QuiGon

Missions with a mission date prior to 1994 will not have GPS. In the F-16 you can currently check if GPS is available on the FIX page of the DED (as the actual GPS page isn't implemented yet): You can also just disable the GPS receiver on the F-16 by setting the GPS switch to OFF on the system panel on the right side. Without GPS, the INS will not be able to automatically update its position and will start to drift over time (you will notice waypoints aren't exactly where they are supposed to be anymore), requiring manual nav fixes in order to keep the INS accurate.

Das auf jeden Fall. Die Frage ist immer nur welcher Weihnachtsbaum

Dev Update:

You need to press CMS DOWN LONG in order to toggle the jammer on/off.

A screenshot of your axis assignments would definitely help us to analyze the issue.

Wieso denn nicht?

Schön zu sehen, dass du das Problem lösen konntest und vielen Dank dafür, dass du uns auch an deiner Lösung teilhaben lässt, denn das hilft vielleicht auch noch anderen Spielern Kleine Anmerkung am Rande: Dein Problem waren keine Lags (Netzwerkverbindungsprobleme im Multiplayer), sondern Ruckler/Frameeinbrüche. Das mag vielleicht etwas kleinlich klingen, aber ich finde diesen semantischen Unterschied durchaus wichtig, da es mich jedes mal verwirrt wenn die Leute von dem einen reden aber das andere meinen

Gilt das nur für einfache SP-Missionen oder auch für die großen MP-Server mit ~50 Spielern und Einheiten über die ganze Map verteilt? Weil das ist was ich in erster Linie spiele und was ich da so von meinen VR-Buddies höre müssen die da schon ziemliche Einschnitte in den Grafikoptionen in Kauf nehmen um dort mit VR unterwegs sein zu können.

Da steht aber nirgendwo, dass das eine Export-Bezeichnung sein soll. Anderswo lese ich, dass die D einfach in C-8 umbenannt wurde, während ich an wieder anderen Stellen lese, dass die C-8 in D umbenannt wurde Aber ja, im Endeffekt scheint es wohl die gleiche Missile zu sein

Huch, hast du dafür ne Quelle? Das höre ich zum ersten mal und würde gerne wissen wieso das so sein soll.

Jap, genau das (Performance/Optik) ist auch der Grund wieso ich mich von VR in DCS eher fernhalte. Ich hass es wenn ich nicht auf maximalen Grafikdetails spielen kann und das ist mit VR leider kaum machbar. Außerdem bin ich jemand der gerne viel mit der Avionik interagiert und Rollen wie RIO/WSO/Gunner übernehme, was ich in VR immer recht umständlich finde und am Bildschirm wesentlich einfacher von der Hand geht.

Ue the RB-04. It passes by most naval defenses, including gun CIWS.

Yeah, although imho the damage stuff is more an issue of the way too simplistic damage model of the ships, rather than the warhead size of the missile. Very true. Currently it's pretty much either all of them get intercepted or none of them is. It's missing a more nuanced simulation of missile interceptions.

That's it! In my previous attempts I didn't manually freeze the image. If doing it like you said it works fine (see track file) F15E map store recall.trk

I've never seen an RB-04 being taken out by gun CIWS. Really? Interesting. I always thought the AGM-84 is the only anti ship missile in DCS that is performing somehwat realistically, as you really have to saturate AEGIS and similar equipped ships with them, which is what I would expect how it works IRL (not taking things like surprise or technical issues into account). That's also what I'm used to from Command Modern Operations, as I have no experience with these things IRL.

That's exactly how EDs own anti ship missiles (like the AGM-84 Harpoon) are configured. For the more potent warships you need at least 10+ Harpoons to saturate them in order to achieve a single hit, as those ships kill Harpoons like flies. The way older and less sophisticated RB-04 is much more potent than the much more modern Harpoon in DCS due to how it is configured in DCS, which is kinda weird.

So what's the reason that the gun CIWS doesn't work against the RB-04? Is it an issue with the damage model of the RB-04, as it's probably not an altitude issue?

Unfortunately there's quite some truth in that... Btw, is the RB-15 flying at a higher altitude or why is it easier to intercept than the RB-04?

Awesome find! That answers so many questions I've had about this for a while!! So, now the question is where the issue is. Is the RB-04 flying too low or are SAMs not going low enough?

I just took a look at your track file. You're using the Ticonderoga as a target, which (in DCS) does not have RIM-116 RAM as part of its defense system, unlike the Arleigh Burke or Roosevelt. It seems like the RIM-116 is currently the only weapon system in DCS that can intercept the RB-04 successfully (and very reliably even).

Does that work for you? If I press NEW nothing happens.

Is this still an issue? Coincidentally I just tested this 4 days ago against the Roosevelt carrier (without escorts) and the RB-04s didn't reach it as the carrier took them both out with its RIM-116 RAM missiles (carrier set to average skill level).

That's how I understand it as well, but I think the recall function is not implemented yet.

+1 Absolutely needed!