near_blind

Last time I checked PD-STT doesn't have a resolution issue at range, and a flight member exploding is a great way to introduce a little entropy into the formation

The pilot has controls for PAL, PLM, VSL-HI and VSL-LO. Activating these will override whatever mode the RIO had the radar in, even with a player RIO. The RIO also has controls to select VSL-HI and VSL-LO, but not PLM or PAL.

Improvement such as?

I too treat the AIM-7 as a WVR missile. wvr_missile.zip.acmi

RWS, twice the azimuth, twice the bars, much greater volume to work with.

Tarawa looks like it's using the generic 'carrier search radar', which I assume is meant to be the AN/SPS-49. DCS has it's max detection range configured to 39 Km. That's... hilariously low. This also effects the Vinson, Stennis, all the Super Carriers, the Forrestal and the Kuznetsov (that should probably be spun of into a separate radar). https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/blob/master/_G/db/Sensors/Sensor/carrier search radar.lua

null That little icon I circled in red? make sure it isn't blue.

It would be helpful to be able to specify which tanker unit/group the AI refueling task should use. In this way the mission creator can set aside certain tankers exclusively for AI use instead of having to guess which tanker the AI will choose when the refueling task executes. This would be helpful in situations where there are large numbers of AI aircraft that need refueled in player missions, especially given the AI's proclivity towards ramming players that are currently on the boom/basket.

Ships do have sensors in DCS. Here is the lua that defines the CG-47, you can see the radars being set up at the bottom: https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/blob/master/_G/db/Units/Ships/Ship/TICONDEROG.lua [...] Sensors = { OPTIC = { "long-range naval optics", "long-range naval LLTV", "long-range naval FLIR" }, RADAR = { "Patriot str", "ticonderoga search radar" } }, [...] But you are correct in for some reason none of them are accessible to us using the scripting engine in game. It seems like the interfaces for the naval classes are the least developed from a scripting perspective, there is much less granularity and accessibility compared to the ground class. Commands that work for the latter either don't work for the former or only work at the group level. That said, forgive me for asking, what's to stop you from using the generic controller sensor definition with getDetectedTargets()? In the mission below I have a single Ticonderoga surrounded by a couple aircraft. Using the following code: local bote = Group.getByName('Naval-1') local ooga = bote:getUnit(1):getController():getDetectedTargets(Controller.Detection.Radar) local booga = bote:getUnit(1):getController():getDetectedTargets(Controller.Detection.OPTIC) env.info("I See On Radar: " .. mist.utils.oneLineSerialize(ooga)) env.info("I See w/ Eyes: " .. mist.utils.oneLineSerialize(booga)) I get the following in the logs: 2022-06-11 20:24:23.960 INFO SCRIPTING: I See On Radar: { [1] = { ["visible"] = true, ["type"] = false, ["object"] = { ["id_"] = 16778240, }, ["distance"] = true, }, [2] = { ["visible"] = true, ["type"] = false, ["object"] = { ["id_"] = 16777728, }, ["distance"] = true, }, [3] = { ["visible"] = true, ["type"] = false, ["object"] = { ["id_"] = 16777984, }, ["distance"] = true, }, } 2022-06-11 20:24:23.960 INFO SCRIPTING: I See w/ Eyes: { [1] = { ["visible"] = true, ["type"] = false, ["object"] = { ["id_"] = 16777728, }, ["distance"] = true, }, } boatcontrol.miz

I don't believe Heatblur are in charge of what does and does not get Eagle Dynamics' deck assets.

I don't think a feature like that is planned.

Fix is pretty simple, you just need to wait until the next patch releases.

Does the past mean prior to January of 2022 when significant changes to the flight model occurred? DLZ calculations in the F-14, or at least this version of the F-14 are extremely rudimentary and should not be taken as the final say.

What document are those figures from? I don’t see any references to the AIM-7, the Mk-58 motor, or the Mk-65 for that matter.

