Fri13

Yes, but what technology makes it such. Again it is question that what the F-4G has that example F-16CM with the proper ELINT pod etc can't do? Like example the Soviets made MiG-25 as their "Wild Weasel" as BM variant. Radar was swapped to one with passive detector to locate the radars, powerful and advanced ECM etc. Capable to fly fast and high or low and still get supersonic but carry four large ARM. Designed to fly through the enemy CAP, engage the SAM systems and return without CAP getting a change to intercept it. What I could find about hype for the F-4G is this: https://theaviationgeekclub.com/former-electronic-warfare-officer-explains-why-the-f-4g-was-the-best-wild-weasel-aircraft-usaf-has-ever-had Edit: So based to that article, the F-4G should have superior capability to locate geologically the emitting radars all around it. And that again polls a question that how much better it really is against F-16CM with HTS pod? Edit 2: I have built a opinion now that I wouldn't like to see a F-4G as primary variant (first to come) of the all possible other F-4's, as dedicated to just SEAD/DEAD is limiting, and when you need the EWO (electronic warfare officer) to do all that fancy stuff, I don't see it such preferred variant. Especially if the SAM/IADS is not modeled but is as current status.

DCS World maps are boring as well on the current default weather. Sure it is always nice to look outside something, but after while it becomes boring to even look the ground as well. The weather is that makes things different. Why the new weather engine has been really waited to come at least since 2015. The boring part wouldn't be visuals but actually that do you find the ships or fighters etc in the area when you don't have any landmarks to visually position yourself but only your instruments? I feel that, and people want to bring a large long range aircraft to DCS World, to perform a thousands of kilometers flights etc. Nope, doesn't really be so interesting no matter are you flying over water or ground. Does it need to be? Visually it is after all just water everywhere And as such map would have no land at all, you could fly it to infinite but the ocean floor height map would just be inside the map itself, outside of it just flat and let's say made to be a 500 meter deep. Of course people would eventually come to say "I did fly past the coordinates where England should be, and I found nothing!" but isn't that just....

We just need to understand that ED wanted give Hornet something special even if outside of it modeled year. Same thing with AGM-62 Wall-Eye II as they just needed to make the datalink pod anyways. Would just be more fitting to have the Nitehawk as primary sensor pod instead ATFLIR.

What makes the F-4G a "true wild weaser" aircraft? I would have thought that now F-16CM would make great for that?

Ports that are so shallow that you can't get the larger ships or even armed boats get to stuck is very questionable. Like what is the draft of a armed boat? For the sea operations it is likely around 100-120m and about 50-80 cm for shallow water/river use? A normal rowing boat has draft about 15 cm when empty and adding example 300 kg weight doesn't make it about twice that. You can't perform a landing or shore operations if you get stuck from keel 100 meters from the shore.

That is how it should have been done. But there is a workaround to use some other method to input "Spacebar" like using joystick or voice control software. I don't have a keyboard anywhere near me while flying, so it is of course a problematic. I would see a binding like trigger or release button to be great correspondance to it, but so that what ever is binded to it, will not work in its default state when tutorial is in waiting of "User Action". So trigger wouldn't fire anything at the moment.

Yes.... But what can be done when it is clearly wanted to be confusing that what is each report status etc. It is not nice to open the "Resolved" sub-forum and there are people talking that things are not fixed, and no responses anywhere. As well there are [As Intended] responses to reports that are clearly wrong, and then even moved to "resolved" just to swipe all under rug. IMHO Eagle Dynamics should implement a public Bug Tracker system that would really make far more easier to keep a track of these things. The developers could sync them with internal system and public one. Searching would be easier for everyone, even using the forum login credentials for the public one. But even if the forum is used, it needs better maintenance and care than now. I see almost more activity in Discord and Facebook than here.

