Bananabrai

1974 it was for Onoda Hirō as far as I know, for some more unsure cases even later? I wait for that DCS mission^^ -> 'Fight Onoda Hirō - End the 2nd WW with the A-7E Corsair II'

To be honest, I don't know how the radar lock in the Tornado worked back then, in terms of lock specific radar targets, especially sea targets. The oldest Tornado Pilot I know is my dad (as a source for the oldest software and HW standard), and he flew ground attack (JaBo) between 1986-2000 and not with the German Navy (GN). The GAF back in the day used the radar similar to how the Viggen works in DCS. So there was no GMT mode as far as I am aware, but I will recheck. Instead you have pre planned coordinate, which is technically 'locked' by the INS and if I remember correctly, is then adjusted with the radar in a way that the flight plan/ nav points align with the radar picture. So very much Viggen style. The guy I know who was shooting Kormoran did that in the late 90s and early 2000s, when they just phased them out by shooting them all 'for fun'. I will try and ask him again if there was some kind of lock on to a ship like in a GMT fashion, or lets say 'Sea Moving Target'. But I agree, a lock prohibit until a range of 40nm is selected is not very smart. Maybe they expected the hardware to not be good/stable enough to keep a lock between 80-41nm. It's like in the F-5E where you can't lock air targets at the max range setting (40nm?).

mhm, sad

Ok, interessting. How about the Nitehawk pod? About the ATFLIRs NFLIR on the HUD, supposedly we get it... I hope at least, but thats what other people also heard. See my question and the answers below: It will still take some time until they've reworked the FLIR system in DCS completely.

How would does the Nitehawk and the ATFLIR pod compare to the Litening we currently have in terms of capability? (Apart from the NFLIR of the ATFLIR, I know what that does) Do they have largely different resolutions, zoom levels, does the Nitwhawk also can put FLIR image on the HUD, etc.? I think it's an interessting topic. I also like that Walleye is included, as we can recreate older scenarios with the Hornet more easily in that way.

True, but I think they still would model it functional, as the hardware technically is still present and wokring. I would just not want anything newer than ASSTA 1, as the GMR picture is pretty shit to look at on the new NHDD. I would love to know how the GMR picture looks on the GR.4s TARDIS and if its at least of the same qaulity as the CRPMD. The TARDIS probably good for MIDS stuff. Other than that a ASSTA 1 is still able to do the same job as a earlier ASST IDS (ASST were the standards before ASSTA). Up to that point capabilities got only added. Effectively MW-1 was out of use by then, but the function was still part of the SMS in ASSTA 1. I still think a TIALD/Desert Storm GR.1 would be the best blast, as you could still fly it the same way as a 80s GR.1, with the "drawback" of having the slightly newer ERWR II radar warning receiver.

Hi, thanks for your feedback. Are you shure that only 40nm was selectable? Or are you talking about the effective range? I have the confirmation from 3 Tornado WSO's that 80nm range was at least selectable. I have to admit though, the Tornado GMR was not really optimised for AShW. That's propably the reason why the Buccaner was that much better, which I do not want to deny. The Tornado's radar was, as the name says, a ground mapping radar (Tornado GMR). The whole airplane was more optimized for "land-warfare", which might be one of the reasons, the GR.1B was not carried into GR.4 modernisation. There is another thing I want to point out. As the Tornado is newer than the Bucc, the ship technologies might have evolved as well in this time. And it could be the case, that ship technology might have evolved faster during that time. Just a theory or an idea though why newer airplanes are sometimes worse as its predecessor. Off topic, there is that story that some people with the italian airforce thought that the F-104 is more capable than the Typhoon... I leave that for someone else to tell. Another point might be, that the focus on AShW was deliberately not put into the radar. Other very high value assets were put into service, maybe they wanted to rely on the Nimrod or others on purpose. It's kind of stupid, but it's even done today. The Typhoon for example is still A-A optimized, even though at the end of the 90s (when deveolpment still could have been shifted) it was clear that: 1. Tornado needs a replacement at some point, with all its roles, which is not just GBU truckin' 2. it was possible to build airframes that can do A-A AND A-G very good (F-18, F-16,...) But see, now the government has a reason to develop a new separat airframe to replace the Tornado, because Typhoon can not take all its roles (with the GAF) And one more thing, at that time ELINT was also becoming more important (later there was even a specific Tornado ECR variant deveoped for that, with its ELS) Maybe they didn't see the need to recon a ship at 100nm+ with a radar, because they could detect it more or equaly reliable with ELINT triangulation, without emitting radiation.

