nickos86

if you got something in PB17 - it will use it. Else - UFC

Note, there is not digital ALT map correlated to the RDR for the 15E. If you designate a target while the waypoint you fly to (via UFC) or picked up in the RDR is far from the designation - you'll get a large ALT error because the plane will try to interpolate the ALT.

In general DCS got quite a gap in all related to ground unit damage modeling and the effects caused by a weapon onto a specific unit. Just as you've pointed out, IRL you won't see a "DCS style" explosion when a charge hits a unit. It's not a GBU12 The "explosion effect" simply showed when the unit get destructed. You can argue that currently the damage effect and units damage models not modeled well... I'll be the first to agree with that.

So it should have been: "Fixed: TGP+GPS guided weapons = 15-20m Miss. Note: 3 Second laser or AGR required before release for increased accuracy." There should be nothing special about the GBU-38 in comparison to the rest of the GPS weapons.

Why would the GBU38 procedure be different vs the GBU31? Is the 38 a test bed for JDAM FM and features?

Hi, The increased accuracy followed by 3sec of lasing or AGR - is it a weapon thing? Is it relevant to all modules? Or is it a platform thing? In this case, what mechanism was flawed and now is modeled correctly? ED, could you please share some info regarding this fix? Thanks. Fixed: TGP+GBU38 = 15-20m Miss. Note: 3 Second laser or AGR required before release for increased accuracy.

An interesting feature. If you designate a target via the RDR while the waypoint selected in the UFC is in the target area, the TPOD cues automatically to the designation and the elevation is quite close to the actual one (comparing to the F10 map). If you des a target via the RDR while the waypoint selected in the UFC is FAR from the target area- the delta between the RDR des and a TPOD will drastically vary. Attached two pictures. The target area is at waypoint 2. The target coordinated from the F10 map are: N 30°21.066' E 34°50.382' and alt of 1385ft For the first picture ,I've entered waypoint 2.A into the UFC and designated a TGT . The coordinates are very accurate. Same for elevation - 1380 vs 1385 ft. As for the second picture, I've entered waypoint 1A to the UFC and designated the target. Note that now the elev is 1900 ft! Something to consider and take into account when designating targets using the radar. After seeing the following thread: KlarSnow important input: "The Air to ground radar pulls the elevation from the steerpoint you have input at PB 17 in the upper right of the radar display. If you do not have a steerpoint up there, it pulls from the closest steerpoint. This is why your targetting pod is pointing in the air. It has no way to generate elevation off of an HRM map, only coordinates." So it's a good habit to set the steerpoint closest to target into PB17. But, seems like the "if you don't have a steerpoint up there, it pulls from the closest steerpoint" - doesn't work as intended. Rather, it pull data from the waypoint set in the UFC.

I'll try again. AGL= above ground level (height). In ME if you put 0 AGL - it should always stay zero. Doesn't matter if it is below sea level or on the Everest. MSL= mean sea level (altitude). If in ME you put 0 MSL - it should become the altitude above the sea level. if you set the WP on top mount Everest and dial 0 at MSL in the ME it should become 29029ft (but AGL should be 0!) In DCS (and I've attached a screenshot) - if you set MSL 0 - it automatically become the correct altitude. BUT if you set AGL=0 then it become 98ft instead! You can verify by moving the ALT back to MSL and you'll get MSL+98ft. This is WRONG. If you set a JDAM attack on a WP and in the ME you set the alt to 0 while in AGL - you'll probably miss the target because the alt becomes 98ft above the actual target. @BIGNEWY and @NineLine please take a look. Thanks.

Thanks for the responses! I would be cool if there was this kind of option in the stock version without using mods (perhaps even copy coordinates to the built in kneeboard).

Hi, When trying to create/edit a waypoint from the F10 map to the aircraft you need to remember the coordinates and sometime go F10>F1 and back a ffew times. That would be very cool if by pressing a keybind, the coordinates will be displayed in a message window for 30-40 seconds. Allowing enough time to get back to the F1 view and enter the coordinates into the UFC/ICP/whatever. Thanks!

