Floydii

Harriers work fine from the large FARP if you use the grassy half of the FARP square that doesn't have helipads on it. As long as you don't try to take off with the wind behind you, or load up to max weight, STOL takeoffs (per launching from the Tarawa) are very doable.

:thumbup:

Yeah, That looks like a G-Suit issue, noting you appear to be in a climbing turn evading a missile. Look for the blue plug to the rear of where you plug the oxygen mask tube in.

Just noticed with the new patch: Pls excuse my slightly uneven red lines. The issue appears to be that the left hand bomb (as you look at the picture) is mounted on the 'long' station 3/5 pylon whilst the right bomb is mounted on the 'short' 3/5 pylon. No gameplay issues I can see (bombs release no issues), but it looks like which pylon is used has been applied a bit randomly for the new 500lb class weapons on the inboard stations. A quick check shows: Mk82 - Short pylons Type200A - Long pylons GBU-12 - Short and long pylons Great to see small bombs on the inboard stations.. I guess Deka isn't giving us double ejectors though. :(

This. Despite some people's experiences indicating they don't use the AAR capability, some of us do alot of tanking in the Jeff.

It would appear the 2S6 is using its track radar. The following image is from the JF17, it shows three radars 2S6 ('19') associated radars on the HSI/SA page. Note that the closest radar has the 'crosshair' symbol rather than a simple circle. This indicates that the radar is threat/tracking. It also matches to when the 2S6 slews to target the JF17 ingame. The issue is that it doesn't give audio warning that you are now being tracked. This behaviour is not observed in the FA18, AV8B or A10A (noting other Aircraft were not tested).

Good Chat.. I guess not.

Something that appears to have been missed here is that the Tunguska has two radars, a search radar (the spinning one on the back of the turret) and a track radar on the front of the turret. The search radar is likely TWS, but it isn't accurate enough in track fidelity to guide a missile. Its main job is finding and cueing to targets. However, it could give reasonably accurate range and possibly altitude data to determine when to fire. You frequently see the search radar pop up on RWR in DCS As far as as the track radar goes, I'm not confident the game models this engagement method properly/at all. using the tracking radar gives a higher probability of hitting the target and is a requisite if you are shooting in conditions where TV/IR conditions don't allow optical tracking of the target (literally laying crosshairs on the target like the Vikhr/HOT3 for example). It's also a heavily automated mode, so is best for rapid defensive engagements against fleeting targets. I suspect DCS just defaults to the 2S6 finding targets with its search radar, then conducting optical engagements all of the time. This is fine for clear day/night engagements, but shooting through low cloud and fog is a unrealistic at best. If you want the extreme of this, go up against the Chinese HQ-7 in game. The launch unit has no radar emissions you can detect at all, and it happily conducts silent engagements through cloud up to 21,000 ft.

Great news! The correct guidance method arguably has far more of an effect on game play than the rocket spinning in a physically correct manner.

It is curious that they prioritised spin stabilisation over the correct laser guidance method. Beam riding vs SALH has a significant impact on the usability of the weapon (specifically being less able to break away from the target without affecting missile range). Whereas the spin stabilisation is not something you really observe unless in F6 view. I'm sure there are some aerodynamic concerns towards the edge of the BRMs envelope as it slows it's speed and hence spin, but we are talking about an Air to ground munition (not the sacred cows of Air to Air), so some abstraction to give it a realistic max range in order to give it a more realistic guidance behaviour would be preferable.

Ok.

Pretty sure jammer activation is a hotas only thing.

This thread has really gone on a magical mystery tour without a single word from the Devs as to why smaller bombs cannot be carried on the inboard pylons.

Not default ones no. They are still finalising the 3D model, which is delaying the release of the paint kit.. which is delaying full scale skinning efforts.

You are correct, my mistake on the MK83s.

Any reply from the Devs on this? Every payload diagram we have seen has at least 1x 500lb class bomb on the inboard pylons. Is including them WIP or has it been ruled out based on Deka internal loadout diagrams? As an aside, why are mk83s not available on the outboard pylons when the 1257 pound LS-6-500 is?

What would work well is an invisible non-collidable FARP 'zone' that functions as long as the appropriate support vehicles are within 200m of it. That way, if you taxi over to the vehicles you get support from the FARP. It's hardly an edge case either. WW2, Viggen and harrier ops along with anything where a giant dirt platform isn't called for would be goid uses for this zone.

Rather than continuing to make random claims of fact, prove it.

Will the HQ7 launch unit be updated to include a tracking radar? I am referring specifically to the launch vehicle and not the search radar vehicle. Currently it conducts silent engagements where the target aircraft is not alerted via RWR that it is being tracked. I understand this is possible with the optical (and thermal?) tracker fitted to the system. However, in DCS, cloud and overcast is not taken into consideration and therefore the launcher can guide missiles through obscuration that would usually prevent visual (silent) engagement. This is exacerbated by the ~17000ft ceiling of the system, which is significantly higher than other 'silent' systems (stinger, igla, rapier). Given DCS limitations, and the fact that the actual HQ7 launch unit is fitted with a monopulse tracking radar, the system should work in a similar fashion to the SA8 or SA15 where the target aircraft is illuminated with a tracking radar during engagement. Can this be added to provide a more realistic experience within the context of DCS? Reference for HQ7 method of operation: https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-HQ-7-Crotale.html

100% this. Preferably radio frequencies as well.

So can it be generically visible in AG mode? So we know where the TPOD or ground radar is looking?

The E3 can readily geolocate ground emitters. I offer this information on the ESM system fitted to the E3, which goes into detail about how it can detect, fixate and catalogue air, sea and land emitters. This information is contributed to the common operating picture as required (which gives fighters distilled info on threat emitter locations). I hope this clarifies things.

The SPI (wp40) is not. The point that actually allows you to compare where your pod or radar is looking relative the map, flightplan or radar threat when the SPJ is fitted.

To expand on this, why does the current SPI/waypoint only display on the HSD in NAV mode but not in AA/AG mode? Like the earlier issue with the datalink not showing data on the HSI when in AG mode, is this simply a omission in the current modelling of the avionics? If it is the case with the actual JF17, it would be great to see the current SPI/WPT marked on the HSD in all modes, not just NAV.

Back to the OP question, why does the current SPI/waypoint only display on the HSD in NAV mode but not in AA/AG mode? Like the earlier issue with the datalink not showing data on the HSI when in AG mode, is this simply a omission in the current modelling of the avionics? If it is the case with the actual JF17, it would be great to see the current SPI/WPT marked on the HSD in all modes, not just NAV.