AvroLanc

So I thought the whole idea of converting coords to MGRS on Steerpoints 21-25 was a feature to allow you to input a location in terms of UTM/MGRS. The current system does not allow you to input any data into the EASTING/NORTHING fields, nor to modify grid square........ The only thing that can be changed is the elevation. What exactly was the point of this feature if it doesn't allow any input? Is this correct? WIP? Bug? Bit of a letdown?

Anyone know the ratios of HE and AP in the 'combat mix' option? What about the ratio of tracer in the normal loads vs the 'more tracers' option? Nice to see these implemented, but detail lacking.

Most definitely. One inconsistency is when you try a HUD TDC assignment with an offset designated. For example, when becoming visual with a radar offset designated target...the problem is the TDC cue is assigned to the OAP/Waypoint position in the HUD, rather than the target/offset (I.e the target you want to refine the slew on to correct the inherent radar inaccuracy.) At least that’s how I remember it working from when I tried it a couple months ago. I’m having a Hornet break at the moment.

Thanks, I wasn’t going mad then. I’ve not played around with offsets much since some ‘fixes’ were made in an OB update a while ago. But the behaviour you describe seems 100% legit, at least on this one point. Validation is sweet.

What's your reference for this Harker? AFAIK, the offset should be applied to the designation. Otherwise how would radar offset bombing work? I.e. Target is an offset from a known radar map point, but INS drifts, so re-slew to radar significant point and add the offset to get the corrected true target position.....

Note that the RF (Radar Guided) Hellfire doesn't even need the Longbow FCR to work. It's a self contained seeker in the missile. All it needs is a target location and it will go out and find the target, either locking on before or after launch. The TADs can supply the target location and it can also be passed over the data link. Over the datalink, targets can be passed either as a 'One-off' RF 'handover', or as a set of targets in a pre-configured battlefield 'ZONE' that has been scanned by the FCR. IRL I don't think Apaches would routinely work hand in hand with fast jets etc. Maybe in the E model more common (Link 16, drones etc). So in DCS that would be a bit gamey.

Nearly, Television Camera System. Nope, not in Jester MP. Although having a slaved TCS is actually far more useful than a T symbol in the HUD. It’s already on the VDI.

Make sure the TCS isn’t tracking in STT. The TCS cross and the T can’t be displayed at the same time. Play around with the TCS Slave modes in Rio pit to disable the TCS behaviour in STT.

No, that’s not a feature, are you still referring to JHMCS? You don’t get the blue lines showing flight member SPI etc. You should be able to share/send/receive waypoints(markpoints) over LINK 16 though. It’s all part of the HSD features. You can also designate a datalink AA/AG track as a primary datalink track of interest. This would then be highlighted within a hexagon symbol on the JHMCS and I think the HUD also.

It’ll be roughly equivalent to the helmet in the Hornet. Major differences being the ability to create mark points with a few less button presses and the ability to slave the Maverick seeker LOS directly with minimal fuss. No colour obviously and overall less SA generally than the A10C II.

The most common tactic for buddy lasing would be for two Apaches or 1 x AH-64 and 1 x KW. A KW up close and lasing while the Apaches lie behind cover out of LOS and shoot Hellfire in LOAL mode.

Jesus guys, why are you all making this harder than it needs to be? In any aircraft the CCIP/CCRP solution is calculated with the actual current wind being experienced by the host aircraft. Some aircraft, like A10C have the ability to enter predicated winds at various altitudes I.e on the LASTE page. This is still only a prediction and the REAL winds will very likely vary at different heights during the entire time of fall. The INS guidance in a WCMD (or GPS in JDAM, or laser guidance in a LGB for that matter) is a closed loop system. The guidance will react and compensate for the various changing factors a falling object will experience. There’s a reason PGMs we’re invented. Remember that WCMDs can be dropped from a B-52 at 35000ft. CCRP wouldn’t be good enough for that expect in a completely perfect world. DCS doesn’t apply correction to the bomblets upon dispense. It clearly should and this is wrong at the moment. This value of the post-dispense wind can either be from mission planning, from the CCRP system at time of drop, or manually pilot entered.

Giving this a bump, surely now something to consider for end of EA. Thanks.

