Ramsay

How would that work when dropped from 12,500 ft i.e. the time of fall for the Mk-20 Rockeyes from 12,500 ft to their 650 ft AGL burst height in DCS is ~29 seconds

I can confirm the Mk-20 burst height was unaffected by fuse settings (always burst at ~650 ft) However I've just finished testing if the CBU-87 worked and like the CBU-97, it's FZU39 proximity fuse was working (I tested 900 ft and 1200 ft settings) CBU-87 PACS settings with FZU39 selected and a 1200 ft burst height

Changing the PACS fuse height of the CBU-97 DOES change the burst altitude in DCS (even in flight) as is shown in the TACVIEW pictures in this post. Whilst unrealistic, changing the CBU-97 burst height while in flight is required ATM as the DCS F-15E's default of 700 ft AGL will have the BLU-108's crashing into the ground if released at medium to high altitudes i.e. 16,000 ft. With the CBU-97 burst altitude changed to 1200 ft AGL, the BLU-108 parachutes have suficient time to deaccelerate and submunitions deploy correctly. I haven't tested the behaviour of Mk-20's

The Normandy 2.0 "upgrade" doesn't "download" additional textures, etc., it is a licence key that unlocks them on the upgraded Normandy 1944 map. Although the lower priced "Normandy and Channel Map" Steam Upgrade has been removed from sale ... it should still work for existing owners who bought prior to it's removal (my textures, etc. are still good). This is how my Steam Normandy install looks, yours should be similar If you still have issues the general suggestion is to submit a support ticket to ED

Yes.

Without a track, it's hard to be sure but typically you'll want to swap 1 and 2 i.e. Select the TPOD first and then the LMAV, IIRC doing it the other way deselects the LMAV (as the TPOD is treated as another weapon), hence why you might select the LMAV twice. Checking this out in single player - I didn't have an issue firing the LMAV E2 but the TPOD's laser did once auto-safe and FPS dropped from a locked 60 fps to single figures when the TPOD target was masked (not something I've seen before). Continuing my tests - I saw a desync at times between the LMAV HUD and MFD status, seemed like the next (caged) LMAV sometimes inherited the previous uncaged status i.e. the HUD showed a target lock, but the LMAV MFD (SSS forward long) didn't have it's full symbology and I needed to cycle the LMAV cage/uncage button to confirm a "good" spot track. All LMAV E2's were fired successfully and hit their targets. Tested using DCS Open Beta Multi-thread 2.8.7.42718

As far as I can tell the £9.99 Normandy/Channel Upgrade I purchased is no longer sold on Steam, https://store.steampowered.com/app/2399900/DCS_Normandy_20_Upgrade/ ... however the individual £12.49 Normandy 1944 and Channel Upgrades are still there. https://store.steampowered.com/app/2314970/DCS_Normandy_2_Upgrade_from_Normandy_1944/ So while annoying - if you still want to get the increased area and additional details of Normandy 2.0, I suggest paying the additional £2.50 for one of the other Steam upgrade paths.

TPOD and Maverick intergration is working as intended and as IRL - the TPOD was a ~2002 addition to the origrignal aircraft (initially only on the wing station) and the weapon/video system treats it as another weapon. It's a real life limitation i.e. the harrier can only display video from one "weapon" at a time, IIRC a software update allowed the TPOD feed to hot swap to the Maverick video, however you can't have both video feeds displayed at the same time. Without a track, it's hard to be sure - a gotta that often catches me out when returning to the Harrier from other modules is that selecting the TPOD i.e. before a reattack, will deselect the Maverick (as the TPOD is treated as a weapon) and often requires the Maverick to be selected a 2nd time - there are indicators as to weapon status, etc. but you need to remember to check for them. Only the Maverick E2/L can be self-lased, the Maverick E cannot. AFAIK the inability to self-lase the Maverick E was a OFP limitation - having both E and E2 Mavericks in DCS allows the earlier software to be modelled (in a limited way).

