Razor18

I would rather count on the community making such checklists in the User files section...

"One potato, two potato".

Oh... I stand corrected.

Hi Badger, unless I'm missing something, in your missions I saw 4 ships around the carrier as visual markers of the overhead pattern, in the corners of the square, with the carrier in the middle. But according to the CNATRA P-816, in the "Overhead (Port) Holding" pattern, #1 is always overhead the carrier itself, #2 will be after a 90 degrees left (Port) turn starting above the carrier, #3 will be another 90 degrees turn (opposite to the carrier), and #4 will be after 270. So actually only 3 additional ships are needed, and they should be rather a corner points of a diamond (looking upwind on the BRC) with the carrier as #1, "starting point". You probably looked at the image only, but the image is wrong. Read the text below.

Yeah, that's what I did, test bursts.

Hi Badger, in the „Snake Trap” mission the long discussed gun accuracy bug has hit me again, at the dam scenario. The gun has shot very long again (impacting rather somewhere at the top of the circular gun reticle instead of where the pipper dot pointed), and with the downward adjustment I got myself into the AAA envelope, and died. Several guys reported it earlier, ED always wants to have the track as a proof, but the track of a 1,5 hour mission is very huge, and the problem is always at the end of the track, obviously. Can we edit the track file, or make a short snippet from the end of it showing the bug only? I’m also thinking about using the M-83 bomb to take them out, but the mission asks for gun at the dam, and I’m afraid I would need the 83 later. Any advise?

On speed AoA always depends on gross weigth at that moment. Unless you always reach Mother with the same gross weight...

I see ex81 quoted you in his answer, but if you put it in context with the OP, it's quite clear that it was not you, who was not very familiar with the acronyms. Just as I reflected on it right before ex81's post.

track sent on Feb 9

OK, short answer is no then. "A TACAN only equipped aircraft cannot receive bearing information from a VOR only station." See more detailed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_air_navigation_system Does this help maybe?

AS far as I know, TACAN is for military, and VOR/DME is for civilian. I dunno which charts you are talking about, DCS or real life?

You are basicly right, but during miniscule thrust corrections it never hurts to note which speed value was "right" for the proper descent speed or for horizontal flight on the downwind leg for that matter. Also, by peeking at the speed (especially its "trend", just if it is increasing or decreasing), you can better predict and lead your thrust corrections, as the difference between "sinking 500 f/min" or "climbing 500 f/min is a matter of only a couple of knots of forward speed, which is in turn a matter of only a couple of mm (or tenth of an inch for the imperial guys' sake ) in throttle position. Simple reason for it is, Velocity Vector vertical position (change) is always lagging behind speed change, and speed change is always lagging behind throttle change. By a quick look at the speed once in a while, you can "split the difference" for a better outcome.

After you set "on speed AoA" with your trim, giving more thrust you will increase your speed, which will increase your lift, and vica versa. If you are below glideslope, you need to add thrust to come back up on glideslope. If you are above, you need to reduce your thrust a bit to come down on glideslope. And when you are back on glideslope, you need to reset your trust to keep proper descend speed so that the Ball (or the GS needle) stays "centered". Beyond that, I'm not sure I understand your question.

No pun intended, but have you ever tried to open the aircraft manual? I don't think you will understand those anocryms any better just by implementing this profile...

Yeah, and somebody in another topic mentioned, that hits on your aircraft have lost sound effect recently. So next time when any system goes south, I would first look at my aircraft from the outside view to confirm. It happened to me many times recently with both MANPAD and AAA too. I was hit, but no boom, no "knocking on door", no any audio indication of a hit. Just blank displays everywhere.

Did you try to move your in-game head Point of View closer to the HUD with RShft+RCtrl+ NP / or NP *? And then save it with RAlt+NP 0? Then you can adjust your zoom level with NP / and NP *? With manually adjusting the FOV to 50°, you actually adjust the max "zoom out" level. So I would first set the FOV to a greater value than 50° (guess you did it in the snapviews.lua?), then move your seat closer to the HUD, until every bit of the HUD symbology becomes visible all around, and then zoom the FOV back out. HUD symbology "apparent size" and focus is set to infinity, so you can not change how big you see it in absolut terms, only in relative terms to the HUD frame size by moving your head closer to make the HUD frame "bigger", or move away to see the HUD frame smaller.

