Ramsay

A bug which is already fixed and submitted to ED for the next Open Beta patch (date unknown and details subject to change). https://discord.com/channels/303482672834019330/671347367030685697/1128695695780630561

I found Auto-Acq DEPRESS worked (rather than aft) With the HUD "IN CMD", Auto-Acq AFT toggles between AUTO and CDIP modes. In AUTO the TPOD tracks the Flight Path Marker (which creates the designation) In CDIP the TPOD tracks the CDIP Pipper (which creates the designation)

TL;DR: You need to undesignate first - usually boat switch Aft (will remove the HUD azimuth steering line and target diamond) Like you, I had difficulty getting the TPOD to move to the Flight Path Vector the first time I tried but it seemed to "fix" it's self after I went Boat Switch forward first. Not sure if it was a switchology error on my part (I had designated with NAV, RADAR and TPOD prior to trying to use the HUD/FPM) or a bug. However, after I'd got it to work first time, other HUD "IN CMD" resets were trouble free. Detail So in summary 1. A/G Master Mode 2. Undesigate any existing designations (Boat Switch Aft) 3. TPOD SOI, Auto-Acq DEPRESS (track/untrack) returns the TGP to slave mode. (If you don't TGP continues to track whatever it is looking at, even without a designated target) 4. Depress Castle Switch, then quickly SHORT Castle Forward (HUD Reads IN CMD) 5. Depress Castle Switch, then quickly SHORT Castle Forward (HUD TPOD box centers on Flight Path Marker, TPOD PB17 SP RET) 6. Fly to place Flight Path Marker on desired Target 7. TDC Depress to Designate (HUD target diamond, azimuth steering line, etc. - depending on weapon/selected mode) Tested using GBU-12's in AUTO STEP N/T with a CLTD JTAC marking targets with smoke and buddy lasing.

The pod is for the TV guided AGM-130 which can be guided and/or locked onto a target after launch. https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104579/agm-130-missile/ AFAIK JTIDS / Link-16 is an avionics upgrade, not a pod fitted to the aircraft https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/138458/fighters-benefit-from-link-16/

476 vFG - TACAN Yardstick Guide https://www.476vfightergroup.com/downloads.php?do=download&downloadid=509

Lots of changes and fixes are incoming, including improvements to the sound (volume ?) of the ECS. From Razbam's July OB Patch changelog (subject to change) • Improved: Adjusted ECS airflow sound gains https://forum.dcs.world/topic/330163-july-ob-patch-notes-from-razbam-discord/

Yes, the JTAC will need to mark the target with smoke or an IR pointer. Once identified, you can drop a LGB on the target, while the JTAC guides it with his laser. The LANTIRN FLIR Targeting Pod doesn't have a spot tracker. I don't know if UTM data entry is on Razbam's "roadmap" but the LST capable Litening II Targeting Pod is scheduled as part of the first CTU (2010) update.

Likely nothing, AFAIK using the "bomb in zone" trigger is problematic as the "bomb object" is only briefly in the detection zone before being destroyed. You can improve the chance of "good" bomb in zone detections by dropping the bombs so they fall lengthwise along the bridges (the trigger zones are rectangular and match the bridge decking) However, there's no guarantee as there's still a bit of luck involved as to whether the game detects the bomb in each zone before it explodes. As a workaround mission makers typically use scripting or setup infantry/vehicles on bridges to test for their destruction.

GBU-10 "in zone" i.e. for bridge 1, 2 and 3 should set flag 1, 2 and 3. There's a 4th Flag set for taking off (overfly/enter trigger zone near the inner marker at the far end of RWY 25). Each awards 25 points, equalling a max total of 100. However like you, I don't see a "win" only a draw as my score is only 50 despite dropping all three bridges and landing safely. F-15E Operation Roadblock, 2023-07-07, debrief.log Tacview-20230707-145608-DCS-1 Operation Roadblock.zip.acmi

AFAIK the GBU-28 should not be available - it's a mission bug. https://forum.dcs.world/topic/328735-gbu-28-malfunctions-in-mission-bombing-range-demo/?do=findComment&comment=5245103

For me (9900K 8 core/16 thread) - Initially (my first 3 or 4 flights) the default 4 threads seemed ok - workflow: HRM at 30-10 NM --> freeze map/designate TGT --> run in, use TPOD to ID/sweeten target and drop LGB However I quickly found in both cold starts and air spawns 4 Threads = CTD, once I started using the HOTAS to take various sizes of HRM patch maps on the LMPD while also having the TPOD on the RMPD. 6 Threads - seemed to "fix" the CTD's ... but I've settled on 8 Threads on the basis it "might" give a little more headroom and it's 50% of my CPU's available threads. FPS is mostly unaffected (drops 1 fps) but a simple DCS Multi-thread training mission usually runs at +100FPS and I have Vsync set at 60 FPS. YMMV and I'm still testing.

