near_blind

Each Phoenix is guiding towards the estimated position of a given track. If the radar was able to successfully figure out the "new" contact belonged to the previous track, I'd imagine so. Otherwise your best bet is probably to transmit the active command and hope the bandit flies into the missile's acquisition zone

Excellent Update. Really looking forward to the Old Boi Bote. Is there going to be an substantial difference in how the AIM-54C with it's IMU interacts with the AWG-9 opposed to the earlier AIM-54As besides CM rejection values? (Also did the SMEs ever respond w/ regards to the AIM-7MH?)

Were you lit up by the fan song? The spoon rest isn't in game so both sites share the flat face as a search radar at the moment.

At any point prior to the engagement: Jester -> A/G -> Select Stations -> 2/7 Whenever you want them gone: ACM Guard Up -> ACM Jettison -> Kerchunk -> ACM Guard as desired. Tanks gone, minimal panicked Jester fiddlery.

Right now there isn't a particularly good way. In theory if there were sufficient separation in azimuth, you could play with the scan zone so that you only had a track on one target at a time, launch, then adjust to build a track on your next target, but that's a pretty kludgey work around.

The top image helps players visualize the position of the semi recessed sparrow positions and where the Phoenix pallets go. The rear pallets are mutually exclusive to the rear recesses, so the SMS considers both to be stations 4 and 5 depending on which is loaded.

It's not an issue with the HSI, and it's only marginally Jester's fault. There existed for a long time a bug in the engine with how the coordinates of mark points were returned. The X coordinate was returned as the Z coordinate, and vice versa. ED recently fixed the bug, but that means the workaround to unflip the coordinates, ironically, now returns flipped coordinates. It's been reported multiple times. Heatblur is aware of the issue and it's fixed internally, it'll most probably be in the next patch.

That's best practice, but if we're being real honest the difference between 42 55 1 and 42 55 2 is ~1000 feet. I can't imagine doing anything in the Tomcat reliant upon the INS alone where that sort of error really matters.

Thats not a jester issue, the Tomcat's INS only stores coordinates to the first seconds digit. Welcome to the 1970s.

This way point didn't happen to be a mark point entered by jester, did it?

Make sure your axis binding isn't inverted. I just tried this out: input for DLC forward extended DLC and retracted maneuver flaps, and input for DLC after retracted DLC and extended maneuver flaps like it is supposed to.

Need more info. Is jester using PD-STT or P-STT? Are you shooting from above or below the target? How close to the ground are they? how are they maneuvering?

What does a thread asking if our F-14 has an EGI have to do when bargain rate F-111 impersonators?

Well then grab one of your sqauddies by the neck and toss him in the back seat. The F-14 we have can carry an equal or greater tonnage of bombs further than a Hornet can. The only unique things the Big A little f crowd have are JDAM and standoff weapons (i.e. the boring ones)

The version of the B HB have modeled for us predates any sort of integrated GPS by about half a decade.

As of today's open beta, the waypoints created by the jester map mark utility are far off from the actual map mark, with the error growing the further from a maps origin coordinate. ED apparently fixed the points returned by the world.getMarkPanels() having the x and z coordinates flipped. I would imagine that is effecting the function that calculates game position to lat/lon coordinates.

Physically? Nope.

I don't believe it's possible to engage a single tws track with multiple missiles simultaneously due to how the AWG-9 works. Once it is supporting a shot for a given track, it automatically sequences to the next to reduce wasted missiles.

Yes

1) In Test.miz you used a trigger type of "mission start". The trigger runs at the start of the mission (when time is zero) to check if time is more than ten. This condition can never be satisfied, so the MiG never activates. Switching the trigger type to Once fixes this. 2) I couldn't open your second mission, it's got a mod I don't have. I've attached an example of a mission that does what it sounds like you're trying to do. There are a group of BTR-80s. If they take casualties, a flag is set to a random value between 1 and 100. If the flag value is greater than 50, it spawns a MiG-29. Rando Example.miz

There isn't alot of info about the differences between the F1 and H builds on the internet. The IOC that seems to get tossed around is 1987, but I can't find any primary documents that directly reference that. I have seen multiple documents written in the 1997/8 time frame that reference the H-build as if it is in service, with one specifically referencing the adoption of the newer AIM-7P. Every source I've seen references the H Build as a software upgrade for the AIM-7M. 90's Navy documentation I've read acknowledges the H Build exists, but does not explicitly state what it is or any differences in requirements exist. If anything the Navy generally lumps the AIM-7M and P together in literature. A maintenance training document for the newer AIM-7P dated May 1998 references the F-14 and the LAU-92 as launch platforms for the AIM-7M/P, references training documents for the F-14A/B separately from the F-14D with reference to changes made for the adoption of the AIM-7P, and notes that the AIM-7P induces no changes to "immediate or operational level maintenance functions". This is all highly subjective readings based off tertiary sources. Is this something your SMEs or ED could shed more light on? It'd be nice to have the option of slightly better CM rejection for later time period missions.

Is there a chance we'll get the -7MH at any point?

Groovy :thumbup:

I've had issues where jester will either fail to see to a missile I see, or misidentify which type of missile he's seeing (i.e an R-27R that the was fired in an RWR blindspot). In either case jester either fails to react, or reacts incorrectly, which is okay considering he's simulating a fallible human being. What would be nice is a button command to have jester release the currently configured counter measure settings for either or both the chaff and flares to simulate me screaming at jester that we need CM I was talking about this with a buddy who flies strike eagles and he assures me screaming commands for chaff/flare over the ICS is wholly authentic :)

Indeed! I was trying to communicate that I don't think anything I did while airborne would have caused the initial misalignment, at least to that magnitude. Could the general DCS carrier deck sliding issue be causing misalignment? Is there anything we can do to prevent this besides taking off from land?