Fri13

It is only when you have that specific damage count when it stops just before it gets destroyed. But the effects between Healthy -> Halted -> Destroyed are minimal. Example hitting someone repeatedly doesn't cause problems. The initial hit makes units move and their aim is off on that phase. After it will just be as effective. So hitting example with 12.7 mm or 23 mm that wouldn't instantly kill unit but generates damage, the unit is capable to work normally from 100% to somewhere around 70% or so depending unit type. It is annoying to see damage 69% and unit keeps firing like nothing. Getting it over 70% without destroying it is almost impossible because you start destruction timer soon after that. This makes example Mi-24 easy to destroy the 5-7 vehicles in a pass because first one is critical. You must get first unit destroyed in first release, then others start moving and doesn't engage you so easily. That is when need to get second is high. Coming around for re-attack means you have now few angry hornets that needs to be dealt from long range. Every release needs to either damage unit over 70% or be destroying it, and take the 2-3 on each attack. The M113 is annoying as it is so quick at closer ranges to turn that it can shoot from behind after overfly, while performing a turn after rockets or 30 mm cannon it can track so we'll. So leaving the unit just hanging around is deadly case. If missing the first launch, you just blinded yourself from the unit and need to wait dirt and smoke clear out so you can aim them, while they keep shooting through it at you.

There are basic changes like that. But nothing dramatic.

You should be able to convert any point to another point. You would get a list of wanted points on left and on right, and you can example make a Mark Point to become Target Point, or Waypoint as Mark Point. I don't recall now what was exactly the page you needed to be for that. It was around information as well how you should be able see all Target Points (except T0) as a diamonds in the EHSD. I do recall as well that you can't transfer any point to CAS, without entering the coordinates from one side to another. But it is possible it was only at that status of Harrier.

This might acquire again mentioning of this valuable asset that is missing: Thanks to @Northstar98 collecting the samples. Those would again help everyone in all maps.

"Just keep them disabled" I take you meant opt-in feature for simulator mode, and then opt-out when in game-mode? As considering that how many hard core fan would get upset if they need to disable assisting features first after installation. Comparing to that those who would be first timers and they could enable it from settings, wouldn't find it bad as they already have the option.

Have you considered NoTrackIR or was it NoIRFaceTrack or something? You need a webcam and good lighting. It should work many cases excellent manner. I have used touch controllers since ED implemented the support for their finger functions (at begin you had only gloves moving around). I used to use a mouse, HMD center point with mouse clicks on joystick, a trackball, a touchpad and some others. I have not used the PointCTRL that is praised here. But I am waiting now that ED improves their just added Leap Motion support so I can get away from grabbing those from lap (easier than mouse). The virtual hands. https://youtube.com/shorts/Y60Erjxczr0?feature=share https://youtube.com/shorts/97Cr2AgjDP0?feature=share

I would guess that you speculated, querying that would it even be possible get the data and is there legal parts to need to be dealt etc. So just "feeling around".

I hold the opinion that whole EW could be implemented very believable and acceptable manner for each system. It requires that who designs it will spend effort to understand the topic from public materials and will openly explain their decisions and sources why and how things are done so community could help. And results would be very much better than we have now even when a lot of of educated guesses would be required to be made. We don't need 80% capabilities, I would estimate that 40-50% is achievable and that is alot.

I apologize that I didn't read your original post but intervened with a suggestion that you had already made. IMHO DCS World should provide various assisting features and even gaming level features (I was happy first that Modern Air Combat was first coming to DCS World as "FC4", but sad it was later cancelled and made separate standalone game) as long it is not away from the priority of through level authentic simulation. And air refueling assisting features ain't such that everyone needs, but it is not on their way either. And when it helps anyone else to learn and complete missions that requires/offers air refueling, then it is just great bonus for DCS World overall. Why someone is against an idea that doesn't touch them is odd. The argument that everyone can do it, or learn it easily is not logical. And it is sad that ED has made a decision not to implement anything like this at the moment. Because your idea is easy to produce and would be huge help to start with.

It has been for long long time so. Maybe from the start because I don't remember did it require any off-center position for cyclic. What I do remember is that it needed little pedal to stay straight. That is flying with just one control at the time, there is 12 m/s wind. First just the collective for various altitudes, speeds etc. Then using a pedals in full for left/right and to make full rotations, turning to both directions etc, all the time the collective is in one position at that moment. Cyclic is not touched at all. SAS is disabled and all channels are off. It is not ED...

