Harker

About the last part, ED recently acknowledged that PTRK in the LITENING should update the designation as it follows a moving target. Check the Bugs section, it's a recent thread. I assume the same thing is true for the ATFLIR.

Same here. Video evidence suggests that while in AUTO (PTRK) mode, enabling and slewing the offset cursor maintains the current track object in the picture, but allows the FOV to offset around the tracked object. See here:

A/G designations shared by other aircraft in the network.

If you have official documentation that describes this process, you should consider messaging one of the Heatblur developers.

I'd honestly like to see some of the Hornet items that are supposedly coming with 2.7. It's a big list and we've seen none of them, thus far.

Manual blanking via the RECCE button and automatic blanking based on the LOS are not the same thing. The RECCE button completely turns off the symbology.

TOO gets updated in the background, regardless of whether the mission page is shown or not. One thing to possibly try would be to set the TOO target and then switch to PP or TOO2, before using WPDSG to slave the TPOD again. That will keep TOO1 to the original spot. However, if you switch back to TOO1 while you have an AG designation, TOO1 will immediately copy its coordinates. You cannot have, at the same time, a TOO designation and an AG designation, that are different. TOO always copies the current AG designation.

+1000 Would be so nice to have this, it'd save a lot time currently spent on setting up triggers.

Add an additional step after WPDSG. When you locate your desired target in the FLIR page, designate the new point with TDC Depress. This will slave the MAV seeker to the target's location. With LTD/R armed, the laser will fire when you press the Pickle button or you can fire it manually with the trigger and the MAV will spot it. Make sure you that the angle between the seeker center and the target is not too extreme, since the MAV might lose the laser upon launch, if that's the case. Keep the seeker looking inside the circular grid, as close to the center as possible. After launch, the laser needs to stay on the target until the missile impacts. And don't fire beyond 8 NM, that's the max laser range and firing before that can mess up the guidance.

As long as the station is in TOO mode, it'll update the TOO coordinates to whatever the active/last designation is. So, if you want to use WPDSG to slave the TPOD to a point, it'll update the TOO as well. What you can do is slave the TPOD, enter ATRK or PTRK mode and then switch the designation to something else, while the TPOD remains at the original point.

Unless I'm mistaken, these announcements are meant to be loudspeakers, but they are actually coming though the headset instead. I had the same problem with a campaign I was making. We need some actual placeable sound sources.

Interestingly, I had a conversation with a real pilot recently and he said that he preferred the NAVFLIR to NVGs. Better sense of depth and he can easily look around the cockpit, instead of peeking. This was not an F-18 pilot, but a fighter pilot nonetheless.

This exact behavior has been a problem for some time now. The AMRAAM's seeker shouldn't even be able to see the chaff it went after, as it looks to be outside of the seeker FOV. And even if the target "enters the notch" for the spilt second that it does (although it's arguable how well nothing would work inside such short distance and against a sky background), the missile should continue towards the calculated interception path and attempt to reacquire, not pull a 90 degree turn towards a chaff bundle.

Interesting findings thanks for posting. On my end, I can say that the Mk-82 is reasonably accurate in a 30-45 degree dive, with a release at ~5,000 ft and ~450 knots.

You can disable MSI from the radar DATA submenu. It'll remove the Link 16 contributions, among other things.

+1

I'm the same on this. I'd never pay more than 5-10$, for the F-14A, if I already had the B, the difference is too small. That is, if I decided to get it at all. But F-14B to F-14D is a different story, they're substantially different in how you interact with the aircraft etc and that's worth it, IMO.

Plus, with AUTO, you only really need to worry about left/right, removing pitch adjustments from the equation, which is the one variable that often leads to misses. If you keep the pickle pressed, the bomb will release exactly when it needs to. Just make sure you're aligned.

Be in AUTO with a target designation, turn in and undesignate during the run. Use a markpoint to slave the pod again, if you need to. But you should try getting used to dropping dumb bombs in AUTO, with a ~40 degree dive. Just roll into the target and settle into a dive. For me, it's often more accurate than CCIP.

AFAIK, you shouldn't be able to have CCIP with an A/G designation. This is long-standing bug. Same thing happens when you designate and switch weapons.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Considering it's a SARH, I'd maybe understand if the guy behind was just a couple of miles off, but this wasn't the case here.

That should absolutely not be happening, unless DCS doesn't simulate a range gate at all.

There's no tradeoff. It might be more fun to fly a non-FBW jet, but fun is not the point of a military. Newer jets and avionics offer a massive increase in lethality, survivability, situational awareness and overall capability. The pilot in the video says its not as fun anymore, nothing more. I have spoken personally with two pilots who transitioned to jets with glass cockpits and both of them said they'd never go back to analog planes and steam gauges, because everything is just so much easier. Which brings us to DCS. It's a game, so the point is to have fun and under that logic, flying an older jet is more fun because it's more involved. But flying is only a part of DCS, the other being systems modeling. In a game like DCS, the biggest point is game depth. The focus on modern aircraft changes from flying to systems management, which has much more depth than in their older counterparts. Players take more time to master the entire aircraft, can do more things in the cockpit to keep themselves occupied and can engage in more diverse and complicated mission scenarios. And it's not about flying the latest and greatest. Consider the fact that there are a lot of players who want to have an E-2 in DCS, or sit inside a SAM command center. If ED released a low fidelity F-22, most people wouldn't fly it after two days, because even though it might be the best A2A platform, the depth wouldn't be there.

I've answered on this topic before, but anyway, unless we get something more than just a big explosion, it wouldn't really interest me. Contrary to other bombs, this isn't a chemical reaction and it'd be much more interesting if we got some prompt (think photon and neutron bursts) and residual radiation effects that affected sensors, electronics and the pilot, even if the effects were largely simplified. It can be as simple as a certain radius around ground zero, where various systems start to fail or become useless, for a small period of time. It would also serve as an area denial weapon, like that.

+1. If this is possible, it's going to be amazing