I completely agree with you on calculating the helo's own velocity vector (heading and speed) and the azimuth and elevation of the acquisition sensor into proper lead for the impact points being on the reticle, regardless of target bearing at that moment, that's what I mentioned couple of posts before. But that does (or should) not offset the visual reticle position from being on target. Just for example, if you are flying HDG 360 and TGT is at your 9 o'clock (bearing 270), then while your TADS keeps the TGT in the reticle, the chain gun will have to point actually behind the target (like to bearing 265° or something), because the bullet will leave the barrel aiming to 265°, but having also a forward component from the helo's speed, it will hopefully impact exactly into the TGT being at BRG 270°. And vica versa, if the gun would aim right at the target, the bullet would land North, "in front" of the target in the HDG of the helo's flight, due to the helo's speed added at the moment when the bullet leaves the muzzle. And the vertical componenet is even more complicated, where the vertical angle of the barrel offsets the impact point upward even if the helo is just hovering high above the TGT (just for the theoretic example, and as does uphill and downhill shooting with a rifle), plus the forward speed ( if there is forward speed), that would make the bullets land longer than aimed anyway. So the ballistic computer has to consider all this in real time: barrel elevation, azimuth, range to TGT, and helo's speed, but you keep the reticle on the TGT the whole time, and the ballistic computer adjusts the barrel based on all that factors. EDIT: AFter watching Matt's gun video, I stand corrected: azimuth lead is NOT calculated by the computer, you need to lead TGTs for yourself (I dunno if it is permanent, and true to real life, or just for Early acess). Same goes to TGTs ahead of you then, I reckon...

Oh... that should be sufficient for sure...

What's your GPU anyways?

I completely understand what you say, a.k.a aiming to a moving target from a moving platform with all possible speed vectors (like a B-17 gunner, but without the lead for the bullet, because your "bullet" is now the light itself)). But again, if it is only refers to manual tracking (right?), why do you need any complex onboard calculation, if you can follow the target with any angular speed it ever moves? Just like Matt does in his video. If the target "overtakes" centerpoint, then you tilt the LMC a bit more, and catch up with it manually. If the target lags from canter, you decrease the controller's deflection a bit, and the reticle slows back onto the target. Unless we do NOT speak about manual tracking here.

OK, then I rephrase my question: if you can give any angular speed to your manual tracking with your LMC, what is the point of "correcting it additionally, considering range" compared to press your thumb in that direction a little more, if you see any drift from the center? Not sure I can find the answer among all those posts above. What am I missing?

Sorry if missing something, but if it is a "contrast lock point track" kinda thing, why would the sensor need any motion compensation looking at any relative direction? I can rather see it justified for "area tracking", but how could it drift if it is following a point?

Didn't try, but I'm quite sure same thing happens if you draw a CSR through a waypoint. Can be easily reproduced even without any TACAN set up. EDIT: nope, tried with waypoint, works OK. Just TACAN CRS distance acts weird.

Hi There, here it is. Picked a CASE III training mission, set TACAN Ch and set course right underneath me at that moment. CRS distance pretty much 0. Then I switch to TRUE, CRS swings to my right, but distance doesnt change. If I fly towards the TRUE CRS, distance increases instead of decreasing. Switched back and forth MAG and TRUE so you can see what changes, and what doesn't. Hope this helps. F-18 HSI MAG vs TRUE.trk

The other day we flew a night IMC/IFR route and arrival training (admittingly beacons.lua was modified to have I(C)LS in Caucasus airfields). I was in MAGnetic HSI, flying on top of a set TCN CRS with 0 distance from CRS on the HSI bottom right corner, but Tower measured me about 7 NM off course on the F10 map, so I tought I just switch over to TRUE, and things will be all dandy. When I switched HSI to TRUE, the TACAN radial swinged from "underneath my aircraft" to its new CRS direction about 8 degrees away (according to the MAGVAR), but my 0 distance from the CRS didn't change at all. When I turned right to intercept the new TRUE CRS, my distance to CRS on the HSI started to increase from 0, so apparently the HSI did not change the reference CRS to the TRUE, to measure the distance from. Consequently when I arrived to the TRUE CRS, my distance to CRS showed about 7 NM, but on the right DDI, I was totally on the TRUE CRS, and tower also measured 0 error on the F10 map. I don't have any solid proof, whether it's wrong or right, but the way it works now defies logical function and common sense (for me at least). Could you please look into it maybe?