mattebubben

Now that im using the Autoconfig im not getting DC from the 104th (was still getting it from other servers when i first tried but now im just playing on the 104th and its all fine there). But instead im getting another problem that might be related to this fix. There is a lagg for my weapons,when i launch them i see them hit the target but then nothing happens. And it might take 3-5 minutes before the damage is registered and the target is killed. (Some times ive been able to launch at the target go back to base re-arm and be back on the way to the target when the targets i attacked on the first sortie die) I did not have this problem before i used the Autoexe (but instead i was booted from the 104th 90% of the time) and it does not seem to plague most other Viggen pilots ive encountered on the server =P. Does anybody else have a similar problem? (and is it caused by the Autoexe fix). Since while i can now fly its kinda annoying that you cant really do much as your weapons dont do damage right away. (And if there are other friendlies in the target area they will generally kill the targets you have already hit before that 3-5 min delay catches up).

RB75 is the Swedish variant of the AGM-65A. RB75T is the Same Missile but with a heavy 130kg similar to some later Maverick Variants and is designed to be used against larger / heavier targets like Buildings and Ships etc where the heavy deep penetrating warhead is needed. RB75B is the AGM-65B (With a Fictional Swedish designation) and the AGM-65B has a More Zoomed in Seeker allowing to see and lock targets at longer range.

ooh he was?. Then it was not correct. But if its possible to the same with Bx9 that would be correct. Though not intended ofc.

I wondered how many would try to use this Self destruct feature as a impromptu Cruise missile xD. It depends on what exactly the Self Destruct in the RB 15F is programmed to do. If it would cause the Missile to Detonate mid air the yes this would be Do-Able and realistic. If it would cause the missile to crash with a live warhead causing the warhead to Detonate yes this would be Doable. If it would cause the Missile To crash after rendering the Warhead safe/inert then it would be less likely to work realistically. Only question for me is the risk the radar would mis-identify something on land as a ship and hit it though with the modern nature of the Seeker of the RB 15 i assume that risk to be smaller. If either of the first are true for the way the missile works then this is a fully valid / realistic use (though it might not be intended use / doctrine) and will be interesting to see how people decide to use it. My guess is it wont be too uncommon in MP to see ppl try to use it as an Anti-Runway/Anti Airfield Cruise Missile by making it self destruct over an airfield as shown in this video.

I think its Behind Enemy Lines from 2001. Its soo stupid that Hollywood keeps doing stupid scenes like that... When Top gun proved you can be more realistic when it comes to missiles and still have very intense combat scenes... They could have that scene be just as intense (or more) by making it simply many Realistic missile launches (3-4 missiles forcing him evasive until one of the hit him etc) instead of that stupid chase scene...

Likely both could use some Tweaking. Though the AGM 65B (RB75B) should still have an advantage in lock on range over the normal RB 75.

The nav syst error does not have to mean any significant errors in your waypoints etc. You could get the Nav syst error but still have all of your waypoints where they are supposed to be.

There was no RB 75B realistically (as Sweden never acquired the AGM-65B) so yes the RB 75B is simply a fictional name for the AGM-65B in Swedish service (To accompany the Realistic RB 75 and RB 75T designation) as Leatherneck decided to add the AGM-65B as it would have been compatible with the AJ/AJS 37 even if it was never acquired by Sweden and the additional zoom of the AGM 65B seeker would come in helpful in the game (As Resolution limits etc might make the RB75/AGM 65A even harder to use / see things with then it would have been IRL). Personally i feel like they should simply use the AGM 65B designation instead of the RB 75B (And leave the RB 75 designations for the historical weapons) thereby avoiding any confusion having that additional (non historical) RB 75B designation thrown into the mix.

