Xavven

Just tested it. On WPN page of maverick in VIS mode, WPN is SOI, and it's ground stabilized after following my steps posted above. I press TMS aft and three things happen: TD Box snaps to flight path marker and follows it HUD becomes SOI Maverick snaps to TD Box and follows it (if I slew, both maverick and TD box move together) but it is not ground stabilized until I press TMS fwd I then lock and fire. The behavior on the next missile is that it is roughly boresighted -- it is not following the TD box or the FPM, and the worst part is it has no HUD indication either (normally it's a circle). I kinda suspect this is a bug

Oh! Good to hear. That kind of censorship made no sense to me.

Press DMS fwd to make HUD SOI, then press TMS aft. Now slew the targeting cursor (TDC?) on or near your target and press TMS fwd. SOI changes to your WPN screen. Now your maverick in VIS mode will be ground stabilized. If you lock on the wrong object and press TMS aft while WPN is SOI, the maverick stops being ground stabilized. I don't know if this is a bug... Also, after launching a maverick and it switches to the next one, it doesn't seem to ground stabilize until you do the whole DMS fwd, TMS aft, slew, TMS fwd thing again. It's a pain!

Because calling it by name instead of using the term "that other sim" gets your post deleted. At least as of a few months ago mods were still doing that.

Ah, thank you. I stand corrected. I'm gonna go fix all my custom loadouts tonight.

Can't remember where I read this, but if I'm not mistaken, IRL it's typical to take 1 centerline tank for A-A loadouts, and it's typical to take 2 wing tanks but no centerline tank for A-G loadouts. This doesn't seem to be reflected in the default loadouts in DCS, so I wonder if ED has different information. It's certainly no A-10, but for simple missions like "go here, send 2 mavericks, go home" 2 tanks seems plenty to me.

I'm not a career programmer but I'm in IT and develop some very basic applications in .NET. A DLL file can contain almost any code you want. It's possible, likely even, that the flight model is hard coded and in a DLL instead of loaded externally from a LUA file. I don't really know because I'm not on the ED development team. But personally, I routinely put multiple projects into separate DLLs. It's certainly one way to do modular programming.

Yep... mine has a modified date of 5/21/2021, which is last Friday:

Yeah, just did a couple landings now, one clean with low fuel and one with wingtip AIM-120s and 6000 lbs fuel and in both cases I seem to aerobrake much more easily.

Good tip -- look up the "Maverick Keyhole" and make sure you have less than 30° of bank angle to ensure the maverick tracks after launch.

I'd probably want a TGP for that use case. This isn't an all-or-nothing argument -- the TGP is a tool that should be used when it's the right tool for the job. But somehow the A-10A was able to employ mavericks in several conflicts without one.

It certainly works better in the A-10C right now, specifically AGM-65D and the TGP together. I have not had much success with auto-handoff in the F-16. Therefore, if using the TGP at all and PRE mode, I'll just get the TGP on/near the target and then use the WPN page to make the fine adjustments and lock. If the maverick seeker isn't behaving correctly for any reason, give it a TMS aft on the WPN page and that often fixes it. If that doesn't work, TMS aft, then cycle the mode through VIS/BORE and back to PRE. But honestly VIS mode is my go-to. First off, boresighting with the TGP is just a chore IMO, and secondly I generally try to fly with my head out of the cockpit. If I spot something with my Mk 1 eyeballs, the TGP is just an unnecessary middleman. Get WPN page up and set to VIS mode. Then when you roll in, get the target in the HUD, then memorize this sequence: DMS fwd, TMS aft, slew box on target, TMS fwd. Look at WPN page to make fine tune adjustments and TMS fwd again to lock, and fire.

'sall good, man.

^^ Yes, that's my question too, and the source of much of our past discussions in some other threads. Can anyone authoritatively confirm?

Yeah, I really just pressed TMS fwd in order to switch from Area to Point. I didn't want a handoff at all. Is MAN supposed to do a handoff? I thought it wasn't supposed to, but sure enough my WPN page shows "Handoff in progress". I also thought only the AGM-65D would do a handoff, and yet it does this with the AGM-65H too. Am I mistaken or is this implemented incorrectly? My preferred method is VIS anyway. I'm usually spotting a target with Mk 1 eyeball first, and the TGP I've found is slower to get mavs on target than just slewing the HUD cursor onto the thing.

I was able to reproduce this problem. When I switch to point track, the TMS up initiates a handoff and then my mav is stuck in ground stabilization mode. Same behavior in both D and H models.

JSOW will be cool to have though

As I believe the bomb's code has to be set by ground crews IRL, it would make mores sense for them to remove the A-10/Hornet in-flight capability and allow the bomb's codes to be set only in the mission editor and the alt-' rearming menu on the ground. That's just my personal preference, anyway.

I would, but that's not how they're used IRL if I'm not mistaken. About six years ago, someone who I presume has shot these IRL explained it on the A-10C forums:

I know. We had that discussion already. I'm kinda tired of re-hashing it. We're on the same page. No need to convince me of anything.

A very good point! What fuel levels for the hornet and viper would give roughly the same time to empty on full burner? I ask because I own the F-16 module and I can figure out time to empty based on 80,000 PPH, but I don't own the F-18 and have no idea of its fuel consumption.

Yep! I watched that video a few weeks ago when I was running my own tests. I'm not a fan of GR but they had some interesting data here that I thought was helpful. I also realize I just made a mistake and used the 23775 lbs figure that GR were using for their 50% fuel and I should have been using 22000 lbs, or adjusting my turn rate down by 2 deg/sec. So I have to retract my earlier post. I set the chart to 25% fuel to get 9983 kg (22000 lbs) https://dcs.silver.ru/66-824 And I just realized I used the wrong mach # too. Boy, what a night. Okay, so .7 mach is more like 466 knots. And the chart at dcs.silver.ru shows 20.1 deg/sec for DCS performance at 3000 ft. The EM chart says 21.5 deg/sec at sea level. That actually does sound right! So I think what's going on here is F-16 performance is correct. It's the F-18 turn performance that is highly suspect now, as it's outrating the Viper and by all accounts from IRL pilots that should not be the case.

That data was gathered from DCS. There's a link at the bottom of the page to a video showing us how he did it. Looks like he has a mod that flies the plane to exact parameters and measures how long it takes to go 360°. It's almost flawless robotic flying, better than any human could do it. At this point, I highly suspect we're running into the backfire effect. https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/05/13/backfire-effect-mcraney/ I'm seeing all sorts of attempts to move the goalposts and otherwise deny the evidence because it doesn't conform to your preexisting beliefs. All the evidence points to the F-16 being outrated by the F-18 when in equal configurations and now we're going to claim it's a center of gravity issue? C'mon.

Yep, I just saw it and acknowledged it a few seconds ago . In the time it took me to write that, there were like 8 new posts. LOL But yeah, thanks for providing that info.

Ah, karasawa again has the answer. We should see a 3 deg/sec difference over 5000 feet. So again, if the data on https://dcs.silver.ru/66-1595 is to be believed, our Viper is underperforming.