Tango3B

Dear Heatblur Team, thank you for your amazing update on Tomcat development. There is one important thing I cannot find in the preliminary patch notes, though. Has the bug been fixed where Jester is stuck either in RWS or in TWS-A and is hammering away at his buttons. This bug is incredibly annoying and severely affects the combat capability sometimes. So, my question is has this been resolved? Did Jester get his meds?

The equivalent of the Hornet's FPAS page is still missing. I would really like to see that implemented soon. Recently, I have flown the hell out of my Jeff and this system would be pretty handy as there is no indication for fuel flow. The Jeff is a little bit thirsty. Otherwise, apart from the few issues mentioned above, I think the JF-17 is more or less complete and working.

Totally on board with all of that. If you know the BVR game the SD-10 does great things for you and one can hold its own pretty well against enemies with 120Cs. I feel, though that the potentially higher speed of the SD-10 gives you a slight edge over the 120C when employed within the correct parameters. It is just a really great BVR missile and performs well in its current state.

These lines show different emitter types and signal strenghth from the emitter to you. The ALR-45 tells you wether you are being locked up by a SAM, AAA or an AI radar emitter. Sadly, I forgot which type of line stands for what. Someone else needs to jump in here. But on older systems like the APR-25 I think a dashed line was for X-band emitter meaning AI radar, the solid line was S-band and meaning SAM emitter or AAA and the dotted line was C-band for other stuff. Not sure for the ALR-45, though. Anyway, this is combined with raw audio of the emitter painting you in it's current operating frequency. You can also tell by the raw audio from the emitter which type of emitter exactly is painting you, i.e. an SA-2 or a MiG-21. The longer the lines get that you see on the RWR display passing through the rings, the closer the threat is to you. A three ringer usually means the threat is close and ready to launch on you whereas a one ringer just sees you on his scope but is no threat because he is probably quite some distance away from you. There are some exceptions to this but this would go beyond the scope here. On older Vietnam style RWRs you could also more or less safely determine when you passed over a SAM or AAA emitter as the line to the threat would start to twist on the display. Don't know if that's a thing with the ALR-45, though. I hope this helps understanding what you actually see on that type of RWR.

Yes, it has been acknowledged some time ago. And this is annoying, indeed. Just as annoying as being stuck in radar modes or having a bandit right in front of you, 20nm out, co-alt and closing and what does Jester do? He locks up friendlies instead and calls out friendly traffic. Well, there are a lot of problems with Jester right now. But understanding how difficult and complex it must be for Heatblur to program Jester´s reactions to all kinds of situations I really think patience (even with Jester...:lol:) is a good thing here. In the end I think Heatblur will manage to get all of that stuff right. Anyway, in NAVY language they would say Jester currently shows severe signs of difficulty. He would surely face some kind of board...:D

This bug has been there forever. There is also an older report about it. But it definitely can't hurt to revive the whole thing again, as nothing has been done so far.

Yup. We fought for it and we got it in the end. This community is a very vocal one and I really like how passionate some of us are. Yeah, and I can absolutely live with that. I am actually happy ED listened to the community and re-evaluated their plans based on available documentation. This puts people in the wonderful situation that they now have the choice to use that loadout or not. This decision does not hurt DCS.

:megalol: Hell yeah dude, that would indeed help a lot... Look, I mean it is just because my copy is from 2003 and I did not find anything newer than that as it is damn hard to obtain something more recent unless you fly a Viper or have a buddy doing just that. And maybe, just maybe they bent the rules a little and have their hands on something published a little after our ca. 2007 Viper iteration and used that info as a supplement.

He (Dee-Jay) indeed has documentation that shows the problem of these stations and he PM'ed me an excerpt. However, I do not know how "recent" his or ED's infos are. I guess we just have to wait and see. And indeed it is true that there are cases where NATOPS/USAF flight manuals have certain errors or do not explain certain things in full magnitude. That is why such info needs to be checked extra careful.

I got your message. I see. Please forward this to ED if you haven't already done so. Coming from a military background myself and still being active in the GAF I very well understand what you are saying. The only question that remains is if ED has gotten hold of something more "recent". We will have to see, I guess. Kind regards

Yeah, I did read your post. But this is still some kind of loose text you typed. This is by no means a scientific approach to the topic nor is it some kind of document. You even failed to quote where you obtained this info from. Not good. I would expect more from an actual SME.

All based on assumptions. You seem to assume ED went the "easy road" and did not really check the facts?! Pretty bold statement. How do you know that? Are you in their team of testers or SMEs? Next, I was not referring to QuiGon but to another guy's post saying he knows because he claims to be a former Viper technician. QuiGon does not have to prove me anything. Speaking of truth. Indeed you gave explanations why you think it does not work. But this is unfounded as long as you won't come up with a document of some sort that proves your claim. And to this point you didn't. And no need for deflection here. I never made a claim that it actually does work so neither do I have to prove anything. I was just referring to guys who actually did present info on the previous pages of this thread.