Okay, so a couple things. Firstly, the lofting algorithm for all the AIM-54s is a WIP solution that acts as a stop gap until a version with greater fidelity can be implemented. This will require access to the new missile API and collaboration between HB and ED. There is no ETA on this. The AIM-54C has the most aggressive lofting algorithm, which seeks to maximize terminal energy by taking an aggressive vertical loft to put it into the very thin atmosphere. The C however is most prone to over-lofting, taking such an aggressive loft that it stalls before it can come over the top of its arc and plunge towards the target. This is a known bug. "Assisting the loft", that is pulling up your aircrafts nose to "aid" the missile in its loft greatly increases the likelihood that the missile will over loft. So that's the game side of the things. In your case. You're taking 100NM+ shots at an E-2C that's orbiting. The AIM-54 is absolutely capable of a 100 mile shot, but the presumption is the target is going to be coming towards the Tomcat at high speed. Think a transonic Badger, or a supersonic Backfire. The E-2C is slow. very slow. In fact because it's orbiting, it's going nowhere, slowly. Normally on a 100 mile shot, your missile only actually travels something like 50 miles. In this scenario, the missile has to travel the full 100 miles, and it's trying to fly a giant ballistic parabola to fly that full 100 miles. It can't. Try getting closer.

I don't use ACLS, I don't know how long ago it was necessary, but I know the NATOPs is pretty clear that it needs to be engaged for ACLS to work.

Seems like it could to me. Whether or not we'll get it this patch? no clue.

link 4 via Jester yes. DLC is Dynamic Lift Control. With your gear and flaps down you press the button on your stick that usually drops a flare, and that will engage DLC. DLC must be engaged for ACLS to capture.

Unless I'm tripping, the 1976 SMC, the 1977 SMC, and the 1984 Weapons file all agree on a boost of 4.5s at 5750 lbs and a sustainer for 11s at 1018 null I doubt I have anything that hasn't already been referenced in this thread, but I am curious why one figure (Missile Mach #) that only appears to be referenced in the least mature version of a document is taken as absolute truth over a figure that shows up across multiple documents (burn times).

Link 4 tuned, gear down, flaps full, dlc engaged, auto pilot set?

As mentioned, it's the job of the RIO to manually assign HAFU to each track. This is done via the CAP. The HCU cursor only appears while you are pulling the HCU trigger to half action. Target information will only be displayed if the proper display mode has been selected (jester should have done this for you), and only if a track is hooked. You never hooked any tracks. Hooking is accomplished by holding half action to make the HCU cursor appear, moving it overtop of a thing on the TID you want to hook (a radar contact, a track, you can even hook waypoints), and pressing the HCU trigger full action. As mentioned, that's not what Next Launch is for. The radar is specifically designed to only shoot one AIM-54 at one track. When you fire an AIM-54 in TWS, the radar automatically sequences to the next track in the shoot cue as long as it has another missile to fire. Next Launch is for when the RIO needs to override the automatically assigned shoot list: The RIO hooks a track, presses the next launch button, and the radar will bump that track from whatever its assigned priority in the shoot list was to 1. I.E. it is the track that will be launched on next. Pressing the button with no tracks selected like you were doing doesn't, or shouldn't, do anything.

A video could help further display what's going on, but I think I understand. Every couple of seconds the AWG-9 should be doing a sort to rank each track and generate the shoot list ( the number next to the track). I've seen some reports that if you shoot a missile while this sort is going on, it will mess up the shot and that track isn't considered Track under Missile Attack (TMA). Because your contacts all have relatively similar characteristics, the computer might be having a hard time deciding which track is the priority and re-ranking them more often, thus providing more opportunity for this bug. I'll see if I can recreate it.

With all due respect to Wags. Exactly two TALDs are defined in DCS' code, both in a file owned and maintained by ED. It's on them.

Au Contraire?

Raise the cover on the fuel feed switch. Flip it to FWD, Flip it to AFT, flip it to the normal, center position. Close the cover, et voila