Yes, hence such evidence can't be used to make the DCS Module because no one can confirm or deny their correctness and you making the product in first place reveals the classified secret material to the public. This is reason why example ED with military contracts is required to not use such classified information for public but needs to rip them off or modify them (like flight performance and such) so they do not follow the real manuals. They can use the NASA testing material or such, but not classified ones for public version. Again, please show where I am claiming to move more knowledgeable than others? If so, why I would even make this thread to ask help from those who are? So don't make a strawman argument. And anyways their experience as evidence is zero unless it can be confirmed by another group to be valid. Party testimonies and spoken behavior is not trustworthy when it is against other evidence. The witness testimonies are least valuable and trustworthy of them all. It is better than nothing when situation is such, but when there is valid evidence to say otherwise... It actually does make it worthless as you say when there is evidence that tells otherwise. It is not enough to just say "there must be evidence that shows it is otherwise". If you read and listen example Wags interviews, the specifically states that they use only public documentation for their module development because laws. If they have military contract where they can have specific group accessing some classified material for military simulator version, they can't use it in the public one. They need to remove it (like example how A-10C has system parts removed for that reason) or they need to alter it (like Hornet flight performance) so it doesn't reveal the military secrets and hence they are not anymore relying on such information. Read above. Stop strawman arguments. I am nowhere claimed to be smartest. But if you think that I am then I would say you don't know what you are talking about. You need to understand that when the documentation officially say And argument to counter that is: That is not evidence what so ever. Let's do one by one them through: 1) "We know we are on a newer version which has different capabilities than what is in the NFM." Who knows and what they know? "We" don't know that from what are latest capabilities, what has changed in the TPOD video systems. Because SOMETHING has changed, it doesn't mean EVERYTHING has changed or in this case, SPECIFICALLY THIS has changed. I think you should agree with that, because otherwise you would never find anything in the Harrier that the old manuals would explain correctly. 2) "There is ample evidence we are on a later upgrade (6.2 at a minimum)." As has been said in the Razbam Discord, Harrier is a frankenstein that implements multiple versions, there is even this classic meme from the Razbam statement: So someone wants to clarify that what manual version, year or whatever is the "valid and proper" Harrier? And what does Razbam say about SME's? We don't go around the second route for the manual correctness etc. If someone can not provide the validated evidence to counter the official documentation that is crystal clear about the function, then there is no such evidence and the official documentation is 100% valid and correct to be followed to the letter. And that would mean Harrier has incorrect TPOD and Maverick video feeds (as they have already so many things incorrect in the Maverick video - but again someone might come to say that "But you have the old information, the highly classified latest manual must say that it is not so... But you never know is it true or not!" How many times has Razbam SME's shown to be incorrect? At least four times. Even in the very clear things that are straight from the manual or other sources (like how a exact same function is implemented in other aircraft using that same targeting pod). But many has accepted that is problem in the communication between SME and Razbam worker. A language barrier, a wrongly shaped question, a misunderstanding, a error in the notes, a brain fart while implementing the system, a programming error... You name it. 3) "As the basis (a new wiring harness, new software (actually multiple updates) and a different pod) of your logic has all changed, your logic conclusion is invalid." So how it has changed? How has the TPOD video feed changed that it can be shown with the Maverick video simultaneously? Because some of the documentation has changed as updates has been done, it doesn't mean that everything has changed. Example because H4.0 update added capability to use 10 Target Points instead just 4. It doesn't mean that H4.0 update changed how the SSS switch selects DMT/TV mode. Or does it? Because the manual including the H4.0 or H6.0 updates are mentioning how some of the systems been changed, it doesn't mean that everything has changed from parts that the manual doesn't mention and so on the old one would have all information incorrect. That argument is "because 1% is incorrect, then 100% is incorrect". 4) "In order to be valid you would have to account for the changes in the therom which you choose to ignore."" So what I am ignoring really? What changes in the manual? That claim is "Because you ignore the unpresented evidence then your evidence is invalid, because it is invalidated by that a unknown evidence". Again I have acknowledged various versions of the public documentation, how nothing in them has presented any evidence to change the earlier information in them. How can I then be ignoring evidence that is not presented, doesn't exist than just as assumption that there must be a such change because some other changes has been done in some other systems? If there is no evidence to show otherwise, then the existing evidence is valid. Personally I don't like it, but as the evidence clearly states such, then so be it.

