Bankler

@BIGNEWYHow's the investigation on this one going? Curious what you SMEs are saying, especially in the context of the unambiguous Hornet driver claims above ( @G B @Mo410etc). Cheers!

Curious about this one. While the workaround is simple enough, it just feels really off and random. Is there documentation indicating that you need to hold ON/OFF (and it if's correct, what's the reason for that)? The Hornet driver I talked to didn't recognize it all all and said "no, you just press it".

No docs really. But from the top of my head. Disable in-flight feedback: You will no longer see the score as you're flying, but instead only see the summary. This is useful if you don't want the help of receiving the abeam message telling you exactly when to turn final, for instance. Enable public feedback: This makes the continuous feedback normally only displayed to you be shown for everyone. Useful if you're coaching someone and want to see their scores as they're flying. Will become super spammy if you're several people in the pattern. Disable LSO: Disables the LSO voice. Enable pattern mode: Goes into "pattern mode" instead of the default "break mode". In pattern mode you don't perform the full break. Instead, just like in IRL carrier quals, you take off, leave gear out, drop flaps and hook, climb to 600 ft and turn directly into the pattern. Max score is changed to 63 as you are no longer graded in the break. Useful for quick repetitions if you struggle with the final turn for instance, or just want to make touch and goes.

Hi! I'm sorry to hear you're having problem. Unfortunately I don't have the stable DCS version installed, so I can't try it out. I'm attaching the previous version here, so you can try that one. Bankler's Case 1 Recovery Trainer_v06-10_LegacyCarrier.miz Bankler's Case 1 Recovery Trainer_v06-10_Supercarrier.miz

Good catch LastRifleRound! Related thread:

The Litening has been carried on the cheek station on USMC Hornets. Though it is extremely rare. I don't really have an opinion on whether it should be a thing in DCS or not (doesn't really matter much when we have the ATFLIR). In general though, I kind of like it when ED leaves plausible things like these in the hands of the players (just like they let us carry fancy infrared Mavericks on our Hornets) instead of disabling them on their end. If it's technically possible I tend to vote for allowing the players to enjoy it, even if it's not really a thing operationally IRL. Granted it doesn't eat up development time from other things (which it doesn't in this case, as it's already in there).

Respectfully, now we have three experts (GB, GB's Hornet pilot friend, and Mo410) confirming that the code can be set on the ground. All respect for the team (they are heroes... the amount of bug fixes in the last patch is absolutely insane!), but I'm curious to hear what documentation they could possibly have that claims the opposite. Because it doesn't make much sense to arbitrarily make something impossible just because documentation doesn't explicitly say that you can do it. With that reasoning, you could for instance argue that you shouldn't be able to use rudder trim if below 1400 lbs of fuel, unless the documentation explicitly says that you can do this (or any other arbitrary limitation). Unless you have documentation claiming you can't set the code on the ground for the OFP that is being simulated, or any other OFP for that matter, maybe it should be accepted that it's simply an assumption from the developer who wrote the code for this system in the game. Nothing strange about that (if you don't know, you have to guess, should happen all the time!), but that doesn't mean it's correct. Cheers! (Sorry for the messy look of the first image! Didn't want to display names on anyone without clear permission)

@IronMikeHi there! Any news on this? Cheers!

Sorry for the 2019 necro. But this doesn't seem to be correct. What Drac found (in August 2019...) only explains when the laser can be fired, not when you should be able to set the laser code. According to GB, you should always be able to set the code, regardless if the laser is armed or not. At least it wasn't in any of the software versions he flew, and I can't really imagine a reason why that would change. It would be a very arbitrary limitation. Setting up the laser code before take off makes a lot of sense. These were my questions to him: Q: 1) Can the laser be armed when on the ground? 2) Do you need to arm the laser to change laser code? 3) Is there any way you can set the laser code for the tpod before you take off? A: 1) I think the answer is no. Memory faded on that a bit but I am 80% sure. (He later asked another pilot, who verified this, but that's already correctly implemented anyway) 2) No. You can change the code without laser armed. 3) Yes. Just change it whenever you want. He also added "I did fly a different software version and I do know for a fact that several big differences exist between my timeline and older ATFLIRs. I really don’t think changing laser codes would be one of them, but I can’t be sure." So my take on it is that it should be considered a bug, unless documentation clearly says otherwise.

