Fri13

That is part of it, not the whole... The unguided rockets are at this moment too accurate. But they are as well way too ineffective. Those things will change in the future when all required things comes to simulation like damage modeling, AI logic and so on. But most importantly we need the proper FLIR to come that will start denying people from spotting units so easily. It will become time of day and weather dependent how well FLIR works. And adding a proper laser simulation would mean that all engament ranges drops much shorter. It becomes more challenging to get JTAC to paint targets. And targets will get proper self-defense tactics like smoke screens to block the laser, FLIR, radar and visuals. When players are required to get close to paint target, get close to acquire a laser spot, all proper directions and angles required to taken in consideration. Then the laser guided weapons becomes much more difficult to use and FLIR weapons even more. Then it becomes more benefitting to start using unguided rockets as they work better in various cases where it comes to be real war scenarios and not just blowing up a technical in desert. But nothing should be denying mission designer from using realistic and possible weapons in their missions as they see it to fit as long it is technically possible to be equipped on it in real world. We should give mission designers more freedom to build their campaigns and missions as they see, not to restrict them for political reasons. As there will always be those who make missions that are just "shooting fish in a barrel" but there are as well those who put a lot of effort for realistic scenarios that are challenging and dynamic. Personally I too find APKWS too easy, partially because the DCS doesn't model laser guided weapons right. But it doesn't mean that it is not nice to sometimes get to that situation that you would need them.

You lost all your arguments. You were pointed how you twist things with circular reasoning, and finally when you notice that you admitted being totally wrong, you had no other way than do ad hominem. You call me the flat earth supoorter and a pigeon. You couldn't reason a thing about your CCIP claims. You couldn't reason your "real world integration" claim. You couldn't reason your "circa xxxx" claim. You couldn't reason mission editor and it time filter. You couldn't reason the ED business model and project management. You and Desert Fox can ignore everything just to do personal attack as you can not reason your arguments. Just tag me with laughs, saddens and cry faces, more I get those then more I am right as it symbols that you get confused and you get sad about not understanding a thing. You can laugh, but it doesn't change that you couldn't reason.

So, your argument is that real pilots has these magical laser beams coming from their pilot gloves (that must cost a lot...) so they can press button, flip switches and all without touching them but just pointing at them from other side of the cockpit and "pull a trigger" to click them? Or your argument would be that real pilots has mouse/trackball in their cockpit and they use it to click things as well.... As it can not be more immersive if it is more realistic.... ? The VR gloves immersion is that you need to use your hands to operate proper sides of the cockpit. Meaning you are not going to use your right hand to reach a switch at your left side. Or you are not going to press a right MFCD buttons with left hand when you can't easily reach there. You are not going to take your right hand off from the stick and use left hand to hold stick, just so you can flip a landing gear lever with your right hand.... It is just more immersive when you need to use proper hands on proper places and you need to move hands around and push the buttons, flip the switches without magical laser beams from your finger. Of course people disagree with that, but they need to show the videos from real cockpit where pilots has these magical laser beams... I can throw any switch in an instant, I just point my finger on it. The problem is the another bug that makes it annoying experience because you start to flip the switches and press buttons faster than Speedy Gonzales on speed... It is faster to flip a switch or press buttons with a finger tip than using a laser beam or mouse. You don't need to try align things up as it is right there on your finger. But that brings a another bug report about the current glove system, the misaligned glove (you get to it quickly but should be fixed): Why it should be a opt-in for those who want to have the unrealistic laser beam for what ever reason they have... But it should be disabled by the default for VR hands (or at least allow to disable it) as no real pilot has such laser beams going from their index fingers.

Yes, you finally came to agreement that APKWS II for the Apache, Viper, Hornet, Cherokee etc are all 100% realistic and should be implemented by the ED itself so they came available their weapon loadouts when mission in DCS is dated 2012+. And if the mission designer wants to steer out of the realistic weapon loadout they can simply disable the history filter and then they can have APKWS II on any mission date. See, you finally came to disagree with yourself and agree with us.... Even if you don't yet realize it.

It as well change the stars position, the sunset/sunrise times and very important thing for navigation, the magnetic variation.

