Santi871

Just what it says on the tin. It drives the designation by tracking a fixed spot on the ground.

For the 1st question, I'm not sure what you mean off the top of my head, do you have a picture? There's not really a way to erase the L&S in TWS. Pressing RESET will reset it back to the #1 ranked target. To return to RWS the only way is to use the mode button.

Yup you are correct, AGR is a different mode from FTT. You cannot directly command the radar to AGR, it's done automatically on certain conditions.

I'm not agreeing with you, maybe my wording is confusing. FTT doesn't need a strongest return or a contrasting return at least as far as I know. However, if there's a stronger return in the FTT beam width, it's possible and likely that the tracking will swap to that instead.

It doesn't need contrast. It will just track the strongest return. If the strongest return is a patch of sand then that's that. But if you're trying to track a patch of sand that's next to a tank, it will probably end up tracking the tank and it won't inform you of that until you have a way to visually check what it's tracking. Consider that the 3 degree or so wide beam is about a kilometer wide at 15 miles or so. Rough numbers, but you can see the problem.

FTT can't discern which one is the actual desired return within the beam, so what will likely happen is that it will lock on the strongest return. Even if you would be able to tell returns apart in an expanded mode with more detail. It's one of its weakenesses. Ultimately whether that's modeled in DCS is up to ED though.

Correct, but I've also definitely ran into that bug where it gets stuck in RWS too. Whenever I try to reproduce, I can't manage to. It's an annoying elusive bug, so if you do manage to reproduce let me know!

Yes, unit labels as well when there are a lot of units.

I agree with this. I think everyone appreciates the transparency in the roadmap, as far as criticism about features themselves, at most there's just a couple of features that were left out for unknown reasons, but I think the agreement is almost there. In particular I think completion of missing HOTAS features would be highly appreciated. Where ED and everyone else seems to disagree heavily is leaving ~27 features for "after early access release", which I think is fair. The product should be in EA until the planned feature list is complete, even if that happens in 2021 or later. I think the disagreement is less about the timeframe and more about marking a product with so many features missing as "out of early access".

I think it would be a good idea to let ED catch up with the current questions in this thread instead of cluttering it with arguments.

Hi Wags! Is Az/El FLIR subformat planned? It's a very important format for controlling the targeting pod's air to air functions. What about finishing to add the missing HOTAS functionality?

I agree with Nineline. Have in mind there are parts of the helmet symbology which are angle-based cues. For example, the Sidewinder seeker field of view cue in your pictures. If you were to change the scale of the symbology, those field of view cues would no longer be an accurate visual representation of the seeker's field of view.

Yeah, the only case when they are smooth is when it's either a brick or an onboard HAFU outside of STT. It's pretty much the same bug with STT as you can see it updates at the same rate as the SA page when you turn. So whatever is making bricks and onboard HAFUs smooth in RWS/TWS is not working in STT or for offboard HAFUs.

So far I've reported 2) as seen right at the beggining of your track. As for 1), as far as I know, adjusting elevation in BIAS centering is only possible from Az/El page, not from Attack page.

I can't reproduce internally in the case of F/F, but in the case of SURV yes, so I've reported that.

It's not dropping lock for me when that happens.

When making such changes for balance or other gameplay mechanics, please have them indicated as such in the changelog. If this isn't done it's impossible to know whether they were an intentional change or just a bug.

It's reported, thanks!

I'll check, thanks

It's not going "rogue". There is no HUD indication for a friendly in the Hornet software version ED is simulating. The box means any: friendly, unknown, ambiguous. In other words, all the box is saying is "this is not a hostile as far as I know". The FRIEND cue was added in later software, so it's ED's choice to include it or not.

The FRIEND cue below the HUD TD box is a function of OFP (software version) not a function of legacy Hornet / Rhino. It originally used to be the way it's ingame now, later on the FRIEND cue was added and "SHOOT" was replaced by "IN LAR" when the target is not identified as a hostile. I can put in a feature request for it. Either way, getting a hostile ID on your target will require more than just lack of IFF M4 response, for example NCTR or offboard hostile ID.

Thanks, reported.

I can reproduce this in OB but not in the dev build. In the dev build they leave brick trails at high ageout settings, so I'll look into getting it fixed in the OB.

No problem, still helpful in case I missed something in testing

Indeed, I assume the devs ran into this limitation and once they got to the Viper they coded it in a better way that allows a smooth draw rate for all tracks. I'll definitely see if this can be improved.