Fri13

Then I say that simulation of the DCS hardware requirements are unnecessary...

Got to say that I did not even think about that logic. Not joking. As that is really a valid reasoning in the DCS Universe. But now my brain hurts.

The AI with ATGM will be as well like a Shkval in KA-50 but with a difference that AI will automatically spot and lock on targets and engage when you are ready (or maybe even autonomously) because you just need to get their crosshair inside your gunsight pattern. So thinking KA-50 with automatic Shkval target detection and recognition is closest match. Then as pilot you use rockets and fixed gun as you please. Other way to put it, it is like a KA-52 but without modernized targeting systems and fixed gun. Or as a Mi-8MTv8 with rockets and gunpods for pilot but instead ATGM the AI utilize 12.7 mm KORD by your command from the side. So you fight with it pretty much alone as whole thing. The P is far more enjoyable in SP than V would have been, as it would had left just rockets for the pilot to utilize. Where WSO would have used gun and ATGM. But if V would have been able be equipped with GUV, then it would have retained the option for pilot to use a cannon, machine guns or grenade launchers among rockets and be more like P. So anyways flying as single player is not a problem nor advantage over MP as long AI spotting isn't horrible.

Great thread and nice work for the community! Totally should pin it.

NM

IMHO if the ATFLIR that has a IR Marker is technically compatible with the Hornet, meaning it is the pod internal updates itself that only communicates with the OSB's functions to offer (pod runs everything the DDI shows the video from the pod and sends back the OSB pressing that then triggers all functions inside the pod itself and presents them again as video to Hornet) so that it can be taken in use later on when it got in service. So if someone has information about would it work that way in 2006+ years, then there could be hope to get a ATFLIR version that supports that IR marker.

I hold opinion that things should be there only if it is technically possible. So if someone wants to go for very specific software version or specific what ever, it should then be all locked to that one and that is it. No mixing up various different year versions and only limit every possible action and mission to that one unique year. So if Hornet is for 2005, then it only is capable fly in missions dated to 2005. As otherwise realism is required to be accepted, and that is that specific version of the aircraft is operational as is in many other years than just one. It means that our Hornet is not just from 2005, but it is operational as is from 2005 forward. And this opens up the possibilities to get realistic technical limitations for missions and mix different aircraft to fly together. I believe it is confirmed that it was possible to mount it so by confirmed by SME. Don't know, just a believe. Again, consider what would happen in missions where you have in a whole airbase a 36 NITEHAWK pods, 1 ATFLIR and 5 LITENING AT? In multiplayer you would see that someone will rush to be first to equip the ATFLIR.... And what happens if they go and crash on the ground in first mission? The Hornet pilots would be angry when the AV-8B Harrier pilots carry the LITENING AT while they are restricted to NITEHAWK.... Or that Harrier pilots get to fly without TPOD as the DMT is better than NITEHAWK is, and don't require to spend station for targeting pod. Yes, it is not restricted than by the mission designer will. Just adjust the loadout possibilities in the base/carrier and you get to make fancy realistic missions or just fantasy ones. Interesting thing... Is that certain? Exactly! Let us to choose that what to do with realistic setups (with the technical compatibilities, so no AIM-54 for Hornet or AIM-120C to F-14 and so on). I still would hold on the technical compatibility level. So like here, if the ATFLIR doesn't have the IR Marker, then it doesn't have. Unless ED wants to make two versions from it. And I would totally accept that. Like it is not nice that A-10C uses LITENING AT as Hornet, but AV-8B received the LITENING G4 (2009 variant) that is better than ATFLIR. It had previously LITENING AT. It would have been nice to have option to carry either one, so you can decide in missions that which one is available to you. If you make mission as 2003 when LITENING AT was available, then you can disable the time filter and still allow equipping the G4 variant. Same way we could get ATFLIR with or without IR Marker capability and improved video quality. Like the Litening G4 in Harrier has the dual IR marker and laser designator mode. So you can designate target same time as you are marking it visually for friend with IR laser. It is real win-win situation how you can very effectively show where to look and point the LST mode, and they can deliver the weapon on it or get own laser on the spot. I don't know would a ATFLIR have a such dual-mode at all or not... I see benefits as long it is one option more in the loadouts. As what was pointed out, the IR Marker was added to eight ATFLIR pods as prototype earlier, and then later (after our Hornet) it got added with enhanced image processing. So win win for everyone.

Nothing to forgive, as I don't even know what we really have received.... As what we have doesn't really match anything specific in 2005 or USMC or USN. But if USMC didn't have LITENING AT for other than D models, then C models should be without LITENING and utilize something else, so again: "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. Where it means, USMC and USN F/A-18C Lot 20 Hornets should be using AN/AAS-38 Nitehawk, as only USMC F/A-18D Hornets had the LITENING and carrier based A+ and C were with USN using NITEHAWK as well while waiting to get ATFLIR. So none of the F/A-18C Lot 20 from USMC or USN should be really carrying either one of the new pods.

Were everyone using them? We already know three things: "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." 1) Not everyone used ATFLIR 2) Not everyone used LITENING 3) NITE HAWK was the most used one and to be replaced by either one of those. That is my point. As while the 2-4 ATFLIR were in use, I wouldn't say that they were really used. And if few LITENING were used, I wouldn't say that that was only thing they used. As in 2006 they were in process to select what is their next targeting pod to be acquired and used. So very well those videos can be the tests performed for qualifications purposes. It doesn't mean that LITENING is the primary sensor in 2005 for F/A-18C Lot 20 USN Hornet. The video hasVMFA-242 that is the USMC https://www.1stmaw.marines.mil/Subordinate-Units/Marine-Aircraft-Group-12/VMFA-242/ So the documentation still applies: "Since then, the Marine Corps has announced the intention to purchase sixty LITENING pods for use on F/A-18D Hornets, which were originally scheduled to receive the ATFLIR. Both the LITENING AT and the ATFLIR are capable systems and both represent a quantum leap forward in terms of capability for the F/A-18. Both pods have multiple features, such as FLIR imaging with magnification, electro-optical imaging with magnification, laser designation, and laser-spot detection, eliminating the need to carry multiple pods and thereby freeing weapons stations for additional ordnance." "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." So the video is about the only land-based D model having LITENING AT, but not the Carrier based C hornets that is to receive the ATFLIR instead LITENING AT.

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.

I kno ChikenSim worked for the Razbam to make the systems and training missions or something. He is in my opinion the primary source here if something is wrong or correct. Don't know person... Or at least recall the name. Well, Razbam discord is to me more of a place where I don't want to go for anything as they are misleading by purpose so much there various people. So can't take seriously that there is said.

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....

I was hoping to see that DESG mode made properly but it is not. Where the SME's has confirmed that Razbam implementation is not correct? As I don't know where those things even happens as Razbam hides so well the discussions and suppress the bug reports.

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.