Flagrum

Happened to me all the time - until I made it a habit to disable the parking brake and unlocked the tail wheel.

But without appropriate radar illumination, the precision should be rather low, right? It is then basically just INS guided?

So I just dreamed it? o.O

The cameras are aligned to the horizon, so the direction where they are looking does not really change. Only the altitude (and therefore slant range) would change a few feet ...

I'm looking forward to it...

The Situal Awareness Cue of the TPOD, the small square that indicates where the TPOD is looking at - in relation to it's boresight position (= aircraft center line), is not behaving correctly. The SA cue is supposed to give a top-down view of where the TPOD is looking, with the aircraft in the center of the MFD: I.e. if the TPOD looks straight ahead at a target designation, the SA cue is supposed to be in the center top of the MFD. If it is looking somwhere at my 3 o'clock, it should be on the right side of the MFD. And so on. This is the behaviour in the Harrier, as long as I fly wings level. But any maneuvering of the a/c causes the SA cue to swing arround at the perimeter of the MFD. Banking and also pitch changes make the SA move to left and right and even seemingly looking at the 6 o'clock position - all while the TPOD reticle is still visible in the HUD and only 1-2 degreess left/right/above/below the acutal flight path marker (i.e. the SA cue should be shown at about the 12 o'clock position on the MFD). Note: if the TPOD is slaved to the velocity vector (SLV VV), the SA cue is always correctly exact at the center top of the MFD, regardless of any maneuvering. This leaves me with the impression, that the SA cue position is calculated based on the relative position of the TPOD reticle and the velocity vector on the HUD glass plane (instead of where they both are actually pointing at in the outside world). av8b tgp sa cue.trk

I seem to remember that some time ago a new ME feature was introduced: changing which unit of an AI group is the first one, the lead one (marked with a "1"). Iirc, it was some sort of keyboard short-cut that one had to hold while clicking at the new 1st unit in the mission editor ... Does anyone know? Thanks!

Update to my last posting: I simplified the test case - no more conditions, just a simple route: The Humvee should simply follow the waypoints 1...2...3...4...5 and when reaching 5 it should start over again at 1. Each time it passes a waypoint, a message is transmitted of which wpt was just passed. After 1 or 2 rounds, it starts to get erratic again and the transmissions do not match the actual position of the vehicle. And here as well, the AI starts skipping waypoints. test go wpt2.trk

I think, the issue is not the conditions set for this action. It seems to me rather that there is a general bug in the "switch waypoint" logic. The behaviour of the AI after a "swicht waypoint" seems to be rather erratic. I made a test mission with a Humvee, which is supposed to drive continuous in a either left hand circle or right hand circle. One waypoint decides which direction to take: left hand or right hand. Once the AI took the left hand route (using "switch waypoint"), things go downhill. This is the path the AI took (2/3 of the time left hand route - although 50% probability was set ... but might be a coincidence): The route setup in the ME: It almost looks like the AI sometimes "forgets" what it was doing or is supposed to be doing. I.e. once arrived at WPT 9 (lower left corner), it should stay "ON ROAD" - but as can be seen in the first screenshot, it randomly veers off into the meadows, wiggling around as if it can't decide which WPT it is supposed to head for next. It even skips one or more WPTs occasionally. The DCS.log might support this hypothesis as well: (.TRK and TacView attached) Tacview-20221230-211848-DCS-test go wpt.zip.acmi test go wpt.trk

Nobody noticed the track. Nobody knew the original posting was changed as such changes don't highlight the thread and everyone involved probably did not bother to re-read the whole thread letter by letter, but focussed on his actual reply to NLs request for a track. It's not always "this attitude on the forums here" ....

Nobody will be notified nor the thread highlighted for a new posting if you just edit old postings.

What I found on the internet about it: it's a cockpit programmable delay fuse and is supposed to be used penetrate the forrest canopy of wooded areas. I.e. the fuse detects hitting branches, but delays the action for some ms in order to get rocked closer to the ground. There is also an other option that is supposed to delay the action after penetrating light cover, i.e. (wooden) roofs of dug out shelters.

Exactly. Boresighting corelates the position, where the aircraft thinks the helmet is with the actual position of the helmet inside the cockpit. TIR recentering only changes the position of your virtual head inside the cockpit. Makes no difference, if you just move your virtual head around or let TIR do it.

To me it seems that Pilot George has difficulties, if the Attitude Hold is enabled. He is unable to completely overcome the SCAS (nor does he disable ATT Hold). If I ensure that ATT Hold is disabled before switching to the CPG seat, Geore is doing well.

Are you installing just the F-16 module? What does the progress indicator say about the download size. And what is your download speed?

That's a separate screen between the two cockpits, afaik. Depending on the angle you look at it, it's reflecting some light, it seems. I've noticed it myself as well, but with the explanation above, I had shrugged it off as "realism". ^^

Yes, but other manufacturers found better solutions to similar problems. I mean, I get it, I am biased as I am more used to other interface concepts. And surely many design decisions were implemented with a sound reasoning behind it. But still, it's just the (accumulation) of little things that seem to make things unneccessarily difficult for the users at times ...

Maybe I am missing something here, but what about not pulling too much collective to not give Betty anything to complain about ...?

Thinking about it, my suggestion might not work for every hat switch. For example, if a function has a long-press and short-press action behind it, just stepping through all functions will not be really viable. But I am not sure, if such hats actually exist - maybe FCR Mode?

There are several multi-position switches/hats. I.e. on the TEDAC: LHG FCR Mode, TADS FOV, LHG WAS, RHG FCR Scan Size and many more: Mapping all those to existing joystick hats can be quite difficult because of the sheer number of hats/buttons required. Suggestion: implement alternate bindings for these hat switches that just step-through the individual functions in a sensible order. For example, add a binding "LHG FCR Mode Step-Trough" which perform the next function at each activation (1. ATM, 2. GTM, 3. RMAP, 4. TPM, 5. go back to 1). Or "LHG TADS FOV Step-Through" steps through 1. Wide, 2. Medium, 3. Narrow, 4. Zoom

Depressing the Symbology Select Switch displays the FLT page on the left MPD. This is working ok. But if the FLT page is already displayed on the right MPD, the contents of both MPDs are supposed to be swapped. I.e. left MPD displays FLT and right MPD displays what was previously displayed on the left MPD. This does not work - the right MPD keeps showing the FLT page as well.

UX Design - User Interface Design. Can Boeing even ...? If I was to buy a new, would I consider Boeing as manufacturer/brand? NO. To me it seems apparent, that they can't design a proper user interface. My car would probably have nice cruise control ... but no accelerator pedal. You set the desired speed in a submenu of the board computer. The windshield wiper could only activated by the co-pil... from the passenger seat and navigation system would overlay 5 symbols of when/where/why to steer to. It would not provide a simple arrow, pointing into the right direction, but would provide just a steering cues that are unrelated to the actual orientation or direction of the car. *sigh* FA-18 - User Interface 6.5/10 AH-64 - User Interface: 5/10 F-16 - User Interface: 8.5/10 A-10 User Interface: 8/10 ... sorry, just had to let go of some steam ... ^^ (note: not complaining about what ED did - AWESOME job on those aircraft! But Boeing needs to hire some UX experts ...)

Default mapping is LCTRL + V

You have to utilize your biological LMC / Linear Motion Control (i.e. your neck).

Yeah, but what's the point in doing that?