though does that mean the current Mission editor Numbers are mixed up? Since you can have either 70 chaff (it being the maximum in the ME) and 36 flares. But if you Increase the Flares you can get 136 flares for 36 chaff with the maximum number for the Flares in the ME being 280 so it feels like the numbers are the wrong way around =P. Since having 136 chaff and 36 flares feels atleast a bit closer to what the Manual seems to be Describing then 36 flares and 70 chaff does. And also you used 3.5 chaff dispensing in the quick release mode as the example for figuring out the chaff count. But my reading of manual about that mode leads me to think it does not dispense Chaff and Flares at the same time / same speed. By reading the manual it says in the Quick mode "Chaff is dispensed according to Program 2,with a single flare released every other second" And Program two states. "Chaff is dispensed rapidly with intervals of 2s release and 2.5s pause" (with the previously mention time to empty being 3.5 minutes for chaff and 72 seconds for flares) So it probably depends on how many packets are released in that 2 second period but since it states rapidly i would guess its more then 1 packet per second. Someone might be able to calculate it by using Program 1 as a reference since it states "Chaff is dispensed rapidly total release time 1.5 minutes". So if one assumes (which i would) that they both dispense at the same speed (just that the P1 does it continously where as P2 releases for 2 second with a 2.5 second pause) one might be able to calculate the speed since one knows the time it would take both to empty. But if we go back to the Quick release mode. If the Chaff dispenses for 2 seconds and then 2.5 second pause and the flares dispense every 2 seconds unless only a single chaff packet is released a second (which i feel is unlikely considering they mentioned it being dispensed rapidly) and the Chaff still lasts so much longer then the Flares i feel like the Ratio between Chaff / Flares is probably greater then 2.91 . Could be wrong since math is far from my strong suite though =P. Someone with a better head of maths could look into the numbers stated in the manual and maby try to calculate it. Personally i would probably consider somewhere between 180-360 chaff packets possible. Since with the Chaff release mode it dispensed Rapidly for 1.5 minutes (90 seconds) before empty so here is where allot of assumptions come in. But i would assume that Rapid dispensing would probably mean somewhere between 2-4 chaff a second (since 1 per second would not be that rapid and it would suggest a Chaff count of just 90 which again feels to low considering the size of the Pod etc) So 2 chaff a second would have resulted in 180 chaff packets, 3 a second 270 and 4 would be 360 etc. My personal guess would be either 270 or 360 (And Considering the BOZ-100 series pods would carry 540 chaff while being at a comparable weight with the KB i would probably lean closer to 360) could be even more but i feel like more then 4 a second might be a bit high dispensing speed. But again those numbers are just speculations on my part =P. But either i feel like the Chaff number has to significantly higher then simply making it a 2.91 ratio against the Flare count due to the different release speeds etc.

Well since the RB 75 in question is a AGM-65A (with us also getting a AGM-65B additionally) your experience with the AGM-65A /B should probably be indicative of what we might end up with in the game. But it also depends how the ED engine is able to handle things =P If they can give it Dynamic lock on ranges based on the Conditions / size of target that would be amazing and the optimum solution, but if they have to make it a set range no matter target type etc i hope they are a bit on the generous side to find a happy medium. Since i feel like its better to be able to lock on a tank from a 1km or 2 further away then having to get much closer then realistic in order to lock up a ship or building etc.

So do the Numbers in the mission editor not reflect the number of Chaff / Flare actually carried / dispensed by the Pod? (As in the right numbers will be dispensed but the numbers in the ME / Re-Arming panel are inccorect?). + Thank you for responding =).

This is from another Thread about the same issue. from the following thread. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=181991 So problem is fixed and hopefully we will see the fix in the next patch. So until then we will just have to manually use the Reference button after lined up on the runway. (as well as double checking we have the Right Runway / Base selected) That thread also includes the manual section defining the meaning / Reason for the Nav Syst warning.