It's been a while since I last unwraped my brain about this stuff. Thanks for the refresher. There is one point that comes to mind, hope some HB staff is reading this: To change the target approach was not working for me the last time I was testing it some 1,5 years ago. I had some red ship sitting behind a quay wall and ironicaly I was able to hit that with a RB-04 but not with a RB-15. The RB-15s final approach is way lower than the RB-04, you can really see that it wants to hit the target on the waterline. So I tried to change the cruise (83) and final target approach (86) to a higher level (831... and 860...). I can't remeber if the 83 (cruise) was working, but target approach defently rammed that RB-15 into the quay wall. Can someone confirm that issue after putting in 860 / 860000?

I thought we're going to get the NAVFLIR with the ATFLIR (maybe at a later point though). That's at least what I heard.

Only thing I could say, technically, as the Tornado is a cooperative project and work must be shared, we should have known if they change something. That's at least how it is suposed to be. There are even some british guys still working for Tornado projects, even though UK has retired their birds. Of course the reason for that is that GAF and ItAF (AMA?) are still operating the Tornado and they need to take care of their workshare. (at least they need to support it) That beeing said, I heard some rumors that the RAF changed some things (to unkown extend) on their radar with the GR.4 (or later on). And there is nothing official on our side to be found.

It never got removed (GAF). An airplane configuration change always must be approved and certified. You cannot simply remove equipment. You either have to certifiy the whole airplane new (with new or missing equipment), or if you just disable it or put in a weight dummy, you have to certify, that all other equipment in the sphere of influence is still working properly. Otherwise you would make a weight & balance change without touching the FCS, and that would be illegal in terms of certification and approval to operate the type (btw the FCS in the Tornado is very old and it was decided quite early that no more changes would be made). With the GAF the TFR is, at least to my knowledge, disabled with introduction of the ASSTA 3.0 or 3B standard. The training for automatic TF flying was removed even earlier if my info is correct.

I was also confused that I had to do a bit reading to get a hang of what bomb is for what purpouse. Are all these weapons available in the A8 listet in the ingame enzyclopedia? Would be usefull to know what should we use for what type of target.

Finds voll cool. Hoffe nur das sie das INS bald mal fixen, mit dem unegwollten Turbo alignment braucht man zur Zeit ja nicht nach Wegpunkten fliegen. Aber da die Mirage ja doch durchaus low level mit snakeyes Spaß macht, ist ein Radar TA mode schon was schönes.

So on facbook it looks like we will get a TA (terrain avoidance) mode for the baguette. Sounds good to me, I am excited.

Pretty annoying this bug. NAV points are not really usable, at leats for me. VFR it is then...

Eine Frage die den Erbauern der neuen Systeme evtl auch direkt hilft: Ich habe 2 NVME SSDs: 980Pro (PCI 4.0) und 970 Evo (PCI 3.0) Mein Board hat zwei M.2 slots, einer ist direkt an der CPU angebunden, der andere über den PCH (Chipsatz). Derzeit habe ich auf der 970 Evo mein Windows und diese im "PCH slot" DCS und andere Games die ich oft zocke sind auf der 980 Pro in den "CPU slot" wäre es besser das ganze anders zu machen? WIN auf die schnellere platte an den CPU? DCS auf die selbe platte wie WIN?

Lol, we don't even have replicas for all the pits and use Wharthogs somtimes. Never had a snapped throttle pinkie though.

