RyanR

Leave the HAD as SOI for as long as possible. With the TGP in the opposite MFD, it will get closer to the emitter as the HAD gets a better quality location. Not foolproof, though. Still a bit of a needle in a haystack, and you have to slew the TGP quite a bit to find it. I bet this works a LOT better with a donor over the datalink, so you can get down to PGM1 with plenty of distance. Once you find the emitter, marking it is standard stuff. -Ryan

Many thanks for the response! Perhaps I can use "Junctions" to send some other programs to another drive. I *think* I have a free NVMe slot in this machine. I dunno why I didn't take notes last time I had the case open. Definitely need to save some pennies for one. See how long I can push this out. I *really* want to upgrade my rudder pedals first. -Ryan

DCS is *huge*.... and is just going to get bigger. I downloaded the Kola map to support the project, as well as a few others, and a was surprised to only have a few GB's left on my 1TB SSD boot drive. Not surprising since I have all my Autodesk/Adobe/work software on this machine. I cleaned house quite a bit, and got an extra hundred GB's back. With the last update, I still didn't have enough space to install it. Soooo.... I uninstalled some terrains/modules that I'm not using. Job done. Of course, when I want to reinstall those modules, you have to download them from ED.... which takes a long time. Two hours. Lot of data! Is there a way to "save" module installers on another drive, so that I can just pull them back in? Or is this just impractical with updates making potential "saved" versions obsolete? Can you spread a DCS install across multiple drives? What do you guys do? I've a 2TB data drive.... but it's full of.... data. It's also a spinner, so slower than an SSD. I can't remember if I've another hard drive bay in this box. I guess I could do a DCS specific drive. First world problems. Damn you ED and third party developers for your super cool sim, planes, and places to fly them! Thanks! -Ryan

Pretty cheap for the amount of work that goes into this stuff for a niche product. Hardware is what's expensive.... -Ryan

Wags has a vid on YouTube. My next port of call is to get a screen grab of what each bomb can have and start researching them individually. -Ryan

Actually the thread you linked was the one I was referencing: Sounds like the Lightening/LANTIRN mish-mash will become LANTIRN (I'm guessing the AN/AAQ-14 targeting pod) after the Sniper ATP? Just clearing my head is the trick these days..... The other question was simply how much "precision" should there be between any of these targeting pods and a Maverick seeker in the best case? We do a lot of complaining on the forum about this, under the assumption that perfection is reality, and deviation from perfection must a bug..... however reality often is imperfect. Thanks, -Ryan I said "over my head", not NineLine. It's all good. -Ryan

I'm still a newbie here when it comes to avionics after 1945. There's another thread on this that's a bit over my head. It's all fine, as the F-16C module is still super cool, and an endless source of learning and fun. Could we have a quick, not-too-emphatic thread about what we have on our Blk50? We have a mix of Litening and LANTRIN in our TGP? Not Sniper. The pod we have will eventually be modeled as LANTRIN? The other hard-to-answer question I have (if we're working with a hodge-podge of pods) is, how much precision *should* there be between the TGP and a AGM-65 seeker? "Video game" logic would dictate that once you boresight a Maverick, there would be laser-like precision between the two sensors. However, since DCS simulates the avionics this some level of imprecision might be expected. Yes the INS development may be impacting things negatively, but I dunno what we should expect. The INS work is super cool, by the way. To start this thread on a positive note, I've been captivated by the F-16 since Falcon was initially released in 1988 on the Atari ST and Amiga. I read the manual probably a thousand times. Read everything I could on the F-16 back then. I got into WWII sims at some point, and stayed in that era for ages. The DCS F-16 brings me back to being a kid again. It's been endless fun, and endless learning. Thanks, -Ryan

Thanks for the update! Info from you guys really keeps the experience enjoyable. -Ryan

It is a bit creepy to look down at the ECM switches.... -Ryan

Here's a sloppy run through the same setup with an air start. Boresighting should be automatically set up. I still had to slew the Maverick seeker in every case. BTR-80's are nice, hot targets. Still, auto-handoff is hopeless. Is this how "reality" is? I would not be surprised, given the zillions of variables. I'm still dumbfounded that all of these sensors can work in concert in real life to the level they do in-game. Thanks! -Ryan maverick_hot_start.trk

