AndrewDCS2005

@bandit648 absolutely outstanding work and thank you again! Just spent few hours at twilight time doing nothing but looking around with life-like beautiful views.

@Muchocracker L&S designation is fine, do you have info if current implementation (which is stated as WIP) already allows to launch, guide and hit MSI-only track by AIM-120 without locking the target with onboard radar? I've tried few times but no success so far.

Two questions on F/A-18C MSI please 1. release notes mentions AWACS - shouldn't all donors on TNDL network provide tracks for MSI? Is this coming in the future? 2. great transparency with known issues, but wouldn't it be better to complete the MSI with quality even if it takes another 3+ months? What is the reason to push it out now?

What I was looking for is something similar to @Minsky outstanding F/A-18C kneeboard and breakdown of CASE I/II/III but seems there's none (unless Minsky would gift us one for Tomcat ) Victory 205 IRL-inspired CASE I guide is great of course, thanks for bringing this up!

Are Tomcat Case I-III recoveries documented anywhere? Official Heatblur DCS F-14 Tomcat — Heatblur F-14 Tomcat 1.0 documentation does not have anything on carrier landing, and while there are some videos on YT on Case I (some 4+ years old) but where is the actual as-implemented DCS F-14A/B documentation on carrier ops? Hard to believe there's none.

No the issue is that second shot was either not guiding at all (first track) or was guiding and then stopped (second track) - while target remained in the same configuration as few sec before while guiding. For example, what happened here (4m37s into second track)?

Tested a bit more and have another interesting track - first Phoenix was guiding OK for 2min 10s but then stopped while having me in sight just 6nm away. Why? Second Phoenix was guiding only first 20s and then stopped. I don't think I was outside launcher's radar FOV. At 30-40nm range and M3+ I'd expect Phoenix to be lethal vs my sloppy defense, but somehow, they just stop guiding. What is happening here? AIM-54C-stop-guiding.zip.acmi AIM-54C-stop-guiding.trk

AIM-54C-MK60 launched by F-14B AI on me as target at 37nm distance. Missile takes 45 degree pitch up and goes for the stars (hitting 167kft ASL at apogee). While launcher had me ahead of him all the time (while dodging first fired Phoenix), looks like missile never guided. Looks like a bug to me. Track and tacview attached (Iraq map, can try to repro clean on Caucasus if needed). AIM-54C.zip.acmi AIM-54C.trk

@BIGNEWY thank you for specific response and looking into this. However, there are still more questions than answers, please. First of all, let's make sure one of the bugs in question is well understood since there was never a direct response to that. It is not about shape or color of the track, but the size of it. In one of two FCR images below, there is NO sufficient onboard FCR track data for bugging and shooting. In other of the two images below, there IS sufficient onboard FCR track data for bugging and shooting. Can you tell which is which? How would DCS F-16 user know? This is trivially reproducible 100% and clean repro tracks have been attached in previous messages in this thread. Is this a statement about future correct implementation? If so, why is that? These are two different states of the tracks, how would the pilot know the difference if FCR will show none?

Yeah, many threads on the same topic, some more than 3 years old. FCR CRM symbology is quite broken by the definition of ED's DCS F-16 own manual. Despite claiming "it works as intended", it was never demonstrated by anyone (ED or community) how to get all target tracks states and transition between them, with TNDL. As bad as it is, I no longer expect it to be fixed. F-16 is out of EA which by itself is just a formality, it was in EA for so many years it became meaningless. However, this marks a mental milestone of declaring it done and closed (and aggressively locking threads which point otherwise). While some fixes might come, it is no longer considered requiring significant work to close all the gaps. The focus is on future moneymakers - Mig-29, F-15, F-35 (don't tell me each module has its own team - we've heard this so many times, but the results speak for themselves; F-16 team might be 3 people total). The paradox is that flagship modules are half-done and half-broken, but the best available on the market at the same time A-10 is a notable exception since it was THE product back in the day - there was nothing else and entire business lived and breathed by it.

From https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/release/2.9.17.11733/ of June 19 Since then we already had 2.9.17.12034 and new update is there but no mention of MSI on F/A-18 anymore. Why and when?