The main advantage as I see it is that each profile, therefore each target, can have different terminal parameters set. At least I’m the real world, this could be desirable. Although it still works in DCS, the actual need for a particular impact azimuth and angle is not great. Good for realism and role play though.

Maybe I’m permitted to give a clue at least…. ….Make IFFCC the SPI….. If it’s not allowed to be discussed, why is it even in the sim?

Well yeah, that’s exactly my point. Without LINK 16 there’s no additional source of ID in the F-16. And since RWS doesn’t correlate L16 with radar tracks, should the colourisation only happen in TWS? Lots of unanswered questions.

I’m not quite sure I agree with the HAFU reference here. I was of the understanding that the F-16 doesn’t correlate IFF/ID status with system tracks, at least not in the same vein as the Hornet. Link 16 input might apply here but surely that would only come into play with TWS. Wait and see I guess, but the jury’s out…..

There seems to be a massive amount of confusion at ED at the moments with regards this FCR symbology. It's probably a good idea for ED to take a step back and reassess their source material before commenting further. The purple should be an accurate colour under certain conditions. There's a bunch for other symbology related items that need looking at too, but that would be 'off-topic' so I won't post here.

Well, I posted it in the Bugs section and it got absolutely NO attention. Not even a [No Bug] tag or any attention, unlike most other issues posted there, it was purposely ignored. Maybe I was purposely ignored. Whatever.....Hornet's about as complete as it's going to get gents. So much for improvements suggestions. Even if they do come across as a little demanding, it's all in the course of a better product. I'm done with the Hornet for a while, coincidentally, much like ED.

Bingo.

As per real life and actual documentation, JDAM should always have a 800ms delay from pickle consent to actual weapon release. Also, there should be a minimum of 300ms between JDAMs in quantity release. Please see attached track. Obviously, you can't see the moment I pressed pickle, but you can take over and try yourself. I can assure you the first release was instant the moment I pressed pickle. Also, the minimum 300ms delay between each quantity release was not respected. In my example a 4 JDAM release should have needed a pickle hold of approx 1.7 secs. It didn't require a hold of that long. It was even acknowledge by Wags in one of his first JDAM videos, but JDAM release is still instant. Could this be changed? JDAM No Pickle Delay.trk

Yeah I guess DCS uses it’s magic to fake a solution that wouldn’t be possible in the case when using BARO Ranging and wrong waypoint elevation. This is going be particularly obvious when using CCIP, as you say. I’ve not tested it recently, but Iremember CCIP being ‘magic’. Have you tried AUTO bombing with a WP DSG and completely wrong Elevation? I’ve not tested that for some time, can’t remember if this works or not. (It shouldn’t provide a valid solution…) I was describing how it works IRL, rather than excusing DCS. Cheers.

This is exactly how it does it without AGR and Laser ranging. It uses either your BARO altitude combined with known Target elevation (or current waypoint elevation, in CCIP) to calculate height above target. Your dive angle / attitude completes the triangle to determine slant range. Obviously it can use rad alt without a known target elevation over flat terrain. It’s not rocket science or magic at all, and has been the basis of most advanced attack aircraft since the 1960’s. There’s no need for a DTED if using a planned target, or one near a waypoint with known elevation. Notice the A, R and B under the altitude box on HUD? AGR, Rad alt, and BARO respectively. They tell you the ranging source. Real Hornet can have G and L as well I think. GPS or Laser.

Excellent post and +1 to everything mentioned. I'll add in a request for a much needed clean up of the BIT main page. INS cautions that don't clear on a hot start, MIDs that never clears even when fully operational, likewise IFF etc. Needs a good debug. AIM-7P was mentioned as coming at one point.... White thermal coatings for Navy munitions? Some of those smaller items would be, I imagine, relatively easy to add for little extra overall manhours to the project. The Hornet deserves it.

If you have evidence that US F-16CM HSD threat circles absolutely positively remain yellow when inside the lethal range, then OK we'll deal with it. Where did you get the source for yellow circles in the first place? If you indeed do not have this in writing, then surely the MLU manuals represent a better/additional source that make perfect sense to apply. What am I missing here?