Fri13

Should be same thin as with A-10C vs A-10C II.

1) Not to see units at all. a. Show only the latest possible intelligence. - for air it means GCI network EWR and SAM systems that are in network. Updated with delay by radar RPM. - You get blips without anything else, with own and enemy. You need to use IFF each time to identify friendlies but need to confirm others other way to be hostile. And you need to know friendlies flight plan as overlay that they need to report before take-off with proper scheduled legs. Just so you know that when friendly two Su-25A flight has filled flight plan to depart 8:35 from X and fly 325 km route through three Waypoints with given times, then you can relate two radar blips to them when it is in reported place, a extra blips are assumed enemies and to be intercepted. - require pilots to tell their spotting with degree and range to be plotted manually. - Link-16 era etc adds automatic datalinks. So example Su-27S can transmit whole picture every 10 seconds to GCI network. b) for ground units we need same, generic zones for own troops positions and of course the type "Infantry company" etc. So you need to know what belongs to each such unit. Map doesn't show exact positions unless going in 3D video in location. So only standing orders are visible. - enemies doesn't come visible unless someone spots and report exact position, and then it is still generic. Recon can send more accurate information like exact position of SAM inside city, but ELINT just generic 500x500 meter area at best etc. Any spotting, engagement etc needs to be reported over radio and messenger. So delays are there. You don't get to know exact enemy types but something like "MBT platoon on this road heading west" or "enemy recon team engaged over here". -Every report has time stamp and free basic informations. They get updated if same unit does tracking. But if the new unit does spotting, it might be report of new enemy, or old already reported one. 2) not to see weapons, unless radar can pick them up like artillery shells or AGM, bombs etc. Fire support calls are called for coordinates, as well where is impacts hitting etc. So units reporting those gives generic idea what is happening instead seeing on map all moving and so on. The fog of war needs to be real. You might know that own unit is commanded to move from town X to 5 km to east from it. But now to know where they exactly move as you need to trust that they leave at proper time and arrive the location at commanded time. and of course be blind to any split second spotting etc if unit becomes LOS with other.

Yet the modern ones stay as well years untouched. And if some new software fixes or features are added/changed that isn't even simulated and emulated, it doesn't matter. Every update costs money, and everything goes from the budget, be it a single pencil or a roll of toilet paper. But when someone wants to sell a $ 500'000 update that modifies some minor system function, it will be traced. But ED is not in politics or war business, they are not responsible or authorized to perform yearly maintenance, why everyone in reality is forced to fly years without any updates to avionics. Like our hornet is already ~4 years old. It has received all kind fancy stuff. But soon it will be forever as such conditioned... SPO-10 likely is something like that. I have faint recollection that someone would have said that there is just the headphones connection to give generic audio beep for each detection. Considering a that era strategies, you don't really need so much. You you ELINT flights searching all radar stations etc. You have intelligence gathering all the other information. You have in mission planning phase all the latest information on your possession. So when you are making your flight plan, you know pretty well that where every major threat is considering your mission. You know what type threats there are expected, so you program your RWR to have proper frequencies with circuit boards. The system gives priorities based the engineers decisions. But when you are flying, you know where you are as navigation is key thing. And you know about where every threat is and you can locate them on your map with RWR. So basically when you see&hear a blips at given RPM rate and direction, you know what it is as it says so in kneeboard. And you don't need to focus to those that are known when you are out of reach. But you know when you need to push through their expected positions, or when something unexpected happens.

DCS World is the platform/framework/base for all modules to run. Eagle Dynamics forum is the base for all bug reports, news, discussions etc about modules, companies, squadrons, people etc. Before anything we BBS, Bulletin Board Systems. Then we had Newsgroups (Usenet). Both are great when you want to discuss, especially the Newsgroups as you got excellent communication hierarchy and you could manage and handle all nicely. Like features as linking to other threads and posts, private messages, merging etc. But the World Wide Web brought ugly HTML emails and of course later HTML forums as this one (using all other tech of course). And all the time we have had a IRC, a old text communication in realtime from channel to channel, at different servers. Great for group talk and private ones. That is what discord really is again, with option to have VoIP and Video. Where these web forums are great, is that you only need web browser to access them. And some has support to other apps on mobile like Tapatalk that makes almost everything easier on the go (I used it). I think you are misunderstanding. People don't want all to happen only in this forum, as no YouTube, no Twitter, no Discord etc. What people want is that this forum is THE primary communication and announcement channel..... If some official makes news and video, post them to proper forum first. Then use what ever they want as well, but guide people to use this place primarily. So that all people gather to one location regardless what company they are supporting or what time they move. If someone wants to comment how cool the new trailer is in YouTube, it is okay. But do not go there to make bug reports or ask news or discuss about development, instead come here. If someone has news, don't ignore this place and only use Discord... Or Twitter. It really is not difficult when you are skilled to use all. It takes like 30 seconds to make a new post to correct forum among all other channels.

I can't even see your track properly as on the moment you move TPOD on the target area it is almost 1 km off from them middle of nowhere (typical Track Desync problem). But still based to tasks, the rockets didn't hit the lazed point. They didn't even start to track the laser.

AI_drops_weapons.trk

It has no merit because Open Beta is not handled and used as a Beta software should be. Especially as a rolling update model one with almost fixed update periods. The Open Beta should be such that gets broken continually, new things tested and just be pushed as soon and as early as possible, even daily updates should be used. It should be a testers branch, broken almost all the time, latest features for testing but nothing to really play. Open Beta shouldn't be even available for the third party server hosting. So only ED own servers for testers available. And then have the stable that should be carefully updated based open beta results and fixes that work. The "you are playin open beta" has no merit because Stable has no reasons to exist when it is handled all the time as a ugly step child that is receiving everything only after the "prodigy", with all the flaws too. The Steam version (that the OP has) is even another case. Like why to use the Steam integrity check feature that is slow (but very accurate as it checks every individual file properly) when the DCS World one is available even there? Run the repair mode in that and it is faster (I don't really know how does DCS repair version work, but I have got better results as well back then with Steam, and as well in standalone by simply moving the module files away and let DCS download all again). Point is, that ED should really make the Open Beta for testers only. Public yes, but not the marketing source and the edition that majority will need to get to have access to new released modules and features that are marketed officially. Like every other game really has a stable as their primary version, that is where marketing happens. And then the beta versions and test releases are available but they are not marketed and promoted and suggested for anyone else than testers to use. If it would be so, then the argument "but you are running beta version" would have far more merit.

But it is more expensive than a GBU-12.....

Yeah, ED went for the general featured Mi-24P. The time frame doesn't matter in DCS, the Mi-24P as is was still in operation long time ago as it is today. So instead one specific year (as should always) we look a decades worth of service period and our Mi-24P is presentation of the ones very early because they have only now started to remove the LIPA infra-red jammer on roof and that is reason why we don't get it (because it is said to be effective only against 1st gen MANPADS like Blowpipe that was even in use only mid-70 to mid-80's and only now they have removed it as useless weight). AFAIK/IIRC the SPO-10 should have just a generic tone for every single radar. As well generic frequency, only capable to separate is the radar in search, lock or guidance mode and what is 90 degree direction. It does sound odd, but that is at least now what I remember what was said about it in Mig-21Bis forum for its real use.

@myHelljumper Bump. This is still incorrectly in the Harrier and not resolved.

Yeah, there is not yet the manual out, it has been delayed multiple times.

2.15.1.15.2 Missile Operating time 2.15.2.5.1 IR Maverick Seeker Cool Down The Maverick might go through a servicing. As Mavericks has a limited cooling period (30 min for laser maverick in total) per mission, that you can regenerate by turning seeker off (deselect station and not to use the maverick video) by 2:1 ratio. So if you keep the seeker off 10 minutes then you gain 5 minutes extra use. With the IRMAV there is maximum 60 min On time, and 30 min active time, with same 2:1 recovery ratio. The "On" time generates when it is selected and uncaged, and missile video is displayed on DDI.

The real manual is for v2 Litening but likely it would apply for v4 as well. Page 1-409 1.18.4.15.1 Laser Safety. The Targeting pod should automatically turn to SAFE mode, or disallow ARMED status when any of the statuses are true: Weight-On-Wheels sensor Landing gear is down Mission Computer (MC) dictates aircraft is not flying Target is not designated IAS < 100 knots Master Arm = SAFE TPOD NAV or A-A mode is active TPOD video is off from either MFCD over 15 seconds At this moment the TPOD laser can be armed: - When on the ground (and MC knows aircraft is not flying, duh) - When indicated airspeed is < 100 knots - Master Arm is not ARM - Landing gear is lowered/down When those things happens, the TPOD laser should switch to SAFE mode, and disallow to arm it by pushing the OSB. The TPOD has many other errors regarding the laser firing, the target altitude generation (magical like DMT/INS in Harrier), no mask warning, contrast lock errors, missing laser image scan (LTIP) etc. TPOD_Laser_Fire_Safety.miz.trk

Figure 2-1. ARBS Height Above Target Figure 2-14. Relationship Between Range and Angular Rate 2.2.3.2.3 HUD TD LOS Angle Ranging Figure 2-22. Altitude Determination Figure 2-5. Potential Radar Altimeter Error 2.2.1.6 Day and Night Attack Aircraft

https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/jjo07m/baltic_dragon_have_released_the_first_three/ https://drive.google.com/open?id=17VaW0VzMCvK4QP19cGhZMPsgTPhXmQ2v

I wouldn't say it "gliding" as it is not a glide bomb. It is more of a "better controlled ballistic free falling".

Has this been tested with the new thrust adjustment in previous patch?

A1-AV8BB-TAC-000 Page 1-367 NOTE: Because TPOD video is provided as maverick emulation, maverick video is not available when TPOD video is selected. Based to that, we shouldn't be able have a TPOD video and Maverick video (laser or FLIR) simultaneously open on both MFCD's. Pilot would be required to choose which one to be shown at the time. If Harrier is like the F-16 etc, avionics would only be able handle one Maverick video at the time. If someone can provide information that Harrier can handle a two Maverick video feed simultaneously, or that TPOD is not anymore emulating Maverick video, then it could be different. Based to the manual AFAIK, with even the older Litening AT is not mentioned to be used simultaneously but you need to switch the TPOD video off when Maverick video is shown (and it will automatically appear when uncaging the Maverick to left MFCD). So process to launch Maverick slaved to TPOD target would be: 1) Find target with TPOD / Create Target Designation with TPOD. 2) Select Maverick weapon 3) Uncage Maverick --- TPOD Turns Off --- --- LMAV/IRMAV video appears on Left MFCD --- (appears automatically to Left MFCD from any page, or to right MFCD if STORES page is open in it) 4) Push Sensor Select Switch Up --- INS -> IRMV --- (Maverick seeker slaved to TD direction) 5) TDC Action initiate Maverick Track 6) Master Arm On 7) Release to launch Maverick. There is as well interesting part in 2.15.1.11 Sensor Integration: "On Day and Night Attack aircraft the ARBS/LST sensor mode can be integrated with the AGM-65E Laser Maverick to acquire a target at increased range and azimuth..... ...When MAV/IRMV is selected, LST correlated and Laser Maverick video displayed, pressing the target designate button replaces the Laser Maverick video with the DMT display. When MAV/IRMV is selected, LST correlated and DMT video displayed, pressing the target designate button replaces the DMT video with Laser Maverick video" So the Maverick video can as well replace the DMT video. Edit: And if someone wonders that how to then use a Laser Maverick with the TPOD for designation if the TPOD video can not be open same time as Laser Maverick video is, answer is on the Page 1-413 as a NOTE (it is for Litening AT, but safe to assume that Litening v4 is with same limits, safety features etc). "If a laser is armed or firing (or the training laser dry firing), the TPOD page may be exited for up to 15 seconds before the laser is automatically safed. This is a programmed grace period to provide uninterrupted laser firing when the TPOD page is exited during weapon selection for weapon release or due to inadvertent sensor selection, and thereby allows the pilot time to reselect the TPOD page for continued laser firing" So pilot would be required to be able acquire a lock, launch Maverick and return to TPOD in 15 seconds after Uncagin the Maverick and receive its laser feed. Meanwhile the TPOD would continue tracking the target and firing the laser on it while pilot utilize maverick.