that cant be realistic though =P that is way to low. Especially since with the Mission editor you can add up to 280 flares... So those numbers have to be either the wrong way around or they are still WIP. The Countermeasure pod carried much more Chaff then it did Flares. One might be able to calculate it by going by the Max Dispense times in the Manual (those times also indicate that the current Number as displayed by the editor has to be correct) but one would probably need some factors not mentioned in the manual to figure it out =P. For example the chaff Medium release program states as follows, "Chaff is dispensed rapidly with intervals of 2s release and 2,5s pause. Interval is repeated as long as the KB release switch is held in either INT or KONT. Total release Time 3.5 minutes". So dispensing in that program the chaff lasted 3.5 minutes to figure out how much chaff that would mean one would probably have to know how much chaff was released in each 2 second period. But i doubt 70 chaff would last 3.5 minutes following that release pattern =P. The KB is the first Countermeasure Pod in what became the BOZ-100 family (That was used on A large number of aircraft types by a large number of nations). One source describing the BOZ-100 series pod as used on the Tornado (Does not Specify if its a German BOZ-101,Italian BOZ-102 or British BOZ-107). But it gives the weight as 325 Kg and states it carries 80kg of chaff in 540 packets and 28 55mm flare cartridges. The AJS 37 Manual gives the Numbers for the KB Countermeasure pod as a weight of between 316-296 kg depending on countermeasures pod. Thus giving is Comparable size/weight as the later BOZ-100 pods. and We know the KB pod should have 36 flares (18 tubes with 2 flares each mounted in the tail of the pod IIRC). So there is nothing to lead me to think the KB pod should not have a Chaff count closer to that of the BOZ-100 pods =P. So not 70 chaff but rather up to 70KG of chaff so a few hundred packets atleast =P. This is just guesstimation since ive been unable to find anywhere specifically telling the Chaff weight or count for the KB pod but it makes sense atleast for me =P. Either way the 70 chaff count is WAY to low and the possible 280 flare count also makes no sense what so ever as its not a modular system =P it had slots for those 18 Cartridges of 2 flares each in the rear and no more =P. My guess the Chaff / Flare count is still very much WIP =P.

You have to use the T0 fix to center the Maverick again (bringing it back to Boresight). And then you can try to lock the target again. And on the second note i think that once the TV Fix button has been pressed it will lock onto anything with a strong enough signature unless you press the T1 Fix again to have it just Slew. Atleast that is how i think it works for me.

Yea i have mine Keybound and only really turn on the Audio either when the Lights become really intense (to check what is what) or as i get close to the combat area =P. Since all those loud beeps start to become annoying real quick ^^ cant wait to be able to lower their volume slightly.

Now the only thing we need to find out is if this is Realistic or a Bug.

Yes taking different weapons work. But what many people are having problems with is that you cant Re-arm with the same weapon load. For example take of with RB 75s you do a mission launch them all come back to base and Re-Arm. You get new weapons on your wings but when you get airborne again you cant activate / launch them they are simply dead weights on your Aircraft. You can take a different weapon type but not the same weapons twice.

Would have been the best if the radar screen had turned on and it had been Red instead of Green ^^.

L 2 hold two different Landing Waypoints. Primary and Secondary. So if you have a Landing Runway Selected and you insert another one i assume the one you already had becomes the Secondary, So what you see with those blinking numbers is its telling you your primary and secondary Landing Airfields. First Selection of the L button should give you the Primary Landing Base (So the one you inserted) and the second press should give the directions to the Secondary (So in this case the Original Landing Site). Or atleast that is my understanding so far might have to double check in manual but i think im correct =P.

Other aircraft have the Auto Start yes. But most of them did not have that feature when it was released in Early Access. Features like this will be added as the Early Access progresses. But as it is this aircraft is very Quick and easy to start up. i think there are like 4 buttons to press to get the engine started. 1 more to get the Hud active. A few more are needed to Activate the Navigation systems = load waypoints etc (but that kind of stuff is not guaranteed to be done by an Autostart anyway as it might depend on starting airfield and what you want to do with the mission etc). But either way It does not take long at all to start up manually and is not all that complicated. And things like Take off trim are not really needed ingame it might not hurt and might make the take off more optimal but it makes very little difference ingame and i dont bother with it 99% of the time.

For me this is one of the more annoying problems with the module. And one of the very few issues ive been able to find other then the DC issues in MP etc.

