AvroLanc

I want neither CCRP nor CCIP, I’d like Direct/Man. Press a button, bomb comes off. No computer. Most aircraft designed since about 1912 have a manual bomb mode.

Is there a configuration of the A/G systems that will allow manual bomb release. I.e. Not relying on the bombing computer, just a direct release on trigger pull. To be used with depressed reticle or maybe on command from a wingman in the buddy lase scenario? I've tried a few combinations of weapon select buttons and hotas, but doesn't seem to work. Also, why isn't there a stopwatch function anywhere in the aircraft? What were Dassault thinking? Although curiously there's a key command for a 'stopwatch' in the menus.

Agreed. The next update is going to have significant additions to Hornet, AJS-37, possibly F-14, Mirage and Harrier! I won’t know where to start first!

Ok. Thanks for all that. Interesting. So it’s sort of a very limited top down SA page. Loving the Mirage at the moment.

On No.1, thanks. Didn’t spot that, I’ll take a look. On No.2, I’m not sure....I’m familiar with a B scope, you select it on the radar panel on the left. This isn’t a B scope. lThe display in the picture is selected with a switch underneath the VTB itself. Thanks.

I've recently rediscovered the M2000C and I'm finding it a real breath of fresh air after too long in the Hornet. However two questions: 1. In some of the manuals there is a picture/reference that says Angle of Attack is displayed in HUD APP mode. I can't get this to display, at all. Was it removed in an update? Having to rely on the physical gauge is a pain, because it's tucked away out of sight to the left. 2. What is the VTB actually displaying in the mode shown in my screenshot? Where's the A/C? At first I thought ownship was in the centre, but that's not the case judging by WP position. Then maybe I thought it was a weird AZ/EL type display, but it's not. Not in the manuals. Help.

Unfortunately I didn't see the masking circle on the HUD. The pod went into a M WARN (Mask Warning) right at the end of the video. Does anyone know for sure that the mask circle is a thing on all ATFLIR / Hornet software configs?

....just don’t ask why they’re displayed on a A2A radar page....

There's an function missing for the JDAM Term parameters. The ODU has the TERM / HDG / ANG and 'INV' options when configuring terminal options. The INV should stand for Invalidate. The idea is that it resets the Heading and Angle options to default/zero. Let's say you've set a heading and angle. You then change your mind and want the system to use angle option but not heading. The problem is that entering a HDG can't then be cleared, since 00 is North and may not be desired. Pressing INV should reset both for the wanted option to be reentered. Sorry no track, but hope that made sense.

Gents, at the end of the day shouldn't you be putting all efforts into arguing for weapons and features that should be actually present for a 2005 Hornet?? I'd much rather have MK-77, Seamines, MK-83 Ballutes, proper Harpoon flight profile, finished JDAMS etc etc than another APKWS platform. I can play with those toys on Harrier and A10C II....tbh there're not that wonderful anyway....at least not for any 'neer peer' scenario.

Ever since release we've made do with only one workable burst height for CBU's. The 1500' setting works correctly, however the others don't. It looks like the actual bomb is bursting at the set height (300, 700, 2200 etc), but the CCIP and AUTO solution is only correct for 1500'. This is annoying in the least. Actually it is completely reversed to how it would be in the real A/C. There, the DDI configured setting should drive the ballistics and the physical bomb casing setting should determine the actual function height. It's opposite in DCS, with fixed ballistics and unrealistic on-the-fly fuze casing settings. In testing a lower than 1500' setting will cause bomblets to drop short compared to CCIP/AUTO point, and higher than 1500' setting vice versa. A tidy up would be nice.

As we leave EA on the Hornet can we please get a couple of low effort additions? One of these is the 'TONE1' and 'TONE2' options on the stores page. When selected this should play a short beep tone at weapon release. The 1 or 2 refers to transmitting that tone over COMM 1 or COMM 2. If this is an issue for MP sync or something can we just get it modeled for the user's end? Better than nothing. Adding a sound effect to a weapon event isn't going to require a huge dev effort I imagine. Although I admit I know almost nothing on the subject. You hear these tones quite often during RL HUD tapes and recordings etc. It would add to immersion. Thanks.

Can we get the additional HUD symbology associated with a L&S only target, with AIM-7 selected. There should be a 'GO STT' prompt under the TD box when STT hasn't yet been commanded,as a reminder to...well....go STT...for the Sparrow guidance. A small addition surely that would add a little to the completion as we leave EA... See screen show below from another sim. Totally correct for a 2005 Hornet, I've got a RL manual (2002) that can't be posted here. It's a Hornet feature.

It is now implemented.

Indeed, I think it would be better if people don’t expect it to be included in the upcoming ATFLIR implementation. Pretty sure it’s not coming.