There is no angriness in this side. I go straight to the point and I don't accept the fallacies or illogical arguments that doesn't help the case at all and I will say straight that they don't help. If someone's point of view and only content to add to conversation is not valuable, then what they add to search for evidence that Harrier would be correct as it is and not incorrect? The point is this: I must be missing something, as the evidence that I have provided tells the Harrier is incorrectly done. I can not accept that I am correct in that thing and there must be a evidence that shows that TPOD can be same time with the Maverick video - even when the evidence shows otherwise. Why I am asking help that someone could provide evidence to counter those. It is not helpful to make a argument: "There are classified newer documentations, and there must be evidence in it, but we don't know. Hence the evidence you provided is false because it is based to older one". The problem is that the evidence that I have provided doesn't leave any room for speculation, it is very straight and to the point being a special note for pilots "HEY YOU, KNOW THIS!". Making a claim that everything that is in the older than latest manual is wrong, is illogical because almost everything that Harrier has now is based to them and hence would be wrong.

The maps are mentioned and explained. The APKWS is technically backward compatible and doesn't require any software changes. The CAS page automatic filling is explained and mentioned. The new mission computer is mentioned to be performing same tasks as as old one. The Litening targeting pods are said by manufacturer to be backward compatible because the pod only sends the video (mentioned in the Harrier manuals as well how it works) and use the same old standard for controls (TDC etc), why the old LITENINGg pods can be upgraded to new ones just by swapping them. So do not try to use false claims to make your case. Please show your claimed evidence that it is possible have TPOD video same time with Maverick video?

In a what way I have been disrespectful? - I have provided evidence from the start. I receive in reply nothing than strawman arguments without any evidence (the usable TPOD stations are different than in manual, hence the evidence is false, even when TPOD station position has no matter and why not to be mentioned). - I asked politely from the evidences that would counter the evidence that makes it odd, and it is replied with argument from ignorance (we don't know what has changed, but it must have been changed, meaning that provided evidence can't be true) - I ask for newer documentation because the evidence is claimed to be from invalidated old one, and I get slippery slope argument (because we use old documentation as evidence that can't be countered by other than claiming it is invalid and if that is not done then everything needs to be removed from the Harrier that doesn't exist in that old documentation). Maybe you @myHelljumper should have more respect toward me who has questioned respectfully the official documentation, provided the evidence that things are incorrect in the current AV-8B Harrier and all I get back is nothing respectful than just fallacies that doesn't help anyone at all. There is no respect in your action to start telling I would need to have "more respect" when I have had full respect all the time. If the opposite can not provide the evidence but purposely makes excuses, try to become martyr and invents claims that can't be proven, then they are disrespectful. So does the Razbam have evidence (documentation, videos...) that TPOD video should be possible shown same time with the Maverick video?

Excellent summary. I would have liked to see F-16A and F-18A first, then upgraded to current ones for small fee. It would have made a lot more sense. We can take AIM-7 for hornet and AIM-9 for viper, but it isn't exactly same, but doable. And maybe acceptable. 10 years is fairly long difference, but not so huge, like now is to offer one all datalinks and helmet mounted sights and all. Right now I am waiting three planes. 1) MiG-23MLA. I am sucker for that. 2) A-6. It is most beautiful American made plane (most beautiful of them all is MiG-23). 3) Because amazing C-101, the Mirage F-1 planes. I can't wait to see those starting to drop in five different variants... If something modern would take my attention, it would be Deka made Su-30... Something from 2005-2010 to offer step in modern two seater Flanker. But give more 70-80's plane and it is more interesting. 10 years difference with a good story for mission and there is nothing so wrong. Be it a -75 plane against -85 plane and they are both interesting to fly. As long the avionics are hard to use. ps. Isn't Viggen from late 80's upgrade as well?

In my opinion "lying" is unwarranted suggestion. You are correct that having plans should already include that information is available and it is known to be possible. It would be better then otherwise say "we wish...." as that doesn't mean that something is possible or would happen.... Just like Wags said "we would like to...". IMHO I like to first see the coming me FLIR simulation, as it should be more dramatic than we have now and what sniper pod could offer. But we need to wait. It is the hard part.