Mechanically it is easy (as far the wing attachment is same, and there is no visual difference in dimensions) and likely takes just an hour from ground crew. But the question is that how to wire the third station? It is easy to pull wires through a such wing as it is nothing like F-16 wing wires that can take weeks. So where would you plug the wires is the main problem. If the KA-50 was originally designed to have A-A missiles, then it is easier (but not super easy). But if you don't have anything designed for it and systems don't support it, then it is not possible without actually making everything. And that is usually with updated/upgraded avionics and all. The KA-50 standard was changed after the Chechnya to have FLIR, RWR, MWS etc. It was to go through a second serial production upgrade.

1) Fix the contrast lock system across the DCS (not just Shkval, but as well Litening, ATFLIR, DMT, LANTIRN, all SAM systems with TV/FLIR tracking capabilities etc etc) so it becomes actually performed and realistic. No more "Is the unit ID inside the crosshair to lock-it" but actually performing system, even at so small as 8x8 - 16x16 pixels it would make huge difference, and it wouldn't hurt performance at all (this can be run even with 8 Mhz processor). 2) Fix the fragmentation effects across the DCS (not just Vikhr, but all missiles, bombs and such. We are running simulation, we already know where a rocket or bomb etc is going to hit before it does, and we know where the target direction is because we can cheat. As we know already before the weapon impact happens that where it will happen, we can allocate already resources to perform a check that what is the impacts that are suppose to have capability to affect something else. Once you know that (because we know where every object is going to be in X seconds in time) we can eliminate wasted calculations from sectors that doesn't matter what is going to happen in those areas. They are just visual effects. We have differences in the aircraft and ground vehicle dynamic modeling. A missile exploding near the aircraft has affects to its flight modeling why it should be priority in calculations. A rocket exploding next a vehicle has secondary value as it does not cause instant affect on it, such calculation can be delayed further in time to allocate resources better for moments where example 32 rockets are launched in 1.5 second period on target area. Instead calculating everything in 1.5 seconds period when they impact, it can be delayed and spread to happen 1-2 seconds after impact and happen in 2-3 seconds period. As for a player firing rockets it is meaningless what happens as the unit is stunned on that period from impact to calculation, and when damages take affect (broken optics, engine dies, track is damaged). When a helicopter gets hit by a AA missile, it is basically instant destruction and effect if tail boom is lost, the airflow is disturbed and fuselae is thrown around. There can't be delayed effect that missile explodes and 2 seconds later things goes apart, a 50 ms delay can be, as it is not required that it is performed in 50 cycles of the impact as player doesn't even realize it. If a bomb kills a vehicle crew inside vehicle by spalling and impact force, it is not visible to people outside than that vehicle will just either slow down and stop or that it will become uncontrolled and drive somewhere randomly (as foot on pedals etc). DCS really needs a great damage calculation scheduler to decide what is the damage. I think this is the best one, and I bet you have seen it: That should be taken from a Su-25T. There are the other you talk about, where there is FLIR, automatic target recognition and targeting. Those systems are not amazing compared to something like Litening G4 with 1024 px CCD/FLIR. But they are not so terrible that you can't utilize them. The problems appear in the low contrast scenarios (mist, sun angles, background/target shape separation etc etc). So if you are required to postpone attack because light rains, or you need to launch at 1 km range instead 5 km then it is not good.

That is..... I don't even know what to say. Does that mean that any hopes to see a properly modeled Shkval, Cannon targeting functions, the required actually working contrast lock system etc are then completely out of the question for the Black Shark 2? It would be logical that one can not have the BS3 new features in BS2, but at least 3D models (internal and external) should be same from all the parts that are shared (so 2 station wing vs 3 station wing, a KABRIS difference etc are left to BS3) and systems like Shkval, Cannon, Vikhr, HUD etc etc be shared by support....

