AvroLanc

TDC Depress in GMT and SEA is the same as MAP - it makes a 'Nav Stabilized' designation. A fixed point on the ground. The radar doesn't 'track' anything with TDC depress, it only designates a point on the ground. A FTT (SCS Right) will attempt to 'lock on' and track a radar return. You can create a markpoint from either. I'm guessing that trying to create a markpoint during a moving 'Track' ie GMT Track or SEA Track will create a Markpoint at the tracked targets location at that instant. However it might not work at all since the target is moving. Not sure.

Well maybe. You have to remember that the DL and infrared seeker in our Walleye are very much post Vietnam. Think late 70’s / early 80’s. Vietnam version was TV seeker only and no DL. Having said that, SLAM was clearly a limited weapon. It had mixed success when employed in Desert Storm and later in Allied Force (Kosovo). Although the datalink range should perhaps be a little better, say 45-50 miles. Otherwise the 54nm max range seems completely superfluous. Similar weapons of the era like AGM-130 used by F-15E had larger turn and run DL guidance.

SURV is 'Surveillance' i.e AWACS. 'Not Surface' Your screenshot shows two overlapping small diamonds, with nothing in the middle. There are a few issues with the HAFU's / SA page etc, but this is normal.

I'm seeing issues with the SA page 'Unknown' status under multiple scenarios. Frequently the SA page will give an unknown state when NCTR has determined hostile (as you say above), but also; AZ/EL and SA Page ID's don't match up. The AZ/EL page surveillance data block will give a LINK 16 ID as e.g. MIG29 but the SA page still states Unknown for same contact. Pretty sure they should sync up. Both are Link 16 data. Friendly SURV only non-PPLI contacts will almost never have an aircraft type ID. I would have thought an AWACS SURV contact (especially friendly) should have a type ID always. AWACS will know the friendly aircraft type, why doesn't it push it over the Link-16? WIP? Bug? As intended?

B means Barometric altitude ranging. The mission computer uses altitude and trigonometry to calculate slant range. R means radar, although I believe 'F' would be the correct syntax in the Viper. F for FCR means the radar is 'locked' on to the target and providing a direct slant range measurement. It also indicates AGR ranging, while not 'locked' it shines a ranging beam like a torchlight. In both cases we need A/G radar. In any case, the exact ranging methods arn't yet implemented, and the HUD symbology isn't complete yet. The TGP will give a range next to T in the lower left, you need to be in Area or Point track. It updates when you fire the Laser. It doesn't show decimals above 10nm and the text is tiny.

Yeah they should, and still do. The spoiler brake operation is still correct. it’s just that the only way to check DLC operation on ground is now with a small off-idle thrust applied. Still don’t know if this is correct.

Gents, we might have been a bit premature. The DLC does work if you select Gear Down and Spoiler Brk on (Both or Anti-skid), then bump the thrust off idle slightly to check Spoiler Brk operation, hold the slight thrust, now DLC on ground works and can be checked. Not sure if this is exactly as intended, but it satisfies my OCD for the moment. Could be an intentional and realistic change.

Can confirm this. Pretty annoying unfortunately, since it’s worked correctly since release.

Yeah, same issue. No pilot body when using the keybind.... Checked as functional in the controls setup..... Are we missing something?

The cross the is Auto Acquisition Cue and represents the highest priority trackfile. This is the track that will become the L&S when pressing NWS/Undesignate or will become STT target when SS switch pressed toward radar display.

Don't really care how it's interacted with, would like to see more functions on it modeled. The tutorial references the inop EMER GEN Test since day 1.

Short of providing extensive mission planning tools, I don't think a data cartridge would benefit this much. You would need to view a 3D image of the target in the ME and pick an aimpoint. It wouldn't add any real functionality over just selecting a coordinate, in DCS that is, but it would be cool. The ATA upgrade mostly adds a cool moving anti-shipping capability. The seeker can recognise an image of a surface vessel and either automatically update its target point to it or specific part of it, or can cue the pilot when using MITL. But it's a moot point, since we're almost certainly not getting ATA. But.....what's the difference between K and H models of the SLAM-ER? The references aren't clear. Bignewy has suggested we're getting both, and if we rule ATA out, what's the difference? Not sure.

