ChickenSim

That part hasn't been implemented yet. For now, they just fixed the CCIP reticle dropping below the HUD FOV (it's marked as WIP). To clarify, the dashed reticle simply indicates that the actual impact point exists somewhere below the HUD FOV. So in order to get the solid reticle, you need to position the aircraft in such a way that the impact point is inside the HUD FOV. This is optimized by flying faster and diving toward the ground, or some combination of the two (although diving is preferable, since it provides an inherently more accurate result).

This is solved by manually inputting the target coordinates or getting a good visual talk-on or mark (smoke/flare/impacts/etc.) to the target area. As long as the bomb is properly coded and dropped in such a manner that it can both see the properly-coded laser spot and physically reach it, you're golden. No TPOD necessary.

I can't confirm this but I think DCS as an engine fudges quite a bit of the core CCIP mechanics in order to accommodate the coded weapon FMs. In years of flying the A-10C (which should be even more victimized by these target elevation source drawbacks flying without a pod), I've never personally witnessed these kinds of CCIP errors you'd expect to see without a pod fulfilling ARBS functions. I know DCS models the varying accuracy of pulled grids with and without using a laser rangefinder, but I'm not confident that this has any bearing on how CCIP functions in the sim. In the actual Harrier, this would also be presented to the pilot as a completely different mode on the HUD as well. CCIP, BCIP (Baro), GCIP (GPS), and RCIP (Radar) depending on the selected source and accuracy.

Complicating matters is that the V/STOL OLS is only one part of a two-part system, the other being the Hover Position Indicator (HPI) which you're supposed to transition to use in close where the OLS becomes inaccurate. The V/STOL OLS gets you close enough to visually ID the HPI, and then you use the HPI down to the deck. There is a position light on an armature that, when viewed against a grid of lights behind it, is used to depict your relative fore/aft position and altitude above the deck. The HPI isn't modeled right now.

I was told by Razbam staff that RCS damage is modeled but I don't have a reliable way to simulate or verify it myself.

Any damage to the following locations could hypothetically cause problems with the RCS and resultant uncommanded maneuvers. The RCS system activates and strengthens as you nozzle in, and the slower you go the more pronounced those effects will be. This may not be the actual cause of the problems you're facing, but just keep it in mind to rule out the possibility of RCS damage when you experience these landing issues.

Unfortunately I don't think there's any indication except perhaps having a wingman do a BDA check for holes near where those bleed air pipes are. IIRC, the checklist or student guides mention that if you suspect damage to the RCS to attempt a CL.

Depending on the damage you took, it might have punctured the RCS bleed air system, meaning your plane will fly fine under wingborne flight, but when you go into jetborne flight and your flight surfaces begin to lose their stabilizing authority, this leaking bleed air will result in the plane going out of control.

It's a bit ironic that 1111 should be a valid code for the LMAV but not a GBU (1511-1788 only). But LMAV may work with 1111 if you manually command it so rather than just go with the Weight on Wheels automatic reset to 1111, I would try that.

