jubuttib

OK, I did some testing on my end, and may have figured it out. Tested the syria mission, both straight up, spawn hot on ground, make my own PPs via F10 map, use TOO instead of PP modes, etc. All of those lead to the same result, not very accurate, usually 1-2 kills. Then I swapped the JF-17 to be BLUEFOR, the IFVs and Outpost to be REDFOR, and tried again: Tiny spread, 4 out of 4 kills. 3 were direct hits, one landed like 1 meter off the side of the target. So yeah, I'd hazard a guess that it's just the ED enforced REDFOR satellite guided weapon inaccuracy at play.

I'm guessing it's because they want 4 different targets, and the "step" button (or weapon station change, S5, only steps between the pylons, not individual bombs. So if you're dual racking, you can use use S5 to program the two pylons to aim for 36/37 in one profile, and 38/39 in the other profile.

Hmm, that's odd, I tried basically the same thing and all hit. =/ I'll have to try again... EDIT: One thing that popped to mind btw, was that setting down the markers on the F10 map without zooming ALL THE WAY IN can lead to the marker being fairly far off of the target. I mean that's not the case for sylkhan's mission, where the PPs are set in the mission editor, but good to keep in mind. EDIT2: Tested sylkhan's syria mission, and indeed I missed all except the left-most one (PP1/DST36).

FWIW I dropped on the second tone, not the first one. AGM-154 is JSOW afaik, did you mean "for GB-6/LS-6"?

These are good calls. FWIW I did my own testing today, making sure to stick to those notes above, and apart from the GB-6 SFW going a bit long all others were hitting pretty much exactly spot on. LS-6 100s designated with the TGP landed a wee bit short, but that could also have been poor designation on my part.

Thanks for that top right box mention, I had no idea! Very helpful!

Good call, though I've never actually sat in a redfor JF-17 in my life.

Yup, in the past I've tried to use it to attack oil drilling platforms. They're high enough from the sea level that if you don't compensate somehow, they'll fly underneath the deck, where they MIGHT hit one of the legs, or might just miss the whole thing. With an 80-90° terminal dive you could count on them to hit the deck properly. Current workaround is to raise the elevation of the target point to deck height. EDIT: Longwinded way of saying "I know that it should work, and why you'd use it, but I haven't seen it working on any plane or weapon".

Yeah, that's why I said "that's not to say anything about current accuracy", as in I didn't wanna comment on whether current behavior is correct, just that perfect accuracy isn't a realistic target. Agree with your assessment, though FWIW I've never seen the angle working on any weapon on any plane in the game, I just figured it was something no-one was doing yet. And the JF-17 has been the only one where even azimuth has worked in the past, though admittedly it's been a while since I've tried other planes.

FWIW I don't think expecting perfect accuracy is a realistic target, but that's not to say anything about current accuracy.

I guess this is in relation to the Hornet, since the F-15E doesn't carry SLAM-ERs?

Not on the official and common sources of the official manual or Chuck's guide. Someone has made this tho: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3335132/

This is said while keeping in mind that the FM and SCAS are both WIP: The SCAS currently has a slight tendency to kind of exaggerate your movements. The white diamond on the controls indicator is your input, the green cross is what the SCAS is doing, and you can often see, that right after you push into a direction, the SCAS is pushing into the same direction, increasing your input. I feel like this is one of the reasons why the helicopter feels more twitchy and unstable, any minor movement tends to get slightly exaggerated by the SCAS. On the Hip I've generally found the opposite, the AP system pushing away from the direction where you move your cyclic, damping your inputs. Been thinking of making a proper video out of this, but haven't yet gotten around to it. It could be on purpose, to make the helicopter more responsive to inputs, I dunno. I have also managed to turn the SCAS off a few times by pressing the wrong button (how do you turn it back on?), and have noticed that this turns the helicopter into more of a Huey in a sense. It's "less stable" in the sense that it wobbles around by itself, when no input is given, more than with the SCAS on, like the Huey tends to, but it's also slightly less sensitive to stick inputs.

Join the club... In the Ka-50 I've tested against a Ka-27 a fair bit, and on one occasion it took 3 IGLAs (4th missed) and 7 Vikhrs (all hit) to down it. AI helis are indeed just ludicrously durable atm. Wish I was as impervious to damage in my Mi-8, but a single hit from an AK-74 has been enough to incapacitate my engines a couple of times...

Are you sure you're talking about "km/h" and not knots? 500 km/h is barely above the speed where you can put down your landing gear...