If you're eager for it, here's instructions on how to modify it to include F-14A: 1) Replace some of the current aircraft with A's in the ME. 2) Close the ME. 3) Extract the TrapTraining.lua script from the .miz file (with 7zip or any other zip program) and change one line in there: self.isTomcat = self.typeName == "F-14B"; should instead be: self.isTomcat = self.typeName == "F-14B" or self.typeName == "F-14A"; 4) Replace the old TrapTraining.lua in the miz with your modified one. This should let you replace all the B's with A's, or even have a mix of them. Theoretically, it should even allow you to replace some Hornets with F-14As if you prefer to.

Sorry, only the B version.

VERSION 7.0.0 SPRING UPDATE!! T-45C support available! You can now download version 7.0.0 in the Original Post! With the new T-45C mod and the new weather stuff being released, I couldn't resist getting my hands dirty again. In addition to adding a version that supports the T-45C, I took the opportunity to polish a couple of other things as well. Notably, the overhead tanker now follows the carrier as it steams north, thanks to the Moose Recovery Tanker feature. So big thanks to FunkyFranky and the rest of the Moose team for that. Getting the cockpit auto config to work in the T-45C (Hook, Lights, HSI, ADI, TCN settings, CRS line and so on) was quite a challenge with lots of trial and error. But it seems to work pretty well now. Be advised that as new versions of the mod comes out, things *may* change or stop working, you cannot be 100% sure. Also note that, unlike before, the hook is now automatically lowered if you start airborne (on both Goshawk and Tomcat). The reason it wasn't like this before was that I didn't want to lower it if you started on the deck. But since then I have found a way of taking into account which specific slot the player is in. A lot of people have reached out to me, here and on Discord, and expressed their gratitude and told me how the mission have helped them and/or their squadrons. Every time this happens, it really puts a smile on my face and makes my day. The community is great, and I'm very happy to be part of it and at least contribute a little. Now show me those Goshawk 70+ results! Cheers, Bankler CHANGE LOG 7.0.0 * Added T-45C Goshawk version of the miz. * Increased player slots from 32 to 44 (12 additional VFA-192 Hornets or TW-1 Goshawks depending on miz version). * Adjusted weather for new DCS 2.7 weather system. * Cockpit auto config now automatically lowers the hook if you start airborne. * Cockpit auto config now automatically turns off the exterior lights switch. * Changed Sidewinders from AIM-9M to AIM-9X on all Hornets. * Increased fuel on Hornets starting at Batumi from 37% to 50%. * Changed sidenumbers on almost every aircraft to be a little more realistic. * All Tomcats now have 32% fuel and carry the AIM-9M on the outermost rails. * Fixed skins on aircraft that had lost them with the new syntax in which skins are saved in missions. * Removed Hueys that could be used for legacy LSO stuff. * Updated Moose version. * AWACS and Tanker now respawn if the are shot down or run out of gas. * Tanker now uses Moose Recovery Tanker system, making sure it's always over the carrier. Enjoy!

Yes, I'm working on a version for it!

Fri13>> Agreed, having an IR marker capable ATFLIR as a separate item in the loadout menu would be a nice solution. I was thinking "well, just don't press the button damnit?" but your suggestion is better. Off topic side track: As for the US Navy not using AGM-65F and if I'm certain about it. I tend to be careful using the word "certain". I am not in a position where I can claim to be 100% sure of it. But Navy pilots I talked to have claimed that there is "no such thing" for the Hornet. It surprised me, since the F (at least according to Wikipedia) was ordered by the US Navy. There is actually open documentation (can't remember which one) listing AGM-65F as a valid weapon for the Hornet. But from what I understand, apart from maybe testing it at some point, the Navy never used it operationally at any point, on the Hornet that is. It was a P-3 weapon. Pretty bad ass if you ask me.

