ChickenSim

LTIP is a separate imaging mode that fires the 1570nm EYES laser and presents a picture-in-picture image of the target based on the laser reflections. While the EYES laser is firing, it also performs rangefinding functions. The picture-in-picture component of LTIP isn't modeled, but rangefinding is.

Ambiguity strikes again, I meant "box" to informally mean any variation of the target designation diamond or rectangle. Initializing that target designation symbol at the VV using the TDC should occur the same way, regardless of which of those target designation methods you're using.

There are conflicting sources on when you should see the box. Some say the box appears whenever you slew off the designation source (if one didn't exist already). Some say the box appears (the "target" being "designated") only after tapping and releasing TDC. Some suggest the box will appear when you hold the TDC down and slew off, but the target isn't properly "designated" until the TDC is released. It's possible they're all correct under different conditions. I am also pretty sure slewing in INS isn't working as intended. As implemented, you are slewing the box across the ground plane, so the further your target is from you (the closer it appears to the horizon), the slower it appears to slew. I am pretty certain it is supposed to slew at a steady angular rate like the DMT / ARBS/TV does, despite being locked onto to the ground plane rather than visual contrast.

Yes, TV. SSS Aft cycles between the two designation sources contained within the DMT: ARBS/TV and ARBS/LST. I'm convinced half the issues we have understanding these systems are probably attributable to how often the terms are used technically or informally, so I apologize for any confusion. The system is designed to give you flexibility for how you wish to attack your target. This may come in the form of an INS Designation, which is essentially just a coordinate and elevation stored in the aircraft's "memory" and displayed on your sensors where it thinks this coordinate/elevation is relative to your aircraft. It may also come in the form of an ARBS/TV designation, which contrast-locks onto an object of interest and does all the angle-rate sorcery to determine where it is in space. You have the options of manually transferring these points in space between designation sources with the SSS, and in some cases the system will automatically create or transfer designations for you (such as with Point Blank designations, or overflying an ARBS-TV target and the system transferring the designation to INS when the DMT hits its gimbal limits, respectively). There are others (LST/TPOD) as well that I'm not even going into. As @SGT Coyle has also run across in the post above, the entire designation and slewing system as implemented is inconsistent with the documentation and based on conflicting accounts of how the system works versus how it is often used.

You should be able to slew in both INS and DMT. TDC Depress (Action) isn't implemented yet. The Difference between holding it down or not is different slew rates. Slewing without the button being held (No Action Mode) slews it slowly and is used for target refinement. Slewing with the button being held (Action Mode) slews it 2x faster and is used for gross adjustments. Transferring targets between systems (such as creating a designation in INS and then pressing SSS to transfer the designation to DMT, or vice versa) are techniques for attacking targets in various conditions and with various weapons.

Razbam added a momentary deadzone on the nozzle lever where the hover stop is. This helps compensate for the loss of the previous STO stop function, but it's not a perfect solution from a gameplay perspective either since you you don't have the tactile feedback and peace of mind of being able to bring your nozzle lever back to a hard stop like you would in the real aircraft or in the previous implementation. It still requires extra attention, either head-down or on the HUD, to ensure the lever is in the correct position without being able to feel that it is.

It certainly does, and I took the risk of simplifying because I couldn't tell if the post was serious, but you have a certain amount of time to keep the engine windmilling and maintain *some* hydraulic pressure in the accumulators while you attempt to airstart the engine. Once these opportunities have passed though, there are no mechanical linkages or reversion options for "gliding it in." If you can't get the engine relit, maneuvering the aircraft into a safe ejection speed/altitude/attitude is about the only option with whatever control authority you have left.

I'm assuming this is a joke post, but in the unlikely event that it's not, there is no "dead sticking" a Harrier. If you run out of fuel, your engine dies. If your engine dies, your hydraulic pumps stop working, and whatever pressure is left in your accumulators must be spent leveling the aircraft and preparing for ejection, because you're going to lose all control authority very soon. Poe's Law seems to be making its way to DCS.

It isn't even that. It won't correct an existing imbalance, it just does its best to ensure an imbalance doesn't happen in the first place.

This may not be the only problem here, but you should be in IFA, yes.

The 12 o'clock position on this reticle starts to unwind at 6,000' (right now) but you can hypothetically begin to fire even before this if you're diving steep enough. If they bring the Harrier up to the latest software standards, 12 o'clock will become 15,000' and you'll have a little more information to make a better decision with.

@Dr Zaius they recently implemented a minimum RPM to fire the gun - are you bringing the throttle to idle in the dive? Based on your description it sounds like the gun starts working again after the overflight because you push the throttle forward to go around.

@RAZBAM_ELMO I just tested it out, it appears at face value to be accurate to the graph in the TACMAN. I dove down to just above sea level and commanded 65% FAN RPM, and was able to fire the gun successfully until my speed bled down below a certain point. Then I set 69% FAN RPM and held the trigger down as I accelerated, and the gun eventually started firing again. Now to add gun jams and failures to the list for doing what I just did trying to get the gun to cycle without the right amount of air pressure (it'll try!). :)

The GAU-12 is pneumatically actuated, and requires at least 60 PSI of bleed air generated by the engine in order to fire. In order to generate 60 PSI of bleed air, you need to set a minimum throttle (Fan RPM %) setting. This scales with speed and altitude. At sea level, traveling M 0.8 or more, you need a minimum power setting of around 60%. At sea level, slower than M 0.8, you may need up to 70%. At high altitude (20,000+), you could need upwards of 90% to fire the gun. Consider keeping that throttle full during an attack run.

