Flagrum

Size is the same in my install. And yes, it is necessary. CoreMods contain the AI stuff of ALL modules - so you can fly together with them, even if you don't own the module.

If you have to enter the code anyways, to match the actual setting of the weapon, why not use that for reducing unnecessary redundance? You are suggesting that the PRF is set in the mission editor (ideally for every single LGB separately!) and then just to have it entered again in the cockpit. What does that add in terms of realism, playability or immersion? The only potential downside to the "cockpit setting sets physical LGB setting"-approach, as it is already used in the A-10C, is that it adds a level of flexibility that does not exist in RL. But there is a easy and elegant solution for that: don't exploit it.

But a pilot can only be as effective as the gun is. See also here please: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=198156

Don't EWR units provide that similar-to-AWACS functionality?

And yet the documents state "80% within 5mils". And about centrifugal forces as such - they act on the projectile only as long as they are inside the barrel. It seems possible, that this may cause some sort of of off-center trajectory in relation to the barrel bore line, but it would be the same for every round fired (within mechanical tolerences). Remember, it is only one barrel fireing at a time and that barrel is always at the same position when it fires. So, that effect may need some CCIP windage adjustment, but would not explain a significantly larger dispersion as such, imo.

Ah,ok, got it now. He just says, if a WP is the bullseye, then it is a diamond. If a WP is not the bullseye, it is a circle. I got it backwards at first: if the bullseye is a WP, then its a diamond, if the bullseye is not a WP, then it is acircle. That got me confused quite a bit... ^^

What about this part: "When the navigation WPT is the same as the A2A WPT, it's pictured as a diamond. If they are different, then it will be pictured as a circle." Hrm, what exactly is a A2A waypoint? Is that an other term for bullseye?

There is a difference between how (un)likely it is and how (im)possible it is. You know, 2017 is the past, 2018 is still ongoing. Nothing can happen in 2017 anymore, but in 2018 it is possible. Quantum mechanics 'n' stuff, you know? Why not wait until the milk is spilled when complaining about it?

2018 is not over, yet. :smartass: And Wags stated in one of the latest Hornet Mini Updates (iirc), that the next(ish?) changes in the pipeline will be under the 2.5.4 label. New Aircraft releses always(?) were accompanied by an increment in the DCS version number. So, to me it is still feasible to believe that the F-14 will be released with DCS 2.5.4 and that this will happen this year. :pilotfly:

What controller setup do you use? Do you use any of the manufacturers config tools (i.e. TARGET or similar)? I ask because I wonder if this issue might have to do with some sort of constant inputs that come from the controllers, maybe a button is "auto-fireing" constantly, overloading the input queue of DCS or something like that.

:thumbup: 1 kHz = 0.001 MHz Mit 460 MHz kann das Radio in der Gazelle natürlich nix anfangen. Die Modulation des Senders und Empfängers sollte übereinstimmen, sonst hörst du nichts. (Obwohl rein ADF müsste eigentlich schon gehen, oder? Aber selbst wenn, ist das vermutlich nicht implementiert).

Hmmm, ich sehe, du hast .... oh, nein, doch nicht. Nein, meine Kristallkugel bleibt leider dunkel. :(

Why is it impossible to get an acknowledgement from the devs here? Yes, it is a bug? No, it works as intended? We will fix it / not fix it?

Afaik "orbit" requires only one WP. The other option is "racetrack", which requires two WPs. (But I always struggle to recall, if the racetrack is flown between the current and the previous WP, or if it is the current and the next one ...)

I find this highly interesting and am looking forward to what you are coming up in the future! Two additional thoughts, though: 1. Get rid of that background music - it is distracting a bit. And maybe more important: for me, as a layman, you were going a bit too quickly over some aspects. For example, in the first video you showed check lists and CAS briefings, etc. to illustrate the comms flow - but it was not always clear to me which the corresponding items on the check lists were in regards to what the protagonists were talking about. Or in the second video, that keyhole concept ... I could derieve the idea behind what you were talking about, but still, why "keyhole"? And what was that "V-Diagram & Keyhole CAS" chart about? But to learn all about this stuff - that is what I am looking for. All the RL details, that we DCS pilots probably never heard of before, considering we probably only ever saw the JTAC comms menu in DCS... But thumbs up! Looking forward to more!

In the cockpit, we can select two different types of ammo for the gun. Question 1: what is the difference between the two? HE(I) vs. AP? Question 2: are we getting both types to be selectable in the mission editor?

The mod is missing the changes to ...\DCS World\Sounds\Speech\NATO.lua @arthipex: iirc, Home Fries split the mod into one "base portion", containing the (now obsolete) radio freq. stuff and also the coordinate stuff in i.e. NATO.lua, and several aircraft specific portions that contain the respective changes to their comm.lua.

GBU-24 is a Paveway III and so far, our LGBs were all Paveway II. The Paveway II use "bang-bang" steering which means, iirc, that the control surfaces deflect completely or deflect not at all. That leads to the well known swaying of the weapon, which is quite energy inefficient. It basically constantly over-steers and instantly has to correct that by oversteering again ... and again, etc. The Paveweay III uses a more refined steering - more analogous. I.e. more precise = less oversteering = less drag = more reach (my personal laymans conclusions!)

Afaik it was never a problem in a historical context. I.e. historical photographies etc. But nothing in DCS is historical, it is a product of the year 20xx. Especially when considering the maps and missions the aircraft fly here - that is not really an historical accurate reenactment.:smartass:

One thing that stands against a (central) Europe map is the population density. And probably the amount of trees... maybe still too much details needed than DCS can really handle - for a decent sized map.

Afaik ED tuned the AI behaviour in this regard 1 or 2 patches ago, if I am not mistaken. But I only saw something related in the LUA files and have not actually tested in in-game, though.

In den LUA files gibt (gab?) es auskommentiertes Coding dazu. Im wesentlichen waren das hier zwei zusätzliche Optionen auf der MFD Seite zu den JDAM Einstellungen: Azimut (aus welcher Richtung soll die Bombe einschlagen) und Angle (Einschlagwinkel). Vermutlich wird es da einige Restriktionen geben, welche Parameter(-kombinationen) möglich/sinnvoll sind. Und ja, ich habe die Codestellen spasseshalber mal aktiviert, aber sie wirkten sich nicht auf das Abwurfergebnis aus ... :-( :music_whistling:

Would be great, if the ground mapping radar could be overlayed. Similar to the FLIR overlay of the HUD in the Harrier. Would be awesome at night, right? Is that a possibility?

That means, that you can only temporarily change the elevation? Sounds tedious ... +1 As probably only 0.000001% of all sim pilots have a control setup that supports such a configuration, this current design is virtually unusable for the rest of us. :noexpression: