VampireNZ

Well, noting the Threads title - [FIXED IN NEXT UPDATE] At least the next Viper update will be a bumper one! (Trying to look for the silver lining here) Shame it will just be full of fixes to stuff that was working and is now broken, not an actual increase in systems functionality. Actually - genuine question. Is there any testing whatsoever at all for new code before patch update, or just wing it and hope it works, noting it is EA and you can just fix it next patch (which I mean is fair enough given we are on Beta)? But I would have thought a quick 5 min flight before release would have identified the radar elevation borked, 30 secs airborne and you would realise the steerpoints don't work etc...

What are you laughing at, am trying to help you? I am not talking about bar scan either. As I said, you have no control over the 'actual' antenna elevation direction if tgt locked in TWS, but it will return to that elevation if bug tgt dropped. Now probably isn't the best time to worry about it anyway, as many people have noted all over the DCS forum, the radar elevation is broken after last update.

The co-ords would more than likely be loaded into his/her data txfr cartridge (DTC) for insertion into the jet during pre-flight. If they were already in flight then received co-ords then yea by all means just enter them manually - it takes less than 10 seconds using the ICP. For an aircraft to use a Very High Frequency (VHF) Omni-Directional Range (VOR) for navigation it requires specific antennas, avionics boxes, and indicators onboard the aircraft to enable this. Aircraft don't just 'use VOR' by default. In this particular fighter jet VOR is seen as unnecessary due to precision GPS navigation and TACAN, and as such excluded from the design. TBH the easiest way would just be a Bullseye bearing and distance, as you could just mark a point on your FCR using the cursor readout at that exact point, and subsequently fly to the SP.

Feature of the RADAR in TWS mode: Without a bugged target, the azimuth scan centres on the cursors and elevation is controlled manually. When a target is bugged, the azimuth is biased to keep the bugged target in the scan and the elevation is centred on the bugged target. If the antenna elevation is tilted while the pilot has a bugged target, upon dropping the bug, the elevation scan will move according to what the pilot commanded to reflect the position set by the antenna elevation controls.

Yep - enter it's coordinates as a steerpoint! :thumbup: Not flying a Cessna 172 here...jks lol.

"Effective translational lift (ETL) occurs with the helicopter at about 16 to 24 knots, when the rotor—depending on size, blade area, and RPM of the rotor system—completely outruns the re circulation of old vortexes and begins to work in relatively undisturbed air." Obviously dependant on wind and a/c weight also. Lots of great sources of heli aerodynamics info on the net to learn all about the subject. https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-04-203.pdf https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/helicopter_flying_handbook/ Chapter 2 http://www.aerostudents.com/courses/rotorcraft-mechanics-and-design/SeddonBasicHelicopterAerodynamics.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790009640.pdf

Good choice. F-5 is a great little aircraft and I still jump in it now and then for some basic flight. Nice simple systems and as you say will be a good springboard for the more advanced modules in the future. I will say thou, don't think you have to jump straight in and know everything about operating all systems in the more 'advanced' aircraft like the Hornet or Viper straight up, and let that prevent you from purchasing it. You can do exactly everything in the Hornet or Viper that you can do in the F-5...i.e precision flying, basic circuits and landings, gunnery and dumb bombs with no HUD guidance - heck just turn the HUD off if it is too much information. Don't turn the radar on, forget about the MFD pages etc. You can easily just work your way up through the absolute basics with the more advanced aircraft too. But once you have mastered the F-5, the jump will be more manageable to the advanced jets with minimal 'learning' time. :thumbup:

Personally I have no interest at all in it but as others have mentioned, the F/A-18 is probably your best bet. It seems to be ED's priority as far as development goes and gets everything well before the Viper. No Campaign thou but there are a lot of single missions and 'ongoing' missions that will re-spawn targets for you over and over with radio commands etc. in the DCS User Files section, such as https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3306210/ A lot of systems on a lot of modules are borked at the moment, so don't really expect anything to work properly, but that's EA for ya. Stick to the Huey if you want the aircraft to work lol. Also have you considered the Harrier? Very capable A-G aircraft and 'relatively' simple to use in comparison to the A-10, plus much faster and VTOL is interesting.

It is a little strange that they developed the least useful ways to add steerpoints using the ICP first thou lol...

Agree, you would generally use the DEST page for adding additional steerpoints to your flight plan, i.e. not the active steerpoint. Is a better method as the SP does not have to be 'active' at the time of editing, as with the LIST-INS or STPT page methods. I.e While inbound using AP set to STRG SEL and you are faffing with SP precision or addition for later points in the flight. Wags actually used the STPT page to add a single steerpoint as he had none at all, so it's not like he was using a current SP and adding another, which is also a legit way to 'add' the position of your current JTAC tgt as he mentions. Just not sure why he didn't mention the DEST page method, which is more 'useful' if you have an actual pre-planned route already - maybe they are not modelling it? Edit: LIST-DEST page currently shows 'Under Development'...

