Fri13

IIRC only the radar ones.

How many would dislike if Caucasus v2 map, done from scratch. Would take 220-230 GiB of disk space? It is still one of the major areas, but higher detail would make it up IMHO.

Caucasus is the primary free map, IMHO it should be constantly updated and improved with small changes here and there (adding more buildings, improving height map, creating more detailed areas etc). But with major new terrain engine changes (like we are getting now with this second free map) it could be left for moment to old features so that new map gets more promotion (converted to new tech but not utilizing it yet). Now the Marianas Islands map likely could become a primary free map. At least as we get choice which one to install in first installation. It should be the one IMHO if size is smaller, but primarily that it is now the latest tech and latest visual quality and that should be used for promoting DCS more than a wide empty Caucasus with just heavy mountainous areas. Caucasus could be be opened as community editing (allowing only add stuff like trees, buildings and draw roads.) where some areas are up to vote to be included. This of course if ED can't have resources as couple working adding just more details here and there (to get rid of empty towns and cities with ground textures faking places).

Track files are automatically recorded. The last flight is in temporary file and after each flight when you exit to menu, you get option to save the track with own custom name. The hard part really is to attach that file by finding it first from windows user directory (default is example: c:\Users\<username>\Saved Games\dcs.openbeta\tracks I think the name changed since 2.7 update) and then just add it to the post. The time consuming part really is to start the mission, fly the wanted profile/sample in shortest possible manner and then save the track. I would be interested to know more. Espexially that what developers say.

The only fictional part so far is the MWS implementation inside cockpit.

Odd, I read it twice (the forum version) and didn't catch that... Maybe that is a one option for it? Like now it is as a HSI with strongest contrast with black background, and then you can get it as overlay for the map view if aircraft is centered there. As I see the problem that if aircraft is at bottom, your situational warnings are severely cut to 210 degrees only. What is the other names for it than ABRIS/KABRIS? I have in years find the source of this "Off-shelf" navigation computer but there has been only few mentions it elsewhere.

Could that second redline in the first screenshot on newsletter be about laser irradiation direction? (Likely a second missile but outside specific range and the other is priority threat with a circle) I am as well wondering what that yellow line means at the right from 45° to 135°. Or what is the meaning on bottom right with "32"?

Yes, as I said it is the other known image of it. And it is same as the one photograph from table system. It is difficult to find. Would have if i would have saved it years ago. The President-S has own separate packages for different helicopters. It is not one and same for all. And the high resolution display was the common one. That is my critique as we don't know how the system would have been wired to the KA-50, but it is clear it wouldn't have been integrated to KABRIS as page. But it would had own display if not possible be integrated to MFCD. But instead ED trying to model the new display, try to find a way to reallocate cockpit to fit that in it, it is easier to make the fictional compromise and make it used as KABRIS page is otherwise the best choice likely would have been a full cockpit redone as glass cockpit and it is far greater work than adding few minor things with fictional systems integration by not knowing how they would be inside cockpit, but knowing they were externally.

Tested quickly, only 4500 lbs fuel and I could hover just about with slight raising. Not a change to approach fast as you will sink.

I would too accept it as compromise, if alternative is to have none. Example the A-10C has just a single small/tiny LED to blink, telling a pilot that something triggered the sensor (a cannon, small arms fire, a flare, a wingman missile... Or maybe a MANPADS). I don't really even consider that A-10C has a MWS as it doesn't work if you are not middle of nowhere and have automatic single flare program so you notice that someone shot below you. If we would have that in KA-50, I would just likely ignore it too. But having a 90 degree accuracy or even mainly 180 degree, it would be enough to know which side you need to take cover in KA-50. But having such display as shown, it will be very accurate system to inform such manner that it is only question anymore that what is it logic. What can it detect, what it does when it detects something and what it does if it is a missile coming at it? Example if the A-10C RWR would flash the quadrant where launch is detected, it would be far better than current tiny LED with small audio signal. It ssees we don't get turrets, but we get the MWS sensors and President-S display emulated in ABRIS display instead own dedicated one.

