Stearmandriver

I just did, thanks for testing it out. I note that you dropped well below the 20,000ft altitude ceiling mentioned in Drac's bug report, and also, you dropped WELL in zone - almost at min range in fact. My goal was to drop them near max range, and bug out. Sure I'd be faster in a mission scenario vs that test (I was in fact, and they all missed, which is what spurred this question ), but to clarify: why do you think speed matters? That In Zone indication is being dynamically computed based on your current flight conditions, isn't it?

To clarify, you're talking in DCS, right? In reality, don't JDAMs and JSOWs use the same guidance package, just with different flight parameters? The goal in this particular use case was to attack SAM sites from high altitude, at the edge of their range, with a weapon they wouldn't shoot down. They'll shoot down JSOWs but not JDAMs. From a couple quick tests, I think Drac nailed it with that bug report. JDAMs dropped above 20k are inaccurate. JDAMs dropped below that (excepting low-level hard pop-up type attacks) seem to be.

Costs you the cat shot then. Warm start is the right compromise for me. I flip a lot of switches and watch lights illuminate at work, I don't need to do it for fun lol. But this is my point - it's a game, the goal is fun, so everyone should do what they like. But yeah, the Hornet can be started awfully easily which is nice. Now if only Blue Flag wouldn't spawn you with zero fuel... takes way longer to get fueled than to start!

They were for watching my buddy doing something on his stream lol. Does speed matter? Sure higher speed = better range, but shouldn't the In Zone indication be dynamically calculated based on current parameters? That's why it expands rapidly to meet you if you accelerate or climb, right? I think Drac is on to something. I have to watch this track again to see if I release above 20k, but I know the problems I had in the mission were well above that.

It's true that a lot of the items in the cold start procedure are unnecessary (in a game) system tests, and a bare bones start can be accomplished in less than 5 minutes. That's still 5 minutes I'd rather spend flying. I can get a couple laps around the boat in that time, and my time is limited, so hot starts for me. Let's face it... we're not really learning to operate a tactical jet from a game ;).

Man, my forum search skills must suck. This is the second time recently I've mentioned a previously reported bug. Thanks for the heads up though, that sounds right.

For some reason, I'm having a recurrent problem with JDAMs impacting short - very short, not just a few feet. Maybe a half mile. I assume I must be doing something wrong here. This happens in a pop-up type attack, but also in level flight at high altitude. I had it happen tonight at 30,000ft and I intentionally waited about 10 seconds after I got the In Zone indication, and they still went short. I've attached a short track of a test I conducted where it happened. I do a few 360s waiting for the bombs to align, designate a waypoint as a target, then make a level delivery from about 20,000ft, pickling when I get the In Zone. Bomb goes pretty short. Could anyone take a look and tell me if I've done something wrong? Thanks... JDAM_short.trk

Didn't save the track, but will next time. Just wondering if anyone else has seen this? Twice now, after using the A/G radar to create an initial target designation and then refining it with the pod, I've experienced a severe, and I mean severe, performance hit. No exaggeration, we're talking a drop from locked at 60fps to 3 - 5 fps. Slideshow. It occurs a minute or two after the first designation is created with the radar, and once it happens it persists until the target is undesignated. The first time it happened I thought it was related to the EXP modes, but the most recent time, I don't think I used the EXP modes. Anyone else?

Are you sure this isn't just a visual illusion? I mean, these planes ARE going off the deck pretty slow - not right at stall speed but not with a huge margin either, right? Then, remember that if you're watching this from the deck of a carrier moving at 30kts, there's 30kts less relative motion between you and the climbing aircraft than there would be if you were on an airfield. So maybe they just look slow? You could watch again from a stationary carrier and see if it looks more normal to you...

Can't speak for OP, but not in my case. I'm using waypoint designate, and verify with the pod that the TD is on the target. GBU 38s in my case.

I've had issues the last couple times I used JDAMS against SAM sites. Staying low-level and then popping around 10nm and releasing once I get an In Zone indication, but they impact well short. It's like the In Zone indication is appearing before the bomb really has the range. I'd wondered if I was doing something wrong.

To be fair, regarding the IFLOLS and ICLS, they're pretty well coincident until you're in close, at which point the ICLS glideslope is no longer relevant anyway. Think of it like a civilian ILS and and VASI/PAPI - they're not coincident all the way to the runway.

Currently no marshall offset, it's always on BRC. Quite a few different camera views. L Alt - F9 is the LSO platform with PLAT camera and pattern info. I believe CTRL F10 (or maybe F9) cycles a view of each cat, and then another key command I can't remember cycles between a few different views of that cat. Sorry I can't tell you the actual commands; I just flail at buttons until I get what I want ;). But yes, with all those options plus normal mouse look in each view, plus head tracking if you have it, you can manage about any view of the flight deck you'd like.

Sorry! It's not in user files, it has its own thread in Missions.