Thanks for all the input. Very interesting read! I learned a lot reading this thread. I understand that it makes things easy to pick one date and use that as a guide for what should be available. I understand that stepping away from this might risk opening a can of worms ("Since we got this, why can't we get that?" Sort of like I'm doing now I guess....). However, and this is just my opinion and nothing else, since we already have taken a few sidesteps from what was available at that point, I see no harm in taking a few more sidesteps if they check the following boxes: * Easy to implement (technology already there), otherwise obviously not reasonable * Plausible, if not 2005, then for a later date * Gives players more options, instead of fewer (I believe some players play missions simulating other dates than 2005) * Provides interesting gameplay possibilities (IR marker is great fun for co-op FAC(A) stuff) I mean, it's not that strict as it is now anyway. Just like they did with the LITENING and how it's possible to mount it on the cheek station. It is apparently possible, but I have only seen one (1) picture in my life. And as much as it hurts seeing Vipers carrying triple rack with Mavs, ED lets the players choose. We don't have NITE HAWK despite the fact that it was the one most used at the time (tm). Maybe a wise decision, if if would take months of dev time yet very few would use it? Furthermore your package can carry more than the 4 ATFLIRs even if you set the time in the ME to 2005. Or 2004 for that matter... Our Hornet even carries the AGM-65F even though the US NAVY only use them on P-3 Orion aircraft. And in my opinion... that's fine! I just choose not to use them. Simple as that! Let the players (or even better, server owners) decide the level of realism and date, if there's no or a very low cost involved. For above reasons, I only see advantages in giving our ATFLIR the IR MARK feature. Again, just my opinion. Nothing else. Cheers!

Yeah I don't know what they are aiming for either. The Lot 20 itself might be quite old. But on the other hand, we have access to JHMCS and AIM-9X and other semi-modern 2000-2010 stuff. I'm not sure if they want to limit the features to a particular date and if so, what that date is.

Did some research. I obviously don't have any evidence. But there are many indications that it should have an IR marker unless it's a very old version of the ATFLIR. 2006: "Raytheon developed plans for flight testing, production cut-in, retrofit of existing unit and support in 2005. The initial flight testing is complete and Raytheon has been awarded a contract to provide eight ATFLIRs with IR Markers to the USN." https://vdocuments.site/download/spie-proceedings-spie-defense-and-security-symposium-orlando-kissimmee-584700d813faf 2007: "The U.S. Navy awarded Raytheon Company an $18.5 million contract modification to provide an infrared marker upgrade on Hornet and Super Hornet targeting pods, which will enhance F/A-18 ground operations support." https://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/84409/raytheon-to-upgrade-atflir-targeting-pods.html 2009: "This effort will include the production, implementation and ILS efforts and modification labor associated with ATFLIR IR-marker retrofit engineering change proposal in support of the F/A-18. Work will be performed in McKinney, Texas, and El Segundo, Calif., and is expected to be completed in 2010" https://www.aviationtoday.com/2009/07/01/raytheon-awarded-navy-contract-3/ 2012: "Recent technology upgrades include infrared marker and imagery enhancements." https://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2134 2017: "ATFLIR now has a low-light television camera, target laser range finder, laser designator, laser spot tracker and IR marker." https://www.nst.com.my/news/exclusive/2017/07/260429/more-lethal-sting-rmafs-hornets

Strikeeagle345>> We often run into this problem when we are doing carrier events with many people (like CQ stuff, where people continously take off and land). Sometimes the ground crew refuse to react to you, regardless of how many circles you do, or how many times you press "Request Takeoff". One thing I've noticed is that when it happens to you, if you select the AI Tower (ATC) Frequency, you will hear the tower guy being stuck in some kind of state, repeating "305 hold position, 305 hold position, 305 hold position". Another thing I noticed is that if another plane lands, sometimes you get un-stuck. This is not a new bug btw. It has been like this since the SC introduction. Very happy if you manage to nail it down though!