As a guy who just spent 3 hours JTACing for a huge inter-squadron DCS event, I think it would be a real mistake to turn CA into an RTS. Simply put, turning it into an RTS would make it so that battles develop even faster than they already do at times, which actually reduces the effect all these aircraft are going to have in a battlefield so dynamic that they (and their controllers) won't be able to cope with the changing situation. In reality, battles develop very slowly by comparison. The fog of war, friction, moving from cover to cover, time it takes to communicate and interpret orders, and self-preservation instincts of people make it that way, as do the suppressive effects of fires on the battlefield. In CA right now, I can already order a platoon of M1A1s to charge like cavalry into a line of T-90s and get slaughtered by ATGMs. Making CA even more gamey will have unintended consequences of eliminating any real semblance of future ground simulation. Now that's not to say I wouldn't appreciate certain aspects of RTS games implemented into CA (the Suppression mechanics of the Steel Division series would be great, as would more transparency to the user about unit behaviors and why they are or are not following orders). But what I'd really appreciate far more are more "instructor station" controls, similar to Zeus in the Arma series. Something that gives a game master, JTAC, ABM/AWACS/GCI, or C2 agency more control over what is shown to the players to tell a story or make a battle end up like they'd like it to. Functions like: Ambient battlefield effects such as smokescreens, artillery smoke marks, or artillery illumination flares. Ambient battle effects such as ineffective tracer fire simulating suppressing a target, without ammunition constraints. Artillery strikes that could be set to hit a target at a specific TOT, for use suppressing (or simulating the suppression of) targets or threats. More dynamic, automated unit movement (such as maneuvering infantry forces, tanks jockeying in and out of cover, etc.) Dynamic game master control over weather, to simulate changing conditions (impending sandstorms/duststorms/thunderstorms) Synchronized clouds between multiplayer clients so that we can actually use them. Longer lasting fires and smoke plumes for destroyed targets, or customizable dynamic smoke plumes. Dust trails left by moving vehicles in desert environments, for easier target target recognition at a distance. The implementation of features like these would open up a world of opportunity in multiplayer and make CA more than worth its current pricetag. If you've ever played one of Baltic_Dragon's single-player campaigns, imagine that but dynamically generated by a Game/Dungeon Master and a cadre of role-players fulfilling various interactive speaking roles. As it stands now, I can't even show players ground forces moving and shooting each other without possibly jeopardizing the target I'm calling them in on being destroyed before they get there! IMHO, CA shouldn't be catering to a Team Deathmatch crowd, it should exist to serve the air combat immersion and provide for a great flying experience. ${1}

I've been warning people about this for a while, even Cold Start videos are going to be outdated pretty soon.

Yep, no worries. As long as the point comes across and everyone understands, verbiage differences aren't an issue at all, I just found them interesting. Hell, verbiage differences and language barriers are one of the reasons you'd do a Type 1 in the first place, so it was probably appropriate. :) Either way, this is the best example of this I've seen in DCS, so keep 'em coming.

I also gave you my thoughts on Discord already, but I'll post them here for posterity so they don't get lost in the chat backlog. This is a great example of a simple Type 1 control. Don't take the rest the wrong way, I'm going harder on you because you're legit and you are going for accuracy. :) GOODS: - A-10 checked in with position and altitude. - You were immediately directive with where to put him upon initial contact and Pt E passed. - Didn't pass irrelevant parts of the Situation Update. - Gave intent for fires, yes! - Good Contact and Captured calls, proper usage. - Good job actually trying to assess nose position in CA. I say F that noise because the interface is not good. - "Kill everything, with everything, simultaneously" a man after my own heart. OTHERS: - Elevation usually isn't necessary for Pt E unless it is the target grid and out of convenience. - Didn't hear A-10 pass playtime in Check-in. - Lines 1-3 passed as "10" rather than "Charlie 10", room for confusion. - We usually preface Line 4 with "Elevation" after using Keyhole in 1-3 to prevent confusion. - Readbacks given prior to restrictions? Wastes time having to give them twice with more A/C on station. - Tally might not have been proper if he didn't look outside the cockpit, unclear. - "Hawg's IN, 360" with a maneuvering inverted aircraft that hasn't completed its roll-in and gone wings level. Interesting Verbiage Differences: (not necessarily wrong) - "Posit" vs "Position and altitude" - "Echo point" vs "Point Echo" - "Break" between N and E grids vs natural pause in cadence - "Blocking" vs "Block" - "Targeting pod talk-on" vs just "Talk-on" or "Sensor talk-on" (no VDL) - "Egress West" (from C10) vs "Left pull" - "Between 340 and 020" vs "Final attack heading 340 through 020" - "Departing IP" vs "IP Inbound" - "Hawg 11 Off West" vs "Off safe, two away" Great work, man. I would say it may not be super accessible for people not already familiar with the execution template or the process, but you did what you could with the subtitle explanations. You also don't sound super confident with the material. I recommend a few rehearsals prior to the next one so it sounds less like you're either thinking it up on the spot or reading it off a script. I definitely want to see more. Also, I didn't know you had a second video so I guess I'll have to go check that out too.

