Fri13

So EHSI, EW, STRS and DMT pages allows to uncage the weapon as all those allows to select weapon from MFCD. But how does the TPOD page that is a active do it (unless left MFCD is swapped EHSI -> Decenter -> EW -> EHSI to make it active and those has weapon selection on top row) that doesn't allow weapon selection? How does the TPOD (that is active page) know what weapon station to select E2 maverick? And this does raise the question, in the situations when example HUD and DDI are malfunctioning, why does pilot backup options still allow to uncage Mavericks as long the A/g mode is not malfunctioning? (You select Maverick from ACP, Uncage is always going to Maverick when it is selected instead to TPOD, that needs to be turned off so any maverick can be selected, because TPOD video overrides all maverick videos in any order or combination) You can use the OSB on malfunctioning MFCD as signals are still sent to page. MC malfunction disables Maverick programming but allows launch in backup mode, SMCS failure Mavericks are lost from launching. DMT failure doesn't affect Mavericks use capability (loses LST sync). Again, the manual Razbam is now implementing is clear that the TPOD is primary one and doesn't allow to open Maverick without first switching away from TPOD video (no video feed from the TPOD itself). Because you say that technical limitation is incorrect, then why are you implementing the technical limitation? Do you have evidence for that change later than 2011? Is the "replaced" meaning that maverick video comes from the missile itself to display, or is the maverick video sent to TPOD and it is just showing it for 15 seconds before TPOD cuts the maverick video and presents itself? Do we get proper simulation to allow open Maverick video even when 3 minutes for RDR state has not been made, with consequence for inferior video quality etc? How does it do it technically? How can the TPOD (Litening 4G) receive input from the Maverick and send control inputs to the Maverick, from any possible stations that TPOD can be installed (2,3,4B,5,6)? As that is not the feature that makes E2 Maverick as "self-designate" capable that TPOD takes full control of the weapons systems, but it is that seeker can maintain the lock through the launch and it doesn't breaklock when passing through the TPOD LOS and get lost when it lose a laser for moment. What manual? All the Mavericks are active all the time when they are selected, even when the Video is not shown. This is the limitation that the avionics can't handle than one Maverick video feed at the time and pilot needs to switch between the video feed by uncaging the Maverick (automatic to left MFCD, only to the right MFCD if STRS page is open there, unless video is closed after opening by switching to another page and then it is required to go MENU -> STRS -> Uncage again to get it visible). But how can the E2 maverick seeker lock on the TPOD seeker when the E2 seeker is required to point 80 degrees in stations 3 and 5 on TPOD being in station 4B, and in stations 2 and 6 over 75 degrees to see TPOD in station 4B? Is that warning for some other aircraft where the TPOD can be much further forward so that Maverick seeker could reach it? Is there evidence that E2 seeker has that over 75 degree horizontal gimbal limit? This is the question that do we get the proper laser masks selection so that we can avoid firing laser on the aircraft causing seekers to lock on to it? Again, how can the Maverick seeker lock on the TPOD head that is 10-15 degrees aside of it? As manual as well says that all the maverick seekers will in 1st uncage slave to the target designation (that is not possible be in the TPOD), so it can not lock on TPOD head 10-15 degrees left/right of it as the seeker is locked to boresight and in uncage it will start moving 12deg/s speed to the TD, then how can it be free to move all the time before uncage? As well manual says that laser Mavericks are started in the HUD scan pattern when there is no target designation or there is no LST synchronizing (TPOD/LSS or DMT/LST), otherwise syncing with the another sensor scan pattern with Maverick seeker gimbal limits (narrower than those). As well when using DMT/LST with the Laser Maverick, both seekers are synchronized and they will move together in the search pattern selected for DMT. If either seeker will find a laser spot, but not the other, then the another will start circulate around the sensor that found the laser so it is assisting the "lost seeker" to find it in specific small area. In any documentation (mavericks maintenance or Harrier or any other aircraft) is there saying that Maverick laser seekers are wild cards that are scanning all over the places without any information that what they are looking for, just trying to find a proper laser code (hazardous in any situation!) without Uncage command, and then on the Uncage moment they would go to this wild mode scanning all over places instead any designated targets or other sensors etc. So from where is this warning coming from? Why it is against all other procedures? How come that E2 can lock on TPOD in station 4B, but