What is your evidence that how they have been changed and by what parts? It is not. It is only evidence that matters, until new evidence is shown that invalidates the existing, nothing is speculation in the old. That is invalid claim. All evidence in DCS needs to be based to public information or it is not acceptable. Evidence needs to be verifiable by others. So they are fantasy, invalid, incorrect and speculation. Be it a compass rose in TPOD video or something else like a DESG button or engine thrust or.... SME can't be trusted without evidence. Unless existing evidence is invalidated with a another evidence, it is nothing that speculation. "Did you know that latest Harrier is H9.1 and it is used for nuclear strike missions by USMC....? Sorry, it is classified but trusty SME explained it just yesterday when the update program was started."

Your argument is that because the only evidence is from older material, then it is all invalid that is in them. Do you have evidence that will state otherwise than the existing evidence say? You can state how there are newer documents and all, but unless they are shown that what they say about the systems in question, they do not mean anything. No evidence to state it different. - If you are wrong in one thing, it doesn't mean that you are wrong in everything. - If you are right in one thing, it doesn't mean you are right in everything. Because known documentation is older than unknown documentation, it doesn't invalidate older. There is no speculation that what the evidence say, as it is extremely clear about it. It requires evidence that would specifically show it to be otherwise to invalidate the older documentation. Example: - a cockpit video of both being used simultaneously. - a quote from the documentation that can be confirmed.

He is correct that the graphical assistant should be repositioned so that you focus on the important part. I would make it like a ironsight for a rifle, you align it with the position where you need to be and it stays fixed to the tanker model itself. Be it a ring at aft and smaller ring at the front. You fly by looking at the rings to keep them aligned and when you have them joined then you have a proper distance. If you deviate from the position, then you see it visually as the rings start to be out of alignment. Forget the visual indicator for a throttle and just give visual idea that does player need to move forward or backward by separation of the rings. This way player would be looking at the proper part of the tanker and have visual idea of the positioning. The problem is just still that it doesn't help people who need the assisting because hardware or their skills. It would be just a assisting feature for those who in first hand can perform the air refueling task. 1/3 of the respondent agreed that there should be a assting feature for those who have challenges for whatever reasons.... It doesn't mean that it is for them, or anything like that, just that they have a opinion it would be good to have and be opt-in feature for those who needs it. Considering that in the previous thread there was multiple ideas, like mine was a "tractor beam" kind that has adjustable setting that allows player to adapt the effectiveness and functionality to their skills. IMHO when you do that, you learn as well visually to position yourself for it and start to handle the throttle and stick if possible. And those who would gain more skill from it would benefit from it. Those who would find a assisting to make them able do air refueling would enjoy from adding that task to their mission and doctrine. This idea is about just a visual indicator like the flight path gates now in the editor, that are guiding you to fly a specific route through the gates without any assting. But let's say that one has a slight hand shaking or one doesn't have a VR (that makes air refueling easier) or has just a one eye or have a joystick that has hysteris etc etc, the visual indicator wouldn't help them in that case. ED has stated that their plan is not to add a such assisting feature for air refueling. Relatively small take in that poll but if going against statistics, 1/3 is major audience proportionally. It isn't away from me, it wouldn't be on the way for anyone who can do it already. But if it would help those who can't do it (for whatever reason) then why not? We have easy radio, easy flight modeling, easy targeting, we have snapviews, trackIR etc. All kind assting features for those who need it or want it. But it is not away from those who do not want to enable them. People just should not attack against those who supports the idea by claiming that they need it. As anyone supporting assistant for air refueling doesn't mean that they require it. So saying anything about others how they would already be able do air refueling if put the time and effort that was for writing support for new feature.... It is fallacy.

It is problematic as Harrier is "Frankenstein", at least how Razbam has stated it to be. They have mixed some of the H6.0 features but are leaning mainly to H4.0. And we have more information about H4.0 than about H6.0 (2011) or newer. But we need evidence about what is changed since the last known technical specifications that LITENING using the MIL-STD-1760 as from the start has been chanced somehow it could use TPOD and Maverick video simultaneously. Only things changed is that new pylons were added to be usable, and even before that 5 and 3 were used even when no manual is stating it. What evidence that can be confirmed is there for that? Something, like a video of cockpit with maverick and TPOD simultaneously on both displays? Documentation that counters the previous manuals information? Personally I have hard time to believe that you couldn't have TPOD and Maverick same time On, that is the point of this thread. But when the existing valid evidence clearly states that it is impossible, then there is not play for assumptions or speculation and it is impossible. Logic as well states that when in a another aircraft (F-16) you can't have multiple Maverick videos same time On from same pylon (avionics support two feeds but from different stations) but just one feed at the time, that there is similar some kind limitation for it. So if in Harrier the TPOD video is transmitted over MIL-STD-1760 wiring as emulated Maverick video and is the reason for it being available only separately when Maverick video isn't shown, then there must be a evidence that states that in some update for Harrier or to TPOD the emulation has been removed and the Mission Computer receives TPOD video as non-Maverick video emulation. But if you take the martyr stance and then attack the person with "We should never see you on a server..." fallacy then so be it. We have three evidences stating that it is not possible. 1) Logic 2) Technically impossible 3) Documentation What we need is material evidence (videos, photos) to show that it is technically possible, or newer documentation that clearly states the changes that invalidates the old documentation. Even if the TPOD can be carried on different station because added same required wires to them, it doesn't mean it is not using a Maverick emulation. Even when the TPOD is now simulated as 4th gen version doesn't mean it doesn't use Maverick emulation like Litening II did. Party testimony is not enough to overcome all other evidence.

Still no TPOD on stations 2 and 6. Discussion in 2019 about it: The A1-AV8BB-NFM-000 from 2011 states that MIL−STD−1760 has been incorporated, and Change number AFC−420 that LITENINGg has been incorporated to stations 2, 5 and 6 (page 7, Summary of Applicable technical directives). Visual indicator is added circuit breakers. Here is again comment from Zeus in 2018 to say that he adds TPOD available for Stations 2 and 6. Only stations are 5, 4B and 3 are possible in 2021.

I think it would be OK if the sight system would actually show where the grenades would approximately fall. Tested it today and at about 800 meters the CCIP was on the target and grenades did fly 300-400 meters over the targets. This from a 150 meters altitude in shallow dive from 500 meters at 2500 m or so. It is just easiest thing to eye the target range and shoot short bursts to confirm the range and then go by the hip in final moment at 1000 meters or so. If you manage to get the grenades close at the targets, then it is effective, but that is the problem as it is so super accurate that grenades hit so tiny area and often misses.

Example in Harrier a LOFT mode is bombs delivery by system providing you the increased range to drop bombs by guiding you to distance and how to pull a constant 4g upwards to loft the bombs at the target. It is not same thing as AUTO mode that is not suitable for lofting, but it is the sub-mode of the AUTO delivery. The idea of it is that you have better accuracy for release timing and maximum "standoff" distance to avoid local air defenses.

Doesn't matter. Unless you can provide the evidence that it has been changed, then it stands as evidence shows. It doesn't matter how old the evidence is if you can't provide a newer one that specifically states it to be changed. The TPOD position is anyways irrelevant for the functionality of it using the maverick video feed, so you are using a strawman argument. So? When the newer manuals do not state changes in the older manuals they are replacing partially, then there is no change. So? Our Harrier is about H4.0 and not about H6.0 etc. Unless you can provide documentation as evidence to show the otherwise, then stated stays as fact.

Some fall for it, some not. Let's face it, when a company puts a version number to their product, they are in trouble. If windows 10 would have been the "last windows", then it wouldn't had 10 in it name. It would be just "Windows". Same thing is with iPhone etc. Google has at least learned it with Chrome. No one really cares is it Chrome 54 or 62 or whatever. Apple should already call it just as "iPhone" and "iPad" and that is it. Then behind the device there is the version number, and forget all the idiotic 1,2, 6, 8 SE, 10, 11 Pro etc etc. You just write the year in it. iPhone (2021) iPhone (2023) Windows (2021/1) Windows (2021/2) And that is it. It eventually ends to same as car manufacturing, you have a model and you have year. "Toyota Prius '06" or "Ford Mustang '21" When you go to search parts, you are asked then these details, but otherwise you are just driving "Toyota Prius" or "Mustang". Apple had it right as well with mac. You had iMac 24" with 2007 behind it, but then they really needed to F things up by adding "late" or "early" to it. Camera manufacturers are as well in big trouble. Even when they upgrade something 4-5 years (or like Sony every year almost) the they can't just stop using numbers or "mark II" and "mark VII". SERIOUSLY, just call it as "EOS 1D" or "Alpha 7" and write the year number in the plate bottom of the camera and digitally in the "about" menu.