FWIW I made a test mission to try these out, and have mostly been getting consistently good result on the unitary bombs, including LS-6 variants. Cluster versions (so GB-6 and GB-6 SFW) are very inconsistent, and admittedly I have had a couple of situations online where my LS-6s didn't behave.

Damnit, forgot to list that. Putting the TGP on a target with a helmet is one of my favorite things about HMDs on the planes that have them.

Heya, just trying to figure out whether this is the current expected behavior, and whether it's intended to be final. When you use the SLAM and SLAM-ER missiles on the Hornet, they do the sensible thing and point towards the target area when they're in the terminal phase. FWIW the following is with special settings as MITL Control Mode Traction, TDC Deadzone 0, DL Pod TDC Slew Rate 1, and 25 curve on my throttle's analog ministick, throttle is STECS. By contrast the CM-802AKG seems to be flying level, regardless of whether you select skim or pop-up as the terminal guidance type (probably doesn't work on purpose, being just a carryover from the anti-shipping missile days). If you're medium or high, you need to crank down the nose of the missile MASSIVELY to point at the target, and during the maneuver you basically lose all visibility. Just kinda gotta hope you can reacquire the target afterwards, and that you were pointing in the right direction overall (which thankfully is at least usually the case). Is this expected behavior? Something to be fixed? The TDC controls are also a bit weird. You need a LOT of input to create any movement (there's a huge deadzone), and then it turns very quickly, so getting it to accurately point at a target is quite challenging. In addition if you let go of the TDC input quickly (like if you were to flick the stick, for example), the input doesn't always center properly, so you can end up with the missile constantly veering to the side after inputs. So all in all you when you get control you: Can't see the target without cranking the nose down (unless you're flying very low level and are lucky), which makes you temporarily blind, and you have no guidance on how much you need to point down You have a huge deadzone to start with, so you wanna push the stick quickly to get past it If you do that, you'll very easily run over the slower section of the input range, making tiny corrections really difficult Even if your input is very gentle, the minimum amount of movement is quite a lot, so it's hard to prevent turning too much If you just let go of the TDC and let the stick snap to center on spring pressure, the TDC won't always center properly, and the missile will keep veering to the side This "minimum input is really high" problem doesn't happen with the radar, TGP or any other sensor for that matter, AND it doesn't happen when the CM-802AKG is set into "Designate" MITL Control Mode. I can move the seeker around with ease and accuracy using that mode. It's however a bit iffy when used from high altitude, since the dive down problem still exists, so you do want to be low down to use it. Again, expected behavior? Something to be fixed?

Yeah, and the Soviets got their kickstart from the South Africans, who (afaik) were to first to field an operational HMD with offbore capable missiles (probably not very high offbore tho) in their Mirages.

Yes, hence the first sentence: "The Hornet and Jeff both have datalinked man-in-the-loop cruise missiles" EDIT: Man I hate that this converts smileys into emoji, is there a way to turn that off?

Bah, TGP and ECM hardpoints first, way more important than the HMD. Then HMD, then forward facing MWS, you can keep the new UFC. Meh, I get more use out of the situational awareness that HMDs provide than I get from pointing heatseekers with them.

Huh, so I guess THAT'S why I had to bomb a command post 6 times before it blew up...

The Hornet and Jeff both have datalinked man-in-the-loop cruise missiles, though I'll readily admit that Hornet's implementation seems more effective. But overall I think Jeff takes the cake, because it has LS-6 glide bombs*, AND the by far most effective, at least against any kinds of units, A-G weapon in the game, the GB-6 SFW**, and you also get the GB-6 HE unitary bomb, same delivery vehicle but one big bomb (1500 pounds total, so guessing about 1000 pound bomb weight). JSOW-A in the F-15E, F-16C and F/A-18C are indeed really disappointing, and that applies to the basic GB-6 from the Jeff as well, which is effectively the same as the JSOW. *Basically winged JDAMs with potentially 40+ nautical mile range, come in 250, 500 and 1000 pound classes, or 100 kg, 250 kg and 500 kg, the two smaller ones can be dual racked for a total of up to 6 very long range bombs in the 500-1000 pound class. **Basically a winged, GPS guided CBU-97/105 with even more pucks on board and a range of 30+ nautical miles.

And FWIW, wouldn't be talking about this if the 19th December openbeta changelist didn't have the following: Added: Smart Weapons MC Synch

Ah, good call, that'd explain the two moving at different speeds.