Harker

Ok, but how can it provide an accurate CCIP solution anywhere right now, regardless if it's near a waypoint or not? We're not talking about pre-planned targets. The limitation here would be that the elevation the system considers is the waypoint's elevation, so if it's not set to ground level or if the intended target's elevation is not the same as the WP's elevation, the solution should be wrong.

Except we don't have DTED. AFAIK it came as part of the TAMMAC upgrade, which we should have, but we don't. The DCS A-10C, however, indeed uses INS/GPS, attitude and DTED. So ED should either implement TAMMAC or should remove the DTED functionality we appear to have out of nowhere.

Except that, in DCS, you can get a solution with both the radar and the radalt off, and without a TPOD for laser ranging. And we presumably do not have DTED either (TAMMAC in general), given our HSI. So, I don't know how the jet calculates a CCIP solution without at least one of the above. Kinda magic... Would it be possible to get a solution based on the INS alone and doing ranging calculations based on your attitude (as determined by the INS) and barometric altitude? It'd probably be horribly inaccurate, I'm just wondering if it's feasible. Even like that though, the GPS would not be useful for attitude calculation, but merely for getting GPS altitude, which again, I don't know how accurate it is.

What makes this even weirder is that it works correctly in TWS. And works through the AZ/EL page. So there's really no logic to it not working in RWS.

INS drift and attitude errors are grossly over-represented in the DCS Hornet. The Tomcat and the Mirage offer a much better idea of what it's supposed to be like. Anyway, if you have a TACAN station's coordinates in your navigation database, you can use it to fix the position and you can use PVU Sea or PVU Ground with the INS knob to IFA. PVU is a radar mode that will update velocities and is invoked when the INS knob is set to IFA, without GPS. Remember that, if you don't have GPS available, you need to set the knob to NAV for navigation, not IFA.

If that's the case, it should reported as a bug. Again... Do you have a track of the issue?

We're not even going to the missile firing stage. In most cases, the radar won't build a track for the pilot to see, due to the low S/N or the Doppler rejection. You might see a small missile as a very small and fleeting echo in a raw return, such as with the F-14's radar, but it probably wouldn't show up on a Hornet's B-scope.

Since the radar is responsible for providing range information to the missile, assuming that the whole launching process logic is simulated even somewhat accurately in DCS, the missile should loft, since it has range data. Which means that the only aircraft affected by this new mechanic are the Horner and the Eagle. If the missile doesn't loft when the radar can resolve the range, then it means that the whole process of the radar giving initial target parameters to the missile is not simulated correctly (unless we're talking about shots where it wouldn't loft anyway, of course).

Without agreeing or disagreeing with the potential inclusion of the Meteor, I'm just going to say that, unless ED massively revamps how EW works in DCS (as compared to it being almost nonexistent now), ECCM and radar modes will not need to be recreated at all. However, HB tends to push technology forward in their modules, so who knows?

It would be better if it was an option on the Editor and not in the Special tab of Options. That way, you can easily choose one or the other and even have some aircraft that have it and some that do not, in the same mission.

For what it's worth, I'm just going to say that spoke to a IRL pilot and I inquired about the ability to see A2A missiles (your own or not) on your radar and I was told that it's technically possible, but highly unlikely and not really a thing. Mainly because the reflected signal is too weak to rise above the noise or the return is filtered out due to the missile being too fast.

Excellent decision on TrueGrit's part to join forces with a more experienced developer. A TG-HB Eurofighter is a best case scenario for everyone. Good luck with the development and keep us posted. Can't wait to see the release product.

From what I see, the fix simply comments out the AGM-65E2 specific messages from the TPOD, is this what it is? Thanks for posting, btw.

One way or another, one of these optimization oriented technologies needs to find its way in DCS, officially. I recently switched from 2D to VR and I found the compromise to image quality (or fps) quite staggering. It's simply a waste, to have options like that and not use them, in a game as graphically demanding as DCS.

You can increase the brightness by altering the RGBA value in the materials.lua file, located at \DCS World\Mods\aircraft\FA-18C\Cockpit\Scripts\. Look for HMD and you'll come across the correct line. You'll have four numbers, for R, G, B and A (opacity). You can increase opacity (or any of the others too) above 255 and it'll essentially make the HMD brighter.

Yeah, fair enough. I just took the opportunity to add some info to the conversation. :)

While not a bad wish, for the moment, you can work around it by adding a single launcher and change the ROE to Weapons Hold, in the Advanced Waypoint Actions, for the SAM. group in question.

It doesn't necessarily require that you STT someone, any jamming contact that your radar cannot resolve the range for, will be displayed as an AOT. It's just that in DCS, depending on the module and its jammer implementation or whether you're flying against AI or humans, the jammer may come online when you attempt to STT them.

Such a set of missions or campaign would need to wait until after the Hornet's avionics are finalized. Right now, several items are either absent or wrongly/half implemented in most major systems.

You're not supposed to post them here, but if you have information you can share, you can send it to them directly.

I'd also add a few items that are marked as completed, but are not and some absent items. Dynamic Launch Zones: we're missing the IZLAR adjusting for terminal parameters and IZLAR functions related to PP deliveries with QTY selected (common IZLAR, ghost IZLAR for the PP of the selected station). LP integration is also missing. MSI: proper fusion of RDR ATTK, AZ/EL and SA, with MSI tracks showing in all of them, with the same attributes. Ability to set L&S from either. A/A Radar: bump acquisition logic, correct interaction with the ASPJ (RDR/JMR option), fixes regarding HPRF detection distance, correct memory logic, correct rank logic (although that's part of MSI), faster TDC slew speed. TWS AUTO centroid tracking (similar to the F-14), ability to maintain MSI tracks in STT from RWS/TWS/VS and designate them as the L&S. Correct RESET logic for our version. Actual WIDE/AUTO speed gate option, which now doesn't do anything. A/G Radar: azimuth stabilized bricks, correct NAV designation logic, TA mode, grayscale bar at the top, for help with adjusting gain, brightness and contrast. NAVMP mode. ALR-67(V)2: correct threat ring logic. There is a good amount of discussions and evidence for that subject. There's more to add.

This more or less reflects my feelings on the matter. It would require ED to allocate resources towards developing new core features, to enable fire spreading, firefighting etc and ED already has too much on its plate. A lot of the combat sim side of things need to be developed or improved before anything else happens, such as EW, better datalink, better sensor modeling, missile guidance etc. As for 3rd parties, they can develop whatever they want, if people want it, they'll buy it, but it won't require ED to allocate resources towards anything.

I was thinking about the same thing the other day. +1

I like it. +1

The radar will attempt to reacquire the L&S, by extrapolating its range and velocity and looking for a contact that matches the extrapolation (I'm sure the procedure is more complicated than that, but this is the idea) for a period of time. And to answer your question regarding acquiring the wrong target, it's possible, if the two aircraft are flying with a very similar velocities and are very close to each other. Remember that the radar has a limit to its resolution. 1LOOK RAID doesn't need to be enabled for Memory mode to do its thing, although I suspect that it might increase the chance of reacquiring the wrong target, but that's more of an empirical understanding for me, right now (I don't know enough about what the actual wave changes between STT and RAID are, so I'd rather not speculate). It might increase the chance of reacquiring *a* target. You're correct in saying that the pilot will need additional information to judge whether the target is friendly or not. You can interrogate the L&S and get IFF and NCTR info, which should help differentiate the aircraft.