Fri13

Unit/Group/Side distance = <> X meters of Unit / Group / (Unit X) Waypoint etc would really be welcoming feature. It would instantly make possible easily make a conditions for engagement ranges and trigger many other functions if someone flies too far from something, too close to them etc. We could easily get dynamics to combat as example suddenly having enemies too close to group would get group stopping and engaging the new enemy or retreat to previous waypoint direction etc.

The images has false information. Example in the TPOD DESG mode SSS forward will activate Laser Image Scanning - LTIP. It stands for: "‘Laser Target Imaging Program’ (LTIP), employing a short wave infrared (SWIR) laser augmented imaging, to enhance the targeting system’s capability to capture images in situations where medium-wave infrared (MWIR) forward-looking infrared and CCD are ineffective." There is no laser ranging. The way to get out of TPOD is 2X SSS as otherwise SSS is commanding only TPOD. So you enter and exist TPOD mode (HST) with 2x SSS. And when you are not in TPOD mode, then you can use SSS to set the MFCD for wanted sensors and designators and use TDC with them. These as well cause some other problems with the wrongly modeled systems in Harrier. Like what is proper order and functionality of DMT/LST and DMT/TV, as well IRMV and INS related to displays and HUD and TDC. We as well need to get proper NSW logic as it will change the TPOD functionality.

The upcoming (tomorrow?) patch mentions that "Point Plank" being fixed. Anyone know what they mean with it related to DESG boxing requirement otherwise? - Added: AUTO Point Blank designation. To enable: A bomb type must be selected. Release mode must be AUTO. EHSD DESG must be unboxed. There cannot be a designated target. Use the VVM as a crosshair. The Aircraft must be in a dive at least 5 degrees pitch down Press the pickle. The spot under the VVM will be designated and the AUTO ASL and release cue will appear. The designated target will be saved as T0 and the EHSD will navigate towards it. Keep the pickle pressed until bomb is released. Target designation is saved.

I understand that Quest 2 is the way to go, but I just can not by any means understand the forced Facebook account to use it in basic level. I would totally understand the Facebook account if you want any social services (3D movie theaters, the Facebook "fantasyland" or what ever it was) other than basic friend list. Like allow to use the Oculus account that you had as offline version and basic friend lists for games basic co-op gameplay (that Oculus offered) and move rest to Facebook so you can play the games but not get the social online services connected. I would already have picked up the Quest 2 if Facebook wouldn't be required. I don't see the end of the Rift S as such bad thing as while it was/is amazing device for the price and quality, it is getting old. How Facebook has treated Oculus owners, I can't trust the company for support. Be it a cables or a headphone or something else, it is just untrusworthy company for any service. So anything you buy from Facebook needs to be considered as "Once it is broken, throw it away". I am more sad about Rift CV1 faith than Rift S, as Rift CV1 had so many things great to begin (controllers, audio, strap) and would have required just little extra changes because the inside-out conversion and RGB panels. If Eagle Dynamics will add the hand tracking support for Quest 2, it will be challenging to say "NO" and pick it up on that day.

I think that there is like a 1-2% change that either one would be implemented.

We should get three targeting pods for Hornet. 1) Litening 2nd (1999) or 3rd gen (2004) https://youtu.be/wCA5xmYeQC8 at 0:51 2) ATFLIR 3) AN/AAS-38 Nite Hawk The Nite Hawk should be our primary targeting pod, as it was primary back at the 2005, and only to be replaced fleet wide at 2008 by ATFLIR. This way we could fly proper missions loadouts from first Gulf War to 2025+. We could enjoy from advancement in different newer targeting pods, but naturally people would want to go for latest and greatest. And as anything, if NAVFLIR is technically possible be used, it should be regardless of politics.