Use the visor, same keybind as the NVG. It fix the visibility problem.

Much better than only a 4 way keybind for those who doesn't have axis for it. Thanks

@BIGNEWYWhen you share a roadmap, change it along the way and inform the community when doing so - you don't get slammed. Communication is KEY. You get slammed when you don't communicate... For instance, up until not so long ago every one was upset because you haven't updated the SC module. You showed pics of the ready room but months later - nothing happened. Only AFTER you've explained that you must have VULKAN working for it to be implemented properly - people understood what's going on. Keep us in the loop with changes you’ve making... We're getting that things might change along the way. It much more frustrating to be kept in the dark.

Hi, Just like the title says. If you put a 0 in the AGL, the game will automatically add 98ft to it (to verify, change to MSL after you've put AGL 0 and see how it gets actual MSL height + 98ft). The MSL on its own work fine. If you initially enter a 0 - the ME will change it to the actual MSL with out adding anything. For those who build missions and use steer points for JDAM attacks - this will cause the bombs to miss (I GUESS, the addition of the 98ft was done to prevent mistakenly dividing by 0 somewhere in the code...) it's an annoying bug causing bombs miss. Please fix it.

Roger, thanks!

Hi, Not sure if it's a bug or a feature - in the last two patches my special options revert back to default values across all modules. ED, Is it on purpose? Anyone else having this issue? If not - any way to prevent this from happening? Thanks.

With the addition of the wonderful F-15E a great feature was added - the RCD option - pressing it will start creating PNG screenshots of the relevant MFD. Same would be awesome for the rest of the modules. Two possible options: A. Adding a "special option" that when selected will create a HUD screenshot every time the weapon drop button is pressed and the MASTER ARM is in ARM/SIM state. That way it will be possible to debrief the CCIP attacks much better. B. With AVTR (or relevant system in the other jets) selected - the system will start generating screenshots every second or so. Thanks!

Can you update regarding the B-52 and more importantly the S-3B tanker? As part of "Super carrier" experience, the S-3B is vital. You've posted many videos now with both this models seems complete... What's holding you off from releasing it? Same question regarding the Phalanx CIWS - can you update about it's state? Thanks.

Dear ED, following the release of the Syria and Sinai theaters where there are vast areas that located below sea level - it would be great if you could develop the terrain engine to allow it in game. Seeing the Sea of Galilee or the Dead sea at sea level is just heart breaking Moreover, please develop the technology for "underground units" - For example, many Israeli HAS are dug into the ground. Same can be applied for bunkers and additional units. It will make the penetration bomb actually useful and a weapon of choice in many scenarios. Thanks!

Can you give an update regarding the TEWS?

No offence, but the VoIP got no advantages over SRS (that already got all required features and beyond) - why bother? The SRS is pretty much the standard on all MP servers and works great... BTW, can you share any news regarding the B-52 and the S-3B? Thanks.

@NineLine, that's a great decision. Thanks. Can you say where the Sniper stands at the moment? Is it a priority? Are there major technologies you need to develop in order to add it to the Viper? Thanks.

While i see your general point, note that the time period is 2004 for VFA-34 that flew F/A-18C at the time (see their official naval website). More over, during the video you can see the symbology many time and see it's as in the DCS version. For example 10:06... But you can find many examples. I don't have a written evidence but video uploaded by aviators showing the OFFSET behavior is not something that I think you should just dismiss. The implementation shown in the video make sense. It gives the operator real GAIN and functionality. While the current behavior in DCS simply make no sense (no offence )... It is not beneficial to the pilot what so ever.. ED, don't dismiss videos. You want to make a great product just as we do. Gladly there are evidence in the open that demonstrate a different behavior so there is an opportunity to improve the Hornet. Please review the video and consider fixing it. Thanks.

@BIGNEWY,how come a video is not a "public documented evidence"?! He shared a video at the specific second that shows how the offset really works... What more do you need?!

@toilet2000I've lost hope for a change to come. We already showed this video in the past and got a [CORRECT AS IT] without even getting a comment from ED... So..