Fri13

There is no limit for target speed, only for a Shkval gimbal rate. Target moving 250 km/h (134 kts) or 250 kts (463 km/h) has different rate depending is it flying 10 km from you or 2 km from you. Of course target flying perpendicularly and not toward or away. But I could assume that Shkval does have a high rates for tracking, like a 10°/s or something like that. And it can be faster rate in tracking phase than when slewed. The current problem is lack of proper contrast locking as you say. As if we have clear strong contrast, we should be able use even the largest tracking gate as it is dynamic one. Slew it around the contrast and initiate the lock. The system should spend some milliseconds to build a pattern for the contrast scene and then shrink around the strongest contrast. In Shkval panel we have Black or White symbology. I would assume that is not to make the symbology visible in one lighting condition or another. But to be same as with AGM-65D Maverick, that you will maintain FLIR polarisation but you command is it a Hot track or Cold track and it is notified by the symbology being black or white. So my assumption is that 1) if you have a black object on white sky, the Black mode would easily lock on it, while white mode would have challenge as it sees white everywhere without pattern and doesn't know where to lock or how to track it. 2) if you have a white boat in dark sea, then you get easily lock on it and track it with white mode instead black mode. And then comes the challenges where You have a dark green camo pattern vehicle next a dark green forest, where sunlight illuminates it from a side, where you would need to play contrast and brightness knobs to create wanted contrast and then use proper contrast mode and lock on it. So it is not just a adjustments for the TV but whole imaging process in targeting system where pilot adjust contrast, brightness and gain to create strongest contrast, as then it is easier without complex computer to try to do it by itself when human can do it quickly for the purpose and based target conditions, and the TV is nothing more than a visual observation tool to see what is the adjusted condition for Shkval. This based to all other contrast tracking based systems, where pilots are given means to control them this way. And the tracking gate that is dynamic, has easier time to acquire the pattern to track. Pilot job is to use the smallest tracking gate to command computer to ignore all other patterns around the target so it knows what pattern to track and what to ignore. This is important as if you have a above example of vehicle front of forest, that you can have unwanted "hot spots" or "cold spots" inside lock gate and tracking try to track them and the small moving contrast that vehicle creates gets ignored as it slips out of the large gate area. Why using small gate and get it around target will make other contrast to be ignored and system can track small contrast from the vehicle far higher propability. What this means is that fast moving target in a sky is easy to lock as you only need to get it inside largest lock gate and it will automatically shrink around the target even if small. But if it is against a mountain or ground, you would need to get it either be very individual contrast or use a smaller (proper) lock gate size to get it around target and ignore trees etc contrast. This would mean that one could easily use HMS with largest tracking gate to just "look at target" and initiate lock at flying target against sky. Keep Shkval inside it's gimbal limits and rate (turning toward it heading) and it would work great.

Check out how a AirLand warfare was designed to happen. You have two frontlines, each side has their forces against each other, ready to try to push through the other defense line. After that hole has been created, the second wave will come (positioned 5-10 km from the frontline) and push through the frontline in massive force attack. The helicopter forces in the Soviets were the Mi-8 and Mi-24. You have them to fly around the front line and engage the enemy second wave forces with hit and run tactics. You have example 16 helicopters, four groups with a four Mi-24 in each. Each will attack 1-3 minutes after previous one, holding a 30 meter altitude that limits the possible AAA, MANPADS and SAM systems to under 2-3 km engagement ranges. With the Mi-24's they drop some special forces to area, their task is to keep hitting hard on some positions and withdraw quickly, so simple raid tactics with support from Mi-24's. Then you will pickup the special forces and withdraw from the area. For the frontline skirmish you would have similar, but there you have Mi-8's after the first Mi-24 attacks to land the ground troops. First you layout a massive artillery salvos and rocket artillery. It can last an half an hour or even full hour. There basically is anything that survives the area. Then comes the Mi-24's "sweep" the ground, attacking specific positions and troops. Well coordinated attack in multiple waves. The Mi-24's keeps rotating the attack pattern and Mi-8's are capable deliver fire support as well if required, but their main task is to get ground forces to secure and hold the ground. There are some Mi-24's left behind to guard the attack, they are special ones with the A-A missiles as they are there to engage enemy fighters, CAS planes and other attack helicopters. They guard the ground attack as well, from where the BMP's and BTR's are rolling in, with the support of MBT's at the rear. You can have 48 of BTR's coming, with 32 BMP's and 16 MBT's. And this force can be focused to 1-2 km wide attack line. To make a such mission, it is currently almost impossible in DCS. It requires such scripting as there is no AI to have logic to do such form. Just alone to get a Mi-24 flight of four to approach at high speed, release 1/4 or 1/2 of their rockets and few missiles from max visual distance, roll off to same direction and return further behind own line, only to get in the new attack heading and timing to repeat it. And this to be done with multiple waves, until empty and get them to rearmed and back. Then time the Mi-8's arriving and land the troops and get them to continue fight. The Mi-8's landing is easy to do, the Mi-24's attack runs takes little more creativity, but with proper script timing it get to work acceptable manner. Utilizing "% of group alive" zones and such you get them to perform little differently. Using as well "attack ground" for rockets and such gets you achieve more visually, but to get the proper AI logic that they don't just waste ammunition on empty area is challenging. You would be part of the flight, maybe even flight commander. And hopefully we could get the full flight release their weapons when you do. So they fly the formation with you and when you release weapons, they do and that should saturate your aimed area with them too as they were flying in formation with you. And then you would repeat that circulation few times, varying the direction. All the common patrol flights and such are easily same as with any other. But to perform the massive battalion level attack as Mi-24's would be really performing nicely, that is challenging to do. I had one mission created months ago for the Mi-24V and Mi-8's, where I was to load troops and transport them to landing zone after Mi-24's and it was otherwise successful but the at the moment existing bug didn't allow all infantry mounting helicopter, part of the group just got stuck on ground and helicopter didn't leave unless commanded by timer. And that meant that 1/3 or 2/3 of the troops were transported to assault zone but once on the ground they started to run back to original place just to join with the guys left to pickup zone. Another problem that just exist is that ground units doesn't know such thing as "single fire" or "aimed shot", and such tactics as "Shoot and reverse to cover" doesn't exist. No such Ai at all. So all the attacks were just furbal and over in few seconds. So creating the full scale assault became just frustrating.

Why does people always drop the fuel tank, when real pilots say that it is not allowed unless emergency? Meaning you take-off with the fuel tanks, you land with the fuel tanks, even when they are empty through whole mission. So unless you are jumped on and you need to defend yourself, or you get to emergency where you need to again drop ordinance, you are to hold on those and suffer the drag... As even when those are simple and fairly cheap ($ 5000-15000 or so each) tanks, if everyone would be dropping them once empty the fleet would not have any in couple days.

I have no idea. Someone in the modding forum might know firsthand where to look. But it shouldn't be task for ED to make proper adjustments to increase the droplets lifetime.

I have started to fly Mi-8 again after long time for fighters for preparation of Mi-24. And there are few things that made me wonder that VRS is not suppose to be so easily achieved, based to multiple pilots here as well.

So every droplet has fixed real clock vanish time, but game time generates more droplets separately. This leads that at faster speed more droplets gets generated but as each vanish with a real clock timer, they start to vanish much later.... So the droplets were likely timed by the real clock timer instead game realtime. This so it doesn't stress the game own realtime simulation calculations because checking droplets lifetime in simulations realtime would cause severe CPU use to make sure that droplet is gone at correct time.

Visual bugs should usually be high in priority, because they are constantly reminding the customer that things are not correct but broken. If a HUD would look detached in some planes, it would be first thing to be fixed. If a stick wouldn't move when joystick is moved, or it would move in mirror manner, it would too be fixed in first patch. Okay, one can simply disable the rain droplets and just ignore them, but so can one always hide the stick and throttle, or one can always fly in external view instead inside cockpit.... Some visual bugs are lower than others, like a switch clips with a landing gear lever when looked from a side, or button highlight texture rotates with the knob... But those neither should be let to exist for years.... If a aircraft external texture has a problem, they usually get fixed ASAP. That is silly. As majority of time one doesn't look externally the plane. If a aircraft startup process has too low voltage 5 seconds longer than should but startup works, it is a smaller problem than a visual bug on your face reminding you everytime when that effect should be there to be admired. And small bugs are almost more important than major big ones, because when you get 1000 small cuts, it is worse than having 5 little bigger cuts, but it is the ratio that when they start to lower impression of the product quality. And it is not nice to be a developer either and see in a to-do list the years old bugs (not wishes... But bugs) that never get touched as it keeps the to-do list long and "annoyingly frustrating as it never gets shorter". ED should have own team that is meant to deal "paper cuts" only.

Not important for me, but enjoy to see a fellow pilot in Mi-8, UH-1, Gazelle.... As the body dimensions are wrong in those, it is like someone cut 1/3 away from shoulders, it is just immersion killer. As well I use virtual hands, so seeing four pairs of hands in cockpit kills immersion. One as in body stuck to throttle and stick, and then magical pair moving in cockpit. Maybe if the arms would move with the virtual hands when grip button is active and otherwise be on the stick and throttle and floating gloves disappear - then it could make sense. Please, allow us to adjust the shoulders width.... It is not nice to be like a matchstick in cockpit when your body has lost whole V shape. Using the world scale (that DCS calls "IPD") either makes body better (but you feel fat then if matching shoulder) but cockpit becomes like you would be 12 year old.

IR threats are easy, you see them and you pop some flares... I see nightmares about ZSU-23-4 just waiting me to fly around the tree that behind it is.... And we are receiving the R-60M, someone needs to have good idea for what purpose those are, even with just a couple kilometer effective range... The SPO-10 is better than nothing, and it will give at least a 45-90 degree accuracy for expected threat direction, and then state.

Looks like we have slight bug slipped to the mirror behavior. Hopefully they get the mirror angle turning properly when the door is operated so it isn't static projection. And that mirror frame will actually be attached to the door frame. In the MiG-21Bis the mirror angle is animated so when you flip the canopy to right side, the mirror will turn. It just has a bug that the mirror flips 180 degree wrong direction so it is upside down. The mirror is important element IMHO in the DCS, it gives you the good visual to rearward. I wish that many developers would not see mirrors as a visual effects, but actual feature in the combat and such. This is problematic in many modules that their mirrors are not curved (example a Harrier) that makes the mirror useless as it has so tiny field of view that you can't even see anythin. Then there are some amazing mirrors like Mi-8MTV2, L-39 or F-14... Oh boy... Those are just so gorgeous mirrors. And so super useful when you can actually see backward. I hope to see a another feature in the future as well, movable mirrors... So you can actually rotate them to wanted angle and get the view you need. That is little extra work but basically only way for me to ever see the fuselage in any plane is the mirror or through the glass as I don't usually use any external cameras etc. Those Mi-24P mirrors are so huge and so... That they really must give a great visibility to backward for the destruction you make!

Have you thought that DCS doesn't model more than single radio operation regardless how many radios you really have? That is real limitation for all modules. And anyways to operate radios in the Mi-8MTV2, you don't need to do more than use a one radio panel as pilot, that is above you, you don't need to go around cockpit. It is odd as well that in the hot-starts you have radio set to Manual model instead Presets. Why you can't operate radio channels straight away above you as . In a western modern fighter like AV-8B it is simple as you have two radios and radio channels to communicate, you select the radio with a hat (Aft/Forward or Left/Right) and you have no way to talk to more than one at the time. In a one pilot old plane like MiG-21Bis you have only one radio channel selector in the cockpit, and you need to be switching it between channels depending do you want to talk to wingman, ATC, GCI or what ever. You don't have two radios there as you are single pilot. In a Mi-8MTV2 it is multiple radios split for two (R-863 for pilot and flight engineer and R-828 channels for Co-Pilot). Why? All have capability to select what radio to use for communications, just like in UH-1 if would have all four panels (two for pilots and two for rear). You can listen always two channels, master channel and monitor channel. You can choose which one is ICS and which one is another radio. You switch between them with your cyclic trigger that is dual-stage trigger, first pull is one radio and full pull is a another. When this switch is set to the СПУ (ICS) position and the unified ICS RADIO PTT button on the pilot or copilot cyclic control stick is pressed to the first position (one click) or second position (second click) intercom is used. When this switch is set to the РАД (RADIO) position and the unified ICS RADIO PTT button on the pilot or copilot cyclic control stick is pressed to the first position (one click), then intercom is used. When pressed to the second position (second click) - radio is used. When in РАД (RADIO) position, broadcast transmissions are heard at a normal volume level, while crew is heard with reduced volume. To adjust volume, pilot should use the ОБЩАЯ (MASTER) and ПРОСЛ (MONITOR) knobs. When the SPU-RAD switch is set to СПУ (ICS) position, intercom volume is controlled by the ОБЩАЯ (MASTER) knob and radio volume by the ПРОСЛ (MONITOR) knob. When the SPU-RAD switch is set to РАД (RADIO) position, intercom volume is controlled by the ПРОСЛ (MONITOR) knob and radio volume by the ОБЩАЯ (MASTER) knob. Now think about the workload that it takes to talk between crew members, flight members, ground units and something else? Sharing all to different people makes it more efficient. This is same thing as "what if a pilot dies in the Apache?" or "what if RIO dies in Tomcat?". There are more important task at that moment, as he already has the navigation systems ready for the task and pre-set channels for requirement than continue the mission and handle everything alone. Mi-8 is meant to fly with a crew, not solo. If you kill either one, it is changing situations like killing another engine or something. UH-1 fits for DCS limited single player experience as you don't have the multi-crew capability modeled so well in DCS. You can't have both pilots operating all radios same time as their hands are colliding. How is the Hip worse than the Huey? In Hip each crew member has their own responsibilities (like in Apache, Hind etc) even when they are in the same cockpit, you don't do duplicate things or try to decide what someone wants to do and when. Everyone knows well their tasks and it makes it simpler as you don't try to do all by yourself. Having a crew helps you a lot and makes everything easier and simpler.

It is difficult to find anything about the Cat Eyes, than some marketing material. But similarly to find from all others there are some that are difficult to find. Yet, it would be fancy to have it for the DCS as it is in the manual. It must feel odd to have the perspective from 10-15 cm above your head, but then considering that even with it you turn off it when looking at the HUD so you see it properly. But when you look outside, you would get the extra elevated point of view as well when your seat is down for safety. That would give the nice 30 degree FOV without those black edges, and capability to focus infinity from the top and middle part of the lens and to 40 cm from the bottom part, so you would be easily looking the cockpit as well. But that must be odd feeling as like wearing a dual-strength glasses (or what they are called where you have long distance in up and close distance at the bottom, split by a prism).

If the radio systems would be correctly modeled in single player, you would have separate sets for both pilots. Same time they can talk to each others over ICS because the PTT is in the dual-stage trigger. The Net 1-2 is not modeled in the module, so you can't perform these things and why it looks so messy that both have the panels and you have only one radio to use. Yeah, because that is co-op operation. Like example the helicopter is operated normally with the pre-configured channels for radio communications. Both pilots has their own sets to be configured so they can talk to different (or same) people. But in a emergency or special situation you can manually set the frequency and that is the flight engineer task front of him. It can be done by the co-pilot as well as the thing is next to him, but it is easy for flight engineer to set from Channels to Manual and then set the custom frequency while pilots are flying and navigation so they don't need to do three tasks at the same time (flying, searching, communicating and handling the situation). The Intercom system has six points: pilot, co-pilot, flight engineer, troop commander, door operator and cargo door station. The navigation system is tied for one as that is responsibility for co-pilot to navigate so he does all that work. Pilot and Co-Pilot both talk to own external channels, UH-1 is more limited and restricted capabilities and designs. Mi-8 has better logic and organization between the crew members for the helicopter operations in all stations.

No it doesn't. It is/would be nice that technically compatible targeting pod is maintained as it allows to generate some different missions and eras.

Very interesting... Sounds like a new generation of engineers got a plan to sell a Mi-35M as "improved", without really realizing that what they were modifying. Result was then a unwanted characteristics that they were required to fix by simply rolling back the changes that previous engineers made with experience from years, by going as well the rough experimenting route....

It is at most as accurate as the Doppler Navigation System is, and its main inaccuracy is the map scale and the helicopter position marker stamp. But the best thing is that you have no problems to synchronize its to your position if you see it is inaccurate, as long you just can see somewhat outside. Like if you fly 100 meters on the right side of the river but map shows you fly at the left side of river (1 mm in the 1:250000 map is 200 meters) then you don't care about such error. If it shows you fly 1 km off from the location, you just roll the dial slightly to reposition it for your position. You don't use map to navigate under 1 km distances as you are suppose to be visually at that moment. You use it to know that are you on right canyon or that 5 km from your left there is a river and 10 km ahead is the wanted town. That is why I don't care about the NS430 not to be implemented in the Mi-24P as you have so amazing map to start. A digital moving map like ABRIS in the KA-50 is fancy and very nice as it is tied to your weapons system and how you designate targets or you see your flight members on it. A digital moving map in a Hornet or Harrier is... Let's say questionable. And I adore the digital moving map in the Harrier. Not so much in the Hornet as it is not so well designed cockpit for ground attack like Harrier is. But in Harrier the map is anyways incorrectly implemented, but what it has, it is very nice how the system is integrated for weapons. The navigation part in it is as usable as in Hornet, you get your waypoint and you get to fly there. But when you fire gun, rockets or you release bombs, the Harrier should designate the point and open up automatically the map for you on DDI that sensor you used, create the ground angle when you released weapons so you can see on map that what was your attack line and then assist you nicely back to it, requiring you to re-select sensor for attack etc. The paper map in the Mi-24 is not tied to weapons. So you don't simply care about it. If there would be a digital map in Mi-24P that has no connection with the weapons, then it would be almost waste of time. Maybe the nicest thing would be a automatic GPS assisted time calculation for next waypoint or so, but good pilot can perform that calculation quickly even in good ball park with the knowledge of the speed and distance. And I am waiting to have change to create own JPG files for the map boards, because then for mission I could write the leg information (speed, angle, altitude etc) as well draw troops locations, expected/assumed threats around etc. Like why not just use a pen to draw on that map that where everything is when you are planning mission? NS430 can't provide anything as fancy there, and it can't survive from the GPS jamming...