Reported this back in 2023 - if you have patience to read through the thread with the responses from Raptor9 (ED employee) it was basically admitted FCR symbology is broken. One learning from the past was mentioned in this thread which could be helpful to distill whats going on - use IFF OUT (on UHF/VHF knob) to remove TNDL symbology and see the FCR-only tracks state.

@arnon I looked at your track - note the radar antenna elevation caret position (two notches above vertical center) and the resulting radar scan altitudes (next to acquisition cursor) being 99kft/97kft. Your radar just points up to the sky, not ahead of you. This might be a result of some key/control binding for ANT ELEV knob on the throttle, which is moved all the way to the "up" I also run the F-16C training mission for AIM-120, without any changes - this is what the CRM page looks like, radar pointing straight forward, with scan altitudes from 12kft to 36kft

Really looking forward to this. Since there was sufficient amount of public unclassified source data and documentation for ED to implement this, I expect it to be properly documented (btw when will the F/A-18C guide be updated?) and available to all users. And still expect a bunch of initial confusion since this will significantly change BVR dynamics with spatial separation between track donors (varying from same strike package to dedicated AWACS) and Hornet launchers.

Just tried this out. Target: T-72 under railway bridge Platform: F/A-18 Weapon: GBU-12 Fuze: FMU-152 set to function delay 0.18s Config: EFUZ=DLY1 on stores page While the GBU-12 goes through the bridge and doesn't detonate immediately on impact, in the 0.18s of delay before detonation it continues to move beyond initial point of impact and detonates around ~30ft from the target. So the question is how this scenario is expected to be carried out for targets below bridges (or hangars/shelters?) - shorter delay leads to premature detonation, longer delay detonates off target since the weapon seems to move under the surface quite a bit. Track attached. F18-GBU12-tank-under-bridge.trk

@razo+r thanks for the hint! The compass is only available on in-flight map view via F10. It is not available in Mission Editor or Mission Planner which is bizzare and led to my request. Ruler with distance + TH + MH also only available on in-flight F10 map view. ME only has distance + TH. Will update topic to reflect the ask more precisely.

Why do I need a compass and ruler? Because these are fundamental tools required to work with the map. Like pencil with paper. In practical terms, planning the ingress/egress bearings, PUP and TOT with landscape and altitudes taken into account (say ingress on 180 goes over a hill at 20nm range, while ingress on 90 goes over flat fields for >50nm). Also there's no ruler in DCS, only distance measurement between two points. Ruler is this thingie below, which I can move and rotate over the map. @Pizzicato where is a current compass implementation on DCS maps please?

Need a compass and range tool (combined) overlay to be able to use on any map. Movable and resizable, ideally multiple instances on one map. Showing true/magnetic bearings taking into account current datetime set on map/mission, relative bearing between any two points. Range built-in, showing distance in currently selected units (metric/imperial).

Congratulations Currenthill and great job ED listening and acting in interest of your customers!

Great, thank you for clarification @NytHawk

Umm, maybe a stupid question but this definitely wasn't the case earlier (at least few releases back). Leading edge flaps on F-16 seem to be misaligned, in a slightly elevated position. Is this just a visual glitch or has impact on the FM too? Same misaligned position in-flight around zero AoA

Just tested CCRP with MK82 LD, HD, RET - for each with two bombs released, all direct hits, no issues.

@jojyrocks the track for MK82 lasts one second, there's nothing to see.

CBU99 seems to indeed fall short. Conditions: Caucasus, no wind, 20 degrees C, 750mm Hg, targets at near-zero ASL. Weapon/fuzing: CBU99, Mk339 mod 1 fuze, 2s PRI delay. Platform/config: F/A-18C, CCIP, QTY=2, INT=100ft Results: 0 targets hit/0 kills on first run, 1 hit/1 kill on the second run. There are actually two problems with CBU99 1 - it falls short 2- its spread pattern is much smaller than MK20 despite being exactly the same weapon, in the same SUU-75/A/B dispensers, with the same load of 247 MK 118 MOD 0 HEAT bomblets. And it does not really work as a cluster bomb weapon, and only direct hits on individual target will work. To kill a group of spread units CBU99 is much less effective. MK20 in the same dispenser with the same Mk339 fuze and the same config, released in the same conditions, covers more area. I am not reporting this as a separate issue as there's zero chance of it being fixed (its been like this since forever and no one ever raised this). FA18-CBU99-CCIP.trk