Flagrum

My understanding is that both TAS and RALT provide both, independently, means to calculate the range to the target. TAS gives slant angle and range and is therefore more accurate than RALT which gives only the local altitude above the ground (which can be significantly different from the target's location). I.e. it is not mandatory to have two sources for calculating the range and TAS should be enough. But I will try that as well regardless. edit: with TAS + RS still no change: reticle does not move to adjust for the changing distance.

Yes, RDR active in TAS mode, but no RALT active. The impact points are somewhat close to the pipper if I am in range. But that is not "CCIP", that is more or less just coincidence. I would rather expect the pipper move - according to the measured distance - up within the HUD the closer you get. But it doesn't. It is fixed at the same position at the HUD, regardles of the distance to the impact point.

Both, the A2G gun reticle and the rocket reticle, do not move to adjust for a computed impact point. They are not CCIP, but instead just sit at a fixed depression angle. Is this intentional or a bug/wip? I seem to remember that in the first iterations of the gun pipper implementation, the reticle actually moved - but somewhat rough due to the TAS implementation at that time (if I recall Zeus' words correctly).

Awesome! Thank you!!

I would imagine, such sensors are rather conservative in their design (rather "electrical" than "electronical"?). For reliability reasons, for cost reasons and for lack-of-necessity reasons. I mean, there is no point for great accuracy for such sensors, is there? It doesn't help the pilot if he knows that the missile is coming at him at 99 degrees. All he needs to know is "MISSILE FROM RIGHT!"

"längere Zeit" oder (lt. Google) "lange Zeit"? Klingt für mich tatsächlich eher nach "cancelled" ... oder zumindest genauso "work in progress" wie die F-16 und der Apache ....

Not sure how practical this is, but as we have now this new annotation feature for the F10 map, a team should be able to plan a new flight plan where everyone has the same waypoint data available. These could then be entered into the aircraft's nav system. (although it might be still a bit of a challenge in regards to magnetic deviation - F10 map vs. Viggen Nav)

I like the line symbology! But I still wonder, if such representation isn't maybe a bit too acurate? I mean, the exact bearing - are the sensors really capable of that, in terms of precision?

Is it just me, or is she really sensitive to roll inputs? Without curves, I can barely keep her wings level - at any speed. :-/

I think, it is just an user interface thing. That small knob that you can rotate to enter headings - it is used wherever a direction is to be entered in the mission editor. And so, in ancient times, someone at ED used this knob as well for wind, to enter 0 - 359 degrees ... as a heading/where-the-wind-blows-to/etc. which is just contrary to everyday RL handling of wind directions ("where-it-blows-from").

That is *insert a synonym of your choice here for fecal matter*. It is just so that this discussion goes on since, dunno, probably even _before_ the release of the module. How long ago is that now? 8+ years? And what good did all these arguments and good reasons and whatnot to extend the module? Can't you people understand that this is tiring and boring and, well, just pointless?

It was meant as some sort of rhetorical question with an very obvious answer ("No."). A specific airframe can not have all kinds of generic features of that family - if there is no family but only a bunch of prototypes.

:doh: And there could be glittering unicorns, puking rainbows ... could be, couldn't it? And we have 100% more Ka-50's in DCS than B-2's ... so what?

The thing is, we don't have "a Ka-50" or "the Ka-50". Instead we have a very specific (ptototype) model of a Ka-50. It is a snapshot, a single point in time of the development of the (real) helo. Yes, there were intentions and plans and whatnot for this airframe. But this is not relevant, as the design choice by ED was to pick up this model. (disclaimer: yes, I, too, would be more happy with our BS if it were meant to replicate a generic exemplar of the production line ... but. it. is. not.)

... which is a prerequisite to operate a can opener

There. That was your mistake. ;o) (no seriously, they really just want to play. Well, they DO have claws - but if you stay calm, it usually ... doesn't hurt (too much ;o)

:music_whistling:

Why? To make sure, nobody else will find it if experiencing similar issues?

The russians believe otherwise. But yeah, without proper sighting equipment it is more or less pointless.

Would be nice, if the standard weapons would properly (de-)equipable, i.e. the 3d model only be rendered if the weapon was actually selected in the mission editor. The way it is now (only switching on/off of the standard weaps) makes it hard to modders ... or to you, if you decide to provide other weapons/weapon variants.

Why not? Afraid that someone could find your posting and maybe even find help with similar issues?

But the way it was spelled could be interpreted as one, though. :o) But I am pretty sure, it was not meant that way.

I noticed this when trying out the guns and wondered, if this is the correct behaviour. When you approach the target and line up the aircraft, the pipper suddenly jumps downward when you get into the max range. This makes it a bit hard to aim. Wouldn't it be more intuitive if the default placement of the pipper were at the max range position? And perhaps the default placement at the boresight position would be only the default if neither TAS nor RS were active?

Hrm. Always visible ..? That rather sounds like a bug then. Why would you want lase all the time? Especially if, as you said, laser warning receivers will pick it up as well. Just makes no sense, imo. @Polychop - could you chime in here please? Bug? Feature (with what reasoning)?

Annoying - in which way? Isn't it only visible if the range finding laser is active for a few seconds?