TobiasA

Have never been accurate on the 16, issue is being worked on. At least I think so.

Just mention me here, and I will see what I can do. Thanks!

Another with ALARM STATE set to RED at mission start. Interesting is that the gun is heating up, while the vehicle does not- even if it was driving some time ago. A solution would be that everything that is driving is just hot, since you usually don't start a tank and go driving with a cold engine- and exhausts aren't even modelled yet. A partial model would have better results than what we have now. I personally think that the FLIR rework was pushed out too early, and too ambitious for the state is was in. The overall idea is really cool, and it will be awesome one day. Column_Test_2.trk

One more- moving column of MBTs, IFV, some AAA, some artillery. They are moving, but they are cold. Just say what you need, it isn't hard to reproduce this. At least not in the F-16. Column_Test.trk

The A-10 is indeed better. I just wish we had the same FLIR picture on the SAM as on the civilian cars on the road behind. SAM-Test_SA-6_A-10.trk Still, it is far from accurate. Would this help you to sort out the issues?

What do you need? Tests with various units? Tracks? A thread for every unit? Or should we open a thread that contains all the tracks and units? I mean the Viper will lose TV mode pretty soon, so the issue should have a higher priority. I am willing to contribute to a solution. But some units simply remain close to invisible. As an example, the SA-6. Here is a track and two screenshots that show very clearly that the launcher that just fired on me remains cold. Or... somewhat warm, but nowhere near as it should be. The hot exhausts that are usually very visible are not modelled at all, on no unit. Ok, that might come later, but it can't be that units that fire a hundreds degree hot missile don't show up. There are certain things wrong in the current implementation. Everything gets better at night, so does FLIR, but units are way too hidden right now. Especially the fact that the generator is running a gas turbine should make it very clear that something is wrong here. SAM-Test_SA-6.trk

Maybe we should report each single one, like the SAM launchers being cold while firing to help to sort out the ones being weird. It got a lot better over time, but it is far from finished.

That is currently an issue. Some units work quite nice in IR mode, some are literally invisible until you switch to TV mode. And I really hope this will be fixed before the TV mode is gone for quite some time, because that is basically the main reason for me to use TV mode.

I would appreciate exactly that schedule.

I used it a lot when the FLIR was not really usable, but nowadays I fully agree. A good FLIR is almost as good as TV. I still have trouble seeing some units that I only see when switching to TV, but I think that'll get sorted.

Well, things happen and nobody is perfect. Me neither, as you can read here from time to time... I think it will be fine at the end. I trust in you to not leave us without a working pod.

The one thing that annoys me is that they add capabilities and then take them away again because of realism or too complicated or whatever. If it is not realistic, then don't implement it. That being said, I appreciate correcting mistakes. So basically we have a LANTIRN disguised as a LITENING?

They had a software update somewhere around 2000 iirc, which probably increased the overall quality.

Was the original implementation as it is now pure science fiction? Than it should never have been there with the sniper pod being the primary target for development...

What I don't understand is... We have the same pod on the A-10. Which is considered realistic. And now we will get LANTIRN from 1987 and get the sniper pod quite a large time later after early access, left with the current IR implementation but without TV mode? Because there is no data to model the pod that has been on the A-10 for years? Please... I am not against it, but don't leave us with a 30 year old pod for the time being.

An EA-6B had a similar accident in 1998 in Italy, killing 20 people but the plane returned home. From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_EA-6B_Prowler "On 3 February 1998, a USMC EA-6B Prowler, BuNo 163045, from VMAQ-2 struck the cables of a cablecar system in Cavalese, Italy. The crew broke rules to fly low at high speed in mountainous terrain, cut the cables and caused the death of 20 people. The aircraft also suffered severe damage to its vertical stabiliser and wings as a result of striking the cable, but was landed successfully at Aviano Air Base" However... It will take some time to model this level of detail in DCS, and there are far more important issues right now.

Best in the west as well

This.

Wait what you can't use it in CCIP? Ok, then it is useless as of now... I have to dig some public manuals, I guess.

Had no luck on this. Anyone else?

You will like it once we get the PRF tones.

It's always the same mission, I just edited position and altitude for different tests. It should be attached to this message. JDAM_test.miz

If you place precision waypoints on top of every tank in that mission, you will be even further off, and CEP will be considerably larger even if you drop on exactly that steerpoint without touching the TGP. Fun thing is that TGP and tank do not align in that case.

Next run, 6500ft: Way more precise, but still no reliable deviation. Hits about where it is supposed to hit. About. Static tanks do not care. Also with track. This shows: The error depends largely on altitude. And probably on release technique. Maybe. If not, my results would not differ that much. F-16_JDAM_6500.trk Which ultimately leads to the conclusion that the JDAM hits where is is supposed to hit, but the TGP's precision is most probably not good enough to guarantee a hit...

Here is one more, same approach. null It is left, long, very short, very short this time. Track is attached. F-16_JDAM.trk