Fri13

They didn't use those either at the time. They were on the NITE HAWK. The LITENING II was later accepted to be used as US Navy didn't receive ATFLIR in time and in such numbers, so it would be used there. Of course players want the latest and greatest, but if we go for the historically more accurate and realistic numbers, the ATFLIR shouldn't be in the Hornet and neither the LITENING but just the NITE HAWK. The linked report discuss about the 2005 period when USN was required to decide that what to do for next pod for legacy hornets as they didn't receive them, when all the production ATFLIR went to the super hornet squadrons even when US navy had 2.5 more of legacy hornets. "as mentioned, the USS John F. Kennedy Strike Group has thirty four F/A-18C (i.e. legacy, not Super) Hornets embarked. Of the fifty-one pods deployed in February 2005, forty-nine of those pods were allocated for Super Hornets, and 2 for legacy Hornets. This is a significant mismatch given the fact that for every Super Hornet deployed aboard aircraft carriers, there are approximately 2.5 legacy Hornets. As an analogy, that is like changing the oil in the family’s new car while ignoring the older car that is driven 2.5 times as often. As long as Super Hornets are produced at equal or greater rates as ATFLIR, the majority of ATFLIRs will be paired with brand new Super Hornets." But we get back to situation, the fact stands that there were couple ATFLIR for USN F/A-18C Lot 20 to be used, instead NITE HAWK. And that those two ATFLIR would happen to get the 2006 IR marker is... Very far fetched but plausible.

The Hornet is suppose to be the top model, so it deserves the best there is possible to give, regardless the time line. Right? I think ED gave all 75 to us that were delivered to USN in June 2005 Let's not move the goalposts... Right? It is strictly Circa 2005 US Navy F/A-18C Hornet in a.... what squadron? Is it modeled to belong in that John F.Kennedy Strike Group in 2005? But fact still seems to remain, no IR marker, no imagery enhancements... As those are from 2012. Sure there is hints that eight prototype ATFLIR were delivered to US Navy in 2006.... So nothing in 2005. And so on change that even 4 of the one strike group ATFLIR would have one of them with IR marker is like...

The Next Marine Corps F/A-18 Targeting Pod: ATFLIR or LITENING? Submitted by Captain JM Renaux to Maj GS Benson and LCDR BD Kincaid, CG 14 07 February, 2006 a. REPORT unclassified Yes, based to that the F/A-18C Lot 20 Circa 2005 shouldn't really have LITENING or AFTFLIR at the time but just the AN/AAS-38 Nite Hawk. We can go around and around that how just 4 units of the ATFLIR pods are acceptable to make ATFLIR at all. "Raytheon has delivered 75 ATFLIR pods to the Navy as of June 2005.8 Production rates as of February 2005 were approximately one ATFLIR every fifteen days, with production rates planned to increase to three each week in May 2005, and six each week by December 2006.9 Waiting for the supply to catch up with the demand represents a significant investment of time for the Navy and Marine Corps. In contrast, as of February 2004, Rafael and Northrup Grumman had delivered 400 of 500 LITENING pods10 from an assembly line that is already established and fully operational. The ATFLIR’s slow production rate has already raised some eyebrows, with the commander of the USS John F. Kennedy Strike Group, Rear Adm. Barry McCullough, testifying before the Senate in April 2005 that the limited number of ATFLIRs posed a “significant challenge” for strike aircraft operating over Iraq. At the time, the Strike Group had only received four ATFLIR pods for its 34 F/A-18C Hornets, which creates a question regarding how the Navy allocates its limited supply of ATFLIRs." So simply put, there was only a one strike group that had 34 F/A-18C Lot 20 fighters, and only four ATFLIR targeting pods for them. And now we have received the ATFLIR as the primary targeting sensor suite for the Hornet, instead far more fitting AN/AAS-38 NITE HAWK. But this is off-topic and should be made own thread. As at the time the ATFLIR was not.... really used (yes, we can argue that 4 was) so on that should the ATFLIR have IR marker? No....

So if we have the helicopter prepared for the take-off, we are talking < 5 min from starting to wheels untouching the ground? I would like to see these requirements for various different start-up procedures etc. IMHO the DCS World requires more of damage modeling and systems modeling to get challenges for those who want to do full start-up procedure. I admire the C-101 module developers as they have put a lot of effort for the proper emergency procedures and system failures and so on. That you can actually train those things and making mistakes makes malfunctions. But naturally need to be understood as well the need for many that want aircraft being ready to fly with automatic start-up script or Hot Start and so on. But would be nice to have all these small insightful tasks to be done correctly if it is just possible. As these start-up procedures is maybe one of the most overlooked things in DCS World, but it shows so much about the effort developers put to their work.

Is it possible that those four ATFLIR existed from the 2003 to 2005 as well? As what is apparent that our F/A-18C Lot 20 from 2005 shouldn't have ATFLIR but the AN/AAS-38 Nite Hawk. As in 2006 the legacy hornet was still using it in US Navy as primary system and considering to start using the Litening II as they couldn't get the ATFLIR in time that was meant only for the Super Hornets. So there must be just a couple of the ATFLIR for our Hornet in use at 2005 to be it modeled as Circa 2005 Hornet.

I maintain a believe that ED has been polishing the Mi-24 great way for now a couple years. As they started to talk about it in 2017 and show of it in 2018 and all. It has been years since Wags "What is that Hind doing here?" phrase and hint. Watching the interview about the Mi-24 development, it looks like they really did have spent a lot of time and effort for the small things and get the overall package to great condition. That is why I as well believe that the Early Access phase could be shorter than expected with the MI-24. Point being, I believe that ED has the MI-24P already in so good condition that they could almost release it already, so there is good change that the Mi-28 is ready already weeks before release for Early Access phase and they just play it smart and safe way to test and test it for that. We should start to see couple weeks before release the Wags more insightful videos and that starts the hype train...

I wouldn't think that the targeting pod would get so high heat as it has the cooling system. And it will automatically shut down when the whole pod internal section becomes too hot. There are procedures like to fly at higher altitude to get colder air in the pod, or then just turning it off to start cooling little faster. But that the laser would become so hot that it would be locked by IR seeker? I don't think so. But is it possible? Maybe. The stories about IR missiles on ground vehicles is there. Example the Mi-24's used R-60 missiles against ground targets and as well utilized them at night as a cheap IR seeker to find the hot vehicles without FLIR and NVG's as you got a tone with it. But it is not about specific temperature but the temperature difference between surrounding/background and the heat source itself that is more important for detection, where the heat is for getting stronger lock and way to maintain that lock against flares and all.

Looks by the date that it should be 2012 when the IR marker is reported to be included, so not suppose to be in our Hornet.

Check the 2.7 patch notes for DCS World. As there should be mentioned something about overall DCS World mirror rendering being now such that they don't get blank like in 2.5.6 and earlier, but they will stay as reflective and just give a generic coloring like terrain or clouds.

