Muchocracker

It might be related to the INS alignment switch not being set to NAV/IFA before starting the helmet alignment. I would try doing this in reverse and see if it reoccurs.

When then happens what symbology *does* it show, is it the VISUAL mode large segmented ring? Make sure you're not inadvertently hitting the CAGE/UNCAGE button a second time once it finishes the coarse/fine alignment. That or check that your button is not ghosting inputting.

More or less. That function of MSI that allows for designating any trackfile as L&S has always been missing. 2 weeks

You're doing unnecesary things for reasons i can't seem to figure out. The jet is always going to start at its "normal" stabilator T/O trim of 12 degree's, you then increase it as required based on gross weight. There's nothing you need to do beyond this.

HMD knob on the very right side of the front console next to the DDI

the mechanization for HAQ has changed a few times over the years. If you're trying to lock a different target all you have to do is undesigate then reenter HAQ to attempt lock on the target you're intending to shoot at. You shouldnt have to be moving your camera at all to do that

Rad-alt based fuse is the FMU-140 which is only available for the CBU-99

It would depend on if HB changed things in the jet to support the new fuse system, which i'm not sure on. I don't fly the tomcat. With the mk-339 mechanical fuse it's time from release based. In the hornet we just have to make sure the timings on the bomb match with the stores management and it'll account for it in our CCIP/RP release cues. I don't know if that's the case for you guys in the F-14. I would consult the manual on that.

Make bug reports in the respective module forums

If you would have actually read the changelog you'd know it had nothing to do with ground units. It was for for having the in-cockpit behavior match the actual missile behavior. Pre-flaring was already possible after launch, it just wasnt represented to the player on their HUD's

Make a separate post, or bump an existing one.

yes, as i've already described

if you have 4 pylons with 2 each you have to individually program PP1 and PP2 for each station

You can't assign more than 1 set of coordinates to PP1 on any station. If you're using 2x jdam's on a single pylon you have to put in coordinates into PP1 and then the other set into PP2. During weapon release it will not auto step the PP2 mission's for each station. So when you are releasing you have drop the first 2 stations in PP1. Then switch the station to PP2 (from the mission page) for the first station, release. Then swap the other station to PP2 before releasing.

we've had this one reported for some time. Probably just gonna be a waiting game till they do the next batch of FCS changes.

The FM change was multiple patches ago bro.

for the exact reason i had described. If you only did waypoint designate the pod is slaved to the coordinates of that waypoint. If the altitude is off it'll look like the pod is not actually tracking the bridge (because it isnt, and never is). When you change the pod to a track mode it then makes the TGP your sensor of interest and it contrast tracks whatever is at the center of the camera's FoV.

2 JF-17's 1 at 30 thousand and the other 5 thousand. Both of them the radar starts getting low Pd hits around the same time and eventually become semi-stable trackfiles in that 80-75nm area like the shot i showed before. Same scan volume setting and HPRF as my previous screenshot. You'd know if he's jamming by looking for a [JA] symbol in the dugout box at the top of the radar page along the bearing line of the target. The hornet radar has not had any imposed look-down penalties since the start of the phased radar overhauls, ED said as much in the phase 2 whitepaper that look-down penalties would be reintroduced with phase 3.

this file you posted is a shortcut and not the actual .trk

waypoint is likely not exactly at the altitude of the bridge. It "looks" like the pod is drifting but it's actually just rotating along a point above your intended target.

semi-stable trackfile built at 77nm in 4/40 HPRF.

Collect a trackfile that demonstrates the issue and post it.

Cant't really help you if you don't give us trackfiles showing what you're running into. Check your scan volume in azimuth and elevation to make sure the target is within the frame. Reduce the azimuth setting to decrease the frame time and get more hits to build trackfiles at long range. And use the correct PRF for the target's aspect. I use the radar mutliple times a week and have no problems detecting and tracking fighters at +60nm.

It absolutely does. For DPCA and thus STAP to work. It requires many different receiver channels (commonly done at every single antenna element) and digital beam forming to process and filter the main lobe clutter by weighting normalized dopper and look angle. Thus requiring a phased array antenna. The difference is the SU-27's IRST is not a fully integrated sensor into a unified trackfile processing architecture. It can't use it in the same way the F-35 can.

EOTS, DAS, RWR, and MADL donations all contribute weapons quality track data to its closed loop sensor fusion