Flagrum

In Munich they had to blow one up in the middle of the city. They "padded" the surrounding buidlings/area with hay bales, iirc, to dampen the blast and to protect from debris (would not help much against actual shrapnell, but I don't really know). Well, turns out that hay and explosives/fire do not go together too well ...

Both is possible, 3rd party devs using the available weapons made by ED and also inventing new (or re-inventing existing) weapons as well. But in DCS, mainly only the physical properties are specified and simulated. That means, if the ED variant of a weapon is used, then the effect on the target (explosion strength, visual effects, etc.) are the same, no matter which aircraft was used to employ it. Same goes for the ballistic properties, including guidance stuff. So, a GBU-38 "flies" the same, no matter who dropped it. What is not shared across modules is how a weapon is integrated into an aircraft. For dumb bombs it is rather simple: it is attached to the aircraft, you press a button, it is no longer attached (and then the ED code for the "flying" part comes into play). For weapons with tons of electronics and their own software: every developer has to ensure that this part is simulated in their respective module. The visual representations that some weapons feed to the aircraft (EO/IR video feed, that laser spotting visual of a MAVE in the Harrier vs. FA-18, etc.) and the possible interactions with the weapon are all part of the code of the module, not of DCS:W.

+1 Uhm, well, usually the technology to find them is something like this: No. They either go up some day or they won't. But they never really become "safe" without digging them up and getting rid of them. In germany, a lot of effort it put into finding them before someone accidentally digs them up, though. Aerial photographs from WWII are analyzed to find duds that might still be in the ground. I think, it is a mandatory prerequisite in many places/cities to have that be done before you are allowed to build a house on your own property in germany. edit: oh, ok, sorry. You were asking about modern bombs. Yes, there are attempts to make them safer. For example the bomblets of a CBU-97 are supposed to deactivate themselfs if they neither found a target nor went off when hitting the ground. Dumb cluster amunitions are said to have a rather high number of duds (like 20+%?), causing problems for decades (hence the attempts to ban CBUs). The CBU-97 is supposed to yield only 3%? 5%? of dud submunitions ...

They get more dangerous the older they get. Especially those with chemical (delay) fuses which become more and more unpredictable over time. The explosives as such don't go bad, afaik, as long as it is contained in the bomb shell and doesn't get in contact with air or water or so.

The phrasing of the poll question is borderlining to be insulting, imo.

From the Wags AMA at Mudspike (https://www.mudspike.com/mudspike-ama-with-eagle-dynamics-senior-producer-matt-wagner/) He does not answer the question but what he said sounds like "No BST = no AH-1" to me, i.e. there are no plans for the Cobra at the moment. If I read this wrong, please correct me, ED ...:noexpression:

.

Make sure that "AutoTrimmer" is disabled in the Game Options.

Make sure that you have disabled "AutoTrimmer" under Game Options.

That means that the function to load the coordinates from the F10-map into the aircraft is only available on ground? I ask because in the short video Decoy posted 1-2 days ago, he did that in the air, iirc. I assume, that was due to the WIP nature of the feature?

... we are. .

Vorverkauf ohne Angabe, wann das Produkt verfügbar ist, ist übrigens nicht statthaft. https://www.onlinehaendler-news.de/e-recht/aktuelle-urteile/31997-olg-muenchen-media-markt-liefertermin Mit nur wenig Fantasie liesse sich daraus auch ableiten, dass damit das fertige Produkt gemeint ist und eine unbestimmte beta oder EA Phase auch nicht statthaft ist. Das allerdings nur "imho".

It just seems odd to me to have to undesignate my target in order to get a lock of my target. On the other hand, even without ground stabilization, shouldn't the MAV seeker head keep looking at the designated target if it is slaved to the designated target? To me, it would make more sense, if it were like this, either a) slew MAV to TGT once but then let me slew it manually, OR b) slave MAV to TGT but then let it keep looking at it

This was originally meant as reply to https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4022391&postcount=4 (now closed) If a target is designated, i.e. per WPDSG or TPOD, and the MAVF is slaved to it, it can not be slewed anymore. You have to undesignate the target first. This seems weired to me as you can not "sweeten" a lock. Or worse, if the MAV does not lock right away - if the designated target was not precise enough - you can't even slew it to the actual target. Undesignating the target in this case, i.e. losing/reducing the available SA, in order to remedy that seems odd to me. This issue is worsened because of the fact (different bug/issue?) that the MAV, once slaved to the target, is not ground stabilized. I.e. the MAV looks initially at the target, but as the aircraft moves, the MAV's line of sight moves with it accordingly and eventually ends somewhere completely different (+ unable to slew it back manually).