AFAIK the real manual says that the MAP Designate is only for the radar Harrier. Example: 2.15.2.5.7 Target Designation and Lock-on. The MAP designation is otherwise stated to be possible by just moving a TD (Target Designation) with TDC on map and get it done. Everything in the real manual points that "MAP Designation" is only for radar function with MAP, EXP1, EXP2 or EXP3 When entering to the DATA page, it has way to create and move the waypoints. But you are not designating anything in it. You could select a waypoint, target point or mark point and designate those, but those are just the coordinates in the memory that are recalled for the INS designation. At this moment we have the INS modeled such way that you get a TDC to EHSD map and you can move the TD around using map. While everything in the manual states that: 1.4.12.2 Expand Modes. 1.10.3.2 Calculations 2.4.2 INS Designation. And the same thing is mentioned through the manual. You should not be able use EHSD for any target designation by using TDC, like example pilot can do with the TAD in the A-10C. INS is locked to the HUD Total Field Of View and TDC does not respond to TD movement if TD is not inside HUD. The MAP mode is only mentioned everywhere (except that one) to be a RADAR designation function. Be it a MAP update or so by using a recognizable landmark visually as on radar to perform alignment for INS-only based navigation to get the navigation fix. When navigation system is set to NAV mode, it is loosely coupled with GPS and you fly only based the INS accuracy and suffer from its drifting, requiring to perform "The INS should periodically be flown in NAV mode (no GPS aiding). This allows INS errors to be observed that otherwise might be masked by coupling with the GPS. Terminal position errors after the flight should be examined for acceptable navigation performance (less than 1 nm radial position error per 1 hour of nav). It is recommended that every fifth flight hour be flown in NAV mode (See paragraph 1.11.7, INS Performance Evaluation)." The UPDT mode is radar velocity update feature: 1.4.12.9 In-Flight Alignment (IFA) Mode. 1.4.12.8.1 Velocity Update. Likely we should just have "MAP" when we are editing the waypoints by moving it with TDC. But there shouldn't be a "MAP Designation". The TPOD is totally another system. For the Harrier Mission Computer point of view, everything in Target Designation is just a INS designation in the end. It is just a set of coordinates that has been acquired by knowing Harrier location and then the target coordinates. This is why the INS system is the critical part as without it aircraft can not know where it is. The IFA navigation mode is important as it uses GPS to find accurate aircraft position and update the INS system periodically. And if the INS mode is down or it is not aligned, EHSD loses map, the velocity vector and all those navigation and flight aids are gone. In Harrier we can have only one target designation active. All systems are then acknowledging that target coordinate. And everything else in Harrier is pointing that when ever MAP designation is going, it is related to radar A-G mode mapping. So likely the TPOD should only have the MAP/SLV when we would have a radar that would operate in one of the A-G modes to deliver the MAP. Like a MAP, GMT or FTT. And so on TPOD would example be slaved to ground moving target without using its own contrast lock. As the INS and its TDC movement of TD is limited to HUD Total Field Of View, it can not be used to move TD around in map, or use MAP to designate any points on it. It would require a own special mode and function, and the manual doesn't say anything like that. So the whole idea that pilot could use TDC to move a TD around looking a map and have it perfectly aligned with the ground (by using DTED, Digital Terrain Elevation Data) is not correct The Manual states very clearly that only way to get a target elevation is to either use DMT or manually correct INS inside a HUD with pauses to calculate a slant range, or entering the target elevation data to waypoint, overflying it with radar altimeter and pressing TOO etc, there is no DTED available or used for any altitude information of the terrain).

Razbam acknowledges manual, but they outsourced it to Baltic_Dragon. He has released first three chapters of the manual already for preview. Best bet is now go to look the Redkite videos in YouTube.

It is not all made up. IGLA-V is real, equipped. MWS is real, equipped. New wing is real, equipped. President-S is real, equipped. But, none of those has likely be seen in single airframe or what was the final production standard. Because ED is improvising with the MWS display and makin educated guesses for hints there floats around, it doesn't mean that everything else is fantasy/fictional etc.

Yeah true. I had totally forgotten that RWR did show it. No wonder I had the faint idea about RWR having it but didn't call it.