The BLU-97B is pretty similar to the Mk118 bomblet used in the Mk20/CBU-99, with the exception that the Mk118 is supposed to penetrate soft overhead cover a little better. Both use shaped charges (standoff methods differ), both provide secondary fragmentation effects, and are roughly the same size and weight. BLU-97s are actually a little wider and heavier, but they do have a scored steel fragmentation jacket (much like an anti-armor Hellfire does, to increase flexibility). Mk118s are considered anti-tank bomblets that also happen to be effective on soft area targets like personnel. They even get a special warhead profile in DCS. warheads["MK118"] = -- Mk-20 { mass = 0.59, expl_mass = 0.25, other_factors = { 1.0, 1.0, 1.0 }, concrete_factors = { 1.0, 1.0, 1.0 }, concrete_obj_factor = 0.0, obj_factors = { 1.0, 1.0 }, cumulative_factor= 10.0, cumulative_thickness = 0.25 I'm not seeing a real justification that the CBU-87s shouldn't get the benefit of their shaped charges, but Mk20s do, just because CBU-97s are better at killing tanks.

It should eventually be able to, when they model the digital rack (DITER). Multiple 38 carriage is currently incorrectly modeled for the dumb rack (ITER).

Could be wrong about the Hornet, but I was under the impression that the original AGM-65Es couldn't be self-lased in real life. They required an offboard lase from a third party. This might play into why there's no supporting switchology for it in DCS on a mid-2000s USN Hornet. The Es are only able to be self-lased for gameplay reasons. It wasn't until the AGM-65E2/Ls came along (and I'm assuming some software updates for the aircraft themselves) that TACAIR could self-lase Mavericks.

A lot of what you're describing are the sorts of bad habits and deficiencies born out of low-intensity conflict that it used to be part of my job to study and help correct. Worrying about the ground unit not knowing where they were, or thinking that they had less situational awareness than supporting arms, would have been incredulous enough for us not to be major considerations. It gets pretty dynamic when you ramp up the complexity beyond one isolated patrol/outpost, one section of aircraft, and a drone. Include adjacent maneuver units, multiple forms of indirect fires, and both rotary and fixed wing (or multiple sections of each) in the same objective area, and achieving that level of combined arms requires stricter adherence to standardized procedures and techniques for fires integration/synchronization to be efficient, not inadvertently get in the way of the rest of the team, and mitigate tactical risks. At that level, I suspect we aren't even really talking about the same thing, since the airplanes and their CAS are only one tool in the fires toolbox (albeit an important one). I don't want to misrepresent your position, but it seems like you're coming at it from the reactionary angle of doing whatever works when you've ended up in a really bad situation (how did we get here to begin with?) and need to get out of that bad situation as quickly as possible (the A-10 in your example is great for that). Our angle was more proactive. Our concerns were keeping the entire toolbox shooting simultaneously, when and where they were requested to achieve a common mission. Anything that wasn't in service of this goal or prevented other fires contributors from doing their jobs (the A-10 in your example is great at this too) was cut out of the fire support machine. With this in mind, I see the CAS page's value as ensuring those weapons are going where they need to go, when they need to be there, while not shutting down other fires, and without the pilot needing to stare down into the objective area prior to beginning an attack.

Fri13, My previous post was simply to shed some historical context and explain why it's important for Razbam to cooperate rather than demonize the people reporting issues. It isn't necessarily reflective of contemporary Razbam (at least I hope not). It was up to them whether to push for a 2018 release, and through a combination of delays and changing quality targets they gave it two more years. While there are still plenty of missing features and frustrating bugs, that does count for something. I hope to see the same pace too.

Considering Prowler saw fit to try and publicly smear me directly, while lotting plenty of other people into the same group, lied to the community about the nature of my ban (check sig), and then lied to Eagle Dynamics to try and get posts pulled here claiming I was under an NDA, yes, I do have some words left to say. This isn't old dirt. This happened two weeks ago. Prowler already tried the trick of claiming the community was upset about something it wasn't, and now you are here saying that their own direct attacks were justified by a belief that it was the correct way to mitigate things, and to offer an insincere blanket apology for vague "issues" rather than the issue: Prowler's rampant dishonesty. So as CM, how are you planning on getting him to start telling the truth? I'm dying to know.

So to make sure I have this straight... You're saying that Prowler believed it was the best course of action to insult the community of volunteer contributors, you volunteered after the fact to represent the organization, and therefore that abrogates Razbam and Prowler from 1) directly addressing the wrong behavior itself and 2) taking responsibility at all? Am I understanding that correctly? It sounds an awful lot like nothing has actually changed then, although I appreciate that you'll at least answer community questions and may actually achieve your stated goal. Here's hoping honesty and transparency are part of it.

ELMO, you have nothing to apologize for, as Community Manager or otherwise. You weren't even on the team when Razbam went beyond banning people and started publicly attacking the character of myself and members of ED's staff. We're going to end up right back where we started if what you're considering "abuse of team members" extends to asking for the very honest clarification you're providing with this post, like it did with me. I agree that integrity is important. I may be wrong here, but I don't think it's harassment to ask that Prowler have some and offer this apology himself.

Harker, just some discussions in Discord. I'm only asking to head any misunderstandings off at the pass about what the things are despite what the airplanes call them.

That's correct. Can ED comment on whether this GRID entry is going to be in the described MGRS format from the NATOPS, or UTM format? I'm hearing rumblings that this is actually strictly UTM, in which case that's going to be a huge disappointment, or there has been a misunderstanding somewhere. Back during this timeframe, MGRS format was colloquially referred to as GRID or UTM in a lot of aircraft, but it was still functionally MGRS. For reference, 11S 767155 3599524 is a UTM grid coordinate. 11S QR 67155 99524 is the same location, based on UTM, in MGRS format (the jet calls this UTM). 2008 NATOPS, VII-24-23 - VII-24-32