Maby not the aircraft over all but some systems especially for a later JA variant (C,D/DI) are likely still classified. Since some of the systems in the Updated JA 37s went on to be used in the JAS 39 (Either Directly or later versions of those systems). So there might still be reason for them to be classified.

This is my understanding of how the Ranging works so i might be wrong. Even when using a Radar to range (or Laser on some aircraft) you still need to take Aircraft altitude into account in order to calculate the proper firing solution (or atleast so i assume). Then you have the option of either Using the Radar Altimeter to get that altitude or using Barometric altitude etc. Either choice have some advantages and disadvantages. The Advantage with using the Radar Altimeter is that the Altitude can be automatically be updated at all times so no need to consider the QFE settings of the target etc. But the disadvantage with this is that unless you are over level terrain (where the ground you fly over is at the same altitude as the Ground the Target is on) the target calculation might give you faulty calculations (Causing the weapons to fall long or short). Where as with relying on a Barometric altimiter for that info you rely on having the correct setting for the Target altitude but the advantage about this is it does not matter if the terrain is level or not you will get an accurate target Solution either way. And since the AJ 37 Viggen was only really planned to be used against targets where the location where known before the aircraft left the ground (Since With Soviet Sams and Soviet Fighters were bound to be covering any target area limiting exposure time was of primary concern) having the correct QFE setting was easy enough and gave a more reliable target calculation not dependant on terrain being flat etc. Atleast this is my understanding on how the entire thing works =P could be wrong though. I find the rockets are accurate enough as long as you have the Correct QFE setting with the rockets impacts covering the target area, Though i am finding that the Cannons seem to fall short when shooting at the fire command so might be some problem there or maby im just doing something wrong at the pilot.

The RB 05A Controller is to the right of the Pilots seat. (To the Right of the Joystick and Just behind the Data Imput panel) You first have the Large Black Lump that is the Handrest for it. and then infront of the handrest you have a Small Squarish controller that is what is used for guiding the RB 05A.

Well yes and no. Goblin probably knows better then me. But as i had have it explained to me there are 2 different Rocket Pod types. The the Normal ARAK pod and a Training pod. The Normal ARAK pod launches the Rockets in a single volley. But the Training pod was able to launch the rockets 1 at a time (and it uses the same live rockets if i understand it correctly) dont know if it was able to toggle between Single and All while in flight or not (if it had to be set on the ground or if it could only launch singles). But there was a Rocket Pod that was able to launch them in singles. It was probably simply Doctrine to have them all fire at once as that was the most devastating way to use them when used in a One Pass/Haul ass sort of way. Since while sure smaller salvos would allow better control and allow you to target more separate targets but for pure devastation over a focused area of land the having all the rockets launch together was found to be a far more devastating option. But if there was ever a need (either from a export customer or form the Swedish airforce) to be able to launch singles im sure that would have been possible atleast if using the Training Pods (Lets say if it was ever used in an Anti-Insurgent type of combat where being able to Loiter and fire multiple times at a targets lets say while supporting ground troops, might take priority over the massive devastation from a single Mass Launch). So its a Plausible addition though i dont know if the ability to change mode mid flight is as realistic or if it would have been better to either have to Set the Rocket pods on the ground to either Single or mass launch or having different Rocket Pod Types (One Mass launch Type and one Single Launches type). It depends in how the Training Pod worked. And since Goblin is our in house Viggen Armaments expert im hoping he might be able to answer that question (Or correct me if i have misunderstood a bunch of stuff ^^) Edit: I value Realism a tonne and i want the aircraft to stay realistic. But at the same time im OK with some deviations depending on the reason a thing was not done. If something was not done due to Doctrine but the aircraft could have done it if needed then im Okay with that but if its something the aircraft would have been unable to do without major Modifications then im less okay with it =P. But either way im sure they will only do what they think is best for the module and i think the end result will be a module we can all be glad to have. And if one does not want to use a feature like the Single Launch ability one simply has the option not to do so =P (I will probably Opt for the Mass launch most of the time not only because of mass devastation it brings but because it looks so cool ^^ )