Once the new damage modeling starts to be added to ground units, that should change. As we should start to see a minor damages and multiple ways disable vehicles (blown tires, destroyed tracks, damaged engines, radios, optics etc) that can give up a means to have more effect from rockets. But most important change if it would be, is vehicle crew moral and state of mind. Being under a attack is not something that one takes lightly/easily. When bullets hits armors and explosions happens nearby etc, you seek cover. Rockets like S-8KO are like a RPG-7 hitting at you, so you really do not want to take a such risk to be under volley of them. But I don't know when we can expect to see first implementation of it, as 2.7 is just in few days. It would as well improve the 30 mm cannon effectiveness. But it is a fixed and not as effective as KA-50 has with slewable turret with HMS and/or Shkval. But let's say you have 3/6 Mi-24P attacking a mechanized company, you get to cause a havoc if you can surprise them in first attack. But after that, or if they expect you, it will be deadly to you from close. It will be one of the most interesting helicopters for a years to come. Apache is like a A-10C where Mi-24P is like Su-25A, the hands on feeling is stronger in Mi-24P as you get to be close and dirty with it. Especially when/if ground units gets to be more vulnerable (and same time more threatening). We are getting so many fancy helicopters and capabilities to pair them with other modules that DCS World jumps in one year to another level (OH-58, AH-64D, Mi-24P) and when in future we get more (Gazelle redone and Bo-105) it will open even more low level combat scenarios. But all really requires ground units to be redone.

Was it not that both had some features the other didn't have? I don't remember anymore exacts from the project as it is so long time when I investigated and followed the project. The KA-50 got to first serial production version before it went to Chechen. The second serial production standard was developed from the experiences in there and after testing period, that was to be released. It was far further in production than RAH-66 was.

You don't (likely) die for it as the couple copper wires are too thin to deliver full voltage to before those will melt cut. But will nicely deliver enough to your computer system to fry it if the fuse system can not protect them. Again one reason more why properly working fuses would be nice to be simulated that you could possibly reset the power to the systems if so happens. Although gotta say that I don't know is there a fuse between missile guidance system and the missile wires.... As I don't recall the portable missile systems to have one and same on ATGM vehicles. But on those it is not a such problem as you are not going to launch ATGM over powerlines as they are so high, and the ones next to roads etc are shielded anyways. But this compared to small AT helicopters like SA342 or Bo-105, the Mi-24 will have more flexibility to engage targets because radio guided and faster missiles. But again you are not going to hover with Mi-24 as sneaky little bird and firing between openings. https://youtube.com/tZQaqCNj4mM

Yes if You ask from Rick50, as if He wants to go making strawman arguments publicly then He deserve to be pointed out about it. If it can't understand such specifics that I didn't say "world first attack helicopter" (as it wouldn't been true) and gets angry about it, He should learn to read the context first. I try to keep on the topic of Mi-24 for the DCS current ground unit limits and how it can or can't be used like in reality because the game elements makes it challenging to be used such ways. The AI is a problematic for everything in game, but especially helicopters. And as Mi-24 is used different ways than other helicopters in DCS, it will face them at different manner as well. I already stated how in my opinion AI should be developed further in the future to solve these problems, as they are related to everything as well. Ground units can not be handled, commanded and scripted like they would be a air units.

This is Mi-24 thread, about russian aviation history as context. Not a pissing competition about what is world first combat helicopter. You did not debunk anything than your own strawman argument. No, that is your strawman argument again. Please quote where I say that Transport capability made Mi-24 a combat helicopter and without it it wouldn't be a such... Strawman argument... Is a Mi-24 a Soviet Union made helicopter? Is this thread about Mi-24 as a attack helicopter or is it about world history of attack helicopters? Strawman argument. It is their first true attack helicopter. Regardless it was designed to be able carry as well infantry and cargo and do many other things than just shoot missiles. Of course if you think that it can't be used for anything else than attacking.... Welcome the Mi-24.... Something that west doesn't have... Maybe you should go to check the history of the Mi-24. And if you do not understand, multipurpose doesn't mean a Utility helicopter. It doesn't mean a Heavy Lift helicopter.... It means helicopter is capable for multiple roles than just one. AH-1 is only a attack helicopter, it can't transport troops, equipment, own ammunition for rearming etc. Mi-24 is a multipurpose attack helicopter, capable for many things, unique at the time. Strawman argument. Strawman argument.

