AndyJWest

Yup, I found the same thing. It only seemed to affect the 2.75 in rockets - the Zunis I used first were on target, or at least not so obviously wrong. Another thing I noticed, possibly related, was that the STRS page showed a TGT ELEV for rockets, whereas from memory, it didn't before: I managed somehow to get it reset to zero (closer to my target elevation), somehow, though I'm not entirely sure what I did to do this. In any case, the rockets were still missing afterwards. Something is clearly awry. EDIT: I've just noticed it also reads MODE MANUAL on the screen, but not on the ACP. I think it should be in CCIP mode for rockets - maybe it was configured wrong.

Yes, I know it isn't precise. Which is why I'm asking if there is a way to make it so. 'Buy more controllers' isn't really helpful, since RAZBAM clearly intend systems to work with the inputs they provide.

Is there any way to adjust the rates of movement of nozzle rotation and STO stop position when using either a HOTAS button or the keyboard? They seem to move too fast for me, making setting a precise angle tricky. If the rate of movement was a little slower, it would make things much easier. I could put one or the other on my HOTAS radar elevation rotary, but that is also rather awkward to use with any precision.

It has been done on other sims (see e.g. https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/9614-using-faders-as-sliders/ ) but it involves using external software to emulate a controller, is tricky to set up, and you may find the low resolution (0-127) of Midi sliders/rotaries to be a problem.

Loving the Tomcat.

Possibly. But without a better source for actual performance figures, stating the conditions and configuration, there is no way to be sure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer As for performance in DCS, it will depend, as with the real world, on aircraft configuration, and on atmospheric conditions.

After looking into this further, and reviewing multiple tracks/recordings of my efforts, I've come to the conclusion that I do better if I use the ball (or ICLS, since they still concur at this point) to get close in, but for the last couple of seconds, use the velocity vector as a guide, and eyeball myself in. This isn't how NATOPS says you are supposed to do it...

Yup, that's my impression too, at least some of the time. i have a suspicion though that there is something else going on, possibly related to things that shouldn't really be affecting the IFLOLS at all - possibly the wind speed and direction and/or the speed of the ship. I'm going to continue to look into this, and see if I can narrow it down.

That may not necessarily be inaccurate. From Aerodynamics For Naval Aviators, 1965, P.381:

Yeah, a video would probably demonstrate the issue better. I've got a track of that landing, but ideally what is needed is a live recording, with the control inputs showing. I'll see if I can come up with one. As for energy state, and adding power, you're right - though I don't think I did that, since I was deliberately following what ICLS said, rather then the ball, and had no reason to. Maybe I was a little early with the full-throttle-at the wire move, since I'd got rather used to getting bolters. I should probably repeat the test several times, and see if that may be part of the problem. Regarding this, I've been looking at what TacView has to show too, and it may be helpful. From a quick look, there isn't any obvious sign of me flattening out in the landing I got the screenshot of, and I don't seem to have been accelerating before the aircraft pitched down as it hit the deck. A note of caution though - there seem to be discrepancies in TacView that make trying to analyse what happens over short timescales problematic.

@G B: I agree that ICLS shouldn't matter if you are in the groove. The fact is however that the screenshot shows me as being low according to IFLOLS, yet I caught the 4th wire. As for science, or rather maths (this is a geometry problem), I'd agree that better data would help. If we had it. Meanwhile we can only go on what we have, and if I follow IFLOLS all the way to the deck (as per NATOPS), I miss the wires. Maybe there is something else going on, if other people aren't having the same issue, but it seems pretty consistent to me.

Note that the velocity vector on the HUD doesn't give a direct indication of yaw. It will be offset in a crosswind, even if you have no sideslip, and the effect becomes greater as wind increases and/or your TAS decreases: the velocity vector tells you which direction you are moving relative to a stationary GPS/inertia derived fixed 'ground', rather than the air (or the carrier for that matter).

It wouldn't explain why the ICLS and the IFLOLS contradict each other close in, for the Hornet. See the screenshot from SnapRoll here, which started the discussion in the other thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4379803&postcount=1 I've had exactly the same result: IFLOLS is showing way low. ICLS is showing marginally high. AoA is good. As is pitch angle (the W index is at 5°, as it should be with 8.5° AoA and a 3.5° glideslope). No wind, so level deck. Carrier was doing 25 kt. I caught the 4th wire, which is consistent with me being a little high.

See earlier thread on the same issue. Something definitely seems off: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=277591

As a noob Hornet pilot, I'm reluctant to blame the sim for something that may be down to my lack of experience, but I've been coming to much the same conclusion. As I've been getting better at following the IFLOLS close in, I've been getting more bolters. As I said in an earlier post, I'd taken to turning off the ICLS once I called the ball, since if they agree they aren't both necessary - but if they don't agree, and it is the IFLOLS that is wrong, I've clearly been making things harder for myself.

I've found it easier to turn the ICLS off once I call the ball. Either they are both telling me the same thing, in which case I don't need them both, or they are telling me different things, which I need even less...

I'm certainly no naval aviator (or any other sort for that matter), but I doubt that you'd want to raise the gear until you were well clear of the wires. Catching one with the gear halfway up could be embarrassing. ;) Seriously though, the LSO-bot needs more work in my opinion, and as it stands has to be ignored sometimes. Concentrate on making a proper stable controlled approach according to the ball, and don't worry too much about his yelling, or his subsequent alphabet-soup ratings.

Yeah, I think the LSO triple-portion alphabet soup I posted above was the result of a waveoff call made when I was about six feet off the deck. Certainly too late to do anything about it, and I caught a wire anyway. The LSO-bots radio calls are frequently either too late, or directly in contradiction of what the ball is saying, and I generally try to ignore them. A work in progress...

To determine whether the wind is what causes the miss* in the OP's video, it needs to be tried again with no wind. * Frankly, I'm not sure I would call that a miss anyway. It destroys the target. I don't know what the real-world GBU12 expected margin of error is, but I'd be surprised if a metre or so was problematic. The Mk 82 is a blast/fragmentation weapon, and you don't need to hit the target dead on with it.

Never mind startup. I want to know how you refuel at sea. :blink:

Is that a LSO grading, or an optician's chart? :smilewink: We should probably hold a competition to see who can get the longest LSO report, and still be alive at the end of it... Edit: How about this effort of mine: LSO:GRADE:WO _TMRDIC_ _LOIC_ _PIC_ WO(AFU)TL WO(AFU)IC 3PTSIW Yup. The LSO says that I should have waved off three times. Though to be fair, he only told me it was AFU twice...

If DCS laser-guided munitions of any sort are missing because of wind, it is a bug. A rather unlikely one, I'd think, since I'm sure it would have been reported (and corrected) a long time ago.

To add to this, the HMD is badly affected too, and practically unusable in daylight (not tried it at night). The lack of visibility seems to correlate more or less directly with head up/down angle - it is at its worse when looking horizontally, while getting progressively better as you look up or down.

I'm fairly sure I read somewhere that ideally they'll do what you suggest, when practical - set the BRC to the right of dead into wind enough to put the apparent wind straight down the angle. Not always achievable, obviously.