howie87

Wrong thread. This is not community news.

I'd say it shouldn't be a priority now - there are more important things to fix. Down the line though, sure. Who doesn't love a bit of eye candy... The thing you have to take into account though is the time it takes to implement these features for all aircraft. Also, as soon as we get one thing some people want something else. We've already had wingtip vortices, wing flex, engine smoke and touchdown smoke improved in the last year alone.

Eject! Trust me, you don't want to be fooling around with the keyboard when it's time to hit the canvas.

Sounds awesome skate. Keep up the good work!

Oh really? And who's making that? ;)

Did somebody say BLUE STEEL?

It's called the mission editor ;) The engines cut out before I even dropped the bomb!

A Mk-84 dropped at Mach 0.78 from 45,000ft will fly 10nm and top out just under Mach 1.3 (in DCS anyway) I can't test any higher/faster than that with the A-10! Edit: Added Mk-82 for comparison - looks exactly the same

The most startling difference to me is that after 30 seconds of freefall, the Mk-82 breaks the sound barrier and the GBU-38 has slowed down to Mach 0.5!

I just re-tested at 20,000ft with ballistic trajectory set for the GBU-12 and a maximum range shot with the GBU-38. Here's a nice graph that demonstrates the difference in the flight model. The GBU-38 did actually travel further but its terminal velocity seems waaaaaaay off. I've also attached a Mk-82 vs GBU-38 Mach vs Time graph. They were both dropped at 30,000ft. The GBU-38's time of fall is more than double the Mk-82's and it impacts at Mach 0.3 vs Mach 1.1 for the '82.

Is it just a single figure for each aircraft or does it change depending on aspect?

Was that a yes to the AI version AND the external model? Also, what about RWR symbols in other aircraft? Will you see a 21 symbol in the A-10C if you're being locked up for example and is ECM effective against the MiG-21 with it being an older airframe? I assume that an ECM pod like the ALQ-184 would give the MiG a very hard time in real life...

That's my main issue with it at the moment, from what I've read the GBU-38 should have much more range than a GBU-12 or Mk82 because of the strakes that increase its lift and glide range and the ballistic guidance. I understand the cost/benefit argument and realise there has to be a cut off point somewhere but man... I really want half decent JDAM's.

OK, I get what you're saying but just don't believe it would be 'that' difficult for ED. It's beyond my abilities but then again, I failed physics at college. Someone like Yoyo or Olgerd would surely be able to figure it out though? Is a coasting missile not just steering towards its ballistic solution (whilst also gliding, and constantly calculating lead on a moving target)?

Yes

The issue with that is that the GBU-12 kind of flies in a straight line at its target, where as the JDAM should fly more of a ballistic arc. Also, the GBU-12 only receives guidance when its nose is pointed at the laser, not as soon as it starts to fall. The best thing to do would be to use the GBU-12 flight model and a tweaked version of the guidance from one of the AFM missiles in the 'coasting' stage of flight. If ED can make an AFM missile that travels at Mach 3 and can hit a moving target from 40nm, they should be able to simulate a free falling bomb, guided towards a stationary target. Proper modeling of JDAM's is desperately needed before DCS: F/A-18C. Missiles are getting a work over right now, JDAMS should be next.

Are there any plans for an external model of the MiG-21 (or an AI version) to be included in the core DCS package like there will be for the Hawk?

When we get the F/A-18C I really hope they make improvements to the way the data cartridge system works that filter down to the A-10C. At the glacial pace things happen around there though, I'm not holding my breath.

The main issue is that it's just not as useful as ait should be. It should be gliding further and falling faster. Even without the advanced features of a real JDAM, this would be a huge improvement.

Well, if we're going to play that game... ;)

Yeah... I really hope said member manages to complete the project and ED actually pay attention and agree to help out. This would be a great addition to DCS.

To me this seems like it should be a priority. It doesn't have anywhere near the correct aerodynamics. Why not just give it the flight dynamics of a Mk82 and simple guidance of some sort? At least then it would fall like a bomb instead of a cardboard box.

Yeah, I'm interested to see what the next version brings as well. Vyrtuoz hasn't been on the forum in over a year... Edit: Just found this though. Looks promising.

I just did some testing in Tacview. Here are the results: GBU 38: Release altitude - 14200 ft ASL Impact altitude - 13 ft ASL TAS at release - 312 kts TAS at impact - 198 kts TOF - 48 sec GBU 12: Release altitude - 16000 ft ASL Impact altitude - 16 ft ASL TAS at release - 356 kts TAS at impact - 550 kts TOF - 35 sec Something is clearly not right here.

I would like an improved system where the following settings could be saved to different 'virtual' data cartridges which could be edited from within the mission editor and be saved as individual files. They could then be loaded on the fly, from the cockpit in any mission. Waypoints, mark points, steer points, flight plans, names, DTOT, elevation etc. TAD preferences and settings Inventory settings for weapon fuzes, lazer codes Weapon profile settings (Name, DTOF, min alt, lase time, maverick EO on time and settings etc) CMS profiles TGP preferences IFFCC preferences This way when we create a mission data card for a flight, we could just send the file to each other, jump into a cold jet and load the data cartridge. A screen would then ask for your squadron number, flight callsign and and position in the flight (eg 1,2,3 or 4). It would then set all your laser codes and ID's accordingly so they don't conflict. In the 476th we have to do all this manually, for every flight. This would save an awful lot of time, as well as be more realistic.