In time it becomes instinctive, but at the first when you driving example a new car, you have no idea what is wrong or what is right. You only can assume that things are right. If you drive that same car 10 years, you will learn very well that something is not right if you have put effort to learn its behaviors and you have way to "listen them". You can feel when there is something in your tire or when the oil is too low, or when the car is lighter because you have just 1/2 of the fuel instead typical full etc. Yes as it was pointed out in the Youtube event here real pilots flew against AI as dogfight where the AI knew all the flight parameters of the pilots aircraft, it was pointed out multiple times that the pilots had troubles to fly as they didn't have any of the physical feedbacks to assist them in flying. Like they didn't hear or feel what their AoA was but were required to check it visually from the HUD. They didn't feel the G forces to different directions to tell them what is their attitude and how much they can pull more etc. But, that is more extreme situations. In helicopter you are more or less in 1G parameter and it is visual indicators and feeling how you are required to move hands and legs to perform the familiar flight maneuvers etc. You get quickly a good feeling when something is off or not right. And when it is so obvious as already explained multiple times that your cyclic doesn't even behave properly, you can't really feel it when it is totally wrong. It is like if suddenly you would need to be pulling and pushing your car wheel to accelerate and decelerate instead using pedals. And if you go to say someone "In the real thing you need to use legs to change speed" and you get back as "It is realistic to have the wheel going that way because Cessna 172 has it that way too", then how would arguments go from that point forward? Simulators provide excellent means to do that checklists and practicing procedures, but that is more as in the 2D. The VR makes things totally different experience already. You start to feel and see things differently even when you are sitting in the same chair and front of the same table. Like in the first times when people got to fly in VR, they got all the fancy feelings how their bodies reacted to just visual feedback. Like making a dive in a helicopter and it came from their stomach as a feeling that they just pulled high G. Nothing like that can be achieved with the display. It is not even possible to get the experience and the feedback that would indicate you that something is not right what you just did.

Problem is not that KA-50 or AH-64 flies differently than conventional helicopter like R-22, but that Gazelle flight modeling is not realistic. The KA-50 can fly automatically through your whole flight plan if you so want, without really touching controls than very few times. That is not the problem. The AH-64 has as well amazing autopilot system etc, that is not the problem because that is realistic. The "This feels wrong" is a sense that requires more investigation. It can't be used directly, but it is a cue that something requires investigation (it can be the FM code, it can be the player controls, it can be the player expectation by the visual senses etc) as somewhere is something that is causing such a sense. Like how does someone explain the feeling that something is not correct, and they alter their usual daily behavior pattern and it does save them? Like how do you provide evidence for cases like you live in a another part of the country and suddenly you get feeling that you need to call to someone you haven't talked with for months or years, and it happens that they are calling to you with same urge to talk with you on the moment you pick the phone on hand and it rings? The feeling is strong thing to react for, it requires investigation and checking, but it can't be used as only reasoning that how to change things or that change is even required.

Yeah. The ED has just opened the door so we can peek inside what the new clouds looks like. When they open the doors completely, there are so many things that they can do with the new weather system. We still need to be patient about it, but we got now amazing improvement that will add so much to combat simulations. If the 2.7 clouds blew someone's mind, wait when that kind things as You mention starts to appear....

Exactly. My point from the start. It is not missing as it is there, it is broken for some reason for only some people - and not for everyone. It is exactly required to include the bug report that what is expected feature. And what is expected features for the system. If the ED would just reverse the code to back to old one as here some people dream to happen, it would mean that no progress is happening and other people are again in worse situation as before because they have made bug reports that the laser beam would be gone. I have said, as the ED is working with the VR controller code, they better add missing features by adding them there with the options for settings so that people can enable or disable the features as pleased. It will not just make everyone happy, it will fix the problems for everyone. But there is attitude on some people that ED should go only to previous feature, that is forcing the laser beam for everyone, because that makes only them happy and they don't care about anyone else than their own wishes. They do not understand that there are people who want the laser beam gone, not there, not visible. There are people who want the extended range to interact with buttons and switches with finger gone, so that you need to go and touch them with the finger. There are people who want that they do not need to try to be careful to touch a switch so it doesn't flip 50 times On/Off and randomly stop to either position. All are options to the VR settings that anyone can enable or disable. So if someone doesn't like something, don't enable it. If someone doesn't like something, disable it. That requires discussion and if some people have trouble to understand that it requires finding the solution and features that what to add or how to work, it is their problem. I am not forcing idea that no one should never see laser beams, but some are forcing idea that I should see the laser beams. The OP post is very clear about two problems: 1) Laser beam not visible (acknowledged by everyone) 2) Mini-stick default bindings (as explained even in the settings) are gone. It is nothing about zooming, or about realistic features or can someone grab a stick/throttle and do something or not, they need to make own bug report for that). But as it has been shown with evidence, mini-stick default bindings are there as they have been in < 2.7 versions. Not removed from the game. Not disabled by the developers etc. So the OP bug report part for that "When they are coming back?" is incorrect as they have not gone anywhere. I have acknowledged from the start that some people don't have them and that is here there is a bug, but it as well requires everyone to go through their settings that is there a conflict that cause the problem. Is there a update in their VR software that brakes things. And if we want that everyone can choose what features they want to use in their VR controllers, it is better to speak than just try to claim that everyone should be silent.