Yes. My understanding is that most F-15E airframes went straight from the older LANTIRN pod to using Sniper pods. However as a limited few used the Litening II pod - Razbam plan to model all 3 tageting pods, with the Litening planned for CTU 2010 and SNIPER for CTU 2015. DCS F-15E WIP (14th Feb 2023) and subject to change (from left to right - LANTIRN, Litening and SNIPER targeting pods)

There are whole books written on the subject and I'll try to keep my uneducated opinion simple without any politics. Both aircraft are capable, however their roles and how the 2 services use them are different. • The F-16 was/is evisaged fighting as part of a full scale war vs large numbers of enemy tanks, etc. thus it has weapons like the CBU-97 and 105 in it's USAF inventry and performs well in your synthetic scenario. • The F/A-18 is there to defend the "fleet" or provide cover/support to expenditionary troops/marines with a philosophy of mobility and movement - deploying cluster munitions ahead of your own troops hinders that. IRL in your scenario there'd be • more F-16's carrying less weapons due to fuel/drag concerns, possibly ROE* against using cluster munitions. • more F/A-18's as RL warfare is a team effort. *CBU-97 USAF doctrine is to use the weapon to halt/hold an enemy's main armored force in a major conflict, providing time for other U.S. forces to arrive in the theater.

The F-15E is discounted like any other DCS Early Access titles on Steam i.e. the AH-64D ($80 discounted -20% = $64) is 63.33€, for comparison the full price F-16C and F/A-18C ($80) are 73.99 € A price of 40€ would be a 50% discount (on it's $80 full price) - so is unlikely to be seen out side of a Steam sale and long after early access has ended. Waiting years to buy a better quality product at a lower price may seem odd but is the norm these days. The best way to let dev's know how you feel is to vote with your "wallet" and only buy when you are "happy" with the price and quality you've paid for. For example • I'm still waiting for the MB-339 to be discounted as I feel it's priced too high for the amount of use I'm likely to make of it. • I bought a single copy of the F-15E, as the EA discount isn't enough to justify a second copy for MC. These were simple enough choices as it's already hard to maintain competency across all the modules I own. Whether a purchase is good or bad depends on setting realistic expectations and how much use/enjoyment you get out of it. IMHO even if you paid a little more than wanted for the F-15E, if you are making use of it, you are getting your money's worth out of it. YMMV.

The post below suggests 15% deadzones with 20% y saturations, so perhaps try reducing y saturation with a curve tuned for your prefered max slew rate.

I haven't notice any difference in sensitivity between axis but you don't say which throttle grip you are using (I'm using the F-16 and it's Radar cursor). Same. This is my WIP/initial setting - the large deadzone is to help dexterity/axis control (rather than mask pot spikes/jitter) and like you I'm interested to see what curves other Winwing owners are using. Not sure what's going on with AV-8B TPOD ATM as the MFD was very dark and I needed to use the popout export to see anything DCS Open Beta Multi-thread 2.8.7.42718

The most often "quoted" Mirage 2000C EM diagram is from a Northrop document "Fighter Weapons Symposium for the Royal Malaysian Air Force" promoting their F-20. It is only an "estimation" and does not represent the performance of the "real" aircraft. Razbam have made use of it, as SME feedback and their own reasearch is that it is of the "right" shape ... Razbam have then adjusted the DCS flight model so that it matches some known SOP data points such as an engine 40NM glide from 30k ft and over head paterns/breaks with known turn radi, speeds, etc. There is more detail and DCS Mirage 2000C EM diagrams in this thread https://forum.dcs.world/topic/318436-care-to-share-your-resources-and-data-about-the-m2k-performance/?do=findComment&comment=5143613

Yes.