Because he presented no real evidence. He only made a claim. You have so many guys here saying they know exactly this config is not possible and that wiring for the relevant stations does not exist without presenting a single piece of reliable information.This is why it is ignored. And ED did find evidence that says it is wired and can be used. I have no reason not to trust them.

Man, I am so thankful you answered this. You made my day. This should end the conspiracy theories now. And it should remind some of the guys here that baseless assumptions are never a good thing...

Folks, this thread is slowly derailing. The point here is not to bring any fantasy payloads into DCS. Lots of people here have made it very clear that they want to see concrete evidence first before such a payload is allowed and implemented. Again, what is your actual source for that claim? Mind sharing it? If you know more than we do enlighten us, please.

This is why I was very cautious saying we need definitive proof that stations 4 & 6 are indeed WIRED for HARMs. By the way, Haukka: what is your actual source for your claim these stations have no wiring for those HARMs? Mind sharing the info? If it is indeed stated as an official standard conventional loadout by PACAF and the 20th FW it is strong evidence. And these documents seem valid to me. But we have some guys with actual F-16 experience around here. Let's see what these guys have to say if they want to contribute to this topic.

I second this. If we can find definitive proof that stations 4 & 6 are wired for HARMs we should have this capability in DCS, too. Like someone said before the Hornet's "SPAMRAAM" configuration is possible but is not used operationally due to fuel considerations. The same goes for the Tomcat in the "Flying SAM Battery" configuration with 6xAIM-54. You will hardly find any pilot who ever flew with this loadout. But again, if it is possible to load it in a real life scenario we should have it in DCS, too.

Still no official statement on this bug report? Come on ED! You've got those youtube clips on page one of this thread as a proof and they showcase that bug perfectly. It seems no one from ED does even care because this thread was initially labelled as "cannot replicate"?! Yesterday I was flying on GS's Syria Server and was talking to some guys who ALL had this problem. Something needs to be done about this bug. Please have another look at this one.

Thank you. I can confirm everything you say. The bug is still there. I was barely able to fly since the last patch dropped due to RL work and didn't report since. Yesterday I was able to fly a few PvP sorties, though. My first sortie showed everything was working fine but then all of a sudden the bug was back. And now I do indeed observe the above mentioned behavior in TWS, too. Something is clearly wrong and we need an official statement on this FCR behavior. My two YouTube clips show the problem. Can we please have a statement from an ED Mod if this bug is already adressed?

Yeah, MGC helps for sure in the meantime and you guys are on it. BN, you guys did a great job. I am very satisfied with what we got this patch. Even that RWS-SAM "autoscaling whatever it was" seems to be gone, now. The most important thing is that the basic stuff works. And it does. Again, thumbs up from me.

Just tested the Litening pod in A/A and A/G. Everything works as intended on my end. Although I have to admit that ground targets could stand out a little more even when pod is fine-tuned with MGC. Especially, WHOT/BHOT mode could use a little more "glow" to the targets in A/G mode. The MFD image seems to be really washed out. Otherwise, everything is working fine.

Yeah, great update! And a big thank you to all of those guys involved at ED (and Ugra). You did an awesome job. I just flew the Viper around Beirut and Damascus to intercept a pair of Floggers and it was an awesome experience. The sim runs absolutely smooth on my end. The Syria map looks gorgeous and I love what you did to the Viper. Even the loading times seem better and the Viper "auto-scaling issue" seems gone. Man, I am not one of those guys who praise things lightly but this is a good patch. Again, thank you ED & Ugra. :thumbup:

Well, Frederf put it right and very simple in his post: "Changing from 80nm display to 40nm display is strictly a difference in presentation to the pilot visually. If you change displayed range the radar would already have built those tracks just as if you were in that longer display range the whole time." So, this is spot on and has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of the FCR to maintain a lock or build a trackfile. Absolutely zero. And of course this goes for all other display ranges, too. There is no fighter jet FCR in the world I ever heard of that would drop a lock because you change the range presentation on your MFD. Think of this actually happening to you in a real fight. That would be hilarious. So yeah, good to know you can repro this every single time in SP as I don't fly in that mode. It is there in MP, too as you can see in my two youtube clips posted on page 1of this thread. Again, this has to be a bug. The observed behavior is just not supposed to be happening with a real FCR.

Yes, it does also happen if I am co-altitude. I tried that, too. Indeed, there should be no reason to lose target track during an automatic FCR display format change. I suspect the radar completely resets its scan zone while the auto-scaling occurs. What we see in those two clips is not supposed to happen. Under absolutely no circumstances. And the funny thing actually is that the observed behavior does not happen if you manually change the FCR display range with a bugged target in an identical situation. Exactly. I still wait for an answer from an ED official on this. They wanted something to see and now they have it. I hope they are able to recreate the issue which should not be too hard because you literally can´t fly any engagement using RWS-SAM without seeing this potential bug.

Well, you know that Wags likes to tease. So maybe he literally saves the best for last. I have a strong feeling that we might very well see HARMs and MAVs showcased in the course of the next few days. Fingers crossed.:D