The missing laser is a second part and only real missing thing for those who want it from the OP post. I have ticked/enabled the "Hand Interaction Only When Palm Grip is Obtained" setting and all works as previously. I made completely fresh installation of 2.7 and didn't bring the old 2.5.6 series configs, mods, or anything to the new installations. It is reported to be working at least on the Rift CV1, Rift S and Vive Pro. What is required to do by the ED: 1) Make the laser beam possible be configured as: a) On or Off b) Laser beam range slider (from 3 cm to infinity (or at least other side of the cockpits) 2) Allow player adjust the VR glove position (X, Y and Z) to get it matching angle with the real hand/controller. 3) Adjust each button, switch, knob etc behave so that they can't be interacted continuously with the finger but allows only X actions per second (like if you hold finger on switch it will flip only every 500 ms, this giving time to move hand away from the switch before triggering it again). 4) The laser beam visible all the time / only when grip hold down. 5) Handling the VR controllers as Xinput devices so they can be rebinded by any action for anything. In example Oculus Touch Controllers it includes capacitive sensors so when a thumb touches a button or when the button is pressed. When a finger is on the trigger (example A-10 PAC) and when trigger is pulled (second detent). To have Grip button act as a multiplier or rebind A/B and X/Y buttons for anything wanted. This all without any third party software to convert them to emulated controllers.

I have told it from the start, and now you are claiming I am condescending you because you keep ignoring the fact that I have shown you that it is not broken for everyone. So stop insulting if you can't provide evidence for your support that it is broken for everyone and no one can have the features that OP said has been removed from the game.

Agree. If, and that is BIG IF, we get a proper FLIR and proper TV optics and all, it means everything will change radically to shorter ranges. (You know all this... So not too say to You). It would make huge difference between aircraft capabilities to operate. Example: NiteHawk -> LANTIRN -> Shkval -> DMT -> Litening II -> ATFLIR -> Litening G4 -> SNIPER. We would get different experiences and capabilities to fly and operate in digital battlefield. We already have way too accurate GPS coordinates, no drifting, no jittery etc. If we could get the proper jamming equipment as well, we could jam GPS for aircraft and weapons and deny their utilization and as well force players to fly with INS only. So many options for combat performance is lacking, starting from targeting systems quality. Like AV-8B N/A one major quality is much better accuracy to deliver bombs than radar hornet or harrier or viper. You need a laser guided bomb to get better consisting accuracy. Because targeting systems being modeled to simple manner, we are in situation where everyone are way too effective and capable. No challenge or no tactics required like should.

It is more annoying to be required move hand too much further and then back closer than it is to just hold it there and wait that you can operate switch or button again (when not one that requires multiple anyways). So the size of such bubble is important. That would fix the situation that finger pulled out doesn't trigger anything again if once gone past it. That would help many things as you can be more relaxed to push things and not try to avoid trigger something because your hand just went through. I would take that only for a panels but not too any switches. As last thing I would like to see is to have finger stuck to somewhere. Yes as I from the start have said (of anyone reads and remembers anything) that is why it needs to exist as optional setting. So those who need it, can enable it to be able operate things from any distance. Better make it opt-in to have beams, as it is assisting feature to not require player move hand so much. If they can't, then they can enable assisting feature like beam, a dynamic pointer position in closest button/switch and even haptic feedback (vibration). Why I have always said that we need zoom and all other assisting features (labels and such) as there are players who requires them. The problem is that people do not understand how difficult it is in reality to spot a military vehicle next top forest edge even when it doesn't try to conceal themselves. Rule of thumb is that similar color vehicle becomes visible at 1500 meters or less for an pilot when it doesn't move. Add some camouflage patterns and it gets very difficult. Add some nets and branches and like and you can walk on it and hit your head to it as you can't spot them unless they reveal themselves. In DCS I could see a APC on ground from 15 nmi distance with Rift. Have a vehicle in the edge of city next to building or open on street and it was easy as having label there. This is why all kind terrain texture mods are important that you get clutter to start hiding those units as should. It is not fun to look a outside and spot dozens of units in 15 nmi radius if they ain't inside forest or otherwise just happen to mix with fake cars and such. Having a AI as Su-27 and F-15 dog fighting at 10 km distance and you could see them against ground and you could see which one is which at 5 km range so you know against which one you go. Zooming was totally unnecessary as it was possible identify MBT from a APC from 8-10 KM when flying in KA-50 and this in a rainy weather. Actually not so much. As average vision is not so super wide as human fovea can't be moved to whole FOV. The only 2° sharp area is as well lower, requiring very low Mpix count. They are for those who need them.... As I have always said, players physical and technical limitations shouldn't be there to deny them from enjoying DCS. If someone can't afford for pedals, it shouldn't be reason to not fly helicopters as they can use assisting features. If someone can't see well or they don't have high res display, they can use zoom. Etc. But I never have said that my standards or my ways are what everyone else should have or do. I just don't use many unrealistic things as I don't need them. Just like I don't buy or use button boxes as I don't need any extra buttons as I use only VR to operate everything else in cockpit than real kind HOTAS layout. A perfect system would have a real simpit so when in VR you place your hand in something that you see, you feel it exactly correctly as in real world. That is just impossible for scenario where wanted to fly multiple aircraft in one room.

It was in progress to be removed, but only after years later it was really out. Here is example about Marines: "The Marine Corps is at a crucial crossroads in its constant effort to remain technologically relevant. Currently, Marine F/A-18 Hornets are not authorized to employ laser-guided bombs (LGBs) when illuminating a target with its NITEHAWK targeting pod, due to the pod's low fidelity and increased chances of target misidentification. As a remedy, the Navy and Marine Corps, as well as F/A-18 air forces around the world, are in the process of selecting and integrating a new targeting pod. The contenders are the LITENING AT, in service with Marine AV-8B squadrons, and the Advanced Tactical Forward Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) pod, in service with Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet squadrons. Current plans have the Marine expeditionary (land-based D model) Hornets slated to receive the LITENING AT, while the Marine carrier-based (A+ and C) Hornets will receive the ATFLIR. However, the Marine Corps should equip its carrier-based F/A-18s with the LITENING AT instead of the ATFLIR, because the LITENING AT is equally capable, less costly, and more quickly available." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235120937_The_Next_Marine_Corps_FA-18_Targeting_Pod_ATFLIR_or_LITENING That in 2006. What we possibly would have, is about 80-90% using a NiteHawk and 20-10% split between ATFLIR and LITENING AT. Now it is no NiteHawk at all, and everyone flying with ATFLIR in 2005. Players would scream against the idea that they would be limited mostly to NiteHawk and have a horrible visual quality for 10-40 nmi as they are so custom to spotting and launching at all ranges.

Everything above that is true. And need to say that loss of toe brakes is not a problem for other aircraft as they can be enabled so pedals works as toe brakes for taxiing. And I don't think 200 € for excellent ones is not much to ask, considering that now even CH pedals can cost 270 € then the VKB are cheap. Well, they are best for helos if not going for far more expensive complete setups. As helicopters benefit a lot more about precise and small movements, the lack of linear movement from hips makes VKB more anjoyable options. But just to buy these to buy Mi-24P and fly it, I don't see it as first choice as twist stick should be good starting point even when very limited.

Sorry to quote you like that. All was interestingly said. I have known that with MiG-21 the approach should be done faster and time the specific speeds at the outer and inner markers, with oddly rapid deceleration. What you wrote explains things more. That you come fast in and you do the landing quickly by utilizing it's speed to decelerate fast in controlled manner. Yeah, insult and make a guesses (AoA indicated below 10) . That is a way to improve someone's airmanship.... Yes, you don't know and as you don't even consider someone needing help, it doesn't help them.

I can get the foot well being too well lit as they are deep and shaded well. But the other way around the hard contrast between sunlight and shadow is gone and you can actually start having that huge canopy act as a diffuser to soften the light and scatter it all other places than just direct light. And in those clouds and so on there are lot of other reflections from them to as well add new directions. It isaybe too soft at the moment but better than previously IMHO.

So could we see a G4 or something in A-10C II? I wish we could have the older targeting pod for hornet, the Nite Hawk or what ever was. Something more proper for the year than what was just now added in 2.7... Like just offer it as optional one. Three pods for Hornet would be nice thing. Nite Hawk Litening II ATFLIR Each with their own characteristics and times.

Please don't hurt me by telling me that they have not even done the new pod properly... Please say that they succeeded in it, as next time I take Harrier up in the air I want to check the new marvelous targeting pod... I throwed towel out already by first thing testing the TDC Action mode from special settings and then going to use DMT/TV and they didn't even model the TDC Action properly. Same speed all the time regardless anything. Like why to add a such feature back when it doesn't work? I then checked was the clock zulu time fixed.... and exited as couldn't really take it anymore. So unique airframe. So special and unique targeting system. So unique flight capabilities.... All at the level of Su-25T... Well maybe everything changes once new FLIR system is added by ED....

I don't remember where I read it, but someone commented that he one contacted ED about the targeting pod limitations in gimbal speed, stabilization etc. He said he was a civilian engineer working those targeting pods. And that he offered to ED a public information (not classified as secret) for the systems. Saying that the current gimbal speeds are way too fast, accurate and responsive. That gimbal wouldn't stay in target at such maneuvering rates as now or maintain lock etc. So as you say "devil is in the details" as that part of details is what makes simulators interesting. The challenge, the designs, the technology, the future improvements and benefits. When a 1996-1999 targeting pod works as well as 2019 one, there is lot of things wrong right there. This is what drives people from Flaming Cliffs to DCS World, the attention to details as in bad and good. That is what makes cold war era so interesting as technology was made back then. All of the space races and fighter development etc. Like just few days in 2.7 and it is amazing experience to fly CAS in scenes where you have terrible visibility on ground. When you need to get close inside a thunderstorm as your sensors are useless. Visibility is bad and you need to do the job. Then you climb up from the clouds to sunshine, and everything feels like you don't want to go back.... Now if we would have targeting pods limitations, challenges etc, it would make one appreciate more the more modern systems as it would show how it was in the past. Edit: "Don't even get me started on how "well" the DMT/ARBS is "modeled" on the harrier right now." Damn you.... How again it hurts to see so amazing system be modeled so terribly wrong... So badly that Harrier should be part of FC3 package instead DCS branded. It would be so amazing if one would really need to use DMT to get a lock on target properly with all challenges, or use the INS mode correctly by requiring proper visual corrections. And then get to fly so ARBS does it calculations. So many things would need to get right to be capable deliver accurate bombs that was Harrier huge benefit over hornets and vipers and all.

Better done in DCS or as in reality? (Well, for the era). Why I would like to see more of those as optional loadouts. Like why did Razbam need to remove the 2nd gen variant from 1999 to replace it with 4th gen? Like why not maintain both? It would have kept nice things for various missions. Especially when one get to compare the video quality and controls.... Not to forget software tracking capabilities etc.