Stickler

Sure. Attaching .acmi and corresponding screenshot of my Caucasus test. Tacview-20230404-200825-DCS-maptest.zip.acmi Time is +01:50 into the recording (active pause). Note the target under the -15° line on the screenshot and under the -20° line in the Tacview HUD view.

There seems to be a bug with unit positioning in .acmis in 1.9.0 and DCS Open Beta 2.8.3.38090 MT (not tested in other builds or versions). See the attached screenshots which were taken at the exact same moment in time for the F-14 and the Mirage F1, respectively, using active pause. Comparing the HUD screenshot from in-game and Tacview, it becomes apparent that while for both aircraft the pitch angle is captured accurately, the target is displaced by approximately 5° below its position in the Tacview HUD view compared to the aircraft's HUD. The target is located in PG, N24°35.957 E054°42.910. Since the same problem occurs in two aircraft types I suppose the modules by themselves are not causing the issue. Also tested this in Caucasus against a different target (APC, not tank as in PG) and I get the same result (5° displacement).

According to the -A and -B NATOPS, the A/G HUD has a vertical FOV of 20° centered on the aircraft symbol (10° up, 10° down). The pitch ladder is graduated every 5° up to 30° pitch up and pitch down, then every 10° thereafter. null In the game, the A/G HUD has an asymmetric FOV of 10° pitch up (note the barely visible 10° mark in the picture immediately below) and approximately 8° pitch down (see the second picture below) with reference to the aircraft symbol, and the pitch ladder is uniformly graduated every 5° (see the third picture down).

1. According to NWP 3-22.5-F-14A/B/D, VOL. III, IC10, p. E-4/E-5, the following conditions need to be met in the F-14A/B before any of stations 3, 4, 5, or 6 can receive an air-to-ground release pulse: A. Landing Gear Handle UP B. ACMP: Master Arm: ON C. Stick: Wpn Select: OFF (GUN if mixed) D. PDCP: MODE: A/G E. ACP: WPN TYPE: Store type F. ACP: DLVY OPTNS: QTY: 1 or more G. ACP: STA SEL: 1 or more loaded stations: SEL H. ACP: FUZE: MECH and/or ELEC not SAFE In the game, I have noticed the following deviations from this logic: Bombs can be released with the gear handle down Bombs will release even though both MECH and ELEC fuses are set to SAFE Bombs will release without any store type selected (wheel set to OFF) Bombs cannot be released if WPN select is set to GUN with "Mixed" selected in the back seat Bombs can be released if QTY set to 00 2. According to both NWP 3-22.5-F-14A/B/D and the flight manual, ITERs and ITER-loaded stores cannot be jettisoned. In the game, depending on the WPNS/MER TER selector, both ITERs and ITER-loaded stores can be jettisoned. 3. In the game, fuel tanks can only be jettisoned with WPNS selected, not with MER TER. I have found no indication in the above manuals that an MXU-611 cannot be jettisoned, however I have not found any information that it CAN be, either. Therefore, not sure if this is a bug. 4. The "jettison" sound sometimes occurs even if no stores are actually jettisoned. To reproduce, load stations 3 to 6, select MER/TER, perform a selective jettison of all stores, then repeat. I assume the "clunk" sound is meant to simulate the haptic feedback the pilot receives when a heavy store leaves the jet (as opposed to the jettison cartridges firing which could not be heard from within the cockpit), so when no store actually leaves the jet the "clunk" should not be heard. Even if the sound is intended to simulate the sound of the jettison cartridges they could certainly not be heard twice since they are one-shot.

Thanks @Noctrach, looks like I'm not crazy after all. I think the loss of lock/track due to roll and the loss of track due to ATA and pitch might be closely interrelated but they need not necessarily be the same issue. I can hold an STT-generated TID track all day long with 90° or even 180° AoB provided my ATA remains close to 0°. So the "antenna elevation + azimuth + roll > 55°" relation is probably not really additive (at least with regard to roll); if it was, you'd certainly lose the track at 90° AoB. I incidentally found that if you set 40° ATA, then roll inverted and then push the stick forward, the track will be lost when reaching around +15° antenna elevation as well. In any case, no need to debug this further on our end since this has been reported twice now. @WarthogOsl I'd say it's dropping STT-generated TID tracks when it shouldn't. Since I do not have access to the original aircraft's AWG-9 manual I cannot prove my point but I can hardly imagine the real radar couldn't maintain an STT-generated track at 40° ATA, 15° pitch and 0° roll when the radar's limits are ±65° in azimuth and -76°/+54° in elevation, especially since the lock itself can be maintained at these parameters. In other words, why should it be able to maintain the lock but not the track?

EDIT: This post was originally about a loss of PD-STT lock. Through more testing I found the actual problem is a loss of the TID track obtained from an STT lock, not the loss of the lock itself. Text and title changed accordingly. 2.8.1.34667 Start parameters: F-14B, 25000 ft, M 0.8, human Su-30, 25000 ft, M 1.0, AI, programmed to maintain pure pursuit on F-14B and not to use chaff or ECM Split range 55 nm, head-on Steps: F-14B establishes a valid PD-STT lock. TID track file visible F-14B cranks to 40° ATA, 3-4 G F-14B maintains new heading, TID track file remains visible F-14B bunts over, 0.5 G Loss of track (X) occurs at about 15° nose low with a radar elevation of around +10.0 ° (indicated by flares in .acmi). Track file is deleted shortly thereafter. Track file data readouts (bearing, track altitude etc.) are lost. The STT lock, WEZ symbology, HUD radar cross are maintained throughout. When re-establishing pure pursuit, the TID track and the corresponding track file data readouts re-generate automatically. This has been 100% reproducible for me. Happens both with a human RIO and Jester, also in PULSE STT and/or against A-50 (this one is slower than 1.0 M of course). It it likely this has something to do with TID track generation capacity based on radar elevation/azimuth in STT, since the test can be varied as follows: When crank is 50° instead of 40°, loss of TID track occurs at around 5-10° nose low. Without crank (maintaining 180° aspect), the TID track is maintained during bunt-over until the vertical limit of the radar elevation is reached (lock breaks around 54° indicated antenna elevation). In general, the loss of TID track occurs at a smaller nose-down angle the greater the crank. The track file is maintained throughout when using TWS. Is anyone able to explain why the loss of track occurs at parameters which should be able to support it (at least I am not aware of a track production limit based on azimuth/elevation when in STT)? Not posting this as a bug since it is possible I'm overlooking something obvious or things are working as intended. loss_of_lock.acmi

This being the last post I could find related to the TGTS switch, I'm reporting that as of 2.8.1.34667, the AIM-54C (at least the Mk60 variant) IS affected by the TGTS switch just like the AIM-54A. This is based on test firing both AIM-54A-Mk60s and AIM-54C-Mk60s with different TGTS settings against a non-maneuvering F-14 manned by a human. Comparing the time stamp at which the time-to-impact counter starts blinking with the range between the missile and the target at that moment, it becomes evident that the active range of both -A and -C models is dependent on the TGTS setting (SMALL - 6 nm, NORM - 10 nm, LARGE - 13 nm) as described in the game manual. I would like a word if this is - taking reality as a reference - an improvement or a regression. Additionally, when taking note of the time at which the target human-crewed F-14 receives RWR indications of the inbound active AIM-54, these were the results I obtained: AIM-54A (SMALL): around 5 nm AIM-54A (NORM): around 7,7 nm AIM-54A (LARGE): around 7,4 nm AIM-54C (SMALL): around 8 nm AIM-54C (NORM): around 7,7 nm AIM-54 C (LARGE): around 7,4 nm These results are unexpected in three ways (if anyone can explain I'd appreciate it): 1) RWR indications are received a significant amount of time AFTER the missile goes active, especially in LARGE mode, for which I do not have an explanation except some kind of RWR processing delay or a delay between the AWG-9 sending a "go active" signal to the missile and it actually going active. 2) RWR indications are received at a slightly longer distance between missile and target when the missile was fired in NORM mode compared to LARGE mode, which IMHO should be the other way around. 3) The AIM-54C produces emissions detectable by another F-14's RWR before it goes active, but only in SMALL mode. Note this is for human players only. Due to what I understand is a DCS limitation, AI aircraft will start threat reacting against an inbound AIM-54 at exactly 10 nm regardless of the TGTs setting.

Since (I believe) 2.8, only when two humans are in the same jet, transmitting on a radio will, after approximately 1 to 3 transmissions, increment the respective SRS frequency as seen in the SRS overlay by .005 Mhz while the frequency displayed in the cockpit remains the same. This essentially makes SRS (and therefore multi-crew using SRS) unusable/impractical at the moment. Ciribob writes in his SRS Discord support channel that this is either DCS or F-14-related and that SRS cannot work around it. EDIT: Sorry, this is already discussed at but under a different title.

In 2.8.0.32235 (did not notice/check before), when entering a cold and dark jet and applying external power, the fire lights illuminate even though the MASTER TEST switch is set to OFF. The fire lights can be switched off by starting and unstarting the FIRE DET/EXT MASTER TEST. I have not found any indications in the RL manuals which would indicate this behavior is correct.

According to NAVAIR 01-F14AAA-1, 15 May 1995, Change 1 - 1 February 1997, p. 2-155 (and the appropriate pages in other versions of the RL flight manual as well as the Heatblur F-14 manual), the AoA indexer lights come on in certain AoA ranges. In 2.8.0.32235 (did not notice/test before), the AoA tape left of the HUD does not match these ranges. Indexer Should come on (units AoA) Really comes on (units AOA) Green 16.0 - 30.0 15.0 - 30.0 Green/Yellow 15.5 - 16.0 14.7 - 15.0 Yellow 14.5 - 15.5 13.8 - 14.7 Yellow/Red 14.0 - 14.5 13.1 - 13.8 Red 0.0 - 14.0 0.0 - 13.1 I believe the indexer lights work correctly but the AoA tape is wrongly calibrated since the AoA shown in the F2 view seems to be consistent with the indexer but not with the tape, taking into account the conversion formula of Angle = (Units - 3.715) / 1.089 This is supported by the fact that with the APC on, the aircraft seems to hold 14 instead of 15 units AoA. Other than making flying precise approaches difficult, this also makes AI LSO grading (both DCS default and Airboss) somewhat unpredictable since both seem to be using actual (not tape-indicated) AoA as a reference.

Sorry, this seems to have been previously reported at and Then again, it's been almost a year and the issue persists so...

In 2.8.0.32235 (I did not check/notice in previous versions), only the green chevron, not the other indexer lights including a combination of a green chevron and a yellow donut, is shown on the AoA indexer (depending on AoA) when the indexer lights intensity is set to 4 or lower. When it is set to 5 or higher, all indexer lights are shown depending on AoA.

Confirmed.

I was just about to write a bug report when I saw that somebody beat me to it. Some additional info to help track down the problem: 1) It happens regardless of whether the pilot is the host, the RIO is a client, the other way round or whether both crew members are clients. 2) If the pilot respawn happens quickly after sending a radio call, in the new jet (at least when starting hot) one can actually hear the reply to the call made in the old jet.

Based on testing against AI targets in 2.7.17.29493, the PH ACT behaviour has deteriorated since I made the original post since as of now the missile seems acquire the target (to include producing RWR indications) at exactly 10 nm regardless of the position of the TGTS and PH ACT switches. Previously only the LARGE setting would have no effect due to the 10 nm limitation, but SMALL would cause AI threat reactions to start only at 6 nm.

I can confirm that Iceman seems to be completely broken since he neither flies the headings nor the altitude I'm commanding him to fly.

If this is the way ED has modelled it then we obviously have to live with it. However, strictly talking real-life, shouldn't the RWR of any aircraft located within an active missile's radar cone or even side lobes be able to receive and indicate the missile's radar emissions from much farther out than 10 nm, even if the missile itself cannot acquire/lock on to its target due to insufficient RCS?

According to the in-game map and the beacons.lua, the Abu Dhabi VOR (ADV) is located at N24.441924 E54.656381, whereas the Abu Dhabi DME is located at N24.419118, E54.672854. IRL, both navigation aids are co-located at N24.4189639° E54.6732444° (see attached excerpt of UAE AIP, mind the different format). ADV.pdf

According to the game manual, "[t]he AIM-54 can [...] be commanded to go active directly after launch in both TWS and pulse doppler STT modes by setting the MSL OPTIONS switch to PH ACT before launch. This tells the WCS to immediately command the AIM-54 to go active in the first guidance command after launch. If launched at a target within 6 NM if in the targets rear hemisphere or 10 NM miles if in its forward hemisphere the WCS will also automatically command this mode instead of a SARH mode. If the target is not detected actively by the seeker it will still fall back to SARH until the seeker can acquire on its own like in the two SARH modes." According to my tests, both against the AI and against human players, a Phoenix launched in PH ACT mode actually goes active either at 10 nm or at the distance set by the TGTS switch (the testing results were somewhat inconclusive and may depend on whether the target is a human or an AI), in any case not immediately when launched. In the attached .acmi, the TGTS switch was set to SMALL. One can clearly distinguish the PH ACT shots from the regular shot by their straight flight profile. For both shots, the target's pilot perceived an active missile warning only at 6 nm. All shots were performed in TWS and with a human RIO in the back seat, although I could observe the same problem against the AI in single-player when setting the PH ACT switch myself in the back seat. Based on preliminary testing, the issue is present for ACM Active mode as well. PH ACT test.acmi

Just tried with today's hotfix and everything was fine again. I'll report if the problem resurfaces.

Confirmed. Maneuver flap control with DLC thumbwheel impossible on ground, but works once airborne. 2.7.10.19402. Never had this issue before.

526th Virtual Tactical Fighter Squadron (526th vTFS) is a MilSim F-4E squadron operating as part of Combined Joint Task Force 13 (European Time Zone). If you want to fly the F-4E in a realistic manner with like-minded people, read on or check out our more detailed recruitment thread here. What we offer: Continuation Training (CT) in accordance with a hypothetical but realistic F-4E Ready Aircrew Program (RAP) Tasking Memorandum (RTM) based on the present-day AFMAN 11-2F-V1 series of publications and historical sources. Systematic upgrade training might be offered long-term, instructor capacity permitting. A digital back end, to include a DAFMAN 11-401/AFTO 781/ARMS-based flight and weapons employment logging system. TO 1F-4E-1CL-1 based in style and content on TO 1F-4(R)C-1CL-1, however modified to reflect available TO 1F-4E-1. A hypothetical AFMAN 11-2F-4E, Volume 3, currently at 54 pages. A hypothetical AFTTP 3-3.F-4E (Basic Employment Manual, BEM), exceeding Volume 3 in length significantly. A proprietary Advanced Employment Manual (AEM), featuring generic parts such as an illustrated missile and threat database and F-4E-specific parts. A proprietary Mission Planning Tool including a Mission Data Card, a Drag Index/Weight and AoA calculator, a ballistics, wind and D-Value calculator as well as digitized performance data from TO 1F-4E-1 and -34-1/-34-1-1. Text-to-speech generated recordings of all standard challenge & response checks to simulate crew interaction in case no human WSO is available. Various standard attack sheets. Integration into a joint wing with the associated benefits in terms of server infrastructure, common mission planning, training, and combat operations. Flight in real-life peacetime and realistic wartime airspace. What we expect: Own at least the Persian Gulf and Syria maps. The willingness to self-study and train yourself continuously based on available real-life and squadron documentation. We intend to learn to fly the F-4E together, not to spoon-feed knowledge unidirectionally. The willingness to log your flights in the squadron AFTO 781/ARMS. Maintain an activity rate (lookback) that corresponds to the real-life USAF simulator and sortie requirements for at least Basic Mission Capable (BMC) status. For inexperienced aircrew, this translates to 6+2 RAP missions/simulators in 2 months (a one-month probation is applied per default), or 18+6 RAP missions/simulators in 3 months, and 24+8 RAP missions/simulators in 12 months (these annual requirements result from a proration to 33.3% as per real-life standards). In 526th vTFS, a "real" flight needs to fulfil specific criteria in terms of realism, a "simulator" might be an air spawn, for example. Maintain currencies (e.g. landing currency, AAR currency) and attain a minimum number of annual basic skills events (e.g. instrument approaches) according to real-life regulations. Maintain a weapons qualification or familiarity in all weapons carried by the F-4E as per real-life standards. Perform a monthly Emergency Procedures Evaluation (EPE) either in the shape of a simplified BOLD FACE test or an Emergency Procedures (EP) simulator. Within 17-months of joining the squadron and every 17 months thereafter, complete QUAL, INSTM and MSN evaluations as per AFMAN 11-2F-15E, Volume 2 standards adjusted for the F-4E, to include the associated theoretical open-book examinations. For Combat Mission Ready (CMR) status, passing verification (a tactical quiz) is additionally required. Members will remain in Recruit status without access to the BEM and AEM until completing their first QUAL and INSTM evaluations. Members will be barred from unsupervised combat missions until completing their first MSN evaluation. Note that you are more than welcome to fly both as a pilot and as a WSO as long as you meet the BMC sortie requirements for at least one position. What we would like: Your willingness to pass on your skills to other members by acting as instructor/evaluator in due time. How to join: Visit the CJTF-13 Discord and ask for 526th vTFS or contact me via PM here on the forums. After a short chat about your background and motivation and clarifying any questions, you will be asked to submit Tacview recordings showing you flying the F-4E in Persian Gulf and Syria. This is to verify you actually own the modules and have set up your basic controls. If desired, you may then review our RTM for a more in-depth look into our training system. With this out of the way, you will run through a brief CJTF-13 introduction (standards, expectations), after which you will hopefully be admitted as a recruit. See you in the virtual skies!

526th Virtual Tactical Fighter Squadron (526th vTFS) is a MilSim F-4E squadron operating as part of Combined Joint Task Force 13 (European Time Zone). If you want to fly the F-4E in a realistic manner with like-minded people, read on. What we offer: Continuation Training (CT) in accordance with a hypothetical but realistic F-4E Ready Aircrew Program (RAP) Tasking Memorandum (RTM) based on the present-day AFMAN 11-2F-V1 series of publications and historical sources. Systematic upgrade training might be offered long-term, instructor capacity permitting. A digital back end, to include a DAFMAN 11-401/AFTO 781/ARMS-based flight and weapons employment logging system. TO 1F-4E-1CL-1 based in style and content on TO 1F-4(R)C-1CL-1, however modified to reflect available TO 1F-4E-1. A hypothetical AFMAN 11-2F-4E, Volume 3, currently at 54 pages. A hypothetical AFTTP 3-3.F-4E (Basic Employment Manual, BEM), exceeding Volume 3 in length significantly. A proprietary Advanced Employment Manual (AEM), featuring generic parts such as an illustrated missile and threat database and F-4E-specific parts. A proprietary Mission Planning Tool including a Mission Data Card, a Drag Index/Weight and AoA calculator, a ballistics, wind and D-Value calculator as well as digitized performance data from TO 1F-4E-1 and -34-1/-34-1-1. Text-to-speech generated recordings of all standard challenge & response checks to simulate crew interaction in case no human WSO is available. Standard attack sheets (sample below, most data redacted). Integration into a joint wing with the associated benefits in terms of server infrastructure, common mission planning, training, and combat operations. Flight in real-life peacetime and realistic wartime airspace. What we expect: Own at least the Persian Gulf and Syria maps. The willingness to self-study and train yourself continuously based on available real-life and squadron documentation. We intend to learn to fly the F-4E together, not to spoon-feed knowledge unidirectionally. The willingness to log your flights in the squadron AFTO 781/ARMS. Maintain an activity rate (lookback) that corresponds to the real-life USAF simulator and sortie requirements for at least Basic Mission Capable (BMC) status. For inexperienced aircrew, this translates to 6+2 RAP missions/simulators in 2 months (a one-month probation is applied per default), or 18+6 RAP missions/simulators in 3 months, and 24+8 RAP missions/simulators in 12 months (these annual requirements result from a proration to 33.3% as per real-life standards). In 526th vTFS, a "real" flight needs to fulfil specific criteria in terms of realism, a "simulator" might be an air spawn, for example. Maintain currencies (e.g. landing currency, AAR currency) and attain a minimum number of annual basic skills events (e.g. instrument approaches) according to real-life regulations. Maintain a weapons proficiency or familiarity in all weapons carried by the F-4E as per real-life standards. Perform a monthly Emergency Procedures Evaluation (EPE) either in the shape of a simplified BOLD FACE test or an Emergency Procedures (EP) simulator. Within 17-months of joining the squadron and every 17 months thereafter, complete QUAL, INSTM and MSN evaluations as per AFMAN 11-2F-15E, Volume 2 standards adjusted for the F-4E, to include the associated theoretical open-book examinations. For Combat Mission Ready (CMR) status, passing verification (a tactical quiz) is additionally required. Members will remain in Recruit status without access to the AEM and with limited access to the BEM until completing their first QUAL and INSTM evaluations. Members will be barred from unsupervised combat missions until completing their first MSN evaluation. Note that you are more than welcome to fly both as a pilot and as a WSO as long as you meet the BMC sortie requirements for at least one position. What we would like: Your willingness to pass on your skills to other members by acting as instructor/evaluator in due time. How to join: Visit the CJTF-13 Discord and ask for 526th vTFS or contact me via PM here on the forums. After a short chat about your background and motivation and clarifying any questions, you will be asked to submit Tacview recordings showing you flying the F-4E in Persian Gulf and Syria. This is to verify you actually own the modules and have set up your basic controls. If desired, you may then review our RTM for a more in-depth look into our training system. With this out of the way, you will run through a brief CJTF-13 introduction (standards, expectations), after which you will hopefully be admitted as a recruit. See you in the virtual skies! Attachments