AFAIK the in game pilot eye position is a compromise between the real life eye position and cockpit readability - which why there are Special Options VR and Monitor eyepoint offset adjustments in DCS>Options>Special>F-15E

They are NDB's (non-directional beacon's) used for navigation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-directional_beacon AQC @326 kHz is a real world beacon. https://skyvector.com/?ll=29.92351768255035,35.128440870413186&chart=301&zoom=1

It's a known bug - AFAIK it's already been fixed in PC's internal build and is waiting to be pushed out with ED's next patch cycle (likely sometime in July but who knows for sure). The cyclic has full movement in my install - so the limitation seems particular to your set up. I suggest checking you axis settings and that Y Saturation = 100% Note the old recommendation was to set pitch saturation between 40-60%, so if you're still using your old curves/saturations - you'll want to reset your joystick settings and fine tune from there.

Dumb bombs don't self identify - so the PACS page needs to be used to set the bomb type. Explained here @23:16

Yes, my secondary PC has a 1st gen i7-860 @2.8MHz - paired with a RTX 2070 Super it runs Multi-threaded DCS at 80-90 fps. Noting that a CPU supporting AVX is required to run the DCS F-15E in the specs. would seem sensible (unless the requirement is a compiler error).

AFAIK we will get mavericks later during early access as they were tested on the F-15E and pilots were trained to use them. Mavericks were never deployed operationally, so having them for the initial EA release was (understandably) a low priority compared to having a solid TGP/LGB implementation. Later in development the F-15E will get the AGM-130 which was used against bridges and SAM sites, however it was more a DEAD (Destruction of Enemy Air Defences) weapon than SEAD.

Not sure what you are doing wrong, as RAlt+Num0 will always save to the last used snap view ? Procedure is 1. Backup "Saved Games\DCS\Config\View\SnapViews.lua" so you can always revert if you mess something up. 2. Enter aircraft (disable TrackIR, etc. as req'ed) i.e. a cold start spawn 3. Check default snap view is selected i.e. Slew head position right with Num6, then tap Num5 to return to default/center view 4. Adjust FOV with Num/ and Num* and/or head position as req'ed (do not select another snap view until finished) 5. Once happy with the new default view, save it with RAlt+Num0 6. Exit the mission and confirm "Saved Games\DCS\Config\View\SnapViews.lua" has been updated i.e. has current date and time or the relevant P-51D section has updated. 7. Enter the aircraft a 2nd time and confirm the starting position/FOV has taken. 8. Repeat for other views/panels as desired. Tested DCS Open Beta Multi-thread 2.8.6.41066

AFAIK Auto hover, etc. for the new FM wasn't ready in time for ED's patching cycle - so doesn't work. Current recommendation is to use the regular cyclic trim and avoid auto-hover/slave.

7th September 2020 the AV-8B was said to be out of it's Early Access period and "feature complete" It's continued to be developed/improved with the addition of the Gen 4 Targeting Pod, APKWS, etc. and a still to come, INS rework.

AFAIK • Only basic Trim and SAS are working. • AFAIK SAS/damping works off your last trim position but is WIP due to the new flight model. • The old AP speed and altitude sub-modes, hover hold and auto-slew weren't ready in time for the current patch - so their use can be unpredictable. • Unfortunately rudder trimming is bugged (uses offset from center, rather than current position), so should be avoided if possible.

Is there any update on this, currently distance is the only value being displayed correctly when flying on the Caucasus map ? Distance 15.2 NM Ground Speed 64 KTS (correct value ~115 KTS) Ground Track 185°M (correct value 179°M, what is displayed is the TRUE) ETE 14:13 (incorrect due to wrong ground speed, should be approx. 7:56) Desired Track 195°M (correct value 189°M, what is displayed is the TRUE) Bearing to waypoint 194°M (correct value 188°M, what is displayed is the TRUE) DCS Open Beta Multi-thread 2.8.6.41066

Try the same in the "L" as it's lighter - I have no issue when starting with 66% (350 litre) of fuel. Note there is a known bug and using the rearm/refuel ground crew dialog doesn't change the aircraft's weight (fuel load needs to be set in the mission editor). A "standard" ALAT M1 loadout is 2 HOT Missiles with 66% (350 litre) fuel, however PC are checking the current equipment weight and aircraft performance with SME's i.e. the FM is still WIP and certain aspects may require further tuning AFAIK in a temperate climate, near sea level, with light winds - you should have no trouble flying with the new FM (the Gazelle is limited by it's Max allowable torque). Only at higher altitudes/ air temperatures will the engine limit max performance. Not sure as, it's not something I see - do you have any old settings, axis curves or a control conflict ?

AFAIK all the major FM features are in and adjusted to match the US Flight Test data. Possibly there's some fine tuning still required to match RL Gazelle M1 SME feedback (so consider the current FM still WIP) but overall I'm very happy with what Polychop have achieved.

The "L" is lighter than the "M", so I would start off testing that version (I've tested that on the 4YA Syria server near sea level). Unfortunately (fortunate for me) - most of my SA-342L test flights have been in single player where I've already set a 66% (350 litre) fuel load in the mission editor.