Think about how many thousand is missing the information because they can not find it from the ED forums.... They have only for Harrier channel alone 1000 people online, and there is possibly tens of thousands searching the information in here. Without people like Him copying the news to the forums because official community managers are unwilling to do it, they would be losing lots of marketing later on.

Yes. How much under max weight? If you can barely get off under max weight, but not when in max weight, then it is by the specs, right? Harrier is not meant to take-off vertically for missions. It is short rolling and then jump in the air. It is the landing that is possible to be done vertically easily so you do not need long runways. I just did simple short attack mission. 3100 pounds of fuel 1x IRMAV 1x Mk-82 TPOD Gunpod Vertical wet take-off, 140 water consumed for that. I flew a 75 nmi total ground distance I had two MT-LB as targets and a building (a tall tower). I failed to destroy the vehicles with maverick as it hit somewhere elsewhere because I launched it so far and I didn't use narrow field of view to even try to acquire lock, but it did damage both by 11% even by missing about 50 meters. I completed the building attack with Mk.82 bomb dropped on the target perfectly, and it damaged both vehicles in proximity by 20% extra from 25 meters. When I landed back to base, I had 1500 pounds of fuel left. It took only 1500 pounds really to take-off, fly 75 nmi, drop some ordinance and return back to home and didn't consume any water for vertical landing. If that would be a FARP/FOB operations, I was just 33 nmi (61 km) from the action. The whole sortie took 12 minutes 45 seconds flying at 100 FFPM (gave about Mach 0.6), so from the take-off I was attacking the targets under 5-6 minutes (because I took the longer sight route instead going straight) and I was back in the base under 15 minutes from the take-off. I could have rearm, refuel in few minutes and get back. With the extra fuel, I could had a 11-12 minutes loiter time on the area (80-85 FFPM) by spending 1000 pounds for that, and that would have left me a 500 pounds extra after landing. This is what Harrier does. You operate close to the enemy. You are light, you are fast, you are ready to attack the target in minutes after the plan has been approved. So example your on ground troops finds an enemy, it can be 15 minutes from that you have plan made for the sortie, from that few minutes and you are in a cockpit taking-off. And well under an hour from the intelligence gathering, you have already attacked the target. How you would do that by a Hornet when the carrier fleet is 200-250 nmi from the coast? In that process, there is easy to maintain constant or almost constant air support for marines on the ground. In a emergency situations you can have Harrier on site in few minutes even when they are not on station. This is what makes Harrier so cool, that you have a lot of things to do in the whole time that goes in Hornet for flying to and away from carrier. And if really do the fancy missions in Harrier, you don't take-off from a airbase but from the roadbase middle of nowhere hidden. You have some odd short straight road middle of the forest. People are now so custom to load Harrier with a crazy amount of weapons and fuel and then take-off vertically and land vertically as heavy because the Harrier engines were maybe 1.5-2x overpowered.

It was from the start deigned to have purpose carry troops. It was the "Flying BMP-1". from 08:00 - 14:05 https://youtu.be/JZ5je96v8H8?t=472 It was not designed to be a cargo helicopter like Mi-8, just to be able carry 8 men with their equipment and some rockets like two rocket pods on both wings (maybe even the AT missiles in wingtips). But why to use it normally for that when you get more men in the Mi-8 and you can better support Mi-8's by attacking the enemy? If needed, it could do those many things well.

And that Ladies and Gentleman, is the beauty of the simpit and VR when used with hand tracking devices that requires you to move hand on switch/button/knob position, instead using a mouse, keyboard or voice commands.... You learn these only small things only by moving hands around to reach something..... But you will as well learn faster, and more efficient manner as your muscle memory builds up very quickly. It is like trying to explain someone what it is to drive a bicycle instead driving the bicycle.... A such knowledge or reason answering to questions like "Why this is here at left and not there at right?" is what makes VR so fun.