OK. This makes sense. Fix this problem, and the need to MFD back and forth "issue" goes away. Thanks! -Ryan

Had a chance to play around with Maverick boresighting. Seems better, but not fixed. First, the MFD behavior/logic has changed..... again. Tremendously so. It's like learning DCS all over again. If the WPN is SOI, when you cycle between the two wing stations in PRE mode, the missiles just point straight ahead. Regardless of where the TGP is pointed. In the past, they always slaved to where the TGP was. Now, you have to go back to the TGP MFD to get the Mavericks to slave to the TGP... and then back to the WPN MFD to lock the missile up. Sooooo.... even with a good boresight, you're constantly going back and forth between the two MFD's with DMS-down. Sometimes TMS up jumps to WPN.... mostly not. To fire multiple Mavericks you're jumping back and forth between the two MFD's. Second, the missles boresight much, much better.... but not good enough. They're off a bit.... so much so that there's almost no point in using the TGP. The Auto-handoff is hopeless. I boresighted at least three times in the track attached. Once on the ground, and twice in the air. -Ryan mavericks.trk

Yeah. I thought the pilot model would be kinda lame.... but the kneeboard function is super cool. That HARM code page is quite neat, too! -Ryan

I just saw the other thread about the change in the changelog. I'm getting old, but I didn't think I was that old. -Ryan

Phew. I thought I was nuts for seeing this before... and then it changed. Thanks for setting the record straight! -Ryan

Very strange. It's like the changelog.... changed..... in the last few hours. I swear it said there was an optional "auto" boresight, with the word "OPTION" next to it. Now it simply says:"Added Maverick and HMCS Auto-Boresight, automatic for hot starts. Cold starts require manual boresight". This latter is just fine. Aligning the HMCS is fun, quick, and interesting..... and it's one more thing you can do while the INS is finishing up. I got used to manual bore-sighting. Get it close on the ground, and then it's real quick in the air. -Ryan

According to the release notes for today's update, we should have working in-flight Maverick boresighting now, as well as the option to auto-boresight. Gotta test it out. -Ryan

All of the Maverick threads seem to merge. The current problem (an actual problem) is not the same problem (me, user error) that started this thread. Any word if we'll get a fix with the next update? Supposedly, that should be tomorrow, if the F-4E whining is anything to go by. -Ryan

Interestingly, "LOW" popped up again for a JDAM. Cycling through the A-G weapons made it disappear when I got back to the JDAM's. Could well be an INS-improvement related issue. -Ryan

Thanks for the explanation. That image is the one I had in my head. The whole system is fascinating in how it works in concert. -Ryan

Yup! But you have to be in GM/GMT to get the CZ. So if you CZ one sensor, all the sensors are "zeroed" out? -Ryan

I think this is correct behavior per one of the manuals. It'll correct a navigational offset. I noticed the sensor "mark" on the HSD is offset from the steerpoint until you Cursor Zero, at which point, the sensors will snap back to the steerpoint. Question I've had: is there a "master" way to clear the offsets/SPI's from NAV master mode without having to pop into A-G mode to CZ a sensor? Just to clear out all of the confusion one puts into the system during a flight. -Ryan

Does the HARM pod help with "post-fire accuracy" at all?.... or is it just that you're closer? When using the HTS, the HUD symbology seems really "optimistic" about the HARM hitting anything. Even with a steerpoint, you can often see that the specific radar isn't "on", and if is is on, it might as well be anywhere at PGM5. -Ryan

Yeah.... I've found it fidgety, too. You need to TMS-right once to upgrade them to system targets, and then a second right to bug one and cycle between them. A problem is that the first TMS-right "spotlights" the radar azimuth. So anything on the radar outside of the lines can't be bugged with the extra TMS-right. Also, the all the targets need to be within the radar's elevation. In short, this means that all the targets you want to cycle through need to be in a relatively narrow radar beam. Then you add jamming in, and it gets trickier. There very well could be a problem/bug with the radar. There are at least a couple significant known radar bugs since the last update. I wouldn't be surprised if something else was going on. -Ryan