The French documentation for the SA342 starter switch says that - with the Fuel Flow Lever at Minimum, the ARRET (OFF) position cuts the (electric ?) supply to the fuel inlet servo and stops the engine. As far as I can tell from youtube videos of the SA342 in flight - • In flight it's normal for the Fuel Flow lever to be at Max and the "Starter" switch left "ON" . • The procedure to stop the engine after landing is :- 1. Move the Fuel Flow Lever slowly to minimum 2. Switch the "Starter" switch to Arret (OFF) to stop the engine. * As the documentation specifies the Fuel Flow Lever needs to be at Minimum, Polychop interpret this to mean the engine won't stop when the Fuel Flow Lever is at Max Position - this may be correct as the SA-341 's "ON/RUN" position has oil/fuel pressure sensors that perform a similar function (if my interpretation of it's flight manual is correct). Video of a SA-342 Engine shut down @15:20 AFAIK - it does not, in fact a hot started RUNNING SA-342L spawns in with the Fuel Flow lever at MAX and it's starter switch set to ARRET (OFF) - which seems like a bug - as I have yet to see a video of a SA-342 in flight with it's "Starter" switch set to ARRET. Tested with a SA-342L in Open Beta Multi-thread 2.8.7.42583 For Info: From the Open Beta 2.8.7.42583 change log https://forum.dcs.world/topic/170893-dcs-world-changelog-and-updates-of-open-beta/?do=findComment&comment=5264276

Here's a quick video demonstrating how to set the burst height afresh

Higher Burst Altitude = greater dispertion at the expense of greater wind drift. In DCS with high altitude drops, the main bomb casing picks up more speed and a higher burst altitude is required to allow the BLU-108 parachute to slow it's speed sufficiently for the rocket motor to fire at 100 ft. IRL the fuse height is set on the ground and the PACS is set to match, AFAIK changing the burst height in flight is a DCS'ism. AFAIK the F-15E's spin setting isn't "hooked up" yet.

TL;DR: The default F-15E burst height at 700 ft AGL is to low for DCS, so the canister/munitions hit the ground before the BLU-108 is able to trigger. Adjusting the Fuse height to 1200 ft (IIRC DCS default for FC3) allowed the submitions to trigger and destroy the target vehicles. Detail:

No, Razbam modelled AWLS as being the "same" as ILS. You should use TACAN instead, if you want to land in semi-realistic CAT-3 IMC (it was also more common IRL than AWLS).

Yes, the EFM calculates the gross weight, however ATM it's bugged and I "guess" isn't hooked up to DCS's rigid body physics correctly so we get DCS calculating the fuel weight twice when the helicopter spawns in, not reducing weight in flight despite the calculation being done internally, etc. I really haven't tested the detail of what's going on as the problem has been identified and fixed, we are just waiting for the next OB update. https://discord.com/channels/303482672834019330/1129129150079324221/1129129910724739184

A number of fixes have been submitted to ED for the next OB update (date TBC, subject to change) inc. a crash due to the RWR. A work around "might" be to turn off the RWR before destroying the enemy radar/emitter but I haven't tested this. https://discord.com/channels/303482672834019330/1129129150079324221/1129129910724739184

I wouldn't say I regret my purchase as 1. I did due diligence before my purchase (checked reviews, read the DCS and RL manuals, etc.) 2. have a good idea about my own preferences and how much time I would spend flying her 3. made sure to buy in a sale 4. there was nothing else DCS related that I wanted on sale I didn't understand some of the positive reviews as, other than pretty liveries and a nice 3D model, it seemed lacking in many flight model, audio and system aspects - however, as I'd bought cheaply - it is very "back to basics" and a change from the complex aircraft I usually study and fly. I was surprised by the aerobatic chapter in the manual, so spent perhaps 2-4 hours reading up on aerobatic notation and practicing some RL basic routines in DCS. It was a pleasant enough way to spend an afternoon and I learned something new. However, as I have little interest in the current CE2, it'd take • a module "refresh" like the Mirage 2000C or Gazelle 342 have received • or a community "event" ... before I'll want fly her again.

Here is a picture of the SIT page as shown in a 2012 AIB report

I'm not sure it's a bug and it's something to check with your SME's and/or SA-342 documentation. I suspect the SA-341 and SA-342 avionics/FADEC differ as I can't find any SA-342 videos where the "starter switch" is moved to it's center "ARRET" position while in flight or before shut down. However there are plenty of SA-341 startup and flight videos* where starter switch up (lift and pull) is ignition and it's then moved to a middle "run" position. * This included a civilian French cockpit with a similar instrument and warning panel layout to our L - but checking it's registration using google revealed it to be a SA-341F. Here at 5:33 a SA342M engine test is shut down by moving the Starter (FADEC ?) switch to the ARRET middle position. ... which is exactly what we see in DCS.