I don't find Mi-8 cockpit messy. It is well organized for three personnel inside a cockpit. The workload is share dynamically so one doesn't need to do everything - like in DCS. How do you fly in Mi-8? Do you sit in the left seat and then from there operate everything? If so, then it totally will be messy. What I do is that I have one hat for each for seat that there is: Left = Pilot Right = Co-Pilot Up = Flight Engineer Down = Door Gunner When I fly, I am mostly the pilot. For a combat operations you need sometimes tell to your co-pilot that what weapons you want to use (so jump to the right seat) and they select the pylons that are energized for you. They as well have navigation responsibility (N430 as well doppler navigation) that they would tell you to assist you to fly the course and route. The start-up or shutdown process is easy with the flight engineer assisting you. Alone the Mi-8 is totally different compared to fly it together with two other players. So in solo flying you need to do some role playing, so as you are role playing being a pilot, you need to role play as well being co-pilot, flight engineer and door gunner. Getting use to the idea that you are playing as all roles makes it easy when you just jump to proper seat and then understand that it is someone else meanwhile operating other seats. If you want to experience more of co-op flying but alone, you need to make a voice commands scripts using third party software that will do the wanted things by voice. Like "Ivan, I need the 30mm grenades" as pilot, and the software will read the status of the co-pilot control panel and adjust them to proper modes. Your task as pilot would be to set your upper head panels as wanted. As well Mi-8 like any other requires effort to first time to sit down and just look and understand every panel, button and switch there is to generate the overall picture of everything. Then it makes very much sense what Mi-8 is and how much easier it is compared to UH-1 example. What I like in those systems is that once you see them, you know what they do as they are so well shared across vehicles or their logic is. So it becomes easy to fly MiG-21Bis and then Mi-8MTV2 as they basically share majority. And Mi-24P will be same, but from its unique parts (tank periscope, controls etc). What I like in Mi-8 and expect to like in Mi-24P as well, is the capability to react and work quickly in emergency situations. The cockpit layouts are such clarity that you don't need to think but you just perform.

Contrast is not taken in consideration as it has not been so far modeled in DCS (possibility is that with upcoming FLIR update it could). Only a time of day is modeled in the DCS, this is the same that example automatically sets your cockpit lighting as night lighting when time of day is specific or you have NVG On. That is just a hack to simulate the loss of visual ranges by shortening the range of lock for targets. Example with random values: Shkval in KA-50 is set to have lock for 9 km in mid-day. At the 6 pm it will be 7 km and at 8 pm it will be 3 km. Then it will be something like 1.5 km after that, unless a target is inside illumination rocket "illumination circle" (a specific distance from rocket) and then you can lock to it again at something like 7 km. This creates silly situations where you have sun above horizon, direct sunlight shining on the target that has very strong shadow and all, but because time of day is earlier than 8 am then "you can not lock it from max range". And similar thing is with aircraft targeting etc. All is based to just time of day instead actual contrast (and that would allow you to lock on anything, and it would be required as without contrast lock you can't have a ground stabilization for many systems like a Shkval, DMT or Litening/ATFLIR targeting pods). So if no contrast, no pattern, no track...

Any information what other NVG are in use in DCS modules? As in the Harrier the NVG should have automatic shut-off feature when looking the HUD (pg. 1-171). This because HUD resolution is higher than NVG and it cause fuzzy HUD. So any time pilot looks at the HUD it turns off NVG and returns it when looking elsewhere. At the night the NAVFLIR projection to HUD doesn't look good with NVG why you should turn NVG off. DCS needs a multiple different NVG simulations, like Harrier pilots should get "Cat Eyes" with 30 degree FOV but superior situational awareness as you don't have dark edges and can see more around them, even between. And they as well automatically turn Off when looking at the HUD. With the up coming Apache we will have again one new more. Another is the Scorpion in A-10C. And we should see monocular ones for Combined Arms and even for helicopter pilots. The NVG as well should require changes to others HUD projections and capabilities than just Harrier. So you need to adjust how to sit and look through the HUD to see it overall... I would gladly take a 30° FOV NVG without black borders, as seeing cockpit partially is a must.

So does that mean that the release calculations are not perfect, but are using the proper calculations for the aircraft altitude over target? As this is still the reason why example DMT in Harrier is superior to radar variant and Hornets when it comes to bombing accuracy as the ARBS system does it more accurately that radar can't do.