For reference: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=225340 The AGM-65F does not have a true Force Correlate mode, but it does have a manual lock which the weapon can accept or reject depending on the infrared image contrast.

LMAVs should be able to take the full range of laser codes from 1111 to 1788. Reported that it can't take anything higher than 1688 in-game. Not being able to set 1775 or 1776 reduces the psychological impact of the weapon on the target and decreases the morale of the hosting platform.

Per Harrier TACMANs, a ~20-21s TOF fired from 5,000' HAT at Mach 0.5 (~325 knots) equates to a horizontal launch distance of ~3.3 NM and an impact velocity of roughly 975 fps (577 knots). EDIT: He actually fired at 205 KTAS, closer to M0.3. Harrier charts compute a ~20-21s TOF from 5,000' HAT at M 0.3 (195 knots) equates to a horizontal launch distance of 2.6 NM and impact velocity of 900 fps (533 knots).

I am willing to bet that it is to protect themselves from then having to model every weapon an F/A-18 from any nation or service has ever carried. If they include Gs for the benefit of KAF Hornets, they'll be compelled to include Ds and possibly other weapons that they didn't intend to include in their scope. They may not have documentation detailing things like valid ordnance loads, HUD and DDI symbology, or guidance/FM data for these weapons. The more guessing required, the more fidelity you lose.

Foreign customers did purchase and use AGM-65G on their Hornets. The Kuwait Air Force was one such customer that purchased a few hundred Ds and Gs with their Hornet purchase in 1992; however, these Hornets had to be specially modified with new software in 1993 which US Navy Hornets never benefitted from. To be clear, I never advocated for their removal from the DCS module, I just asked why they were being included. ED is committed to modeling a US Navy Hornet and the US Navy Hornets can't (never could) use Gs without modifications they never actually received.

Taking out four targets in a single pass with fire and forget missiles is, unfortunately, another thing the aircraft shouldn't really be capable of doing. This is an arcade trick shot that's only viable in DCS due to its current system of locking onto objects/entities rather than an image, and Force Correlate locking onto ground coordinates instead of using image/scene expansion. I'm not saying that you shouldn't do it, because it's perfectly viable in the sim right now, but expecting that capability as a necessary feature is going to leave you disappointed down the road when the IR environment is redone, Force Correlate inaccuracies are modeled, and the damage model is improved. In this hypothetical future, even with Gs your reliable locking ranges are going to be cut down and half your weapons are going to be missing their targets if F/C is used. You're going to want to withhold your shot as long as possible (as long as the threat will allow you) in order to ensure the highest likelihood of hitting and subsequently damaging your target. I'm not trying to be a dick or a gatekeeper of realism or anything. I'm just trying to help manage expectations if you do lose the ability to slick off four missiles in one pass for one reason or another. Anything after 1 is already a bonus.

Put simply I don't think anyone here can tell you how ED intends to model the F or whether some quirk of how DCS targeting works will allow you to designate a non-vehicle target or not. Modeled properly, the F should be able to be slewed to a target designation or a target of opportunity and manually locked onto the target position based on its IR significance. How the missile calculates whether an IR signature is significant enough for a good lock or how ED intends to model what constitutes a bad lock is up in the air.

I'm sorry to report that that's not how Force Correlate is supposed to work. That's the easy button I'm describing. It's improperly modeled to be far too capable and should probably be the real target for your ire, not its absence.

The weapon locks onto the image contrast of a heat source, like how any other IIR Maverick works. Don't shoot the messenger just because you've grown accustomed to using Force Correlate as an unrealistic crutch. I didn't code Mavericks to treat Force Correlate like an easy button.

The AGM-65F can still be used on ground targets. IIRC it just also has a ship attack mode.

The AGM-65G on the Harrier is a placeholder for the F when it is released.

Thank you for investigating further. I can't say that I'm happy that a weapon was removed (I'm usually a "more is better" person), but it does reflect your guys' commitment to authenticity. And really, the Navy didn't need that Air Force missile anyway, it'll be just fine with Fs alongside its USMC Harrier brethren.