Hat jemand einen Vergleich der Verarbeitungsqualtät zwischen Virpil und WinWing? Edit: ich hab gelesen das die Frage schon öfter gestelt wurde. Bin mal gespannt ob noch mehr Berichte kommen. Zu meinen Virpil Produkten: Hab nun schon seit 2 Jahren einen CM (revision2) [nicht daselbe wie CM2] throttle und WarBRD base + CM stick. Der Sitck könnte echt aus weniger plastik sein, aber was die verarbeitung der Base und des throttle angeht bin ich immer noch sehr zufrieden. Bzgl. Qualtätsberichte über WinWing auf Youtube (westlicher Qualitätsanspruch): Wenn die Amis auf Youtube (Jabber, RedKite etc.) sagen das WW gut verarbeitet ist, traue ich dem auch nicht so ganz. Die haben doch auch nochmal andere Erwartungen, bei denen ist 'gut' einfach was anderes, das ist auch garnicht schimm.

H-6 would be a real game changer, a true one, not like the last promised game changer. I admit, bombers might be difficult for the map size we currently have. But it is not that you really have to fly long sorties / are only able to fly long sorties. And we also don't know how big the Marianas will get and we know that the Falklands will get big. I hope they will really pioneer this thing, lets have a bomber in DCS! I don't even care about the variant and I cannot say that for all other available and currently known future modules.

Das Doppler Radar sollte auch auf "SJÖ" stehen, wenn du 'feet wet' bist. Und natürlich wieder zürück auf Land schalten wenn du feet dry bist.

For me the question is: Can it be wired to fire the second pair of HARMs? On the Tornado, we also need to rewire the centerline pylons in order to carry fuel or a TGP or GBU-54... Same with Kormoran. The German Navys IDS Tornados were rewired for the use of Kormoran. A GAF IDS Tornado could not carry Kormoran by default, but could be wired to carry it. They were the same aicraft. Offtopic to the Hornet with 8 JSOWs: if that does some aerodynamic issues, I think they should model that ingame. At least I would hope for instability issues or random crashes/malfunction of the missile an damage of the pylon or something. But if the SMS is able to recognize the wepons, why not carry it. Even if a USAF F-16 ... is modeled, I really can understand people who not always want to fly a USAF F-16. I know that the developer needs a reference and is modelling stuff to that reference. But there would be so many ways to add other nations capabilitys and still get the guys who want to fly it as real as possible happy. Mayber they should put effort into that. I do recreate other nations missions and I have my guys 'under control', we limit or expand stuff to our appeal. I would love a Franken-Viper, if I there is still the option to fly a non Franken-Viper. That should be possible in a game.

Hi, für mich schaut es so aus, als ob die Ortung theoretisch sehr genau ist. In der ELINT App wird die Position sehr genau angezeigt, oder sehe ich es falsch das nur ein ganz kleiner Bereich umrandet ist? Ist dem so, war die Ortung an sich sehr genau. ELINT an sich bringt aber einige Probleme mit sich (in DCS und IRL) : 1. Ist dein Navgations-System bei der Landung auf einem sehr genauen Stand? Falls nicht verfälscht das ja auch die Position des Resultats. 2. ELINT ist ja nur die elektronische Aufklärung, das System weiß also nicht ob etwas auf Land oder Wasser stehen müsste. 3. Das Haupt-"Problem" ist die Genauigkeit der Ortung. Und das ist auch an sich ein Knackpunkt. Ich weiß nicht nach welchen Kriterien Heatblur die Genauigkeit des Systems modelliert hat. Ich kenn auch das System der Viggen nicht und wie alt es ist oder ob es Updates gab. Meiner Meinung nach müsste das System wesentlich genauer sein, das werd ich allerdings nicht belegen. Aber diese Daten sind halt sehr brisant und daher: deckt sich die Genauigkeit mit meinen DCS Erfahrungen. Du hast, wenn ich es auf google richtig gemessen habe, einen Error von 18-20km. Dazu weißt du ja nach der Auswertung, das es ein langebundenes System ist. Kommt quasi nur Queshm's ostende oder Greater Tunb in Frage. Ich glaube das ELINT der Viggen ist in DCS nur dafür gut eine grobe Idee zu bekommen, leider. Ich glaube wäre das System in Echt nur so genau, hätten sie es sich gespart. Ich kenne nur ein anderes Sytem. Ich hoffe das die F-16 mit dem HTS ein gewisses Mass an ELINT Fähigkeit bekommt, dies sollte dann auch genauer sein. Ein Tipp noch, wenn du den gegnerischen Emitter in einem 60° Konus vor der Nase hälst und den U22/A dabei hast, sollte es genauer sein. Davor & danach noch ein Nav-fix, evtl. hilft das schon. Falls jemand noch bessere ergebnisse hat, immer her damit, bin für Tipps die ich noch nicht kenne auch immer offen ünd würde ELINT gerne öfter nutzen.