Absolutely, but I always imagined the smallest CEP was due to the MITL ability..... To fly it through a specific window so to speak. Does SLAM-ER have a technology that enables the GPS mode to be more accurate than normal? Not sure there. (Going with it....bigger + powered airframe = maybe bigger / newer GPS receiver and extra maneuverability over a JDAM?)

Nice. Let's hope GBU-24 has the Paveway III type guidance and other differences. Mission settings / profile shaping / low level advantages etc..... and a grey thermal coating option.

It may be that the checklist page is not calculating correctly. There's been issues here before. I tried in the ME and the GBU-32 weight is correctly approx 1000lbs (sorry didn't note down exact figure).

I'm seeing big issues in single player. The member symbols sync once every few seconds but immediately drift away, usually straight down vertically - the symbol only shows in the correct position for a second. This is a new issue with the latest patch. In the previous version, the sync delay was there, but the symbol still extrapolated forward in time to remain approximately correct until the next sync update. The new behavior is odd and frustrating.

On a similar note, I’m assuming the in-range indications haven’t yet been updated for the improved AMRAAM kinematics? It’s another thing pending that’s kinda important. When did the AMRAAM get its improvements? A fair while ago now.

Just to confirm for everyone.....it is indeed fixed in today’s update. Yay.

There's been no news. I wouldn't explicitly expect anything major Hornet related, except maybe a few minor bug fixes. Tomorrow's patch is sort of an extra just to accommodate the F-14A release. I'm more than happy to be wrong though.

You can also add a 'datalink WP', using the ME. If you add 'DLST', 'DLFP', 'DLWP'(1,2,3?) to the special tab in the ME, same way as normal ST, FP etc. I may be misremembering the exact syntax though. These represent WP's that could be sent IRL from the AWACS over the Link 4 network. They can't be directly navigated to, but can be TID hooked etc. They can be used as additional markers atm, I would love to see a GUI in MP where these could be sent real time, along with commands to intercept or attack a track.

Yeah OK, I did notice a few issues with the 'A' display which I though were a bit odd. I need to test more. I would still expect AGR to be most accurate at steeper slant/grazing angles. Oh, the DDI. Well I guess it still has to display something when switching from 'map'. The alternative would be a blank screen or a raw video 'strobe' return. Obviously you wouldn't be referring to the slant range data 'live' in flight. If the DDI recorders are set to record the DDI's the data might be useful for post-flight debriefing / technique analysis.

A only shows in a dive because the radar dish needs to be pointing down to see the ground. Obviously it can gimbal a certain amount, but it helps if the nose is pointed in the right direction. The practical use is accurate ranging and therefore more accurate CCIP and AUTO. Whether or not that difference is modeled correctly in sim is still up for debate. The greatest difference / effect should be when either BARO or RAD ALT ranging can't be relied on. In the case of RAD ALT, the height directly down under the aircraft at time of release should equal the height above the target at time of release. If you're over undulating / mountainous terrain, they won't equal. In this case AGR would be of most benefit. Should be the easier to test in sim. In the case of BARO, the target elevation needs to be correct. Not sure if it takes current WP elevation or a DTED type calculation (not even sure DTED is in our sim, but the Jury's out). ED might have simplified this anyway. Slightly harder to test.

No it shouldn’t be. Only if you assign TDC to HUD. Which is the manual way of commanding AGR. You can also command it during an AUTO (TGT Designated) situation, as a more accurate ranging compared to BARO or RAD.

AGR isn't really needed to designate a new TGT as such. It's used to provide the slant range for the bombing calculation. Hence the name. SCS forward sort of has two functions. It assigns the TDC to the HUD to enable slewing AND commands AGR. You need AGR when slewing in order to correctly range the visual line of sight you're aiming at. AGR is more accurate than a pure BARO or RAD ALT calculation. AGR isn't used all the time because it's only 1 of many ranging methods. The most appropriate of which is used depending on the situation. If you've used the A/G Radar MAP or Expand function to designate a TGT, then ranging taken from that (along with INS information). Likewise if you've got a FTT with the radar from either MAP or GMT. If you've used the TGP and the Laser, then this provides a very good, the best in fact, ranging solution. I believe the MC should command AGR in a few more situations than what we have atm. One maybe, when the FLIR is initially command to Area track.

Yeah it would. Common logic would suggest Mavericks don't magically align with an INS derived point. But of course, we don't know the real procedure atm.