With the LITENING, I sometimes use the IR pointer (MARK) to point at stuff during night missions. I don't see this function in the current ATFLIR though. Is it something that will come eventually, or is it simply not a feature on the real ATFLIR?

You really took DCS to the next level with this one. Stellar work! Now, don't forget to CELEBRATE this achievement in the team! You should be really proud.

I just came across this, so I'll add my experience. Setup: Client Viper or Hornet with AIM-120C Enemy AI MiG-29 with one R-77 Repro: 1) Fly straight towards the enemy 2) Lock him up in STT 3) When he fires his R-77, fire an AIM-120C 4) Defend (Crank left then crank right) keeping the STT lock 5) The AIM-120 will suddenly change target and go for the R-77 missile Reproducability: Around 60%+ (!) Remarks: 1) While it sounds plausible (maybe...) that a missile could hit another missile in rare occasions, it doesn't seem reasonable that it would happen this easily. Especially when constantly keeping a STT lock. 2) Reproducable with both Viper and Hornet. So the bug seems aircraft independent. Suggestion: If it's not easy to tweak this to behave in a reasonably way (which I'd understand), I suggest you just disable this feature completely for now. Perhaps by setting all A/A missiles' RCS to 0 or something. The few/rare/non-existing(?) cases of false negatives would be much better than having any false positives. Three trks attached. 2 with Viper and 1 with Hornet. AmraamVsMissile_3.trk AmraamVsMissile_1.trk AmraamVsMissile_2.trk AmraamVsMissileBug.miz

Alright, let me know if I can do something else to help you out with tracking this down! When your are replaying the tracks I supplied, do you see the aircraft locking up the correct moving target at all times, or does it sometimes lock up a building? 1. Select A/G mode 2. Select GMT mode 3. Set SOI to radar 4. Slew cursor over contact 5. SCS Right (Locks up moving target, indicated by 10 speed and 332 hdg in the radar) 6. Undesignate 7. Slew cursor over contact 8. SCS Right (Locks up stationary target, indicated by 0 speed in the radar) Sometimes, steps 6-8 have to be repeated an extra time or two before it locks up a building. I just tried these steps six times. The first three runs, it locked on to a building on the second lock. In the other runs, I hade to lock and undesignate two times before the bug happened. Attaching the exact miz I'm using. It would be cool if someone else could try this, to see if it just happens to some people. I know the same things happens to at least one of my squadron mates. GMT_Bug_2.miz

I added this as a comment to another bug report (MAV Locking lamp posts / GMT ground radar), but it seems they were two different bugs after all, so I'll make a separate thread here: If I set up a group of movers, and there's an "Armed House" (which is a building) nearby, sometimes (but not always) the radar locks onto the building. I have not yet found a pattern to when this happens. Two tracks attached. In trk 1, first lock gets the vehicles, second one locks on the building. When testing this over and over again, the results are slightly different (sometimes it works fine, sometimes I can never get a lock on the actual movers). Maybe it depends on relative angle or something, I don't know. In trk 2, there are multiple buildings, and the lock seems to go for a random one, when it doesn't manage to lock the actual mover. Remarks: It can only lock onto the building if there are other movers nearby. If there are no movers nearby, you will not even see the building in GMT mode. The bug isn't specifically related to the "Armed House" unit. As seen in Track 2 below, it can lock onto bunkers and other stuff as well. This means that there is not an easy "just don't use that unit for now" workaround at this point. Hornet_GMT_Building_Bug_01.trk Hornet_GMT_Building_Bug_02.trk

I have a similar problem. If I set up a group of movers, and there's an "Armed House" (which is a building) nearby, sometimes (but not always) the radar locks onto the building. I have not yet found a pattern to when this happens. Minimalistic trk attacked. First lock gets the vehicles, second one locks on the building. When testing this over and over again, the results are slightly different (sometimes it works fine, sometimes I can never get a lock on the actual movers). Maybe it depends on relative angle or something, I don't know. Hornet_GMT_Building_Bug_01.trk

Thanks BigNewy!