Ich sehe das ganze so: ich bin jetzt seit 2010 bei DCS (als FC2 direkt frisch raus kam), keine Ahnung ob das im verhältnis lange ist, aber ich fühle mich schon als lange dabei. Die folgenden Zeilen sind eine subjektive Meinung: Betrachte ich den derzeitigen Stand und die kurzfrisitge Entwicklung von DCS, könnte das Gefühl (wie in der Fragestellung) aufkommen. Manchmal wartet man ewig auf ein feature, ein bug fix, oder man wartet immer noch auf sein Traumflugzeug. Man sieht andere Spiele die so viel besser ausschauen, die dies besser können oder jedes. Aber betrachte ich meine 11 Jahre bei DCS, was sich getan hat, was ich heute fliegen kann, wie das ganze ausschaut, und dann noch wie viele Leute vor 10 Jahren daran gearbeitet haben, und was es auch für ne Niesche vs. FSX..., Battlefield, CoD, was weiß ich, usw. ist,... alter Schwede... Was für ein großes Ding damals die Sache mit den smokey engines war als das raus kam... usw.. Wie crappy würde die 1.5 heute aussschauen. Vielleicht kann man die ja noch runter laden, ruhig mal runterladen und "genießen". Ich finde DCS hat auf jeden Fall geschaut das die Lücke zum Stand der technik sich nicht vergrößert und sie haben sie sogar, finde ich, verkleinert, auch wenn es noch eine Lücke gibt. (über deren Größe man wieder eine neue Diskussion starten könnte) Ehrlicherweise habe ich auch nicht das Gefühl das 100 Leute an DCS arbeiten, aber man weiß ja auch nicht an was die noch arbeiten (bspw.: Kommerziele Aufträge). Damit will ich sagen, ich fühle mich auch manchmal so als ob nur 2 Leute DCS programmieren, aber ich glaub wenn man so vor dem PC sitzt und zockt weiß man garnicht wie viel Arbeit das ist. Ich meine DCS hat halt auch diesen Chris Roberts Faktor, alles muss perfekt sein wenn es angefasst wird, sonst bleibt es lieber erstmal schei*e bevor es nur halbherzig gemacht wird. Find ich zwar nervig aber ok. Ist ja nur mein Standpunkt, andere Stört es vielleicht nicht das das B-52 AI model uralt ist und das ist ok für mich. Bei so manchen every day Spielen nehmen sie halt auch hin und wieder alte konstrukte und legen da neues Klopapiert drauf und wir denken "boa, geil". So machen die das bei DCS halt nicht, auch wenns manchmal was zwischen 1 und 0 geben müsste. Also ich bin in jedem Fall gespannt über die Zukunft und auch wenn bei mir manchmal selbige Gefühle hoch kommen, mein Blick in die Vergangenheit sagt mir was anderes, auch wenn die Zeitspannen lang sind.

Will a buddy RIO have to buy it as well? Looking forward to be able to play the campaign with my buddy.

We also have pretty demotivating desync problems with the Yak. For me as a rear seater even the engine isn't running, so I feel like being instructor in a glider. Is there a timeframe to expect a fix?