot order :D

Was it dropping chaff? Countermeasures in DCS work like dice rolls, every time a piece of chaff is dropped there's a chance it will make the missile lose track. Things like aspect, closure, the countermeasure rejection capability of the missile and other things all influence whether or not the roll will be "successful" in decoying the missile. The AIM-54A is an older missile, and has a greater chance to fail a dice roll and miss.

Will it have the same six parking slot limit?

Not a bug, per se, but the art work for the belly racks hasn't been completed. No mentioned of an ETA either.

This is a larger issue with how DCS as a platform models damage, and not specific to the F-14. You took enough damage that the game considers you *dead*, as you've pointed out the AI ignores you, and your marker is removed from the map. If you were an AI unit, you would be a crater. However full fidelity modules like the Tomcat include their own in depth systems modelling, and whatever damage you took apparently didn't do enough damage to outright destroy the aircraft, and you still have enough functioning systems to control it. This is a "bug" as old as DCS, look back far enough and you can find plenty of videos of Ka-50s scuttling around with their tail booms shot off massacring ground units without taking any return fire because the game considers them dead.

You need a fourth trigger setting flag 1 to false when the unit is outside of your trigger zone

There's an issue with DCS where clients are not given unique IDs when joining a server, so things like kills and deaths are not attributed to correct client. Last I heard that issue effects all aircraft.

As with any missile, the brochure speed is only going to be achieved by firing in optimal conditions, in this case above 30,000 feet and going near or at Mach 1.6. The Phoenix is also a t h I c c missile, and will be greatly effected by drag at lower altitudes.

As of 2.5.6, the Tinconderoga class cruisers will only engage one target at any given time with SM-2 missiles. Previous to the version 2.5.6, the ships were capable of engaging multiple targets simultaneously. This previous behavior aligns more closely with known capabilities of the AEGIS and Standard systems than the current behavior. I have attached tracks of the same mission recorded in 2.5.5 and 2.5.6 to show the difference. TICO_ROF_255.trk TICO_ROF.trk Tico-ROF.miz

Right now it behaves as you're describing. In the future, post missile rework, it will behave like a giant Sparrow in STT.

If it's in Degrees Minutes Seconds, just round to the nearest ten. 26 14 3

What kind of missiles did you give him. Some can only be used from the rear hemisphere. It would help if you post the mission you made.

How many DL contacts exist on the scope when you see this? Link 4 is an older system, and a host can only push a limited number of contacts out over the network (iirc, a maximum of 8 ). If it was a busy air space, you might have been at that limit. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4198971&postcount=26

There are few issues. The first is legitimate: There is an issue where the missile is able to guide to targets even if the missile loses support from the F-14 and is still at a range far in excess of what it's internal seeker can see. It'll just fly along in pure pursuit until the seeker picks up the intended target. This is apparently an ED bug, and part of the entire HB/ED Missile Rework The second is people see the size of the missile and what it's initial intended role were: long range destruction of bombers and cruise missiles, and assume that means this is the only thing the missile can accomplish. The two failures of the missile in US service, while highly situational, seem to only confirm these assumptions. That the missile has a combat record in another country, that the bombers and missiles intended to be intercepted were themselves punishingly high performance, or that larger missiles that are theoretically less capable also score against fighters are all conveniently ignored. Chonk Missile Can't Score, or so the thinking goes. Lastly, and this is just my SWAGtastic observation so feel free to ignore, is people don't want to adapt their air to air decision timeline to accommodate new threats. The air to air situation in DCS has been stagnant for so long that people have all created their own tactics and rules of thumb for how to handle threats like the Alamo, Sparrow and AMRAAM. The -530 was slightly different, but generally fit within the rubric of existing threats so as to not cause a stir. The Phoenix (and to a lesser extent the SD-10) upend these established patterns. Issue #1 can also frustrate this process of relearning when to go defensive, and when to try and return to the offensive.

On the other hand the Tornado doesn't use the TF-30 that HB is spending so much time developing. There is one swing wing multicrew ground mapping radar equipped strike aircraft outfitted with those engines and a targeting device of similar vintage to the LANTIRN though... :music_whistling: (It also carries quite a number of bombs at a rather jaunty clip)

But which is more fun from a user perspective? Firing four missiles that go off and do their own thing completely autonomously, or firing four missiles that your BN can then fly themselves? :D

The A-10 is a CAS platform that does brrrt. The A-6 is an all weather precision strike aircraft that can carry a greater bomb load further, faster, and during a time frame where A-10 pilots were aiming using manual depression and Kentucky windage. It'd be like a slower Viggen that can take off from a boat carrying 3.5 times the bomb load (or LGBs, or Skipper, or Walleye, or Harpoons, or HARM, or Maverick) with a built in TGP. What I don't understand is preference towards the Tornado over the F-111. Exempting national pride and a cannon, I can't find anywhere the former exceeds the latter and I'd much rather have the blisteringly fast low level precision bomb truck over... whatever the Tornado has.

The dangers of mixing discussion of reality and a video game. Currently ECCM either isn't modeled or is rudimentarily modeled in the Tomcat. Such is Early Access.