I think the fact the whole DL log-in process is simplified/non-existent, gives the whole MIDS system a superficial simplicity. Clearly, in IRL, turning on TCN doesn’t instantly populate all DL functions and symbols. There would be a certain amount of channel configuration etc on the MIDs page, even if most of it comes from the MUMI/data cartridge setup. I’m pretty sure the whole sync process isn’t completely automatic as it is now. We’re missing some procedural steps. You should be able to isolate the TCN and DL functions.

Well, it’s partly bugged and partly not implemented. I’m saying there’s more to it than what’s modelled already....additional symbols and indications etc. The concept of a QTY release with with different targets and different term parameters and the indication of a single IN ZONE LAR is a pretty big task I imagine. There’s a bunch of related JDAM features that are still to do and they are on roadmap.

I do QTY drops with some success, but agreed it’s pretty buggy. Every time I select a QTY, it’s time to grit the teeth and hope they all come off, rather than expect. Multiple attack points are more than just QTYs though. Each target needs its own target triangle symbol on the HSI, along with its own LAR shape that takes into account the terminal parameters. The overlapping part of the LARs should then represent the IN ZONE area to fly into to drop. So yeah, some work to do. But it should be coming, it’s on the roadmap.

Is there not a strong possibility the event marker button is context sensitive? i.e when TDC is assigned to the SA page, functionality is changed to EXP toggle.... many HOTAS philosophies work this way, as we all know....

Yeah, JDAMs have taken a downgrade in recent updates. Terminal parameters are very unreliable, since the IN ZONE displayed is often not correct, espcially at the edges of the envolepe. Also the flight timers (TTI) are always in error now. I see impacts with often 12+ seconds still running on the timer. They used to be far better at various points last year, to the exact second at one point. Well Wags made numerous references to Launch Points as a future feature way back when JDAMs were first introduced. (See his youtube videos and comments, as well as mini-updates) Among the items Wag's referred to and not yet implemented: Launch Points Separate Target symbols for each PP target on the HSI (with impact heading stick) Dynamic IN ZONE zone that actually takes the term parameters into account Pre-planned IZLAR indications on HSI (that can be decluttered using the HSI option) Correct pickle behavior (at least 300ms delay when pickle, more for longer QTYs) More fuse options - JPF (fancy delay fuse), DSU-33 (airburst fuse) Loft initiation cues on HSI All of these explicitly mentioned either inside a video or in comments. Hopefully coming soon, please don't forget ED. JDAMs missing lots of cool button mashing functionality. Edit: I found a quote from a Wag's mini update 25th March 2019: ''Later, AUTO delivery and much more detailed attack information will be added like the Launch Acceptable Region (LAR), dynamic launch zones, terminal attack option, launch points, release zones, JPF, BIT/MUMI pages, and multiple attack zones will be available.'' (Not the only example)

The Loft Initiation cues are certainly not implemented yet. (Along with Launch Points, Dynamic In zone cues, proper pickle behavior etc) When I've personally tried to do a 15 loft, the JDAM often didn't release and when it did, didn't guide at all properly. There seems to be serious issues with the IN ZONE calculation at the moment, even in level flight. This is true for A10C II as well. On top of that the terminal parameters entry doesn't get reflected on the Dynamic In Zone trapezoid on the HSI. Still WIP I hope. It's safe to say that JDAM's in general need a lot of work, including additional features, to make them as useful as they should be.

Four years on, and it’s nice to see most of those niggles fixed. Although four years without a proper taxi/landing light and things like the cabin pressure gauge are still frustrating.....

That's good news, thanks gyrovague.

+1 An easy addition presumably. By the way, it’s not two different tones, it’s whether the tone is transmitted on COMM1 or COMM2.

Regarding this collision feature, I'm not sure why there's such a push back from the SME's against getting it implemented? For a faithful simulation that seems a bit odd. I have a massive amount of respect for the contribution the various SME's make. They've lived the life that many can only aspire to and I understand where you're coming from. I don't however agree with the argument that we're all geeky sim pilots who just love pressing buttons but have no real understanding of what or why we're doing it. 'Children of the magenta line' in airline speak. Yes, collision function isn't critical, and yes it's very possible and even preferable to calculate and execute an intercept manually. I understand the principle and do so, with some success, in sim. I also understand and accept I haven't had x years of experience doing this for real. Which I'm fine with and honestly don't need to be reminded of. But isn't this supposed to be a simulation of the F-14 with most of it's features faithfully recreated? This one Collision Steering feature clearly isn't a priority, which is fine, but it's been nearly 2 years and no indication that a useful tool may get looked at eventually? We do however get endless tweaks to flow flows and drag values, important though they are.