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3120347

This is actually sounds like a reasonable way to do it. Does not explain, why STEP directly at the stores page, unlike for the weapons, has to be omitted, but at least it makes some sense ... "to do it the JDAM way". Finally something substancial after all the other troll replies here. Thanks!

ok?

Could you PM me the source? Exactly, no fiddling around for PP targets! But I have to, if I can not drop them in quantity release.

I doubt that as that is quite counter intuitive and awkardly complex to handle atm. I am not talking about the programming. I rather assume in my scenario, that that has ben done already (with whatever means, cartridge, manual input on the ground, etc.). All is set up, STA 8 boxed by default as it is the priority station for single release. But I want not drop from STA 8, but from STA 7 and 5 seconds later the next one from STA 3. And the only way is to deep dive into the stores subpages and to fiddle around with the selected stations for quantity releases - within those 5 seconds? Sounds, as I said, very awkward. Especially when considering that the concept of the STEP function directly at the STORES page is not new - it is done that way for all other weapons as well.

The STEP function at the Stores format should exist, imo. How else can I select a different priority station when I do not intent do perform a quantity release? Scenario: two targets - for the primary target I have 2 weapons loaded on sta 8 and sta 2, for the secondary on sta 7 and 3. I want to release each bomb individually, as in both cases the actual impact points are too far apart for a quantity release (i.e. pickel -> drop -> wait ->pickel -> drop). In flight I get a call that my primary target was cancelled and I should go for the secondary target. Now, how do I select sta 7? and after a few seconds sta 8?

Yes, it could be a matter of the user interface. But that would seem strange to me. "Elevation" is, imo, a rather unusual term when talking about AGL. Also I believe, the JDAM/JSOW page is the weapon data, i.e. as it is stored in the weapon. You don't set up an "abstract" delivery profile for your attack, but you rather program each single weapon individually and directly. And finally, the elevation field on the JDAM/JSOW page references the WGS ellipsoid. Why would you do that if you mean "AGL"? Some clarification from 9L or Wags would help here - as they brought up the idea to enter "AGL" as elevation ...

That would help to determine the proper elevation of the target. But we are discussing if the weapon itself requires an absolute elevation or if a relative elevation of "a bit above the ground" could suffice (i.e. changing manually the ELEV of the weapon). Assuming that the weapon does not have it's own elevation database, it has no idea where the ground is.

The elevation is relative to the geoid that was choosen for projecting the earth surface to a flat map. And that elevation is cruical for our 3D coordinates. It would therefore make no sense to just say "1 ft above ground" as that says nothing about the absolute position of that point (i.e. THAT is what we are looking for: the elevation of the ground!).

But "1ft AGL" does not provide that, as the ground can be closer or farther away from the satelites. The absolute distance is needed. And that would be provided by giving an elevation in relation to a fixed reference (i.e. known by GPS). That would be, so far my understanding goes, the geoid - a mathematically model of the earth surface, for example "WGS", wich we also already saw in the JDAM data page.

Oh, I am taking this very serious, but you are veering off-topic here or there is a stark a difference in perception here. You keep stressing, how important rule 1.16 is, but I am not even arguing against the existence or enforcement of the rule as such! It is about HOW enforcement of the rule 1.16 is done. There is a difference in quality when a) linking to a downloadable document, b) posting hardcopies or copy&pasting content, or c) stating a document title. The difference is, one gives direct access to the content of the document and the other is merely acknowledging that such a document exists. These are very different ways of how one could handle such documents and only one of them was subject to rule 1.16 in the beginning. Based on that, how can one be expected to deduce the other way to be "obviously" being implied in the rule as well? And furthermore, when eventually both ways were condensed into the new rule 1.16, you use your best judgement to come down hard on violators of the "a document exists"-faction and, within hours, "direct access granter" get a just a slight rap on their knuckles in form of a deleted posting. I can not understand how this can not be seen as arbitrary and random. I would have thought, given the severity of the whole document sharing issue, the necessity of explicit and clear communication of what is allowed and what is not, should have been of utmost importance. That would be at least a better way to make sure, that "people are getting it" than "coming down hard" on them.