After 7 years, it's probably a good idea to make peace with the fact you are never going to see one then. :megalol:

There, there - it's ok lil' buddy, there is no need to cry because someone made a logical and measured argument that contradicts what you believe. Everything is going to be alright...

I actually had that TWS cycle bug before the patch - two aircraft in close spread formation directly in front of me at 40-50nm, and TWS would only lock one of them and TMS right wouldn't switch to other target that should have been just as lockable as the first target. Subsequently you could only launch on one target in TWS.

Agree, would also happily pay for a comprehensive heli-ops DLC module.

That...explains a lot :helpsmilie:

Interesting theory - I will leave a picture below of two 'dumb' weapons the CCRP computer can calculate a release point for and subsequently hit the target, and let you decide if the CCRP mode of weapons release, which knows what weapon you are dropping, can handle the 'movable fins and other components that generate more drag' of a 'PGM'. Yes you are correct, there is an automatic laser firing time which is missing from the ICP along with 95% of the other functions available from that panel at the moment, see below.

Thank You for finally reducing the texture sizes to a realistic level. Much appreciated.....thou I still think it was all a sneaky ploy to get ppl to buy the module seeing as how it was hogging their M2 drive anyway lol...which I did, and I do quite enjoy it so not a complete loss!

Interestingly watching one of the latest KW vids the chap was explaining how no sim really 'feels' right, or similar to the actual aircraft, which is absolutely true and all professional flight sims have their own 'sim-isms' which vary from the actual aircraft. I think this really means the devs give the SME's what they think they want in terms of handling etc. within their abilities to program flight dynamics, which the SME's test and just say well nothing 'feels' like the real aircraft anyway so hey this is pretty close - goes up and down, left and right, is 'fun' (which I see is all a lot of ppl in this thread really care about anyway, which is fine) etc...lets get these systems all showing the right indications cause that is a 1 or 0 type deal. So you end up with something like the Gazelle... If I was a fan of the Kiowa I would be stoked to get another zippy little RC helicopter in DCS too, but I am very happy to wait for the Mi-24. :thumbup:

+1 on that idea.

So....giving them a realistic response to a missile specifically launched in a non-active radar mode that gives no launch (FCR activation) warning to the target aircraft until the actual missile radar goes active at very short range.....is making them stupid and easy targets? Thats the WHOLE POINT of using that radar mode to launch in, and the reason for it's existance! You don't fire weapons and try to kill people and give them as much help as possible and 'not too easy'. You make it as easy on you and as unfair on them as absolutely possible! None of this 1v1 mano e' mano fair fight crap - you fight 3v1 and destroy them. I realise you are just trying to make an argument for the current behaviour, it was just a very poor one. Perhaps AI would be better off reacting to player aircraft within MRM launch range by precautionary chaffing and offsetting/notching at a reasonable rate (like the player has to) and launching on/processing their targets as they close, instead of reacting instantly to a specific BVR missile launch by using 'the force'.

Need more UFO/F-5 with Quantum Singularity Drive propulsion system flight model!

Not particularly. If you can't hold a sustained 9G pull - you don't fly Vipers, easy. The Viper is a 9G-capable aircraft...every day, not now and then when the pilot is having a good day. The Air Force isn't all like - 'most the time our pilots can handle the 9G that the aircraft is capable of, when they are having a bad day they just G-LOC and die...but hey that's life'.... I absolutely expect my 'DCS digital pilot' to be able to meet this 9G metric each and every flight, with appropriate 'G-warmup' etc.

Technically the laser doesn't need to be fired 'the entire time until impact' as you say, only in the last 8 or so seconds of flight. If you have performed a stable CCRP release on a good tgt location then ideally the bomb would actually hit the target regardless of laser guidance or not (wind allowing etc), it is still just a bomb that you targeted and released using CCRP, with 'added' precision available. You never lase immediately following release of GBU with Paveway I & II guidance anyway to allow the bomb to follow it's natural ballistic trajectory, and gain plenty of kinetic energy to allow precision guidance later in flight, and the associated loss of energy due to manoeuvring. With early Paveway I & II guidance if you lase immediately then the bomb will guide itself off its natural trajectory directly at the laser spot - which could mean the bomb possibly won't have enough energy to even reach the target due to the 'bang bang' method of canard movement/course correction that eats up a lot of kinetic energy. So 'holding the trigger' for a few seconds is not quite as onerous a task as you initially thought.

Not as cynical a statement as it seems - noting the last 'major' update for the Viper consisted of a sum total of 14 'additions', which seems extremely low for a module in EA and 'under development' (lowest of any' active' module by a long way)- and half of them were lighting/visual/a typo.... You know you are struggling when you need to pad your 'update' list with typo corrections. :megalol: Just jks - no one here is actually expecting any real development or feature additions/completions for a year or so anyway, so no biggie.