We need ground units (AI) behavior changed to support better all flying elements. Like when the vehicle crew is required to get in and close their hatches, their corresponding duties and capabilities to see outside should be simulated. That means multiple "radar scans" behavior for each vehicle for driver, commander and gunner in example a MBT and IFV. There is requirement to be the command structure, threat assessment / priorities and usage of terrain, concealment and cover properly. And then as well communications between other units in the platoon and supported ground troops as well HQ etc. This means that external forces can spot the air threat and warn the platoon leader from it to seek cover etc. A company can receive a air threat information from elsewhere and issue alarm to platoon leaders to proceed with proper tasks. This would mean that ground vehicles wouldn't be sitting at wide open, they would utilize smoke screens and other cover predetermined manners, there would be infantry providing MANPAD tasking etc. So AI would autonomously and properly seek the locations to provide proper wide area cover for expected directions and so on. A individual unit like a gunner in a BTR-60 wouldn't be cracking the turret around like a sniper and shooting aircraft down, unless it is a hovering helicopter or well known direction at low angle. Instead it would likely be infantry squad that APC transported to be scattering and defending their position and APC. There would be automatic unmounting, MANPADS teams scattered around and give a hell to anything that flies higher than tree tops in their vicinity. But everyone should be morally feared when a rockets and shells start to drop at their direction. And not to fight back but seek cover. And be morally wasted with successive attacks. A more advanced vehicles like a LAV-25A2 (2004-2005) would be real threat with their automatic Anti-Air capabilities with laser rangefinder to be able measure target range. Considering that current LAV-25 is a real sniper without any means to measure ranges or even to track targets. But at this moment we have APC/IFV units that provides a better AAA capabilities than dedicated AAA units with radars and and better guns. That is just crazy. Even a MBT roof gun is a serious threat as the gunners shoot very long bursts with either a perfect aiming or then shoot 15 degree behind the aircraft (not even trying to hit a target). And it will render helicopters close encounters just awful. A random close-by shooting is far more dangerous and fearful than a laser beam with perfect aim. Because lateral you can avoid by flying with slight maneuver, while foremost you can't as you might fly in to the short stream of bullets, and you need to concentrate to get out of the area and not to try just pull small curve. So popping up behind a ridge and every single turret points at you in couple seconds, almost all are going to put you full of holes in first shot if you do not pull slight maneuver on time they shoot. This will render Mi-24 very much useless for rockets and gun as you can't utilize them properly, and it becomes just AT sniping from 5-5.5 km.

So Cobra was Russian made? Two utility helicopters and one attack helicopter. Mi-24 is first dedicated attack helicopter from russia. Before Mi-24 there was Mi-2 and Mi-4 with weapons as well. But they were not attack helicopters even when they had rockets and machine guns. Those were assault helicopter variants. Weapons and capabilities does, didn't claim that transport capability does. The Mi-24 is as well a transport capable helicopter, just less used as such for infantry. And?

That is a good point. ~37% Faster missile means about same less time to be exposed, or more time to acquire a target. The Shturm problem is it requirement to get a direct impact as it doesn't have a proximity fuze like Vikhr does (5-7 meters on it). Why Shturm is not so capable against fast helicopters or low flying aircraft (neither is HOT3 etc without proximity fuze and fragmentation sleeves) That is what I would like first to be improved by ground units gaining the purpose. A new AI, new functionality how units moves and are commanded (no more waypoints but objectives and goals), a new terrain engine support for units digging in, new terrain elements like small trees and rocks and ditches etc. The ground units should get more cover, so we can use more ground units as their capabilities becomes much better, so that we need to destroy them with artillery, rocket volleys and guns... While they try to take cover I would think that all that you can fire has at least some kind sighting set, at least for S-13. But S-24 is such a monster that it takes a MBT out... It is like a maverick or a 500 kg bomb. S-5 and S-8 should become far more useful later on, and I find as well S-8 more useful than any hydra without laser guidance. Why I would love to see a Kor variant of S-5, S-8 and S-13 in as well (from 1999). As it would make nice pair to use KA-50 designating targets and Mi-24 firing rockets. That is good point. Being able to pin point targets for pilot as WSO with the sight will make easy to engage targets by just firing at the WSO crosshair. At least that should help to acquire targets as well for gun run. And considering a high speed pop-up attacks when one can get enough altitude to concentrate rockets on smaller area (flashlight effect) the S-8 will be very damaging against anything. It is easy now to do in KA-50 (using Shkval as target on HUD and high speed) compared to Mi-8 that doesn't get easily past 200-250 km/h and does not like to climb for pop-up, get a easy targeting with controls and gunsight. The rocket runs will be great on Mi-24 compared to Mi-8. And if we get to perform a second rearming on the field from the cargo space, we don't need to get to FARP so often. Flying KA-50 as flight is fun, but Mi-24 will be more fun.

