Floydii

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.

You need the hotfix as ED went early on Thier patch which meant the JF17 AAR wasn't quite done. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=268105

Something worth considering is that Deka may not have all the information on the LD10's functionality (or is not allowed to simulate it). So some functionality might be missing. It strikes me that a missile with the LD10's range and navigational accuracy would be able to filter certain emitters, especially in Active and Passive launch modes.

There is likely a division in DCS between air and ground based radars which means that ARMs only chase ground emitters (game limitation). In reality, ARMs are programmed with a 'library' of one or more emitters (the same thing that let's your RWR tell radar types apart). This library determines what the missile can home in on. Loose parameters in the library can lead to incidents like the HARM getting launched at a B52 gun radar.

Per attached image, the first third of the 2S19 SPH's barrel disappears at about 100-150m from the camera position. Version 2.5.6.43931

Fingers crossed that some dedicated soul grabs the textures on release and does a quick and dirty re-labelling

Yeah, it could do with being a bit quieter (like it used to be).

That'll do it.

There are a pair of floating cranes above Apsheronsk at N44.27.25 E039.43.37 1347ft ASL Found them with my rotor blades while transiting to a target.

Option 3, with the probe fitted by default would be the best option IMO. Having a probe fitted will not lead to mission failure, not being able to AAR and running out of fuel will lead to mission failure.

L0op8ack, my concern with it not being fitted by default, and now your suggestion that the Mission designer won't be able to fit/remove the probe in the ME, is that players may launch on SP missions that need the probe without fitting it themselves. Perhaps another option is treating it like the Mirage's ECLAIR pod or the Gazelle's IR suppressor. It is added on its own 'pylon'. Finally, I'm not sure mission designers in DCS could be accused of complaining about too many options. Having it as an option in the ME and in game would be the most flexible solution.

First, this is a great addition, can't wait. Second, with regard to 'add/remove the AAR Probe', please make it close to instant when on the ground in game (the same delay as when you ask the Ground Crew to update the DTC). I say this because fitting or removing a major piece of the aircraft isn't really something that is relevant in the context of the conduct of the game. In real life, this process would probably take more than 1-2 minutes (10 minutes? 2 hours?) and I am not able to think of a situation where, in reality, the rapid fitting or removal of an AAR probe would be operationally relevant ('Quick! I know you've just flown a 10 minute intercept without the boom, but now we need you to magic DCS rearm your jet and fly a 4 hour long range strike with AAR!). Now, where this will happen is in an MP server where you join, but the probe is/isn't fitted, and you need to change that along with your weapons to suit the dynamic situation presented. In this case, waiting minutes for a boom to be fitted doesn't match with the rest of the DCS 'ecology' where rearming takes about 20 seconds and your ever talented ground crew can repair your entire plane in 3 minutes (which in itself is completely arbitrary, likely a hangover of LOMAC PvP days). A delay in this regard is a irrelevant nuisance that doesn't add to the enjoyment of the game. All this being said, the ability for the mission creator to choose if the probe is fitted by default and the ability to determine if the player is allowed to remove it should be retained. The caveat here is that the default setting in the editor should be AAR probe fitted and players being able to remove it.

Some detailed info on performance would be good for optimum flight planning. With its limited fuel, the Jeff really needs careful management to optimise range and loiter.

I find occasionally that I have to step between pods to get it to launch. Unsure as to why.

I wonder if the sound file can be nodded?

I was using them today with PPs and RPs, seemed to work fine.

RWR and datalink are now good to go.

:thumbup:

Uboats, I do not agree with Zippoa's suggestion that LS6s should be moved from 'Missiles' to 'Bombs'. The arbitrary distinction made by DCS between 'Bombs' and 'Missiles' with regard to what SAMs do and don't attempt to intercept is incorrect and moving weapons into the 'bomb' category only exacerbates this problem. In the current situation all bombs (on all aircraft) should be moved into the 'missiles' category rather than the other way around. Noting this is an ED issue to rectify, technically, ALL munitions (Bomb/Missile/Rocket) should be engage-able by SAMs that have anti-munition capability (within DCS, this is limited to some radar cued and/or guided systems). The actual ability to engage is determined by the munition's RCS, the SAM system's radar detection capability and reaction time (I assume these are numbers modelled in DCS). Whether or not the SAM chooses to engage should be a function of the likelihood of successful interception and the priority of other targets. In practice, it would be rare that SAMs would engage non-lofted dumb munitions as the aircraft would usually be in range of a SAM system before release. The mission editor currently has the option to toggle a SAM system's ability to engage munitions (set to off by default if IIRC) and this should be the primary method of determining munition intercept behavior, not shifting weapon categories around. Making GB6's 'equal' to JDAMs in the way proposed by Zippoa is not the correct way forward and speaks more to concepts of balancing gameplay than attempting to achieve realism.

I wonder of the second radio does voice by data (VOIP) IRL when connected a wider datalink? Right now you can use SRS on that freq, but it's every JF17 on the server talking to each other. It'd be good if that could be cut down to flights. LINK16 has digital voice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_16