AvroLanc

Yep. This is a major error with the way Harpoon is modeled at the moment. The fact that currently the missile only descends to sea-skimming upon detection is ridiculous. The 3 flight FLT profiles (HIGH, MED, LOW) are only supposed to apply to the initial part of the flight. You can't have a missile fly HIGH (circa 30000ft..remember!) and then detect a target at a few miles range and then transition to sea skimming or pop....it won't and doesn't work. The reference material is a bit lacking but I think there should be a third altitude. A 'search' altitude (common to all 3 flight profiles) that the missile is programmed to descend to, to reach by the start of the 'Search distance'. Given the radar horizon and the range of the active seeker, this would only be a couple hundred feet at most. This is the biggest problem with Harpoon at the moment.

Yeah, I'm willing to say there's a problem now. However, I'm not exactly sure what's causing it. I've attached tracks showing an assortment of conditions.... Level drops at both 20000ft and 10000ft, both at either 0 degrees C and 30 degrees C. All other atmospheric conditions constant between the tests. (Airspeed at release is probably a variable, but minimal) The 10k drops are spot on accurate at both temps, the 20000ft are consistently short at both temps. (I've done further tests, not included as tracks that routinely show short drops as well.) The time of fall is the culprit in some way, as if the calculation is off slightly once the time of fall goes over a certain range. Also included are 45 degree Dive tests in AUTO, which unfortunately show short drop as well. I did a steep CCIP dive from high alt as well, that dropped short I recall........so not AUTO exclusively. I'm pretty sure this might have changed recently. I recall getting very accurate results from high alt in AUTO high angle dive bombing in the past. How much this all matters is up for debate? I was inclined to say not much, since level releases in AUTO are not very authentic, unless PGM. However, if AUTO dive releases from high alt aren't accurate either, it would be nice to have it looked at ED. AUTO test 20k 0c.trk AUTO test 20k 30c.trk AUTO test 10k 0c.trk AUTO test 10k 30c.trk AUTO test 45dive 16k.trk

Ok, so why don't we take the FLIR out the equation entirely? That way LOS and ranging etc aren't dependent on what is or isn't implemented with the pod mechanics. In my tests WP2 is precisely located on top of my target. A simple WPDSG and drop on that. Level drops at 7000ft are pretty accurate, same at 14000ft. So far so good, as expected. There is certainly more dispersion at 19000ft and 20000ft. In my tests there's also a tendency to drop short above about 18000ft, but you would expect less accuracy / more dispersion at that altitude. However, if the hits all group short in every test, that would indicate a problem. It might be that way, but more runs are needed. You need to decide what we're testing - AUTO mode accuracy or the ability of the TGP to create a good desired aimpoint? AUTO test 7k.trk AUTO test 14k.trk AUTO test 19k.trk AUTO test 20k.trk

Excellent. Thankyou, waiting patiently.

At the risk of beating an old horse..... AUTO can be and is used in level flight, However that doesn’t exclude its use in a dive. The issue here is that tactical jets wouldn’t typically drop unguided dumb bombs in level flight. Especially at medium altitude. Depending on the jet, either CCIP or AUTO may be preferable in the dive. F-16 might prefer CCIP, due to AGR only available in CCIP. That doesn’t apply to Hornet.

More than 3 years on still learning the Viggen systems and, unfortunately, new bugs. It looks like the Hydrualic system caution lights are wired up to the opposite system.... If I fail System Number 1 Pump and/or reservoir, it produces a HYDR-TR 2 warning on the warning panel. Likewise failing Number 2 Pump and/or reservoir produces a HYDR-TR 1 warning. Doesn't feel right. The failed system components seem to match up correctly with the actual failed item, it's just the lights that are wrong. Also, the artwork for HYDR-TR 1/2 has an error - it shows as HYDR-TA 1/2.

I watched your tracks and did my own tests from 20000ft, MK-83, Level AUTO. The results are the same as yours, bombs fall short. However, I did similar tests with a 30 degree dive, 12000ft ish release, AUTO mode - and the impacts are spot on. It's the level release that's the problem. I guess employing dumb bombs from a level medium altitude delivery is not a typical use case, and so the issue can be circumvented by using a much more common dive delivery. However, they still should be little more accurate, so it may need adjusting.