it can't lock on TPOD when it is on any other valid station that is ahead of it like 3 and 5? As that angle is only 16 degrees (74 degrees from missile axis) that is 6 degrees less (84 degrees) than when TPOD is in 4B station... Even if we take the angle to closest possible bleed part with laser beam diffraction (laser firing on the edge) we get only a 15 degrees to closest maverick seeker on station 3 and 5. On Station 2 and 6 the angle becomes 21 degrees (69 degrees gimbal) that is still not enough. ps, could we please get the TPOD to stations 2 and 6? I hope not that your attached document.... Yes, just like any other Maverick variant. The AGM-65 E2/L has an enhanced laser seeker and new software that reduces the risk of collateral damage and enables aircraft to use onboard, buddy- and ground-based lasing to designate targets. Earlier versions of the missile only enabled buddy- and ground-based laser designation. https://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?item=1886 We can as well see at 2003 the Hornet using a E model to self-designated target. Technically possible, but allowed? https://youtu.be/pNMc7Y3cP_8?t=854 Considering that E2 became operational testing in 2012 that is 9 years later... The self-designation capability for Laser Maverick came because new seeker and software to guide that missile. It became a capability for all aircraft, not just AV-8B Harrier. Other aircraft doesn't have limitation like Harrier does with TPOD emulation. And it didn't come possible because Harrier TPOD or any other system would have been changed to make it possible. That means all the Mavericks videos are routed through the TPOD, overriding the MC and SMCS, so all mavericks are wired directly to all stations to get that video to the TPOD (bottom illustrator). As well it means that TPOD has received a wired video Input capability (instead just the Video Output capability and it own VDL (video data-link) to ground units using ROVER or like) and capability control the missiles. And it is interesting that whole aircraft is required to be rewired and TPOD redesigned to support a self-designation, when just the new seeker has made that feature allowed on all platforms (A-10, F-16, F-18, AV-8B) So when the system is capable handle only one Maverick video (as manual says), now it is a new Maverick seeker that is capable to deliver its video to TPOD, and receive the control inputs from the TPOD, while system is only handling the TPOD itself..... As well if it would be a background switching without direct wiring, the TPOD would be required to have capability take over the sensor selection when its internal 14 second timer counts zero. That is again a very, very complex change compared to why not just overcome the 15 second limit and make it like a 30-60 seconds, to let the pilot have more time to play around with Mavericks? Extremely dangerous considering that you don't never see that when the Maverick is: 1) Uncaged 2) Searching 3) Tracking 4) Where it is looking at (the "keyhole") 5) What is the Maverick laser code it is searching for Considering that ALL mavericks seekers are spooled up when selected, but video is opened only when Uncaged and that requires that the system opens the video feed channel to the Maverick so its video can be shown on the proper MFCD and control inputs can be sent back to that missile. The whole system is dedicated to that single Maverick on that moment. And that single Maverick is considered Again, that requires information about the E2 seeker gimbal limits (80 degrees capability, that is major "upgrade" from the previous mavericks (~+/- 28 degree, ~56 degree cone) capability left/right) and that it would even start searching all over its gimbal limits without control, and it specifically going for the area of TD that TPOD created. That is risk with all laser guided weapons why the TPOD laser masks exist, to safe the laser so it does not hit the aircraft that would cause laser energy bleed to weapon seeker. You didn't clarify that earlier: 1) "Not longer used by USMC" by not stocking it to the warehouses and delivering it to active units as politics has changed the funding that it is not to be purchased anymore. 2) "Not longer possible be used by USMC N/A Harriers" by removing technical capability in all N/A Harriers to operate it even if loaded to it? As that is the important difference. A) If it is a political decision causing it removed from possible loadouts as it is not to be delivered for units, but it exist somewhere for other purposes because the current political decision. Then it should not be implemented to DCS World as it is political decision and not technical. B) If it is a technical decision causing its technical capability be removed from all N/A Harriers that it can't be used, then it should be removed from the Harrier as otherwise it is technically incorrect to include its capability. Doesn't explain anything that is required. All that is explained already from the 2002 manual all the way to 2016 versions, except without the errors that document includes. Example of the errors for the Litening 4th gen version: 1) LTIP (SSS Up < 0.8 seconds) is not a Laser Ranging. It is acronym from "Laser Target Imaging Program". It is TPOD performing a Short Wave Infrared (SWIR) laser augmented imaging for a low contrast/visibility scenarios when IR/TV can not reveal the area. When pilot initiates LTIP program, the TPOD shuts off and it performs a Infrared Laser scanning on the area to generate a image from the laser returns. You get almost a 3D build image (without shadows as the laser doesn't create ones) of the view. 2) TPOD doesn't safe the laser when you switch away from it. This is very clearly said in the manuals that TPOD laser keeps firing 15 seconds when pilot switch to another page (and required for E2 maverick), opening again the TPOD page (video) under 15 seconds will maintain the laser armed status, and hence firing. The document says that unless the "SSS Up > 0.8 sec is used, the laser safety is enabled" and it is incorrect. 3) Document as well claims that LMV2 is to be selected (typical) from STRS or EHSD page (It is possible to be selected via ACP, EHSI, DMT, STRS and EW pages) and then required to check the laser code to matching TPOD by "Change via UFC if required" (how otherwise you would change the laser code than using UFC?) by what manner? As on the moment you select missile it becomes "Active" and when you 1st time uncage the missile, it is shown on the left MFCD (unless STRS page is open on the right, in this case it is not as TPOD is shown on the right MFCD). The E2 video should show the laser code (defaulted to 1111, same as TPOD does, as system laser code is zeroed when WOW sensor is triggered, and it requires that pilot will enter the proper laser code to system first, and then Mavericks and TPOD will switch to it from 1111 once activated) on its video feed, as well seeker position (1st uncage slaves it to TD if such, otherwise starts scanning in the HUD pattern) and require pilot to change scan mode to something else if no LST/LSS mode is active in other sensors. Meaning as well that E2 maverick doesn't follow the process of other Mavericks to show up on left MFCD when it is selected. 4) Document says that TPOD display doesn't return to TPOD after the launch (Point 8, to confirm lock and gimbal limit launch parameters, waiting 14 seconds after launch to see that a) another E2 maverick has been automatically selected or b) blank screen in TPOD video c) What?) and pilot is required to wait 14 seconds that TPOD video would appear so possible laser position can be refined if required. What example the manufacturer says that what makes E2 self-designate capable, is the changes in the Maverick seeker, not in the TPOD or any other system. The Maverick E version can be launched and self-designated, but you have problem that the seeker is not allowed to lose a laser spot (track) in any phase of flight. That is very easy to happen because the maverick will fly to between TPOD and target, blocking the LOS with its smoke, heat waves and by itself, and on that moment you have broke the E model seeker laser tracking and missile is lost. What makes the E2 self-designate capable is that E model safety seeker features has been modified so there is a timer how long the E2 seeker can have lost the tracking to laser spot. It has as well higher resolution seeker to spot the laser spot in weaker scenarios (mist, smoke, moisture, haze, heat waves, angles etc) to help maintain the track. As the Maverick missile is very slow missile, it means that launching aircraft is usually already past the target before Maverick hits it. This means that laser spot angles toward the Maverick seeker are rapidly changing weaker and weaker, and the Maverick E can not track that but brakelock. The Maverick seeker should be flying on the target that has maximum 45 degrees from the laser beam. Overflying the target or turning away can make the slow Maverick to fly outside of that 45 degree angle. The Maverick E2 seeker is the change why Maverick gets a "self-designation" capability. It is not in TPOD, or Sensor Select Switch modes or anything else. The restriction to not to self-designate the E maverick is because high change to it lose a track when the launching aircraft is designating it. It is not the procedure how missile is selected, activated or locked. The E2 maverick use the same procedure as any other maverick, it is just a lot better seeker for the situation where ANY aircraft that is self-designating. E2 Maverick was not developed to overcome Harrier limitation to show two Maverick video feeds, it was developed to overcome the limitations in the E seeker resolution, sensitivity and self-destruct logic. Based to now what that document says and what is written multiple times by Razbam, there is now totally odd new a mechanisms and systems to overcome the Harrier avionics limitation with the TPOD and Maverick simultaneously and that new Maverick was developed just to integrate it directly with the Litening 4th gen version and make it capable to control Harrier weapons. I think that Razbam should recheck a whole thing now. As it doesn't make sense how IU (Interface Unit) is handling suddenly weapons.

In the AV-8B+ lots of changes will make it less capable for night operations than what N/A is. Primarily because the DMT is removed and so on the ARBS/LST is gone. You need to take the TPOD to get the capability, but it is not so smooth and seamless as it is with the DMT. But having same radar as the F/A-18C Hornet with just little smaller antenna dish limiting the range, it gets more than it really loses. But this is why I would have liked to see the AV-8B N/A to stay in the early 2000 variant and then push later the AV-8B+ as 2015 one.

I believe that after Rift S discontinued and Facebook account fiasco, the only route is to jump away from Oculus. Bad thing is that now one needs to buy all from lighthouses to controllers and HMD, making it costly above 1000 to start.

That is why I returned Index and G2 because Rift S didn't lose in the resolution or FOV that much that the extra money for either one was warranted, but most importantly is the almost completely problem free experience with Oculus. If Oculus would have put all in for Rift CV2 and keep price in 600-700 class, with same experience. It would have been great. But now if you want great visuals and FOV, you need to suffer from tweaking and most importantly very expensive hardware upgrades to get it running.

I believe that doors should be closed only from operator cockpit, a switch on the front "Doors Open/Closed" and light next to it for status if doors are open. The cannon should likely be usable with doors open, you just have likelyhood to dirty it with the cannon muzzle. This can be different in P, as at least in the V the pilot has possibility either show operator sight position or own weapon CCIP calculation. This is why you as pikot have fixed sight as well because you might want to shoot at the operator spotted target with 3.3/10x sight, when you have 1x mark 1 eyeballs only. So you can have rockets or cannon for attack. Sight is not just for ATGM but as well for target spotting and designation for the pilot. As from a >100 meters distance, a camouflaged vehicle is not spottable. Even a vehicle without extra camouflage and at wide open can become "invisible" from 300-500 meters when stationary.

Dont really know as for me the CCIP is giving on flat terrain at 300-400 m altitude a permission to fire under 1000 meters, why I don't use CCIP for gun or rockets as it is totally worthless. I use fixed sight and go by the touch from 2500-3000 meters with a good hits. 60-80% change to hit the target each time. Rockets (love to use S-5) are needing closer range, about 1800-2000 as M113 engage at the same time with me, because the rockets don't spread so much that likely I hit just next to target and as S-5 doesn't have much splash damage it is wasted shot. Cannon is super fun to be used in slow fire rate and as single shot. You get good visual that where you hit and correct aim and then start doing sniping few vehicles until maybe 1500 m and turn away for re-attack. With Mi-24P for long time I needed to turn labels on to get to see the proper distance. As with CCIP I was constantly under 1000 meters and it meant everyone was shooting me before I got even CCIP authorized. Now using fixed reticle I can do actual proper 50-100 meter altitude attack runs as cannon is under my estimation.

Razbam has only promised to make the + variant. They have as well said that they are going to charge for it (first it was talked to belong with N/A) and hence I assume full $79 module price (even when it is just a throttle getting spring loaded wheel and extra button, something that Razbam modeled first in N/A until they were told about error and they remodeled throttle to N/A version, and adding a radar page from F/A-18C and removing DMT) and there is no schedule whatsoever that when, so can be in 2023 or 2025 or 2030.

Still doesn't make any sense. There is nothing wrong to have a "FC3" modules mixed with the "High Fidelity". It would actually be exactly better that it is so. There would be far more studios ready and capable to produce a "FC3" modules than for far more demanding "High Fidelity" modules. The DCS World would get far more population to offer a wide range of aircraft for AI and as well for generic purposes. The studio could as well start with a "FC3" version, gain some sales to fund the development and then develop a High Fidelity version from it, eventually offering both versions. We could very well have a three levels (let's call them Tier 1 to Tier 3) that are for AI, for FC3 and High Fidelity. The SP mission creators would enjoy from possibility to purchase a packages of example 10 planes for AI purposes from USAF in 1960-1970 and then another pack from USSR or England etc. More content for cheap and low prices. The whole point of the DCS World is Digital Combat Simulator, that includes ground, sea and air units. The whole package. It is now well known for the high fidelity fighters, but it should start to support all others as well. And it takes time and before that it needs a lot of assets and other levels.

Hopefully. The reason why IIR Mavericks has been abandoned and changed back to daytime only CCD (from TV) seekers is pretty obvious for tracking purposes. And why laser is still the main one. Hopefully the moisture simulation will change all that as well, so much shorter ranges for everything, a requirement for more accurate release angles for laser seekers relative to designator etc. People will hate it at first after couple decades being able see, spot and launch things as wanted.

How so? As it was Razbam claim that F version was technically removed, but they couldn't provide any technical evidence for that. They made as well claim that F was never used, and that was quickly pointed with evidence that it wasn't true. Now they have made claim that TPOD integrates to the E2 Maverick (and only to it, and not to any other) and can command and guide it as standalone Storage Computer and Mission Computer. They have implied that E2 Maverick was specifically developed for the AV-8B Harrier to overcome the TPOD Maverick emulation restriction so Laser Maverick could be used for Self-Designation, and they have no evidence to backup anything they have been now talking for couple weeks about it, and they have even changed the reasoning with it. So now for some reason they have made a TPOD capture the other Maverick video and then repeat it to the avionics so that limitation of two maverick video feeds is overcome by them. Maverick <-> TPOD <-> MC/SMCS <-> MFCD/HOTAS I don't know how they explain these new technical capabilities as suddenly all the other limitations and technical functions in Harrier computers and Litening g4 are rewritten completely new ways just for the E2 maverick - to provide a self-designation capability that is suppose to be done other manner as the limitation is not in Harrier but in all aircraft using E variant as the seeker is the problematic, not avionics.

APKWS II doesn't belong to that argument, as it is taken in use without software and hardware modifications. To use APKWS II rockets you don't update aircraft, you simply convert the existing Hydra-70 rockets with APKWS II guidance module. Weapons can be upgraded without any requirements for airframe changes. Some changes are done at the same time when airframe is taken aside, but it doesn't mean they are dependent to each others. Razbam should have kept old TPOD etc, and ED make APKWS II a universal upgrade conversion to missions dated 2013 or newer for all modules. Including as well old TPOD would have made possible simulate earlier period of wars or such limitations.

It is time that ED would fix the grass things. On the spring and summer time you could land on fields with planes that were designed for it, like Su-25 or MiG-21Bis etc. As those field are prepared for the crops and are flat and hard. At the autumn time they should become too soft because moisture and rains. As well being cultivated for next spring, so they are unusable over the winter time. On summer and spring time weather should play their part, in heavy rain you couldn't as soil gets too soft. In summer time takes longer but at autumn it is quickly so. Light rain extends time or doesn't affect on summer time. Then finally add a preparation for engineers to flatten those fields, install metal mesh or sand them to make hardened strips. Then in airbases you could roll over the taxi way and not get stuck as those are prepared fields. At the end of the runway there can be in some locations softer area for emergency landings. But soft gentle, slow speed rolling is different than coming at high speed. And sanded areas where is soft sand the effect is same, you can get stuck at first but engines full will push you through. Like has been seen with A-10 fully loaded landing and take-off on 20 cm deep sand where tires gets covered by sand and does nicely taxi away. I don't know how in Caucasus they build roads, but if anything smart then there is hardened area 2-4 meters from the pavement and you don't dip in. On dry seasons those areas outside gets very different than at rainy seasons. And roads don't make any difference really. ED would really help a lot to make vehicles as well difficult to move across forests and non fielded areas, especially wheeled ones. Just so that roads would be really preferred routes for tactically and strategically.

As far I know there isn't a way. As I would like to see it removed as well as it blocks so badly the view. As far I know as well, ED lost the Su-25A and Su-25T cockpit files why they don't touch those things anymore. But I remember that there were few things like axis for gunsight height adjustment and gunsight would have been removable long long time ago.

What bugs were the ones that were too irritating? From the bugs that You found back then to be too irritating You have not seen to be fixed and still existing? It has started to receive a proper limitations like engine performance was scaled dramatically to smaller for proper values. It has received some of the proper limitations like the TPOD laser arming is limited now correctly. Soon it should receive incapability to show TPOD simultaneously with ANY Maverick video. And that LOFT sub-mode for AUTO delivery is finally being implemented. There are as well big fixes like the Sidearm seeker is visible on the HUD and moves properly. The TPOD has proper compass rose angle from the point on ground. But there are many incorrect things to be redone like DMT and INS. Some of them are waiting ED to implement the new FLIR simulation. But it doesn't matter for incorrect behaviors like DMT doesn't have 420 degree roll limitation (one full roll + 60 degrees more), doesn't have a contrast tracking but magically has the instant ground stabilization. And INS mode is not restricted to HUD and for LOS with Altitude Radar ranging for backup purposes. The EHSI displays automatic switching when DMT gimbal is reached, the DMT/LST scan functions and whole DMT automatic LST/TV -> INS mode switching etc. The gun is still way too accurate by its spread, it should be 80% of rounds hitting inside 5 mil radius, and now it is more like a 1-2 mil with 100%. The greatest part on the Harrier is the amazing 3D model and textures. It has many systems correctly done and the feeling and experience is unique. Maybe there is problems with the drag being too small as Harrier still doesn't like to stop and it doesn't take time to accelerate with heavy loadouts. I would say that Harrier is 50-70% from completed status. So lots of work to be done, but it is getting there.

Amen.... The extra $ 79 for the AV-8B+ will be reserved to day when Razbam is delivering its promised + variant. Flying with both, N/A and + variants basically renders other modules pretty hard spot when it comes to capabilities. As even when the Harrier is not a Hornet or Viper in the energy fight, it will put many to difficult positions and it is the pilot that matters. So giving a BVR capability will make big difference, even when the radar size is little smaller than in Hornet and hence the range and detection is shorter and hence ECM capabilities as well somewhat better against Harrier, the AIM-120A/B capable (the AIM-120C integration coming in 2023 in reality) mission is something fancy. If that would just be true. They are just playing around now with stuff that should have been done 3 years ago. There is a lot to be done and changed radically, but if they keep up the pace then we see in 2-3 years that it could be said so....

Hopefully as well from the DMT page? "A/G weapon options are presented on the DDI stores display in all master modes except A/A. In the A/G mode, weapon options are also presented on the EHSI, DMT, and ECM displays" (Page 1-303)." So it is safe to assume that proper functionality that when the TPOD is the active sensor (SSS 2x for HTS mode) the throttle "Uncage" does nothing for the Mavericks because it is directed to TPOD that is the master Maverick Video. And hence pilot needs to exit the TPOD (SSS 2x) and open another page (like MENU or NAVFLIR) to be able send Uncage command to selected Maverick missile? The maverick doesn't replace the TPOD video, but it will always go to the left MFCD, unless the STORES page is open in the right MFCD (page 2-183). And how does one "uncage" a Maverick from other pages? Isn't it that you need to have a Maverick video active (in other words, no TPOD video visible at all) and in IRMV mode to send commands to selected Maverick to uncage it? I assume this is for all the Mavericks that are loaded to Harrier, and not just for the selected one. As manual says that when LMAV is selected the SMCS commands all LMAV missiles to spool up. And I hope the proper sensor integration is implemented to the DMT so that ARBS/LST sensor can be integrated with it to acquire target at increased range and azimuth. And of course as well the proper scan patterns (Narrow, Wide and HUD, based to automatically be selected by the MC based to is target designated or what is the DMT/LST scan option). Is that correct? Because the manual is very clear that Maverick video can not be activated as long the TPOD video is shown. "Because TPOD video is provided as maverick emulation, maverick video is not available when TPOD video is selected" Page 1-367. That means that when ever the TPOD is selected, the mavericks video should be turned off or not be possible be even activated. And about the IIR or L mavericks: "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" page 2-168. Please explain how the AGM-65E2 doesn't use the Maverick video standard but overrides the TPOD set restriction? Why TPOD would replace the AGM-65E2 seeker video when it is not utilizing the standard Maverick video in first place? How does the E2 variant seeker receive the Uncage command when TPOD is capturing it as it is the "Maverick" master mode? And how can that seeker be running all the time even when selecting/deselecting the missile? How so, as the TPOD itself is little front of the whole Maverick seekers heads but as well outside gimbal range of the maverick seeker? The TPOD glass needs to be clean so it doesn't scatter laser energy to own fuselage yes, but the maverick seekers has no over 80 degrees itself to be able look at the TPOD head, unless the E2 has now some amazing gimbal? So why not E model to do that same? Does this mean that TPOD will be modeled with the automatic laser shut-off (unarming) with the Laser Mask for two modes? (Page 1-371) "1.18.3.3.2 Laser Masks. Since the lasers are not eye−safe at distances less than NOHD, even for scattered/reflected energy, laser masks are provided to insure the laser energy does not strike the aircraft or its stores.......These laser masks, which represent the masking zones plus a margin of safety, restrict laser firing when the pod LOS encounters the laser−masking zones." As the laser doesn't fire when the Master Arm is not On. That is now easy to forget as the laser arm process was changed. As so many is switching Master Arm just before launch as laser as possible be fired incorrectly before the update. Again the question that why does the Maverick jump to right MFCD without STORES page being open in there? "IRMV video appears on the stores page or left MPCD with each initial uncage command only. If another display such as the EHSD is selected while IRMV video is displayed (i.e., via sensor select switch left HOTAS command), select MENU/STRS to return to IRMV video" Page 2-183 How does the Laser Maverick receive the command signals like Uncage from the controls when the TPOD is the master Maverick video source in emulation mode, as the IIR Maverick uses the Uncage for polarization change? As when the TPOD is like any Maverick when its video is on, then it is receiving the uncage command like it would be the maverick seeker. Normally Uncage button alters the delivery mode (CCIP/AUTO) but the AGM is indirect delivery mode and doesn't offer that function, but is received by the active Maverick (TPOD in this case). And what in the AGM-65E2/L seeker has changed so that it will override the Mission Computer commands and TPOD Maverick emulation? Why can't all Mavericks videos be switched to with SSS Up for > 0.8 seconds? Why with the E2 the SSS Up does the TPOD suddenly know that such missile is loaded and know how to behave? Do we as well get the proper laser code system, where LMAV are set to 1111 when Weight On Wheels sensor is triggered, the mission computer is set to zeroed out (no code) and TPOD is set to as well its own default 1111 code, until pilot enters the valid laser code to the system?

You can reset keyboard to defaults.... Just right click the keyboard section in bindings and select "revert to default" or something.

The TrackIR software doesn't care about speed, it cares only the axis of the input (your TrackIR clip or Pro clip etc) and then what it is translated to present as virtual head. You do all with the curves. Like on the bottom you can have a each of axis that you can see balls moving around when you move your head, and you adjust the orange lines with gray dots for wanted ratio value from physical to virtual. Example the bottom left corner is the X and Y axis that is your head moving left and right, as well up and down. The center line presents where you recenter the TrackIR each time, and then how much further from that position you move head. The center line has vertical numbers as degrees or distance and that is the true movement. You need to make the yellow line further from it to change the ratio of the movement. So example you can make that 1 cm of movement to left/right is 4 cm in virtual. The curves help you to example make in a center (you can see those "dips" in all three yellow lines) that means your virtual head doesn't move much when your real head moves around the center. And further your real head moves from the center then further the virtual head starts to move. A straight line means the specific ratio is used, while curve means ratio is increased or decreased further you move or more you rotate the read head.

I think you are on something. As it feels that Harrier accelerate too quickly. Regardless it having a climb to altitude record faster than even F-15C to 9000 ft and then Eagle goes pass. The Harrier doesn't seem to have a drag at slow speeds in hover and such. Talking about full 92° forward thrust and full flaps and landing gear and the plane does not seem to stop so fast from 100 knots as it does accelerate from 0 knots. I have the strange feeling that Harrier wants to go faster. It is a lot smaller compared before thrust fix, but still drag feels too small. Like you can't perform the "nose down bow" hover like in videos as Harrier starts acceleration forward and dives.

Exactly. Too much effort for removing just a weapon code when all other weapons use almost everything same, just different seeker (and warhead?). Yeah, ordinance crews doesn't really make a such a mistake that they would enter a AGM-65F to system while they loaded AGM-65E. It is same as entering a GBU-12 code instead. Should be infinite really if digital numpad as I have understood. But from the weapons code listings in ordinance manual it is limitation in computer to accept them. So in this case 4+1 is the combination as nowhere I have read incompatible combinations for mission computer part, so it is more of a weapon size compared next station. What we need to accept is that Razbam didn't have evidence for the F being removed from the software as they didn't present it. And they jumped on the gun to remove it for political reasons and not technical ones as said. So old evidence for F compatibility holds. All this week long theater caused just problems to Razbam communication and weaken the authority. Include DMT to that as well and I am happy. But I am worried they made something own now with the E2/L by making it somehow compatible with the TPOD, as it should have same limitation in Harrier as E or F model (all AGM-65 models) because it is not the seeker but way how TPOD is connected to avionics in it. It is like AGM-65E2/L was developed just for the Harrier to overcome the TPOD emulation problem. While E2/L was developed for everyone to come around original E seeker limitations to find and lock the laser spot and maintain the lock through launch so close to the laser beam source. It was much needed upgrade to F-16, F/A-18, F-15E and all that uses AGM-65E as it doesn't work so well with self-designation. This mystical explanation that TPOD can now control E2/L missile and is reason it can be used same time without switching away from TPOD video. Like how do you get commands to AGM when TPOD video is active two-way link from controls to it? Now suddenly because E2/L seeker the TPOD master mode is suddenly overwritten and system can handle a two busses simultaneously, one for TPOD and one for AGM? As well the Razbam claim that one needs to switch TPOD to standby mode with E and F variants, what is illogical. As it will cut TPOD laser on the spot and all. While manual clearly talks about 15 seconds autonomous laser operation without video feed to plane.

It is actually fairly good map. If you check diagonally from closest island to North-West you get about 1000 km distance. That is a massive for a fleet combat. The area is as well fairly good for missions. Sure there is not so much for the historical events, but DCS World is not about historical events accuracies, but a sandbox that offers creative means to build missions that isn't historically correct but can be played technically properly. Seriously saying, ED would had a very easy time by making just a clear ocean map. Place it somewhere on the Atlantic outside of the Europe and it would had sold. But there is coming the WW2 era version of Marianas and there is more action to be made there.

What they said is only part where it really leads to, a software change to remove the specific weapon code. The hardware in the main wheelwell isn't required to be changed. Just the software change (not even update software) to remove the listed weapon code from active ones. Good reason would be either one: 1) Free some memory from computer. 2) Normal maintenance task to disable unused codes to limit accidental entries. But neither one is really good as if weapon is not even available for the missions, then you don't accidentally enter it either. Exactly. No weapon to be funded for the units, then update the manuals for doctrine and training. Easiest and cheapest thing. You don't need to remove them from software. You just don't enter their codes from your loadout paper to computer. This is just again problematic for Razbam. They made claim about technical compatibility change in software. They should follow it through without listening the community at all for opposition if that is clearly unrealistic weapon loadout. Just present the evidence and people should understand that Harrier can't operate the weapon as it is technically impossible. But now razbam makes question those AGM-122 and Mk.20's as how they can be in the compatibility list when you don't have them anymore? So instead going for a realistic Harrier as said, they listen community that just scream for "incompatible weapons" because Razbam has made such claim. Either they are available (compatible) or they are not. It doesn't matter what community wants but just the technical capabilities. Because evidence was not provided that technical compatibility is removed, then Razbam should have come forward and say they made mistake and it is supported and not to say that they listened upset mob and are scared to remove a incompatible weapon from Harrier. As now it looks exactly like that developers bent front of the users who do not care about technical compatibility.

But that is the question/problem here. Razbam made two claims. 1) Doctrine has changed and because politics the IRMAV is not anymore in inventory. 2) Because political change of not having IRMAV in inventory, that USMC made software updates that removed the IRMAV from the computer storage system so ordinance ground crew can not load the weapon to the mission computer. Razbam made as well one another claim (possibly reason to delete whole thread). 3) IIR Maverick was never used on Harrier. And that got storm response where people did provide evidence from 90's to early 2000. But that is not the question as circa 2015 model is simulated, and Razbam needs to provide evidence for their 2nd argument. The first argument can be forgotten as it is political and doesn't matter in simulations, but if it is in reality reason to change the weapon compatibility that it can't be used, then documentation evidence is required for that, or the argument is invalid and hence IIR Maverick stays as valid loadout as it has been so for few years earlier (early 2010). But.... If Razbam would had the evidence for the IIR Maverick incompatibility (not possible be launched) but bent to wishes of the community because so many just wants IIR Maverick, then it has lead to Harrier that is unrealistic now. We never know really now, as Razbam has said that decision to keep IIR Maverick is purely because people want it so and hence unrealistic based to Razbam claim, regardless that Razbam didn't provide documentation for it.

BS3 is mostly true. Where ED took educated guess is that as it was planned that KA-52 leads the flight of KA-50, that they would share most of the parts as much as possible, as the front cockpit section is different between models. And as KA-52 had same wing and avionics as KA-50 at the early phase, then the KA-50 would have same wing as KA-52 got upgraded, as KA-50 as well for glass cockpit same as KA-52 got. The KA-50 was designed to carry A/A missiles, IGLA or R-73 so it is realistic to have it supported. The president-S system was as well designed for it, sold even as kit and used. So it is as well realistic. But because law, ED didn't dare to model the IR lamp turrets even when it was with it. But where ED took creative license, is the president-S system MWS display integrated to ABRIS. Because we don't have glass cockpit version, and there is no information that where the system own small display would be placed, they simply use ABRIS to show the realistic threat display. The display is realistic, with small changes to avoid legal cases, like instead a triangle threat warning they used circle symbol. Instead a missile shaped symbol for missile position, they use a pointed block. But all that is almost identical to real thing. So that is where I have personally a problem with it as I would have liked to see display fitted somewhere as it works as RWR as well. The Kh-66 is sadly true not to be in Bis because it requires older PFM radar. But the CCIP is true, except for the bombs. You have a CCIP pipper for cannon and rockets, but bombs are dropped using a old school angle, speed and altitude table and that should be removed from bombs. As well the pipper following IR seeker is incorrect. For that I don't say anything.

That is another annoying thing in DCS that we can't have automatic doctrinal operations between APC/IFV and infantry squad they are supporting. Even a trucks would become dangerous when transported squad would unmount and scatter for defense against spotted air threat. Having quickly dozens of MANPADS and HMG spread around the area, moving their location depending your actions and situation. While every destroyed vehicle would become achievement, there would be far more danger for helicopters and low level planes than ever. One moment you see a column moving on road, each vehicle having a good 300-1000 meters spacing (instead current 20 meters), suddenly they all pull over and disappear to nearby forest, towns and such. You curse that they were alarmed about your presence and are prepared to engage you in 15-30 seconds from now. Then you would notice that some idiot fighter pilot was flying at high altitude looking at them with TPOD and was detected by a EWR some 100 km from your position. Suddenly couple MANPADS are launched at it and is required to perform some maneuvers and maybe even drop heavy ordinance load to survive. Your capabilities to engage couple of those trucks became near zero as you have no idea where they are, and how well they are defended.