We are getting new weather engine + few pre-made templates But later we get the weather editor to Mission Editor so we can make own templates, and likely even before that we get more templates as well. (and if we are lucky, we get some feature to share the weather templates with single files). So there is a hope

I say you should take your eyes off from the ground and look up in the skies... A new weather engine will generate plenty of variations to ocean surface, and the new clouds will be something amazing at the sea. "The sea never looks same, it is different on every day" © Will Eades © Dale Sharpe and Karlie Russell Yes, some of those are stacked photos etc, but flying at sea would not be boring. Just little more imagination please

Just placing a sea floor to vary from 2000 meters to 200 meters would open up submarine warfare where submarines couldn't always stay at maximum depth but required to move through different thermal layers. As well open up the tactical positioning to various depths. Considering that submarines can go below 400 meters depth so there needs to be little space to get the different sonar returns as well. It would still be easy to do, as the texturing would be just generic one under surface. The hard part is actually just importing the ocean floors depth maps and use that at acceptable level (IMHO a 500m resolution would be enough). In a 3700 x 3500 km area there is plenty of options to make any large scale strategic missions where different fleets moves and submarines can patrol etc. There would be space for the carrier connection flights as well. What happens when those are combined properly in scale? There would be plenty of ASW places, at the norther side and somewhat at the west.

The typical answer is "IFF is classified" and it is just not correct because IFF systems are well known that how they are suppose to work, but classified is that what exactly is going in the "black box" to do it. Likely larger public libraries that has section for the advanced radio engineering or flights will find books about principles of the IFF systems. One can simply use public material to develop a design how the systems would work in the DCS World. So even if we would get a 50% of the features implemented, it would be far better than anything we have right now. IMHO we need something else as well to go with this. We need a flight planning. This is requirement for the AWACS, GCI as any ATC and such. That they know what flight is going to take-off and when, what is its route (or at least destination) and other flight parameters and then have them listed nicely on the table. So players (and AI) would need to plan their flight before taking-off and then even get that list transmitted to those corresponding controllers that they can check information about them. Like they need to know that there is expected transport at 1830 local time from A to B. And there are civilian airliner flying at given time and route etc. As if there is no flight plan, then it is required to go checking it and it is likely as well a hostile. We would need with that as well a new 3D briefing rooms, mission planning station etc. These are likely coming in the Super Carrier. And what I would like to see is to have a map on table of the area where you plan your route similar way as now in mission editor, but actually more like using a "real paper map". And then have there the marked possible intelligence of the enemy troop movements (that is result of the another topic: Reconnaissance pods/flights etc) with photographs that what it looks like on the area (so no magical ground units positions because someone has LOS at them, they literally need to transmit that information to others somehow). This would as well allow to have a large scale map or area map with enemy possible positions and movements, their controlled air areas etc. So that pilot can get the general idea visually. And GCI/AWACS to use this to quickly check is there suppose to be any friendlies on mission or civilians flying as their flight plans would be visually shown. The IFF system is not just a "I ping you, you reply back so I don't shoot you" system, as there still can be plenty of errors and possibilities that you just don't have proper information of target to be hostile. As has been shown in the real history, you might need multiple queries and still see target as unknown, you might not get any response at all. Question really is that is there possibility that for false reason someone could transmit wrong code that could be interpreted for some reason positively as friendly? I don't think that there is possibility for a false-positives. But we really need to get a realistic IFF/ROE/INTEL system (keep the current one as a GAME MODE or special settings to ease things by keeping it maically correct and instant) that would really do what OP asks, more Fog Of War and more challenges to fly. It would likely as well mean that the radar systems needs to be improved across the board, that we get situations where you just can't find one with radar at long ranges and different weather. So you can't perform a interception alone or just scan the space and see everyone and it would be teamwork. Just having a neutral side made things more interesting!

It would make sense that when you want to change one value you can, but the linked another value would automatically adjust to maximize effectiveness if it was set maximum. But what should happen if you have example 20D (degree) for maximum update rate at 4B and you go from 4B to 2B? Should it keep the 20D azimuth but just change the bars and not jump to 120D?

What we should have is AN/AAS-38 Nite Hawk as it was the normal pod at 2005, and has been transitioned out only at 2008 being replaced by the ATFLIR. AFAIK the ATFLIR was delivered to Navy in 2004, but only in limited numbers and to front line units only for testing. So normally used is in the future and not 2005.