You are comparing unguided to guided rocket again. The small difference between the unguided and guided rocket CCIP accuracy is irrelevant because you are not aiming the APKWS II with the CCIP. You don't care about the CCIP accuracy at that level as it is irrelevant. The APKWS II has wings, guided wings. That the laser guidance logic will adjust to turn the rocket at any direction where the laser spot is pointing. The CCIP argument is all based to the claim that pilot hit the targets with the CCIP. That it is crucial that the CCIP is not off by even 2 mils (that is 2 meters at 1000 meter range, at max 7000 meter launch range it would be 14 meter CCIP error) as otherwise you can't utilize the APKWS. Fact is, the APKWS is only required to be shot "from the hip" and "laser designator does the job". You need to get the APKWS "at the direction" without requiring aiming it at all in accuracy that even the CCIP incorrectness is. I have shown that in the video that it doesn't matter how by the CCIP error amount the pilot would launch the rocket from the laser dot (again, irrelevant how DCS simulates it as the point stands, you can even pretend in my video that I am the designator or that JTAC is in correct position on each one, I just wanted to keep the video short to show that launching APKWS II even with 20 degree wrong angle and they go right place) the APKWS II does itself the guiding on the target where the JTAC is aiming. Once you release the weapon, it is JTAC responsibility to aim it on the target. It is not a strawman when you are claiming that the APKWS II requires a software update to utilize it. The real world integration is what I have been talking all the time. Ground crew converts the unguided rockets to guided ones by adding the guidance module between. And then pilot utilize exactly the same laser designation procedure as they would with any other laser guided weapon or buddy lazing for others. And pilot will then just launch the APKWS II in the general direction of the target by the same range rules of the unguided Hydra 70 rocket (the APKWS II one will actually fly further than unguided because the guidance wings will maintain the rocket pitch toward target instead allow it to droop and hit the ground earlier). You are arguing "How the weapon is integrated in real world" and then you say that it is totally irrelevant how it is integrated in real world. Nice counter argument from you to yourself. You can't do better than that as you are now grasping straws. It is not exactly the same thing. GBU-12 can not fly upwards, it has no energy or motor to fly vertically. It is a ballistic bomb that will drop by the gravity toward ground and only energy you can give to it is the launch speed and altitude. Your argument is based that If you hover in the helicopter at 50 meter altitude and you release a laser guided bomb from it, it would magically find its way to 5 km distance because there is a laser dot right there. Your argument is that the ballistic bomb is same thing as rocket boosted warhead (a rocket). APKWS II does not need CCIP or CCRP. If you can launch the Hydra 70 rocket, you can launch APKWS II one. Of course you want to aim your unguided rockets by some manner on the target, even if it is a grease pencil dot on the windshield! This is why the APKWS II has 40 degree instant field of view to find the laser spot and not just 2 degree or 5 degree. You go back to the argument that laser guided bombs and rockets requires exactly correct CCIP or CCRP release parameters or otherwise you will miss the target. Then you try to go that ballistic bomb is exactly same thing as a rocket boosted warhead. Just accept the fact that it does not matter to APKWS or the pilot or the JTAC that your CCIP would be 5-30 mils at wrong position. It does not matter because the APKWS laser guidance module takes care of everything with its LOAL, 40 degree IFOV and guided fins. It is your strawman to claim that CCIP accuracy has relevance to accuracy of the laser guided rocket accuracy to hit the target, not mine. You just do not like that you see your strawman called out and made ineffective. Do you? How you then fail to completely understand that there is no software updates required of any kind to make the APKWS II usable in the helicopter, fighter, drone, car, ship etc? You do not need to adjust CCIP parameters, you don't need any magical parameters for the rocket because the rocket itself does it all by itself. You do not even understand the fact that you use the APKWS II like unguided rocket except you aim target with the laser and not with a CCIP/CCRP estimation. At the end the 2002 Apache is flying in the years far past the 2002 and that is only thin that is relevant here and counters all the arguments "But it is not for anything else than 2002 missions!". Fine, if you never want to fly Apache from 2002 with the Hornet from 2005 and Viper from 2007 and A-10C from "what ever other year than 2002" then that is your own fantasy. Others will be flying Apache in missions at the 2016 and 2021 and 2031 and 1942 or what ever they like. And when they are going to fly Apache in the Syria mission dated to 2019, they should have access to APKWS II in their arsenal. If they want to fly the Apache in 1942 against Germans in Normandy, it is their decision not to have the APKWS II there regardless that the Apache didn't even exist back then! The fact stands, Apache did not fly only in 2002, it flies way past that year as is and it has not received any updates required for APKWS II to be usable with even in 2021. Clearly more than you do. You claim that Apache exist only in 2002. We can see that it exist at least 2002-2012 as is and even further some ways very likely as some units might not have received the chanced until 2014. If the new pilot manual has come out in 2012, then that is at least the 2002-2012 period where it is flying as is, not just 2002 that you are stomping on the ground. Just accept the facts that Hornet didn't just fly in 2005, but it did fly 2005-2019 as is in the condition that it is in the DCS. There are countries that flies it even today in 2021 as in that configuration as we have in DCS. It is the DCS World that we have various timelines combined, not just one point in time as you argue, but linear time where all modules has multiple years in service times as is. This is how I argue it: And this is how you argue it: It is completely realistic that APKWS II became available multiple different modules we have in the DCS as is, and it is up to the mission designer that they choose do they want to include it based their mission date or for what ever reason they want (be it a logistic problem, funding problem, a game balance reasons, whatever...) You must just accept the fact that DCS World is not as you argue that Hornet exist only in 2005 and Viper exist only in 2007 and Apache will only exist in 2002 and so on. Every single aircraft with each different modifications/upgrades/changes has a time period when something related to specific weapon systems or features were added or removed or they had it. Like through the whole lifetime of the Hornet the gun has not changed and it ballistic capabilities has not changed and nothin related to its accuracy has changed, it is completely irrelevant to argue that because at one point in the time Hornet received a AIM-120C-5 compatibility that it changed the way how the gun is integrated to the Hornet. If someone does a modification that pilot headrest is more comfortable by changing the shape of the material in it at 2003, it doesn't mean that now the GBU-12 compatibility was affeced. Exactly, you are arguing that Apache is only allowed to fly in DCS in missions dated 2002. The Hornet is only in missions dated to 2005. And Viper in missions 2007, and A-10C II in any of those, and Harrier in 2009, and up coming F-15C in 200'ish. etc. Or you just need to accept the fact that Hornet was operational at least from 2005 to 2019 as is. It did not just exist in 2005 but in all those years. The Apache didn't just exist in 2002 but it existed in 2002-2012 at least (if not further). All the conditions the Hornet, Viper, Apache etc are, are 100% compatible and usable with the APKWS II if you fly mission dated as 2012- and forward. And that is realistic as it is the history. If someone wants to bring APKWS II from future to 2005, they can because it is technically compatible. Just like they can take the Hornet and fly it in 2002 configuration of the A-10C or what ever it tries to present as it is a mixture as well. Irrelevant question as it is per aircraft history as example. It is up to mission designer to make their sci-fi setups if they so want. It doesn't change the fact that Apache and all others are technically compatible with the APKWS II because the guidance module was made backward compatible. That is not true and you know it. Hornet has weapons from the past and from the future. The viper has weapons from the past that it is not compatible for. The A-10C has weapons from the future. The whole DCS World is about mixing up things just as people please. It is not about 2005 vs 1985 but Hornet vs Flanker. People play simulator as they want. That is about simulation and not about history book. Hey, not my argument. As through this whole time you are arguing that every module exist only in the very specific year and can not be flown in any other year than that. You keep ignoring the fact that APKWS II came available and usable with the Hornet, Apache, Viper when those were/are in service and with full compatibility not by any updates. So just now accept that you need to work what you get, and you can't argue "But it is a circa 2002" because you are arguing against yourself now by not accepting the fact that never has Apache flown as such configuration only one year when it comes out (in what ever configuration). Strawman argument. APKWS II exist already in the game. It has stamped the in-service year for the time filter. Placing the already existing weapons from DCS Core (as ED is responsible for all weapons in the DCS unless studio want to make own like HB made AIM-54 etc) to just stamp it available to given module with unique year number. Again comparison of apples to monkeys. It is actually integrated that way. No changes, no modifications. Load the rocket to the pod and off you go. And you go again back to circular reasoning about the 2002 that Apache only exist and can only be flown in missions dated to 2002 and that ED should delete the mission editor as no module is to be flown on any other year than the "circa XXXX". I have not twisted the argument, you are twisting the truth and facts. The CCIP accuracy that you claim should be adjusted for the "new weapon" is not required because you do not aim the APKWS II with the CCIP pipper at all! You do not need to have the CCIP accurate to 1 mil or 15 mil. You need to be only able to aim the rocket < 20 degree from the target and if you can not do even so simple thing as that.... And here you go again back to 2002 argument.... You are just doing circular reasoning. You simply can not even understand the fact that I am talking about real APKWS II weapon project compared to all others in the history how rare successful it has been because it is so simple and brilliant for its time. It is not about comparing it to stick and stones at the ice age but what the whole program managed to do to convert a old well working unguided rocket system to precision guided rocket system.

My standing point is: 1) if it is technically possible then so be it. Leave politics and religion out of it. This means that if there are weapons that doesn't require modification then it can be used. If there is a weapon that does require modifications, then leave it out. 2) Forget the DCS module year arguments. We never can get anything if modules are from different specific years, like 1998, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2009. No one would never fly those modules against each others as that is just nitpicking by illusion that every single aircraft gets updated and modified every single year. And so on Apache is different aircraft in 2002, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and so on. Like every single aircraft would be going constant upgrading and modifications with infinite money and manpower and innovations. Politics about what were official weapon loadouts or who bought what update and when, is as well irrelevant. Many new weapons are not backward compatible, but some are. And such weapons should come available to those airframes that are technically compatible with it when the mission is dated to year or after the weapon came available. If AH-64D as modeled was between 2002-2007 as is, then it fits to any mission dated between that. Likely there are as well units that operated the 2002 version even past 2007 as not all upgrades are done same time because funding. But as we leave politics out, we can as well accept that AH-64D from 2002 is still flown as is in 2016 as example. Only thing that matters is that no one is equipping Apache with incompatible weapons like AGM-154 or Vikhr in it. Those are incompatible with it, unlike APKWS II that is fully compatible when it comes available to be purchased in missions dated at proper year.

That is the root for same argument as "The module can not be flown on missions that are dated outside of this specific year". Except that instead one year, there is more realistic service years that aircraft was in real history in such condition. So instead just a 2002, it is 2002-2012. The APKWS was in development phase in 2002-2004 (years varies) for the Apaches, but again it is just a development with successful launches and hits. Regardless of that. The fact is that DCS is a simulator and we are not tied to real history or events. Mission designers can place any unit, on any map and at any given year as the please. Be it a absurd "Final Countdown" campaign where a USN carrier appears in the Normandy map at year 1942 or so. Or be it a Soviet Union carrier appearing with Su-33 and KA-50 in a same way, as allies to Germany. Fictional campaign based to a real movie, based to sci-fi. If someone has problem, don't play it. This is how we get back to the root argument who oppose the APKWS anywhere. As weapon is "plug and play" without modifications, and no modifications are required to aim it, to launch it and to operate it. It will be restricted only to a given years when it became operational for given airframes. If someone is so nitpicky about 1985 Flanker flying with 2005 Hornet, then they never have problems with it. As they never make missions for hornet outside 2005 and never missions outside 1985 and never fly Mi-24P outside 1982... (Even when Mi-24P flies as is today, after 39 years). Those who are more factual, know that Mi-24P is not restricted to 1982 but they can fly it in any mission all the way to this date. Same is with Hornet, there are few units of it in example Finnish airforce in that 2005 condition even today as they didn't not build all of them with own modifications and mixtures between super hornets and own software and hardware (removed the hidden US kill switches in them). All compatible with APKWS II. The helicopters, drones and all are being evaluated for the APKWS II because militaries really love to test all. If someone does not want weapons that their favorites module capable launching Hydra 70 rockets in 2002-2018 period when it became available to them, by making missions in those years, then they can simply keep the weapon unloaded and enjoy flying alone. Others can enjoy realism by making missions dated to example 2020 in Syria and enjoy with new weapons that came available later on.

No, I don't go flying without HUD.... No HUD and it is abort. But someone does argument that APKWS II needs to be "integrated to FCS so it gets proper CCIP position". Well, it doesn't need it. That is the whole point of the laser guided weapon that target is targeted with the laser and weapon hits to that and not where your CCIP happened to be on the moment. If the CCIP would be required to be the tool to aim the weapon to hit the target, we would never use any laser guided weapons as the laser spot would be useless process as only the CCIP pipper matters. The APKWS II has so wide field of view from where to capture the laser spot that any possible CCIP aiming error (technical or pilot caused) are totally irrelevant in any sensible normal unguided rocket launch parameters. And in fact the launch can be done totally as blind shot or "from the hip" as the "laser does the job". Like the APKWS is now being added to various land based vehicles as precision short range artillery support. You can launch them in proper direction and angle and the seeker will capture the laser spot and fly there. Have the support vehicle behind the hills and such and just have the generic idea where to aim. It is likely one of the greatest weapons for few decades. A true force multiplier.

Yes I did. People believe that there is special connection to APKWS II that requires a FCS upgrades and all. There isn't because the seeker has 40 degree instant field of view, that is much larger than example the pilot NVG is about 40 degree FOV, so everything you see with them, you need to get the APKWS II inside that area. The real problem is that people insist that the modules exist only in one year, that there is no service times at all. Like there is no more than one year when module simulated aircraft exists. And it can not exist in any other year than that. That is their only argument that they can not get over by any means. They totally ignore the fact that in military you do not upgrade and modify the aircraft every year. You can have the same hardware and same software for decade or two if military doesn't see a requirement to upgrade it or get funding. So one same aircraft can sit 2-7 years as is without any changes. And the updates or changes there can be done, are usually irrelevant for any other part of the aircraft. The APKWS II project goal was to make a weapon that doesn't require hardware or software changes to any existing launch platform. And they succeeded in that. If the platform can launch any Hydra 70 rocket, then it can launch APKWS II. It doesn't matter is it from a Vietnam era in 2021 or is it a 2021 in service aircraft, all are capable launch APKWS II if they can just carry and launch Hydra 70 rockets. And many are hypocrisy because they do fly missions that are not for corresponding year they preach, and they utilize modules in their missions that shouldn't be there. Like F/A-18C from 2005 is placed to mission in 2016 and then put it against a fighter from 1985, utilizing AGM-65 weapon from 2012... And then they just try to ignore all "but I can't do anything about it". IMHO the APKWS II should be like any other rocket that is not tied to specific module. It should only be tied to the year when it became available for given modules or services. So the mission designer can either maintain the time filter that limits aircraft, vehicles, weapons and all to the date of the mission. Or designer can disable that filter and take any time period vehicle in use for the mission. The APKWS II is a special weapon project that succeeded exemplary manner in its goals.

The parameters are same as with unguided Hydra 70 rockets. That is why your argument is irrelevant that you need to do complete software upgrade to get CCIP so accurate that you aim the APKWS II with it on the target. There is no physical connection from the APKWS II to the aircraft in any platform. That is in technical specifications. There is no normal rockets connection than to warhead fuzing options and a trigger pin to ignite the rocket motor. Nothing else in Hydra 70 family. This is in the maintenance manuals. It is not same thing. A guided ballistic vertically dropped bomb vs rocket boosted warhead flying horizontally. Or are you arguing that you will aim the GBU-12 with the CCIP or CCRP on the target and not with the laser designator? Not a same thing. The integration is this: 1) You install the APKWS II unit between the warhead and rocket motor. 2) You set the proper laser code with screwdriver. 3) you turn the guidance module power switch to activate in launch with screwdriver 4) you load it to helicopter as unguided rocket. 5) You make sure that pilot is aware that there are APKWS II rockets loaded in the aircraft so he can work by his training with them. It really is not difficult to comprehend how even BAE explains the whole weapon: Like how difficult it is to understand such statement as "For the pilot laser targeting procedures and armament control remain unchanged from those of current laser-guided weapons"? The integration is same as with any Hydra 70 rocket.

I know all that. But that is nothing to do with the argument about CCIP importance. I have been on the otherside of this, so no need to tell about it. I have as well long time already lobbied the idea here that DCS would eventually get the proper laser energy, material, atmospheric etc properties because at this moment it is super easy that laser spot is tracked through the vehicles and from any angle and from any distance really. But nothing of that has to do with the APKWS CCIP accuracy requirement claim. The fact is, that Desert Fox doesn't seem to know, is that APKWS DASALS has 40 degree INSTANT FIELD OF VIEW. You can literally aim it anywhere inside a +/-20 degree area where is the laser spot for it to capture it and guide in it. The Fact is: Your CCIP or CCRP is not going to tell anything about where the laser spot is. You need a laser spot tracker for that thing to be pointed to you visually. Like example DMT/LST mode in Harrier. You use the LST to find the spot and you get to know where the laser spot is showing. The fact is, LST is not even required for APKWS. It just helps you to find a target, but not required at all. The fact is, when you are guided in for a given target, you already suppose to know the target. At the night you have challenges why the IR marker or a LST is nice thing to give you better idea. But the fact is still that APKWS II was deigned to make all those problems be irrelevant. The guidance module is LOCK ON AFTER LAUNCH. The guidance modules knows nothing about the target on the launch. The guidance module does all the work autonomously after the activation. It just deroll the rocket for stable flight and it just looks for the laser spot. In DCS we need to pretend that laser spot is perfect, it is pin size and strongest possible laser spot you can find. But that is irrelevant. You can launch the APKWS from 7 km range as long you know it would have a change to capture the laser spot in its 40 deg/IFOV. The argument that are made here is that the APKWS magically requires a connection to FCS. That the FCS needs to be upgraded and updated and modified to the APKWS guidance module to it work. That the CCIP needs to be exactly correct for aiming the APKWS on the target or otherwise it will not work. The fact is, all you need to do is to have target designated with laser by someone, and come from a proper direction to launch the rocket. The guidance module can spot the laser half-way there or just third of the range or right after activation. It doesn't matter. The CCIP on the HUD doesn't matter. The CCRP is not used. There is no FCS communication to APKWS II. There is nothing to be done to FCS or to aircraft to utilize APKWS II on any platform. The fact is that no military is going to accept any commercial contract with any weapon manufacture unless every weapon is properly tested for the specs. Even when there would be nothing to be changed or so, the military does the tests just as bureaucracy requires. There are committees for everything, even for someone deciding that what color strap is painted on a rocket or how many are purchased to specific month and who can handle them etc. But the fact is that all those things are irrelevant in DCS. The manufacturer is clear about this, the military is clear about it. Problem is that people think that APKWS II is like a new weapon that requires all other things that any totally new weapon would, because it must. It can't be as it is built, designed, sold and used. It just can't be so in peoples mind here. The argument about the CCIP importance and all is just grasping straws that is based to argument that because you need CCIP for unguided rocket to hit something, you need it as well for the APKWS II or it will not find its way on laser spot if you don't launch it exactly on target by aiming it with CCIP. Meaning that there can't even be a 1 mil error in the CCIP position or it will not work.

Can you please explain this video, where did I need the CCIP (or CCRP)?

Yes, but that was already in the normal laws. People are put in the jail just from having a 175 ml toothpaste or just jaywalking. It is if you start to spread too sensitive material like missile guidance laws and logic and behavior etc in too high detail. Like anyone could make a IFF system that is far more useful and realistic than the current one. Like alone doing it based to this kind animation it would become better than we have now, this from the Thales Group. The laws would allow to throw anyone with that information to be put in jail, but it is already so common that it would be just wasting time. When you sell weapons, systems all over the world, you are just giving more changes for unwanted people to get access to highly sensitive material and information. Like Turkey has F-35 fighters and S-400 system, wouldn't they test it accurately against each others? You don't need Russia or USA for that... Even china would be willing to "give a hand" for things. And I don't see any major politician being arrested and jailed from their war crimes or felonies. Because they are protected....

Of course you are going to load them as 6PD if you use those warheads in them that belongs to the category (M151, M229 or M274). There is no connection between the rocket and the pod, and to pod to FCS for what guidance there is. The Helicopters use more often pods that has umbilical cable from the warhead. The pilot can set example a proximity fuze or delay fuze values for the warhead so it will explode at proper altitude from the target. But nothing is coming from the pod to the rocket itself than just a electronic pin to ignite the rocket motor fuel. If you can load a Hydra 70 rocket to pod, you can load a APKWS II version from it. The problem with the short pod is that if you want to add a warhead that has that umbilical cable, then you need to have a extended pod so you can connect the short cables to front of the pod, and of course added drag if you have longer rocket heads extending out. But for example the standard navy pods it is not required as warheads used there are without that. The warheads will withstand the launched rocket motors plume, that was one of the benefits of the APKWS II compared to others that the laser guided seeker module is protected inside the pod and the seekers are protected inside the guidance module so there is no dirt, heat, smoke etc blocking them. https://armypubs.army.mil/ProductMaps/PubForm/Details.aspx?PUB_ID=48934 Pub/Form Date 05/08/1981 The FCS has no information coming from the pods that how many rockets are left, what tubes was fired or is it in what mode (R or S). The reason why APKWS II is not used in the old legacy military vehicles is that if they are not in service anymore, then they are not used and you do not load APKWS II on vehicles that are not in service. If someone would pull a UH-1B from the museum like this, then they could load it with APKWS II and use them as guided rockets as long someone is painting the target for them. But no one is flying UH-1B in combat anymore in 2016+ so it is not used on it. The US Navy has retired the F/A-18C from service already, but it was in operations with the APKWS II as is. Basically anything that has been in service is wanted to go for validate for APKWS II use. But no one is going to downgrade any in-service vehicle just to proof the point that APKWS II is compatible and usable with them as is. The problem really is coordination that you get someone else designate target with laser if you can't do it yourself. Otherwise you are just firing a unguided APKWS II wasting its guidance module. There is nothing to be done for the hardware or the software in the aircraft or the pod to make APKWS II functional and usable as designed. Laser code is set in the guidance module itself and activate it there as well. The proper launch sequence is made in the pod. The correct order of the warheads and their setting is done with the selecting warhead and placing it in proper tube. All the systems believe that rockets are unguided ones and it doesn't matter as the guidance module activates only after launch when spring loaded wings is swept open, roll stabilize the rocket from rotating flight and then four seeker 40 degree Instant Field Of View will detect the proper laser code spot and start turning rocket toward it so the rocket is flying straight to it. All the other systems requires software changes or compatibilities. Like some guided rockets pretends to be a Hellfire missile, and they require a Hellfire FCS and there is a wired connection to the seeker for Lock On Before Launch (or in upgraded pods and rockets a wireless connection). The APKWS II was wanted to be made as cheap and simple as possible. Convert the rocket by attaching guidance module between warhead and rocket motor, set proper laser code, turn On and you are done. Just remind pilot that target needs to be laser designated to rockets guide at it. Otherwise same basic rules as any Hydra 70 rocket applies except you have to launch rocket +/- 20 degree from the target.

Well, I think that if you would come to make too good educated guesses with all accurate data and all, they would investigate but if they quickly find out that it is just pure luck, they are not going to make a case for it that what there is true. They would instead silently just change things to make them incorrect. And Russian law is just the normal "foreign agent" law like that many countries does have, like the USA has same. There are far older existing laws about not allowing to reveal any military information to anyone that can be about operations, doctrine or anything like that. Like many countries has laws that all you really can tell is your name, rank and base. Nothing else really. But regardless all that, no one is really going chase anyone from posting videos or photos of their service and so on. Heck, people have even been using phones to send to twitter a GPS tagged photos from on going operations and such. Of course they will get the speech but if nothing severe happened then nothing really comes out of it. Such laws are just there so when it comes to time to do a case, they can be used.

The new hand is off-set to right and down from the real finger pointing. In this video can be seen the off-axis angle by pointing the emergency brake (left red) and master warning light (right red) with real hand and then with a VR hand. The VR settings requires a adjustment sliders for hand off-set position in X, Y and Z axis. User would adjust each slider a corresponding amount until they get the hand matching the direction their real finger is pointing, and get the 3D glove match the real hand position in depth (as glove is now too much forward). This could be done as automatic function as well where a player is asked to point a "magnetic dot" in air where the 3D glove finger will attach itself and rotate around it by pointing the finger on it. And then player would hold controller button down and move the real hand position until it starts to match the 3D glove in game, and then release the button to store the new off-set axis to hand. Or That player is asked to point a dot in a air with real finger and press a button, where on each press the 3D glove finger is automatically adjusted to point the dot. So player looks a dot, points it as would with real finger and then press a button. This can't be used for Z axis positioning but it could be then a own separate slider.

The DCS 2.7 made progress by adding new hands look and all. But one old bug still exist, how each button, switch and such reacts to finger tip unlimited speed. Moving finger to trigger the button or switch operation causes them to operate rapidly as long the finger is in their trigger zone. This makes bad mean to use finger for operating buttons and switches as they will continue flicking until finger is removed from the position. The suggested fixes are: 1) that every operable button, switch or knob can be operated only X times a second so there is enough time to move finger away from the button/switch before it is triggered again. Example every 500 ms the switch would flip to new position as long the finger is hold in its space. 2) Every switch/button (etc) has a "bubble" that is needed to be in with finger to operate them one time. Once they are operated the finger needs to be pulled out of the "bubble" before switches/buttons can be operated again with the finger. This means that flipping switch Up -> Down requires only one touch of the switch, while to get it again Down -> Up it is required to move finger away from switch and then touch it again.

The 2.7 update made great progress in immersion and usability by hiding the laser beams in the cockpit. There was discussion that old laser beam should come as opt-in choice to VR settings so those who need it can enable it. The hotfix patch in 22.04 does enforce the laser beam even when not enabled and there is no way to disable it. This is how the 2.7 feature worked:

It is sad that ED didn't add the LeapMotion support years ago. Then the device was worth 20 € and everyone could have got one cheaply. It would have been enough to have just the index fingertips recognized as a mouse cursor and then the pinch for grabbing knobs, levers, dials and switches and operate them moving corresponding direction.

Neither are answers for question, is something technically possible or not. "That never really happened" is a reply for politics that even if something would technically be possible - it simply can have been denied by politics. "No, it's not worth doing" doesn't either say anything about is something technically possible or not. The LITENING II pods were used by the USMC Harriers and F/A-18D Hornets in 2005, not by the F/A-18C. Even in the 2006 the USN and USMC had not made a decision that what pod (LITENING or ATFLIR) they will take to replace the Nitehawk, what was their sensor. We have USN/USMC Hornet modeled in the game, not the Spanish. Sounds like you don't know what the commanders has claimed in front of the congress in 2005... Witnessed that there has not been those pods for the legacy C hornets. ED wanted just to give Hornet something special so ATFLIR regardless it was not available for it. They did give it the LITENING pod because it was already done in the A-10C, even when it was not available for it. Instead giving the correct and properly fitting Nitehawk targeting pod, they ignored the 2005 year and went to give them the options that were available past 2005. So please explain again how they are going to model the AIM-120, R-27, AIM-9X and all the others in the game without guesses? I thought You said that "It has nothing to do with politics." So are ED going to remove the AIM-120, AIM-9X, R-27 and all those because they are based to educated guesses? The community has already been on their throat's for years, so are they going to skip those? How much we know about Ataka missile guidance frequencies and jamming possibilities? How much we really get simulated in the R-60 seekers? The benefit of the Mi-24P is that it is so old that you can make most of it as it is deemed as obsolete already.

Tell how does the APKWS II know where the target is? How does the pilot know where the target is? What you actually need from the CCIP/CCRP for the APKWS II to utilize it? Tell how has the rocket changed to new one as it is not the "same old rocket". So.... You never fly in Hornet with the Vipers, or with Eagles, or with Flankers, or with Fulcrums?

But...but but.... They didn't know that Apaches were there so they were not targeted.... but but but.... F-117 is a bomber regardless its classification as fighter. Not capable to perform any A/A kind things than carry just couple bombs. The F-111 was a bomb truck as well, with maybe capability carry AIM-9 (don't know, more knowledgably people do). So basically Apache's were totally alone down there. The helicopters like Mi-24 and such are in danger from being shot by fighters. Nothing changes that. But how to get to that situation that danger becomes a high risk and that risk will happen? That is more about mission and helicopter crew to do. It is not like when a helicopter is flying NOE that it is visible to every fighter that just happens to have radar beam hitting at them. It is different thing to fly below 50 meters from the ground in ground clutter than it is to fly 150-200 meters from the ground or even higher. Like in the Afghanistan the Mi-24's were operating freely at the high altitude as enemy did not have fighters to threaten them. But they were very well designed to operate in a AirLand war where they need to move quickly behind the enemy main forces and engage the enemy troops at rear, support the landed infantry there and then get out or continue fighting. And that is where the enemy has easily tactical fighters presence to operate after short while. Similar thing is with the Apache and AH-1 and so on. Designed to get over the front line to enemy side to operate there without ground support. The Mi-24 is like the A-10 for russian army aviation, but they do have their own Su-25 as well there. But the Mi-24 can operate lower and be tactically utilized totally different manner.

Sure, if they don't even train for it, then you are not going to use it. But that doesn't change the fact of the technical capability rule. But that is politics. Nothing more. It is someone somewhere making a decision that what are the allowed loadout and nothing else is allowed to be done - even if things would technically be possible and all required stuff is in the warehouse just in case. And that shouldn't matter what is politics in reality, as that is for mission designer to decide. It actually means exactly that. If a 30 mm M230 chain gun is 30 mm, it hell is not going to shoot 25 mm shells from it. Even when it is 30 mm caliber, it is not exchangeable with the GAU-8 caliber. Why? Because technical facts are only thing that matters. The idea of the simulation is that you can do stuff that wouldn't otherwise be done, you can try new things. You can test and make a evaluation before doing something in practice. A lot of things change when conditions change - politics changes, enemy changes, terrain changes etc. What is technically possible should be right there in first place. If something is not technically possible, then it is not there. (So "technically possible" doesn't mean that "Yeah, technically we could little tweak that pylon so we can mount the HOT3 missile launcher on it, but it would take time to program a new FCS for it. It means that what is possible by already designed and tested features that works). Really? So they don't seem to have.... Technically possible features should be simulated. Let the politics go to the mission designer story. And here we come to situation again about what is "a worth" to do a simulation to its details... ED did huge effort to model ATFLIR for a Hornet even when it shouldn't be using it. A feature that was pushed and moved through whole EA phase until now in 2.7 version that it came out. A extremely niche feature. And then in other side of ED it is again "not worth to do that niche thing there". Please, that argument has no ground to stand. Or are you ready to remove majority of the game weapons? We know nothing about AIM-120 guidance system and logic. We know nothing about R-27 seekers logic and capabilities, even the flight capabilities are unknown. The IFF system is well documented in unclassified materials that what are the principles and logic in systems, but we do not know codes and encryptions and all minor details that are irrelevant for a simulator. ED works so much around "We don't know" and implement things just based to words of the pilots or guesses that no one can ever validate as they are not public information made by ED. And many things don't need to acquire official documentations and all specific technical data as a lot can be done with educated guesses when things get very undocumented (and no, that doesn't mean that one can just imagine things, as that is not what "educated guess" means. It means that when you have enough various information and evidence that doesn't exactly tell and you have information from the history and whole genre, you can make excellent hypothesis based to known systems, and it is almost always better than doing nothing because 5% of the information is not known but 95% is). And that is the problem that these goalposts are moved between the project and time, and that is the problem. No consistency. ED claims that they only use unclassified and public sources, yet they have no where a place where they have all these sources, files and all publicly accessible so anyone can go and recheck their argument or source of modeling. Yet they demand that anyone who is suggesting anything should only use a public unclassified documentation or otherwise it gets removed. But how would they otherwise even go to model anything when they don't really known much at all in many critical important main features like a A/A missile for a Air Superiority Fighter? Like example if ED knows the 3D model for the IGLA (as it does) and it main specifications (as it does) from even unclassified sources and history, it doesn't take much to actually know how to model the IGLA launcher tubes from photographs to pylon. It is known how missile behave differently when shoulder launched and fired from the move, that is the physics part really. The seeker function is known, the battery requirement is known, and based to everything it is known that you need to energize the weapon so that missile does it own known thing and get to point that thing at the target as known. And if SME could help with the cockpit logic part that how it is launched and is there something extra panels or so. Like one doesn't need to get a blueprints or technical drawings that how a system is really wired and what color is each wire and what voltage is moving where or what kind a electronic signal is sent from system to missile for launch etc. (Again, remember the AIM-120 or R-27). Getting something 50-80% correct and rest with educated guess is better than scrap everything because specifications for one bolt is unknown for time being. If errors are found in the future, they can be changed and fixed. The things can be revisited in the future with the more detailed information.

IMHO the glare, dirt and such can be added to glass but maybe they need to be made blurry so they look like looking through.