Sorry I thought you were talking about the RWR yellow triangle indicators. The dotted circle threat rings are stationary pre-planned rings that don't update at all in mission. Because ships move, they don't get displayed because they'd be no way to update them. The rings display for any land based SAM system that isn't 'hidden' in ME.

The RWR indicators on the SA page and Radar page only show Air Intercept (fighter) radars. Max 4.

BUMP this. Any progress on proper LANDING light. Should be 3 position.......

The instrument and panel lights are probably just about right during daylight hours. They work well during night. The taxi light is however far too dark during the day. Also still no LANDING light.

Sort of related, but can I add here... The Vertical Speed Indicator to left of ADI shows a scale of +/- 5m/s. However it only ever maxes out at +/- 3 ms.... I think it's been this way since launch. Can it be added to a fix list? Please.

Guys, do you know if any additional functionality is coming regarding SA / Step / Hooking etc? For example, being able to highlight (via TUC or Step) a contact and for it to display in the JHMCS? What about, when ground tracks are available, to TUC a track and designate as A/G TGT? Very little info out there that I can find. Thanks.

Yep. Controls HARM targeting and stuff.

You can't really see what he's doing there. Is the flight planned to fully use a Link-16 net? We don't know. Granted, most of the MIDS settings are likely contained in the data cartridge upload / MUMI. Minimal extra setup required. However, I would expect an extra step to be as I described. F-16 (RL) works this way.

Requesting/suggesting a slightly more involved and therefore immersive simulation of the MIDS/LINK 16 start up/log on procedure. I appreciate that simulating the AIC, F/F 1 and F/F 2 channels would be complicated coding wise, not to mention all the other settings for MIDS radio we can see on MIDS page. However, I suggest adding one more step to the procedure - at the moment you just turn on either TACAN or MIDS and you've magically got datalink all configured.....There's more to it than that...... What about a requirement to go into MIDS page and select OSB 16 'Net Entry', as per RL, as an additional step. Once pressed, maybe a short delay and then the 'Sync Status' field on same page goes to 'Fine Sync'. And you've logged in to datakink. It's one additional step and would add immersion, making it a little closer to RL without a huge coding effort. The current, TACAN ON = full datalink functionality is too simplified. Adding the MIDS voice channels would also help. (Mentioned in manual, but not on roadmap?) Cheers.

Guys, they’re both computer calculated modes. All things being equal they will have the exact same accuracy if you account for nothing else. Release profile, designation method (if any) and pilot skill are the factors which affect accuracy. A dive will be more accurate than level , using either AUTO or CCIP. The advantage of auto is you have a TGT designated, hopefully with TGP but at least with WPDSG or Radar. You’re not relying on visually spotting your aim point and hitting the pickle at precisely the correct time. CCIP may be more flexible in a target of opportunity scenario or when you mess up your roll in. Please get over the misconception that AUTO = Level and CCIP = Dive. Not the case.

It’s just how it works on the F-18. Sources are hard to come by, but it’s been modelled that way since day 1. A few comments at the time by crew confirming it. Use AUTO 95% of the time. It’s NOT less accurate.

I'm hoping the issue is being ignored due to it being already 'fixed' in internal builds. We've already seen it working in Wag's video. The worry is....it's a new bug that has occurred since then. Why does no one (except very select few) care about proper JDAM features............ahhhh!

Bump, because this is coming up a lot in multiple threads. The tracks are here and elsewhere already.

Here's one.

Another vote to change the MFDs back ASAP. There was absolutely nothing wrong with them before, the colour and contrast was a pretty good match for all the reference photos and videos out there. Whoever made the decision to change should reconsider......they look terrible in sunlight, and the colours don’t match RL references.

+1. A quick hotfix to fix the HUD and DDI issues was all we wanted. Last week's patch was good in lots of other ways. Instead we've got major issues again. I though the new idea was improved closed beta testing?

All we needed last week was a quick Hotfix for the dim HUD and MFD issues. They should have left it as that, instead we've got a small patch that badly breaks a primary sensor. Couldn't make it up. Oh, and DDIs are still too dim during day......

+1 Same here Only ACM boresight works, VV Scan etc don't. Normal RWS and TWS are unusable......... Thank god for stable.