The display page looks more realistic than I expected. We do have at least two real presentations of the warning display. One is from a manufacturer video, and one is photograph from the weapon expo table. They have rings with 1/2/4/8 km threat ranges. You can see the missile estimated (optical tracking of missile position) as big red missile symbol. Then a red line from center toward each threat. Where you have every 30 degree markings and good accuracy for threat direction (because symbol and line is between them). In the screenshot the missile is being tracked that is flying toward President-S system (not a false alarm, but a identified threat) from about 230° heading (so about 8'clock). It is as well between 2-4 km range as symbol is on 4 km ring (the compass has 1-2, 2-4 and 4-8 km threat zones). The missile symbol should adjust itself based to estimated impact time by tracking it. If we would get the proper full system, we would see at close range the system activate countermeasures and missile would perform crazy max turn to steer away.

I have read now the TAC-000 through couple times and I can't find MAP DESG to mean anything else than radar ground mapping. It is pointed everywhere that when AG master mode is selected then the MAP is radar primary designation mode. As the AV-8B+ doesn't have the DMT, you are then left without the LST and TV Designation capabilities. And you need to carry TPOD to get those features. In the N/A Harrier the INS mode is secondary designation mode as it is HUD only mode (need to see target and TD inside HUD to move TD with TDC) and DMT is the primary one. But what is "MAP"? Where does it really come available for us? In the TAC-000 manual there are hundreds mentions how MAP is tied to radar variant, but only one (that I have found) to list it with N/A but it is where N/A and Radar variant is same and Day-time is without EHSD and FLIR. Right now the "MAP DESIGNATION" is mixing INS such way that pilot can move TD anytime when in INS mode, and the TD moves around in EHSD. This causes problems for players as well who are accidentally in INS mode and then they touch TDC and it does move TD around behind their aircraft because TDC is in "MAP DESG" (regardless that all in ARBS LST/TV mode states that those are disabled when reaching DMT gimbal limit and INS is automatically selected to avoid accidental designations, and they don't get automatically re-activated without pilot pressing SSS Aft again). The manual doesn't say anyhting of SSS Left activating any TDC actions on the EHSD digital moving map. It only say that continuous SSS Left will toggle between decentered and centered EHSD view. Can someone explain from where and why we should have "MAP"? As far what comes to manual, we should have only three main means to designate a target. 1) Laser Spot Tracker 2) TV contrast lock 3) INS visual targeting using HUD. Those are SSS main axis - Forward and Aft and are mutually exclusive from Left and Right. And others are: 1) overfly the target and pressing TOO to designate area below aircraft using RALT. 2) JTAC sends datalink transmission. 3) entering target coordinates manually. 4) Waypoint and waypoint off-set. 5) Any means to convert existing TD to Markpoint or Target Point (M# or T# in EHSD instead W#) and recall those as TD. 6) And then separate system, like the TPOD (but not really part of Harrier systems).

It is not required to be boxed as it should be automatic. The INS, TV and LST modes are broken. The EHSD functionality and logic with those all three is wrong Example, you get a call from JTAC that target is painted ahead of you in city edge. You switch to AG master mode. You select a weapon of choice. You press SSS Aft to enable ARBS/LST (you have inputted proper laser code after landing/startup) on right MFCD. You slew ARBS/LST search pattern over the expected target area, and LST locks on laser spot. The LST is used sensor, but video becomes visible for target identification without contrast lock (video has large open crosshair). Now, as it is LST mode then it is fully automatic. You fly with some jinking and generate angle changes by doing so. The ARBS calculates laser spot slant range (and so on position and altitude relative to you) and so on generate Target Designation automatically. Now you need to decide what to do. If you want to use the target designation, you can just select AUTO or CCIP modes as TD is already automatically done and turn Master Arm On before attack. OR you can pull SSS Aft to switch TV mode, where now TV crosshair is big and in 160 ms time crosshair closes and small box jumps to closest high contrast detail, and sweetening can be required. This so laser can be turned off from moving target or something (you already have TD). OR you can turn away and when DMT gimbal limit is reached then LST mode is disabled and INS mode is automatically selected, the EHSD compass rose appears on right MFCD and shows TD diamond position. Once you turn back toward Target Designation the INS mode is still active. The LST mode doesn't get activated unless you switch to it by pressing SSS Aft (that would make LST center last used scan pattern on TD). The TV video is visible, but as you are in INS mode there is no contrast lock. The TV video points at the TD showing it direction. If TV lock is wanted to be done, you need to SSS Aft to activate TV mode that does automatic contrast detection on TD direction and locking to strongest one, regardless what ever is between DMT and TD (be it a mountain, trees etc). When INS mode is active the TDC can not move TD unless the TD diamond is visible inside HUD. All TV and LST modes are disabled so that accidental redesignation doesn't happen. Pilot is all the time guided toward the designation for re-attack by showing compass rose in right MFCD in place of LST/TV and in HUD with arrow in FPM and so on. In any given point pilot isn't required to open EHSD and box a DESG by pressing proper OSB to get: Guidance on target AUTO delivery option Weapons released

IIRC IRL it is Uncage and Cage that switch between boresight and TD. The Maverick video is always on unless switching weapon or station. So 1st Uncage should bring up the Maverick video (IRMAV on left MFCD and LMAV on right MFCD replacing ARBS/LST (pressing designate should swap between LST/LMAV), or either MFCD that has STORES page open) and then Uncage / Cage will do as name says. If you happen to overcome the Maverick video (like SSS Left to show EHSD) then you need to get it back by opening STORES page. (Tip, manual says that TPOD emulates same Maverick video feed). I haven't tested in the 5th May update but in release 2.7 it was working as ever before. Just fire laser on target and launch at the direction. If you have laser armed, set for LASR mode (default TRNG) then it should work. It shouldn't. As TDC ACTION is faster mode to slew, and releasing TDC Down designates with or without slewing first.

Thank you for crushing my dreams... AH-1 over AH-64 anyday. Make it as the curved canopy and you have excellent visuals outside. AFAIK it was cancelled, and my heart bleeds.... AH-1 is for UH-1 what the Mi-24 is for Mi-8. It is great to hear that Hornet is getting closer to get main things in so it can be released for early access, but if there is major refining in FM then it should be done in EA phase.

Luckily ED hired a veteran RTS game developer to make the dynamic campaign engine and AI. So lots of things can change. But I don't want to see RTS designed based to other industry RTS games history, because they live in totally own world. There is reality right "out there" with a lot of information about real world militaries doctrines and tactics. It doesn't take much to read the basics about how war is trained or by tactics, and then simple/basic psychology of every individual soldier that is experiencing it. Everyone wants to live, they need the moral system, obedience and basic logic. In a group commanding you basically need to simulate the group leader only. In vehicle the vehicle commander or who ever commands it (like infantry squad leader commands vehicle when mounted, otherwise vehicle commander by orders of squad leader when they are unmounted). And start from the basics all the way up. If someone feels their position is compromised and threaten, they will withdraw or they might even attack if it gives the upper hand. It ends to basic die rolling in many situations like if you are 1 vs 3 then you will reposition. If it is 1 vs 2 then you hold. And if you have 3 vs 1 then you think about attacking but if you get 5 vs 1 then you definitely attack if possible. A simple logic for AI that thinks by it own point of view only is required. From the information it has at hand, and no cheating. It means we need to have hundreds of AI's in the combat that everyone is trying to share information, follow the commands and help the higher ranking elements to get the information and they utilize tools to avoid losses when not necessary. Most of the time it is waiting, like infantry squad has their primary and secondary positions, they have their standing orders for defense and then doctrinal experience for attack. Then at some point they can change to offensive mode where they have their commands to achieve goals and again limited information about what happens around. But they deal each engagement when they come to it, with knowledge that what they need after reaching their goals. Like it is no use to kill 60-70% of troops to gain a hill or headland if they don't have required 80-90% alive to hold it when enemy will regroup and attack. We need AI to understand basics like how to perform a quick skirmish, do a raid or simply fake a movement to build a ruse. How to manipulate the troops locations, strengths, capabilities by hiding or revealing them etc. We need system where information is key. And that is what KA-50 should be mainly doing. Reconnaissance behind enemy lines. Gather information of troops positions and possible strengths. Maybe engage some units to distract or when opportunity raises without risks. A AI that would be building the missions based to gathered intelligence can cause sudden surprises that there simply isn't any troops in area or there is other kinds or there is more than intelligence has shown that can result to mission failure. This is challenging as we need AI logic to how to play a poker. As AI needs to know how to bluff or how to read other cards without knowing them at all by just guessing what other might have. AI that would know how to communicate, build a battle plans and especially develope tactics on the fly with other AI's is challenging from programming perspective. Like how can one AI get a another AI to perform a nasty surprise attacks etc. That kind is what would eventually lead completely different DCS experience where you fight from small sorties to long campaigns where you simply have no good valid/solid/correct situational awareness. Many could enjoy a lot about intelligence gathering by flying with camera pods and ELINT missions etc. Be just playing DCS as a deep RTS game where things can go really in realtime or speeded up. If we could get 10% of the RTS players interested to play DCS Combined Arms, it would change the online community totally. The challenge is that virtual pilots needs to accept that they ain't rock stars, that they are just pieces on large board game and they would have strict commands and goals to achieve. No more random flying, no more picking fight where ever and how wanted. As losing 20% of the planes in carrier means more than 20% less sorties and hence whole fleet performance drops dramatically. Having a eight KA-50 in some FOB and losing two of them is big loss. How many would like to be the guy in online server who destroyed 10 fighters and 6 helicopters in one session, that lead to losing a control of half of the map in few days?

And at that day we would really have a proper "combat simulation" going on from a sensor wise. Just touched those things in another thread about ATFLIR vs LITENING use in hornet that why to go back to 2nd gen Litening. All that would make Shkval nicely weaker, show it limitations and problems. But as overall performance nerfing happens everywhere, I take it. So what is players needs to find new ways to play, as that is how something being difficult in reality, you need to find new ways to deal the problems or improved the weapons to maintain the advantage. Maybe many will not like if suddenly BS3 becomes even less effective and capable (especially compared to a Apache etc), but it will make it far more interesting to fly then. Maybe we all find out that why KA-50 was not wanted to be taken in service if you can't find anything with it.....

Sure, not at all as perfection as now. It will be interesting what new FLIR simulation brings, and how it interacts with coming moisture simulation as well. We might see a major changes in overall combat procedures where optical targeting systems becomes severely affected. If we get more ground clutter and better AI as well that ground combat ranges drops to more realistic 50-200 meters area fight in forest etc, then you really need to be able identify your targets that who are you going to support or attack. It is easy when you have 1-2 km separation between troops on ground, but totally another case for troops in close contact. It would give huge increased value to maps with large urban areas as you would get limited visuals and troops inside buildings, backyards, roofs, windows, on streets etc. That is maybe the ultimate moment when pilot at 2-5 nmi distance can't have good situational awareness what really is happening.

That is bad joke, as ICBM launch at 100 km is equal to MANPADS launch at 1 km range. The point is, the UV MWS systems are not weak, they are not blind and they are not "see, the huge missile was launched at 5 km". The sensors are very sensitive. Everyone who have used NVG alone at the night knows how a cicarette is visible to kilometers. When someone shoots with just assault rifles it is like light show going on the ground from star wars even when you are kilometers away. The UV spectrum is not less than what is visible or near IR light. You get even more sensitive there. Question is how high resolution you can get and how good software you get to detect and recognize launches, track them and identify them to be a threat to you. Well that is always better than nothing, but only if you get the direction of it. As if there is no intelligence, then the MWS will be like a A-10C one that just blinks a small red LED that you don't even notice and just waste your flares even when it was a MBT just firing its gun at 5 km from your location. And when there is a platoon of them firing their cannons, your flares are consumed faster than you get to notice that what is happening. So you simply disable the automatic system all together. Then you need to be careful as any friendly or hostile firing around you just trigger the sensor and you are constantly looking around that if it happened to be a missile at that time. So you just turn that whole system down as it is useless as false alarms are 10000:1 to real threat. That is the beauty of these new modern systems like President-S that the system recognizes, classifies and tracks each threat automatically, and if they are non-threats like cannon fire or so, they don't even give you the warning. If it is a missile launch then you get silent warning and if it happens to be a threat to you (heading to you) then you get as best early warning possible so you know is it at 8 km or 4 km distance, what is the direction of it and what is the missile estimated range to you, so you can perform evasive maneuver or manually do something, and in final moments if you have not done anything, then the system will wait missile to fly at proper effective range from you and will trigger counter measurements automatically to proper side and start the IR/RF jamming without pilot actions. If we don't even get a smartness that "Hey, a real missile threat at 9'clock" then it will be almost useless. I would pay full 79 for the actual working contrast lock system for core of DCS World. So that all systems would actually get a proper optical benefits and challenges. (No, I wouldn't pay extra for that as DCS World should have it already for free for all modules API to begin with, just like the radar, FLIR, NVG etc functionality should be for all modules available there). Personally I would be happy to get the proper Shkval filters and functions available, and then Vikhr modeled properly so you could actually get it used well against air threats as well be able lock on it strong contrast targets without problems. And live with the contrast tracking system problems elsewhere where you get it locking to unwanted things and it lose lock on moving targets when being blocked by something else etc. You would get the challenge and learn to live with the real contrast lock systems in good and bad.

So what are you suggesting Razbam should do? Or what should we do?

The documentation regardless with the TAMMAC says that you need to manually correct the INS target position as it calculates it based the LOS angle and BARO/RALT current alitude. Figure 1-47. Fundamental Quantities Related to Target Position NWP 3-22.5-AV8B, Vol. I 1-74 This is mentioned in the TAC-000 at 1.10.5.1 ARBS/LST Designation. page 1-200. 1.10.2 Concept. page 1-196. 1.10.3 ARBS Theory. page 1-196. It is as well very specific that you can only move INS TD when the TD diamond is inside your HUD TFOV, not like now where you can move it when ever you want accidentally. 2.4.2 INS Designation. page 2-43 - 2-44. Only way to get to know the slant range to the target (and target altitude) is either use a ARBS or then have target coordinates programmed with the altitude information like JTAC datalink or manually inputting the target altitude. But that means you need to know target coordinates in advance to program them to INS so it can use that information. The TOO function works same way, you need to overfly the target and the system use aircraft coordinates + RALT to measure the terrain altitude below the aircraft (uses only strongest return below aircraft, so not exactly "below aircraft" as if there is buildings, trees, hills etc then those are used). There is no DTED used there. This is as well reason why you need to use ARBS/TV with contrast lock so the ARBS can calculate the slant range by your angle changes. It is fastest and preferred method, challenge is that you need to get a contrast lock first as it is not possible be locked on the ground like now. The ARBS/LST mode is only automatic locking system, where once spotting the laser it will automatically lock on it and designate the target and ARBS uses it to generate the slant range. The INS targeting is the least accurate system as it requires the pilot corrections and if the height difference is too big it becomes difficult. And when you have limited time on target you don't have time to start playing with it if it requires a lot of corrections. In a AV-8B+ the radar AGR will replace the ARBS system for the slant range calculation, it is not so accurate and good as ARBS is but it is faster because pilot doesn't need to use ARBS/TV to try to acquire a target contrast to get a lock on it and be correcting it. And better than INS mode as pilot doesn't need to be correcting it based the difference of initial aircraft altitude and the target altitude. The DTED is not a system that gives target altitude and renders INS, ARBS, AGR etc obsolete because you would just get a target altitude from it when you just point "There it is".

LANTIRN should have a pixelated view, but LITENING and ATFLIR would get mushy because digital filtering to improve the quality. Example the LITENING max 9x digital zoom is 56 x 56 px and it go through digital image enhancing filter that makes it blurry, soft blob instead pixelated Tetris game. You can make something out at 5-6x digital zoom but you are pretty much looking a blob on blob anyways if using FLIR. ATFLIR benefit is it one level digital zoom only IIRC. To get better image in DCS one needs to get LITENING 4G that Harrier has. 1024 x 1024 FLIR and CCD to start with and many other fancy improvements over ATFLIR and LITENING AT like multipoint track, offsets and laser imager for challenging weather and lighting conditions.

The Laser code should be zeroed 5 seconds after Weight On Wheels (WOW) sensor is triggered. It should go to zero, and not to 1111 that is valid laser code. This is mentioned in the TAC-000 at 1.10.5.1 ARBS/LST Designation page 1-200. The WOW does not deny you entering the proper laser code before take-off, as it is only when WOW is triggered on landing. You need to enter a valid laser code to the system if you want to use ARBS/LST function. If no proper laser code is entered, then when you press SSS Aft the ARBS/LST mode is skipped and you only get the ARBS/TV mode. There might be a reasons why you do not want to have a laser code entered to the system, as when you are not expected to use laser guided weapons or be attacking a laser designated target, as you can just not enter the valid laser code or clear it and you do not get ARBS/LST mode at all in your use. This is important when you have example target designated as INS mode, because when you are attacking or re-attacking the TD (Target Designation) you are required to switch from INS to LST or TV mode, as the system does not automatically switch to either one. First you need to press SSS Aft for the ARBS/LST mode (that is before ARBS/TV mode) and so on you will activate LST mode that will center its last selected search pattern on the TD position. And if you want to use a ARBS/TV to re-target you need to press second time SSS Aft to activate TV that will immediately perform wide area contrast search on the TD point and then lock on anything that it finds there. So if you have trees, mountain, building or anything blocking your view to your TD, then ARBS/TV will lock instead those randomly. When you have example used first INS to generate TD by generic area but you want to use ARBS/TV to lock very specific area and get automatic tracking, you need to use SSS Aft to switch from INS -> TV. That would again immediately cause contrast lock randomly, but if you have the valid laser code then you get ARBS/LST instead first. Of course you do not get much problems with the ARBS/LST as if there is no laser spot with proper matching laser code, the LST will not lock on it and generate a new TD. So you can just press 2x SSS Aft to go from INS -> LST -> TV. The laser code system is not properly modeled in Harrier, as it as pointed out here that the TPOD laser code is separate system that doesn't get zeroed by the WOW sensor. So you can have the default 1111 code on the TPOD, but the Harrier own ARBS/LST and Maverick laser code should be zero at the ground start and after starting the aircraft and 5 seconds after weight on wheels sensor has been triggered.

As well small detail in it:

A FF joystick was best thing for helicopter simmers they could get. It was far more important than for any fighter pilot. Sure it is for fighter pilot fancy to feel the joystick move based to trim hat inputs, but it still was same "pull from trimmed position" feeling. For helicopter, oh boy did that trim button do something amazing.... You really got that "Hand's free" experience in KA-50 by its AP channels. Easy to do all fine trim adjustments and program the AP that way without thinking. I can not get any better explanation than that. Gazelle was designed for a table top joystick with heavy spring to center it. So that Gazelle was made to fly so that you can fly it mostly with just having as little as possible joystick holding. I put my G940 at that time to the closet... It just wasn't usable in Gazelle. Now I have plans and designs for own trim function but without FF. Need just decide when to build it. Same with KA-50 in the GAME MODE or any other one. If Gazelle would be such in GAME MODE, no one would care if someone loves it to play in such mode. No they don't. And that is the worrying part as there are more people who enters to DCS World now than ever before. Because we have now more than just KA-50 and A-10C, the audience needs to know that what are the expected quality from DCS World. But people who want to go for the realism and the technicalities gets often attacked with "Rivet Counters" and such because majority doesn't care about small details, they just want something fancy, story like experiences or stick to some specific moment in the history that DCS World should present.