Wow, that may have been taken the wrong way. I wasn't suggesting you were "shooting flak" about the ICLS, just pointing out that it has a use as a legitimate point of reference. It's one tool of many, and certainly doesn't replace the other references - it just adds to them. It's like flying a visual approach: that's certainly a visual maneuver, but especially in faster aircraft, most pilots will set up whatever instrument approach might be available for reference. It's not required (legally; usually is per ops spec) but can certainly be useful. I only (jokingly) mentioned it would be contentions because there does seem to be a vocal minority of simmers who are insistent that ICLS should not be used for a case 1, despite the fact that it apparently often is. Did not mean to suggest you were one of those people, though I can can see how it might have read that way, so... my apologies. But yeah, we're all here for the same reason - it's supposed to be fun!

I've gotten the [BC] several times lately in both case 1 and 3 where I know I called the ball, and the LSO rogered the call, because I was streaming and was able to re-watch the video afterwards to be sure. I've also heard comms get jumbled or clipped several times recently. Seems like something might have changed recently wrt comms?

A well-flown turn makes ALL the difference... and that's what we're using the ICLS to help with; it provides real-time data about the vertical positioning of your aircraft through the final 90 degrees of turn. OP, I told you the ICLS suggestion would prove contentious. In the end, it IS personal preference and I was just offering my perspective. Everyone should do what works best for them. But if simmers are going to discourage people from using the ICLS in an attempt to do it "right", maybe they oughta start with the fleet guys.

Man, can't believe I forgot to mention this: go to the user files section and download "Bankler's Case 1 Recovery Trainer" mission. It's a scripted mission that grades you at every part of the pattern from the break to touchdown (or there's a pattern mode that grades you staying in the pattern). I can't think of anything better for tightening up your passes. There are options for the mission in the comms F10 menu - enable/disable in-flight feedback (progressive grading as you go around the pattern), disable the LSO in the mission (if you're using the supercarrier you want to disable the LSO in the mission or you'll have two people yelling at you lol). And after the pass you'll get a whole gradesheet that shows your position relative to optimum at every "checkpoint" in the pattern, so you can see exactly where and why a pass started to fall apart. Plus, the grade is more accurate than what you get from the supercarrier LSO, which has some bugs right now. You can stay in the pattern hook up and just do touch-n-goes. It's great. Here's an example of it grading a pass: http://www.twitch.tv/stearmandriver/v/818427432?sr=a&t=5s It's those seconds that make the difference in what kind of start you have ;). It's all personal preference, but for me, I don't see a reason not to use an indication of proper glideslope that's updated continuously in real time. But for sure, whatever works!

Using a benchmark altitude halfway through the turn helps; you're looking for 480-500ft at the 90. If you've got your TACAN tuned and course set to BRC, you can see this angle right in your HUD and it's easy to make it part of your scan. My other advice will probably draw some flak, but: I use the ICLS. The glideslop needle will appear just past the 90, and you can use it for reference until you roll out on the ball. Just be aware that the ICLS glideslope and the ball are not coincident; the ICLS will bring you in low if you fly it all the way to the deck. But if you roll out in the groove 1 or 2 needle widths high on the ICLS, you'll be right on the ball. The reality is, in the fleet the use of the ICLS is apparently personal preference. You can find plenty of HUD camera footage on Youtube showing the ICLS displayed on nice case 1 days, so... I personally don't feel guilty about using it, and it sure beats that ridiculous FLOLS pop up. I disable that thing after every update lol.

Because cross or secondary swell is often a thing on the open ocean.

Is the fact that this post was moved to the Bugs section an admission that this is, in fact, a bug? I think we can all see that it is, but ED has steadfastly refused to acknowledge it, all the (many) times it's been brought up.

Oh my comments were tongue in cheek, sorry if they came off otherwise. I'm a fan of as many models of Corsair as they want to give us! I just really, REALLY hope the flight model is nice. I'm finding DCS warbirds seem to run the gamut in that respect.

Well... sure it's possible to see it in a photograph using a fast enough shutter speed, but certainly not with the naked eye. If they're gonna model a pilot, I vote for Boyington!

How could you possibly tell how many prop blades the plane has while flying it??

No but I'm not talking about taxi behavior, but ground loop behavior during takeoff and landing. Brakes aren't a factor then as you'd better not be touching them . I'm not a stranger to demanding taildraggers - the Stearman has its reputation for a reason: it was intentionally designed to be more unstable on the ground than necessary, to prepare cadets from the beginning for more demanding aircraft (and as a weeding out tool). It's great when we've got one of the Wacos parked next to a Stearman so I can show a student the design differences, in terms of position and geometry of main gear, etc. The DCS Spitfire is just weird to me. I'm not saying anyone couldn't practice enough to get good at it, just like any other video game, but that's how it strikes me. It just doesn't resemble the behavior of an airplane to me. It changes back and forth from stable to unstable behavior (what feels like a lack of inertia to me), and then there's too much lag in rudder response (which ironically feels like too MUCH inertia), and then all of a sudden the rudder becomes magically hyper-effective... the timing of the aircraft's response to both control inputs and general groundloop physics just seems OFF. YMMV, but I've never flown anything that behaves that way. AN-2 is a great bird, btw!