Flight modeling requires lot of work when it comes to inverted flight and engine thrust or aircraft drag. As well engine fuel economy needs checking as it is reported it can fly empty. Yes, you do not explode in the air or you do not fly Mach 2.0 (just months ago it was fixed that you didn't go supersonic by just releasing all bombs) etc, but it is not accurate in all scenarios. The ARBS system is not modeled correctly, it is key system to calculate a slant range to Target Designation (TD). Meaning, you need to create TD using various sensors and then ARBS use aircraft INS, air speed, altimeter etc to calculate the target distance when the angle rate changes on TD. And this generates the accurate attack solution for gun/rockets and bombs. When the ARBS is not available/usable, you need to revert to backup modes but all those backup modes has not been modeled, and the secondary ones like RALT or BALT modes doesn't work. Yes, you get the release/firing solutions but they are just magically perfect without any challenge or requirements to do proper procedures or targeting. The heart/core of the AV-8B N/A is it Dual Mode Tracker (DMT) that is located in it's nose is not properly at all. It is a 6x TV camera for good weather targeting and Laser Spot Tracker (LST) for night/low light and buddy target designation. The TV should be a low resolution contrast based targeting system that requires to find a contrast (this has to do lack of it in DCS World by Eagle of Dynamics) and it lock to it automatically, that means if there is low contrast or no contrast the TV crosshair doesn't lock and you need to revert to INS mode. If there is multiple contrast areas in a TV screen the system can lock in anything in it. The TV mode perform the locking procedure by first detecting the whole scene contrasts and then shrinks the lock crosshair on the strongest one. This is not modeled at all, why the TV mode can be magically locked on anything perfectly as it is ground stabilized - as said "magically". You get to use the TV to find targets but it is just unrealistic system without the challenge and proper process. The LST is partially working, meaning you will get DMT locked to a laser spot that someone is firing. The system should provide three different scanning modes at various width and height "boxes" that is possible be slewed to area where laser spot should be found. They are max area, medium and HUD. These three modes has been added but the areas are not possible be slewed. These should be coming. The HUD LST scan mode is not properly modeled, but likely waiting the LST overall. You can get the Harrier locked on laser spots but there is no proper requirements to transfer the TD to INS or TV and the MFCD modeling might have wrong process for re-attack. The DMT lacks as well protective lens lid system where the upper/bottom parts can be covered by lids when too strong light is shining on it. This is why attack toward sun is possible as the lids will shut and render DMT inoperable and you lose TD and hence attack fails. Can you use it to example find and lock on JTAC lazed target? Yes. The INS mode doesn't work right, it is a HUD based TD that happens by pilot visually placing a TD diamond symbol on the target and correcting it position few times as it moves, and Mission Computer (MC) will use these pilot corrections to calculate the target true altitude and hence location. Likely the INS mode should only be slewable when the TD diamond is inside the HUD, but currently you can slew it regardless if it is outside the HUD. The INS generated TD is as well ground stabilized and it moves at constant ground speed. Then there is a thread about illogical process to generate bombing solution for AUTO mode (the CCIP bombing is unrealistically accurate as it perfectly knows ground altitude) that is now requiring a EHSD (digital moving map) to be used with it and generate the bomb fall line, release cue and allow release of bombs. This has to do with as well using the EHSD as a target designator (system mentions it as "MAP") as in that mode you should be able move steerpoints, create a TD in couple kilometers accuracy, but most importantly navigate and re-attack the target by generated guidance. It seems to be questionable. And when you are now in INS mode, you can see the TD diamond moving on map, but it is as well locked to ground speed so if you zoom out or in, the TD moves at slowest speed so if you need to move TD example 120 km then it will take "some" time. The INS mode moves TD as well in polar coordinates on map that mix up things with lack of HUD modeling and other sensors. The Targeting Pod (TPOD) is under work, and currently we have a hybrid - 2nd generation from 1996, and we should get 4th gen from 2008 to be added in future. The pod has own problems in video screen and as well again the perfect ground stabilization it shouldn't have, a very bad gimbal problem that can suddenly move by itself the TD to 54 nmi distance even up to sky or anywhere randomly. The TPOD doesn't have proper INS mode, nor proper Point and Area track modes, but considering new TPOD is coming it is better expect improvement and fixes in that. It as well lacks the proper visuals (low resolution etc) and even depth of field and masked status. But you can use TPOD to find targets and generate TD. The GAU-12 gun is unrealistically accurate, a real laser. It should have same spread as A-10 GAU-8 on paper so 5 mil with 80% shells hitting inside it, but now you can shoot accuracy of 1/3 of size BTR-80 from a max range, while you should have spread 2+1/3 of a BTR-80 at there. The TDC doesn't work correctly. Clearly Razbam has modeled Harrier read directly from the DirectX the joystick input values, and ignores the DCS axis values like deadzone, that causes TDC to get stuck when passing axis over or just designate itself as slightest movement makes sensors move and generate TD. Yes you can use any mini-stick for TDC movement but if there is ghosting then it will self-designate as wanted, and it is jumpy. The TV mode doesn't have a required TDC Action mode. The TDC has Action Mode / Designation by pressing it down (not aft, but literally pushing downward), it was added while after release but was there just few months until it got broken. This is required example for DMT/TV or INS slewing to make it go fast when hold down, and then "sweeten" when just moving TDC at slow rate. Yes, you can use the TDC but it is just locked to slow speed and painfully slow sometimes in fast situations. Other small problems include things like: The HUD and MFCD readability is terrible, but hopefully fix is coming. NVG's are wrong and improperly functioning with lack of features and visual problems. The Harrier can taxii at engine idle at least to 80 knots speed (should move with idle, but not accelerate to such speeds), the wheel chucks and ground crew operations are broken.... The MFCD pages and systems has missing parts.... Bottom line Is it ready? No, far from it. Can you have fun with it? Yes, totally. But you will get frustrated more you learn that things are wrong/broken/missing. Can you complete missions etc? Totally, you just need to close your eyes and mind from improperly done systems and lack of some key functions.