Shturm missiles has ~5 km launch range when launched from stationary vehicle, and little further if you give it slight boost at high speed flight and extra altitude. The DCS doesn't model the benefits that Shturm has over others like TOW or HOT missiles, that is it's radio guidance instead a wire. The wire is easy to snap off, why you can't fly toward targets or sideways and even sideways moving target can snap wire. The wire spool is behind a missile and is a thin copper wire. So after a launch the wire can get tangled with the terrain objects when helicopter moves and *snap*. You can't either fire the missile over unshielded power lines as you ground the wire with it and electrocute your helicopter and missile.The radio is jammable so it has own problem. (But you can't block the guidance like you can block laser with smoke and render missile lost, or block the IR seeker and render missile lost, so you are far superior against most common armored vehicles countermeasures). But you are free to fly +/-60 degree from the target in Hind after launch, giving you a plenty of maneuvering capabilities as you are not restricted to hover like with wire guided missiles. This gives you a lot of flexibility to be a hard target and approach target area quickly for rockets if so wanted. But you are not required to do so, as Mi-24 is completely capable to hover as any other helicopter. The challenge is that when operating from a high altitude bases 4000+ meters in hot environment (Afghanistan) you just don't have enough lift to hover in max weights, and when there are strong gusts you don't want to be hovering near ridges. Totally different case at lower altitudes and cooler environment like Caucasus or Europe. The Mi-24 was first true attack helicopter, designed to be multipurpose helicopter, so capable be used as dedicated anti-tank, transport, anti-infantry and even anti-helo. The anti-tank was one of primary features, why Shturm system was really important for it. Because Mi-24 can fly fast (320 kph) at low, doesn't mean it is only way to do it. You can be stationary if wanted, but you wouldn't be firing rockets then and you would be easy target to be shot at. And you render your cannon almost useless because recoil and challenge to aim it easily. So considering the capability move when firing missiles, you as well benefit from it when firing rockets and cannon. So you will get to point that you perform 1-2 missiles launches from 3-4 km and then put some rockets on area or maybe get to finish something off with cannon. You perform various maneuvers around target area before heading away. When finally we get the Ataka missiles, the engagement ranges gets up to 6 km. But more importantly more penetration and higher accuracy. Still very limited by the sighting system in Mi-24..... So likely we talk about 3-4 km anyways at max, more likely 1-2 km. So it will be more about quick attacks and fly away for second attack.

RAH-66 is less likely than AH-64E Block 2 to appear. The RAH-66 is like a F-22 with rotors, with features, some of that got to put inside AH-64E. Kamov worked with the ED to make the module. ED got access to one unit and the documentation. Problem is that RAH-66 is pretty secret to begin with. External 3D model is possible to be made and just guess many things but it would be "Comanche Gold" on steroids.

At this moment the DESG is required to be boxed manually from EHSD to get a navigation guidance toward the target, AUTO delivery fall line and as well weapons to be released. It was one change in the December'20 patch that doesn't make sense and Razbam insist it is [as intended] (that is not same thing as "correct as-is") because the NATOPS states differently how it should behave. There is more about it in here: And of course here: Does it matter to Air-to-Ground missile delivery? I don't now recall and can't test it. But at least it denies to release bombs in AUTO or CCIP modes on me. But I still recommend to leave TPOD off for first times as it is a extra step. Where using just the DMT/TV mode allows you to quickly just get mavericks out (AFAIK as well incorrect manner) as long you have STORE page open at left DDI as when you press Uncage/Cage button in throttle it will open Maverick IR video to left DDI. Then it will cage to DMT/TV position and you only need to press SSS Up to IRMV mode and press TDC Down (Action) to lock it. 1. DMT/TV on target 2. Uncage (STORE page open on left) 3. SSS Up to IRMV 4. TDC DOWN 5. Launch And you repeat process by switching back to TV (by SSS Aft) and search new target. "IRMV video appears on the stores page or left MPCD with each initial uncage command only. If another display such as the EHSD is selected while IRMV video is displayed (i.e., via sensor select switch left HOTAS command), select MENU/STRS to return to IRMV video." So you should be able have a EHSD (or any) page open on left DDI when you press Uncage in throttle. And then left DDI would show IR Maverick video. So not required to be in STRS page like now. But, you can't get back to IR Maverick video with Uncage if you switch to any other page after that, but need to open STRS page to get it visible again. This doesn't work at the moment properly IIRC, as you need to have STRS page open to begin with the Maverick video when you press Uncage.

What comes to progress reports I believe that it is better to inform customers with progress without schedule with them. They can be as simple as "We are again proceeding on X in good pace, we had some problems with X² and X³ features but they got solved". As that will nicely inform users/customers that progress is being made. Then when it comes to schedule announcement, good ones are years, quarters and finally months with possibly date when guaranteed internally it is ready (in other words, work is already done and just waiting one to push upload). Like estimations in quarters is good enough, I would even avoid "end of Q2" or "early Q4" kind ones and just stick "Q2" or "Q4" as it gives good amount time to people think it can be anything in 3 months, and hence can be more easily shifted if progress requires. Once the schedule becomes more accurate, a specific month and week is possible be used. But then needs to be very sure and avoid "if all goes fine" kind statement with them that symbolize uncertainty. So either being very assured about release, or very informative about reason why it might be delayed, as uncertainty is bad. If a confirmed release date is required to be moved, like again 31st to 7th, it needs to be with good reason. It needs to be with explanation why it is better for customer/user that way, so it is very solid reasoning why no one would have wanted it to happen on earlier date. Personally I am okay for the 7th for release (AFAIK it is the latest release day...) but that is because my situation. I would have not been feeling differently for 31st either, because there are many other things in life than sit and wait a update to an game. The feeling to wait something nice is good one, but it shouldn't cause kid like reaction when something doesn't come that was dreamed upon... As at some point in life everyone should learn their priorities and who they can trust, even on small things. And if a company receives a such status on someone's values that it product release problems cause anger or hate, it should be worrisome signal.

Pre-calculated ray tracing is not marketing. It is a method to get properly moving reflections without requiring to do ray tracing and so on hardware to do it. When you have limited view points and fixed objects that will be reflected from fixed surface, you can pre-calculate the reflections and simply avoid all wasted ray tracing. It will have some lighting effects simplified that real ray tracing would offer, but they are so minimal that it doesn't really matter. So if example we get with 10% performance requirement a 80% of a effect, it is a great trade.

You do know that A-10C is in DCS because US Army contracted ED to make them a desktop simulator to train pilots in conversion from A to C? That later on many things has been improved where militaries use these days these "games" for training, not just as desktop system modeling but actually to fly. https://www.defense.gouv.fr/air/actus-air/cap-160-reinventer-la-formation-des-equipages-d-helicopteres?fbclid=IwAR3jUN0l2wY2lCARH1uNTaFvb4oWilgSxk_Y-l7Z8u-xCXHBDZxzgBAckoM The Razbam M2000C module was assuming (wrong) many things before French Air Force officially gave their hand to make M2000C more realistic and proper for their flight simulator purposes. And militaries do not just build something like this for a fun: Or train their pilots in conventional simulators from decades as: HL-10 flight simulator Photo Number: E-18900 Photo Date: June 4, 1968 NASA As shown in this photo of the HL-10 flight simulator, the lifting-body pilots and engineers made use of early simulators for both training and the determination of a given vehicle's handling at various speeds, attitudes, and altitudes. This provided warning of possible problems. Or normal civilian aviation airliner companies. The internet forums for various flight simulators has a lot of examples how civilian pilots has learn to fly in them, homes their skills and shorten their training times and become better pilots. And they have been flying at home, front of a display without any moving platforms or VR etc. And that just 20 years ago. There are even certifications for flight simulators from FAA to be used officially for flight training. ED main business is not consumers, it is governments and private companies to build flight simulators for them. Same thing is with some other module studios. Pilots are not usually engineers (there are some who are qualified engineers for aeronautical). They do not really know why or how plane flies as is. That is the test pilots job with support from the engineers. But pilots do learn the basics and the main information to fly, but they are not required to know everything or the theories why and how etc. They just fly them and maybe in time on their career they learn thing or two from engineers and ground crews etc. Pilots are not rock stars or the masters of universe. They are human beings trained to fly and to do what is expected, nothing more. But when a gamers come to simulator that tries to deliver as real as one can get without being in a cockpit with real forces, they need to either accept that either simulator tries achieve that and it is the goal, or they can accept anything that simple game industry provides them in movie style without requirements to be even close to reality and try to call any simulator as "not suitable for a training because X". And it is even bad to try to defend a completely wrong modeled flight modeling in one module by trying to claim that all others are as bad as well... "Because pilots..." Without engineers pilots would kill themselves even more. Engineers are required to understand the flights and build a safety features for pilots do they wouldn't exceed the limits. Write the documentation and guidelines to pilots. Time and money is invested to pilots training that they do not fly by visuals but by knowledge that what instruments say and what they should do and what not.

When you fly helicopter, you always feel the cyclic position. You do not look at it, as you don't need to in normal cases, but you feel it's relative position from its movement range. You will feel the wind, weight, speed and all by the collective, cyclic and pedals that in what position you have them and you will translate that all in your mind to outside conditions and helicopter attitude. Example, when you want to fly straight and level but you feel you are holding cyclic almost at maximum right, you know that you have almost zero capability to roll at the right,l. You don't have authority to perform a right turn or apply any more roll toward wind etc as your cyclic is near maximum. So without looking the cyclic, you feel it and you know something is wrong or something can go wrong. Why you will know that you need to perform a left turn or something else as you have authority to there. When you fly in DCS simulator with a a centered and extended joystick like a real cyclic in a helicopter, you will get that proper feeling like in real. If you have a joystick without extension, on table or side mounted, then you are not going to get the proper feeling. Gazelle was made for a desktop users. Who can not hold a joystick off-center for long because you get tired. In a real cyclic you don't get tired as you rest hand on your leg and just gently hold the cyclic. There is no spring trying to center your cyclic, as center is not a important position in flight. When flying in reality, you will feel the controls and you will feel the forces that how helicopter starts to behave. Your body is your primary sensor that you feel when you roll, when you turn, when you raise etc. You learn to fly the helicopter by these feelings and what you see. With experience the helicopter will at some point just "click" and you get it. It can't be really explained easily as you just get it. It is like trying to explain a element of balance when driving a bicycle. You don't get it until you experience and learn it and suddenly you just get it. The helicopter controls are not fixed. You can't say "hold it 21% right to keep it steady" as all three controls positions and external forces affecting to all three controls positions means you fly it by feeling and visual. You have controls at different positions based weights, wind etc. That is still something that documentation shows that what is relationship with specific weight, conditions etc to the controls position. That how much it was required to move each of them and to what direction. While with matching conditions there would be little variation in them, in a different conditions there would be a lot variation. To get a same flight conditions like 120 km/h ground speed at 150 meters altitude and level flight, it all depends many variations that where your controls will end to be in reality. And you will feel that, you will just use the controls to get to those parameters and hold there, as there is no visual indicator or rule that where they need to be hold to get to it. But when you compare real world controls data as position, and you compare it as much possible similar conditioned flight in DCS, there is such a differences that just are impossible. In a simulator we have the red input box for analysis, while in real world you would need to install instrument for that if black box wouldn't record it, but anyways you would need to have special external display to show you same in real time, what is useless in reality as you don't need to debug controls or flight modeling as you feel it. The facts are simple, in real helicopters you are constantly balancing helicopter by moving all three controls and they don't stay center at various speeds and maneuvers etc. But in DCS that happens in Gazelle, you don't need to move controls positions at all same manner as in real one for same flight parameters. Like to get to max speed you dont need to hold cyclic at fully at forward position, but just at the center. The Gazelle is nice to fly with a spring loaded table joystick. It doesn't mean it flies properly or correctly, but that you as a player has easy relaxing time to hold on joystick and input just what needed and return joystick to center. But when you take mentioned centered and extended non-centering joystick, it becomes obvious how wrong it is as you always just return cyclic to center to maintain attitude you applied by moving controls away from center for a while. WIth a physical controls being different, you will receive a different feeling as well how you fly. in a other modules in DCS you get realistic feeling that you know by feeling where your extended and centered joystick position is, while in Gazelle you don't. the Gazelle doesn't obey the limitations in forces, you don't run out of authority same way as you are not required to hold controls in their corresponding range limits. like you don't never get to situation where you need to apply constantly full right cyclic to stay in level flight as regardless of anything it is enough to be required only have cyclic at center. Visually you can fly Gazelle properly, but the controls position don't match the required positions to meet the flight conditions. Example, if someone would wire a real Gazelle controls to PC running a DCS World Gazelle and put the real pilot sitting in that real Gazelle wearing VR and ask them to tell is it wrong by controls, they would come up obvious answer that Yes. As they wouldn't be required to move those controls like in real one. ORnif we would output controls position from real Gazelle wirelessly to PC running DCS Gazelle, from a take-off to end, the DCS Gazelle just listening those real controls positions would make it flip around even harder than simulation limits of same wind, temperature and altitude. You couldn't get the simulator Gazelle mirror by any means the real Gazelle flight with same controls positions in same environment conditions. This doesn't meant that other modules could either, but likely they would survive far further with much smaller incorrect inputs from real. Ultimate would be that simulator would mirror flight perfectly but that is impossible.

Quick answer, it seems that you are thinking in terms of A-10C where you play with two displays (left and right) as you want, with all sensors. The Harrier has by opinions of many pilots (Hornet, Warthog, Lighting II etc) a far better man-machine interface than those. https://youtu.be/rk-1cIu9XQs But it requires you to concentrate to the task on the ground, instead playing with displays on the aircraft. That is what makes harrier special that you work far better with the ground units and you are more accurate and timely with the attacks than with any of those others. The SSS is special in way that it is designed to ease the pilot workload by presenting automatically sensors you can select with it to proper sides of displays. Like example map goes always to left, the DMT goes to the right etc. The problem in Harrier currently as well is that it has many systems improperly modeled. Example the TDC doesn't work right at the moment. The TPOD we have now is 2nd generation from 1999 (same as A-10C) but is receiving in 7th day in DCS 2.7 update the 4th gen pod from 2009, making Harrier the most modern module in DCS (JF-17 IIRC is from 2007 as well like F-16CM) and systems logic is... Very questionable by many parts, meaning there are some functions that don't work right, like after an attack the DMT gimbal limit makes TV/LST display turn to compass rose (EHSD) to assist pilot to fly by showing where is target and own troops and all. And once pilot turns back to target point the TV mode will return and try to acquire a target again for re-attack purposes. The TPOD is afterthought and why it has own "sub-mode" to be controlled with SSS. So you enter and exit specifically that TPOD mode with 2x SSS down. As the TPOD is then primary sensor, you assign all controls to it that SSS does. So you need to handle the TPOD as individual SSS mode and all others as primary/normal SSS mode. It is best to first train to fly Harrier without TPOD. Just use the DMT and HUD/INS to do the fighting and when you get that, then mount TPOD and it becomes easier to understand.

And You keep doing Ad Hominems to avoid answering to a simple question.

Presumably? As everyone's else's? I didn't ask that what do You assume others think what is their definition of a bug. Simple question, what do You understand as "bug" in software product as a PC game or such? Simple question, very easy to answer if You know what it means to You. I didn't ask what kind bugs there are in Razbam products, but how do You define "bug". I didn't ask about other modules. I didn't ask about is Razbam only one having bugs. I didn't ask yet what is in your opinion the severity. You say that all "worst offenders" has been solved, yet you talk about a simple MFCD button to cause Crash To Desktop. Is it a only definition as bug to you? Again, you are not explaining Your opinion that what is Your definition of a bug... So You mean that it is completed and only requires polishing, and has been so for over a year (You saying "a while" meaning what is the Harrier patch history timeline as You talk about it)? Ad Hominems makes you weak, it doesn't make you strong and doesn't help your arguments at all but opposite. Sarcasm is not wit, and it is hostility toward other person (why I don't use it). If You can't answer direct and straight simple question that how do You understand a "bug" (as used in this thread) then say so.

Why so hostile? It is not enough that you start to accuse people from being sarcastic without even questioning that You might have totally wrong attitude to input the question, but that you start to threaten that if they do not act as your imagery attitude is that you will add them to your personal ban list, like as it is an honor not to be listed in such? Seems that as You are wrong, that You really were born yesterday... Ps. It was not even question about your opinion (unless you have multiple accounts).