AvroLanc

So when did the placeholder for the UFC BU (Up Front Controller Back Up) page get taken away? Just noticed in sim today, but not sure when it changed? See shot below and compare to manual. The 'placeholder' page has been there since release, until recently. Does this mean the UFC BU isn't planned anymore? Although not a page that would be used alot, it's not nice to see features/systems getting removed in order to slim down the 'to-do' list. It's still on the published roadmap....

WP only.

No I don't think so, he's just referring to guiding to an accurate static GPS location like JDAM. ATA is the ability to perform scene image matching and target recognition to guide to a specific point on a target, without MITL intervention, including moving targets (ships most likely).

The problem is that we're not sure how it's intended to be implemented. This feature hasn't been documented or showcased in any way by ED. Are we looking for and expecting a nice full rich simulation of the INS and it's associated update methods? If so, then sure bug reports could be made. If not, then we don't know what's 'buggy' and what's merely wishlist.... Thanks.

OK, I didn’t realise that a buggy drift feature was in. But that’s kinda my point, in my mind it’s not implemented if it’s that badly done. There’s not much point in having an INS drift model simulated if it’s done badly. Otherwise what’s the point of interacting with it? Either you’ve got a GPS quality, no drift situation - which is perfectly authentic 99% of the time for a 2005 Hornet - or you’ve got a reasonable INS simulation that requires authentic update procedures, possible NAV uncertainty and maybe radar offset bombing etc. I’d like the option of the latter, but have no wish for a poor halfway house.

Yeah but none of this actually does anything, does it? It's just button pressing, there's no underlying simulation of INS drift or of all the different position keeping modes. If there is, it's certainly never been showcased or documented anywhere.

Nobody knows. I strongly strongly suspect that we're NOT getting any ATA upgrade. The differences between the baseline H and K are probably very minor. Like software or minor performance enhancements. All references refer to the H/K as basically one type. The ATA upgrade came later AFAIK, and K doesn't specifically refer to ATA.

+1 for TOT indication. Let's not forget that HARM PB mode should also feature, 'Pre-Briefed' data cartridge / MUMI loaded targets. These are PB points 1-5 and would function similar to the 'PP 1-6' for JDAM. This may well get added when the DTC gets done along with the JDAM points. I think the PB points allow you to name them as well, for display on the HARM page i.e. 'NORTH SA-2' etc for easier identification. Maybe the TOT indication only indicates when a pre-loaded PB point is selected, although I see no reason why a 'TOO designated TGT' in PB mode wouldn't be capable of calculating a TOT as well.

Yeah two years later, GT mode still hasn't been added. Personally I've not found a great need for it, since winds don't change with location. But would be nice if it got looked at in the march to completeness.

It’s a real life feature. There’s a dedicated markpoint delete button on the CDU panel. It was added at sometime after our initial suite 3 software.

Nope. If the water droplets haven’t properly condensed it’s not rain yet. The water vapour simply doesn’t produce any radar reflection, until they form droplets and are big enough. I should probably know a bit more technical detail but it’s been a while since I hit the books, (plus far too much furlough.) From personal experience, even dedicated weather radars obviously don’t detect normal clouds. Even drizzly low level stratus doesn’t show that well. But it would depend on how the radar is calibrated I guess.

The only clouds that would show up are rain clouds with significant water droplets and CB’s / Thunderstorms. I imagine the radar might have a few selectable options to adjust gain and calibration to minimise as far as possible the affect of such weather on the display. In any event, non-rain fair weather clouds would be completely invisible to the radar.

The 'TERM' (Terminal) parameters for the SLAM should not be there. It's a holdover from ED's JDAM implementation, where they've just rushed and reused the same PP page from the JDAM. Impact azimuth, angle and velocity bear no relation to how a SLAM works. They need to be removed. Maybe SLAM-ER has some azimuth settings though. There should be a SLAM-Turn-Point I think, similar to Harpoon, but that doesn't appear to work.

+1 I'd like to see some of the other missing Master Test switch functionality too: Emergency Gen test Mach Lever Test (F-14A) FLT GP tests Wing sweep Test etc These in the main should just produce a green 'GO' light. Simple and would be nice to have.

Great pic. Man I would want a Buccaneer so much. It's probably too British and esoteric for the majority of US and European customers though. At least all the work on 'JESTER' LANTIRN would be put to good use on AI 'NIGEL's' PAVE SPIKE features....

Agree. Maritime anti-ship with 3 different missile types, daytime LGB delivery, low level strike, multi crew ops, carrier capable potentially, superb range - lots on offer.

ahhh...but ‘fighters’ as in ‘fighters’ or ‘fighters’ as in could be ‘Ground attack and reconnaissance’, or ‘strike’, or ‘attack’. Let the word games begin.

OK agree. RWR in particular could be a hurdle. Current DCS ECM can/will be hugely simplified anyway, and the RADAR could be guesstimated based on known capabilities and the video evidence out there. Although the modes and actual presentation on the NAV's radar display are all detailed in the available manuals.

Personally I think the F-111 has Heatblur written all over it; Swing wing - check TF30 Engines - check Multicrew / WSO AI - check Awesome cold war era low level attack i.e A-6 / Viggen - check check If I were Cobra it would be an absolute no brainer......easiest and most obvious dev decision ever. If you book an appointment and pop along to the RAF Musuem at Hendon, you can find quite detailed flight manual's that describe early Jaguar and Tornado avionics in depth. Buccaneer weapons manuals are available online. Just saying.

So best guesses for the two next gen jets? It's got to be something relatively well known and popular with a certain 'Heatblur' character that we know from the Tomcat and Viggen. All the while not stepping on ED's or other 3rd parties toes. I.e. it's probably not going to be another clinical 4th gen MFD driven jet. The list to guess from is likely not huge..... My guesses in order of likelihood: 1) F-4S/J 2) F-111A/E/F 3) Tornado Gr.1 4) F-14B(U) or D (maybe they found the docs they need) 5) Buccaneer S.2 6) Jaguar Gr.1 / 1a

Curiously, this is how the VRS FSX hornet was modelled for years. Although it gets some things wrong, it gets many correct. Could be a coincidence, but probably not. Although I wonder why a TDC assigned to HUD is needed? Generating a range with AGR is the obvious answer, but radio altitude or baro altitude (plus selected WP elevation) would allow some ranging, although less accurate. Maybe a Hornet thing.

Yeah OK, I've avoided it because I know it's not done 'properly'. It will lead to frustration, but yeah I'll give it a go next time.

The only ATC mode implemented at the moment is Cruise ATC. It just maintains the current IAS when engaged. Works well. Don't try to use Approach ATC at the moment. It's not implemented and it doesn't work how it should i.e maintain an AOA rather than IAS. It will get messy if you try.

As far as I remember, Ragnar said (this is like 4 years ago) that the ‘Single rocket’ option was a gamey workaround that doesn’t exist in the real aircraft. They implemented it that way until they added training rocket pods that presumably do allow singles IRL. I think it’s safe to say that those training pods aren’t coming any time soon.

It depends on the group the JTAC is targeting. If the group size is only 1, then I’ve found the grid he passes is bang on. However, the 6 digit grid he passes is only accurate to 100m by 100m in theory, so not sure it should be as precise as it is. Normally a BOC or Bomb on Coordinate type attack should need a 8 or 10 digit grid.