"The thermal cuer is not a hot spot tracker, but a delta T cuer." -NWP 3-22.5-AV8B, Vol. I

The aircraft has a feeder tank and fuel pumps for that reason. All the other tanks keeps directed to feeder that has largest pipe to the engine. That feeder tank is pressurized so you can feed engine in negative G's for limited time. Once it is empty, you need to let it refill by the fuel pumps and then relight your engine by air starting. The air start usually happens that you need enough speed to rotate the turbine to start it, but Harrier has own special starter why you don't need it as you can just use compressed air to start it up like on the ground. The engine doesn't get broken, why you don't need to fix it. No, you said that the engine gets broken and you need to repair it. That is not a fact. As I explained before you that if feeder tank gets empty -> no more fuel -> Engine turns off. But usually feeder tanks are fed from other tanks only when there is a positive G forces, why when you pull negative G maneuver your feeder doesn't get filled by other tanks and it is only tank to maintain your engine fuel injection. Once it is empty, you need to refill it. Feeder tanks are usually small ones as they are pressurized so they can constantly keep the fuel going in, when more fuel is fed in the feeder, it keeps pumping it to engine. It doesn't get broken because of that. The procedure when feeder is empty is to maintain a positive G and have fuel pumps transferring fuel to it. Example the MiG-21Bis has a couple min feeder tank capacity in full afterburner at low altitude. The feeder tank (no:3 IIRC) has so huge pipe to the engine that it can keep delivering fuel to it, but all the other tanks pipes are so small to feeder that they can not keep up with the fuel consumption. Why you are limited to 2 minutes full afterburner at low altitude as your engine sucks all the fuel from it. After that you need to wait a moment to get it feeded and relight the engine - hoping you have the required 500 km/h air speed. This is reason why in airshows the MiG-21Bis pilots are required to pull the throttle back at that two minutes back to mil power so the feeder can be refilled, and then after X seconds able to use afterburner again. In a Su-27S the times are different again, like 90 seconds negative G in mil power, but with full afterburner it is just 15 seconds. The point is that if Harrier fuel tanks can fill the feeder tank while negative G's, then it shouldn't shut down while flying inverted.

So do you claim that same developers would work these two projects simultaneously?

Isn't every wished feature a extra work to do? Then why is there a wish about it, with good support? Like what are more important things to do in your opinion that adding this feature would either delay or not make happen?

Because everything. Even the argument is brought up that adding a such assisting feature would slow down other "more important" features and "bug fixes", like everyone who is working at ED is assigned to those unknown "more important" features and fixing bugs... I would understand the opposition (as I would be doing so) if the idea would be to remove the current feature and make it automatic or something that takes away already existing things.

Case 1: 1) a player take-off from airbase 2) flies to a tanker as required to refuel to full so mission can be completed at long distance <AI will complete the refueling process> 3) player completes the bombing with newly learned weapon procedure 4) player returns then later as is required to refuel to get back to base <AI will complete the refueling process> 5) player comes to airbase and flies the pattern and all, finally stopping inside a hangar Case 2: 1) Player opens web browser 2) Player types www.youtube.com 3) Player search a video of air refueling 4) Player watch the video of refueling 5) Player close the web browser Personally I see nothing similar in those two cases.... Edit: Case 3: 1) Player asks someone to upload a track file 2) Player downloads a track file that someone attached 3) Player saves the file to drive 4) Player opens DCS and opens the track in replay 5) Player sits watching all the head movements, control inputs from start to the point that first air refueling is to happen 6) Player wants to take control to continue mission 7) Player can't perform anymore air refueling as replay has been stopped (This all considering that track file stays in synchronization and doesn't cause any trouble) Yep.... Still can not see how it is similar for the wished feature where the player play all the parts from the begin to the end and only receives assistance to complete the air refueling connection, refueling and then disconnection.

That is not a bad idea for "automatic air refueling" function, as it could be simple thing to do considering we already have the AI to do it, and we lose a control for various effects temporarily etc. It likely could be the easiest and simplest thing to get the proper result. But it wouldn't assist anyone to do it. It would be just watching a AI to do it but in a own cockpit. Why I like the idea that such feature can be used first as a "heavy hand assisting" that people get to the process. And then they can adjust it to make it more challenging and difficult to do, until they find the level that they are happy to perform it. So some people might find that they like to disable it all together, while some might like a slight assisting feature, and some might like that they can use the full assistance (even your suggested full automatic refueling procedure) as they can't do it otherwise (for what ever reason). We have many aircraft that are air refueling capable, so it is not just for one aircraft but many. And really deserves the effort to help people in it so we can make wider variation of missions.

Because the idea that someone could be performing it easier should be hated? Because it allows some people to feel elite by categorizing people who can't do it to some lower category and it shouldn't be changed? Because if X would be developed, then Y can't happen as X took the time and effort?

So, what are more important feature coding and bug fixing for the ED employees? Why should he make a mod of it as a community project?

But isn't it great that at old age people could continue with their abilities to do something they enjoy? To find a new hobbies and experiences? Example some countries has a law that you can't anymore fly in military when you are 45 years old, so they just need to forget that experience while still serve in the air force. But some has found a loophole how they have managed to stay in service and have permission to fly, but that is possible because they have friends in high places and their experience is valuable so they can extend it to age of 55. After that they can be walled again from flying, and there might be a another loophole by promotion or special duty assigments etc. But eventually age will have its price, and no matter of your physical condition etc you might be just forced to forget ever flying military aircraft. So how great it is that at this time we can have VR and DCS World to give some of that experience back? For many it is a hard part in their life when they need to give up a driving as it is a way to be free to go somewhere else at their own time and will. Some people enjoy that they don't need to worry about it as they can always just call a taxi etc. We live in a great times (compared to history as 20-30 years back).

So are you questioning that why does people take into account other people differences, and help them to be able do normal things? Or are you moving the goalposts with: "Morale demands" "everyone has to be enabled to do everything" "Declaration of human rights" "All people have to be able" "prolonged virtual combat flights involving aerial refuels" "The reason why real pilots ever fly as much as 2 different planes throughout their carrier tells a thing or two about learning curves, flying every plane makes you jack of all trades but master of none." If you are unfamiliar with the fallacy, it goes this way: So he made a simple fallacy: "No real pilots fly ever fly more than 2 planes through their career...." And what was your reply? Yes.... Strong argument there about the topic: