Wizard_03

So it ALWAYS works for me, following the manuals procedure. The missile doesn't know you have a LPOD. It shouldn't matter where the laser is coming from as far as the missile is concerned. So therefore Just because you have a system designation created by the LPOD or whatever about where the laser is going to be pointing doesn't mean that it will automatically lock up once you press weapon release, Because according to that statement from the manual, in the uncaged state (Missile Carrot coincidence with TD diamond) the missile still needs to be allowed to slew itself onto the detected laser and attempt a lock. The only difference with the lpod is you need to have both uncaged AND allowed for slew action prior to pickling (exactly the same steps for off board lasing just with a very abbreviated search phase) because the auto lase won't start until you press and hold weapon release, otherwise the missile will detect the laser but it won't lock on it because it can't slew itself further until you press SCS and allow it to lock the laser that is now firing from the lpod. Its the same with uncaging Fs it will go to about where the target is attempt a lock, but it typically still needs to be manually slewed onto the target to get a contrast lock just uncaging to the TD diamond won't work usually. The E works the same way it still needs to slew onto the laser, just uncaging it is not enough unless the laser is already firing.

But its saying there is a difference between uncaging (Mav seeker moves to designation point) and slew action, (Mav locks up the lased spot.) and that's everyone's issue right, Right? Can't fire after you un-cage, because it wont lock until you move TDC priority with the SCS. The manual is saying exactly that you need to move the SCS back again after uncaging to command slew action, so it can lock up?

Yeah I read the list too hence my question, because It only mentions that for IRIAF version not the early USN version. As far as gloves vanes go, many early F-14As did have them working and they weren't formally deactivated for the whole fleet till the early 90s and Heatblur has said repeatedly we will get them at least visually. https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/englis...ate-2?t=142938 https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/englis...vanes?t=224957

From page 178 of the manual: "The TDC must be depressed, uncage signal applied, sensor control switch moved, or a target designated to lock on (this commands slew, which allows lock-on)." So if the target is designated with LPOD, then, with SCS, assign TDC priority to DDI with Mav page, (uncaging seeker), THEN the SCS needs to moved again in the case of established designation (or a target needs to be designated) to command slew followed by lockup, then we can fire. Seems to me this is the exact behavior we are seeing, you need to move the SCS again after uncaging (uncaging accomplished by either by SCS toward the DDI with Mav page or pressing Uncage button) to command slew.

Looking good, can't wait. Have a couple question/requests. Will/can we get the option to remove TCS completely for both the USN F-14A-135-GR, AND the IRIAF F-14A-95-GR, because personally I hate the look of the jets with the bullet fairing. Also any possibility for glove vanes on any of the planned versions?? Thanks again, great work.

The radar is a lot more integrated with the aircraft. The same is true for the AA modes, The pod and radar can correlate tracks that they both have and be cued to each-others LOS, but they can't actually hand off tracks to each-other. AFAIK

It can, sure, provided the targets not moving too fast and or there is enough contrast right out the gate. But it's not really reliable for those reasons and others. As I understand it IRL the pod would be bipased all together, like you said. Maybe you use it get a designation close to the target, but for the attack you would just put the TDC on the Mav page and lock up the target manually. Rather then jumping back and forth between the pod and mav feed.

The thing is the system can't have a moving TGT designation outside of the appropriate A2G radar mode. The designation in this case is only for a single point, which is true for most aircraft, F-16 included. The pod however can track a moving target, which is why when you try and designate a mover with the pod and then slave the MavF on over, it will go the spot that you designated, whether the target is still there or not. Hence for what your describing to work you would need the pod to pass that track directly to the missile. Because it can't pass it too the system and then the missile.

What your all describing is having the Lpod hand-off targets to the MavF seeker and it's not capable of doing that in the hornet, they can be pointed to the same spot, but the pod cannot hand-off tracks to the missile seeker as it can in say the F-16. If you want to use Mavs with the pod against a moving target, the E is a much better choice in the hornet, because it gives you a single track solution. IN other words the Lpod and MavFs cannot talk to each other as in other aircraft, they can only talk to the system separately.

That doesn't matter, the USMC did not have any Lot 20 hornets at that time. Its irrelevant when the USMC got the capability for THEIR hornets. Because all Lot 20 hornets were exclusive to USN up until the USN completely retired their fleet of legacy birds last year. Never mind all the OFP version differences. Or the fact that a LOT 20 bird wouldn't even use that Pod to begin with, unless they were attached to an MEU which they never were. But Besides all that we don't even have the same LITENING They use, we have a Spanish version. Really nothing about the LITENING implementation, is correct based on the year and specific hornet we have. So yeah it was a game play consideration. Plane and simple. So if they can do the mental gymnastics on that one why not GBU-54s??

Seems like if we can make gameplay concessions like having LITENING on 4 and BRU-55s which also are not correct for year of this hornet we can add GBU-54s and pretend...

Probably waiting on ARC-210 Implementation

You won't for this one, it's under lock and key just like the hornet. Anyone that has them can't say they have them, and anyone who has seen them can't say they've seen them. That said I find it hard to believe an instructor level pilot wouldn't, either have access too them, or know them by heart. Hence I think Gero's creditability is pretty high. But assuming they do have them, it’s even possible they might be required to willfully make the jet not match them perfectly, to preserve security. According to wags that was done with some of EDs products. So as far as we’re concerned the fidelity is what it is for a frontline active jet, put in a publicly available simulator.

If they have the perf charts, they can't say. But based on their SMEs qualifications highly doubt they don't. ED wouldn't give them licenses without them believing they have enough data for the "DCS:" title, and that pretty much requires charts and data. Hornets charts are classified too. 100 percent ED has them. End of the day though accuracy is subjective. For the purpose of DCS it'll be pretty accurate but DCS is a commercial product so it's not going to ever be a 1 to 1 replication especially in terms of FM and systems. But none of us are going to be able tell with any authority how close it is. It's just going to be representation.

From the announcement newsletter: "The TrueGrit development team is led by Gero Finke, a highly experienced former Typhoon Instructor Pilot with 15 years experience on type and an additional 10 years as a weapons instructor on the mighty F-4 Phantom – a total of 3’000 hours of military jet flying. Gero was station commander at one of the world’s most famous fighter bases of all time, the 71st Tactical Fighter Wing at Wittmundhaven, Germany, formally known as the Red Baron´s legendary “Jagdgeschwader Richthofen” and Squadron Commander at Jagdgeschwader 73, Steinhoff. Today, Gero’s dev team has substantial programming and design experience. This professionalism combined with Gero’s exceptional active-duty and operational knowledge is very promising for DCS and the future of this exciting new module." https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4259999&postcount=246 Gero seems pretty reliable and credible IMO. 100 percent he's seen the charts, and I think he has the authority to say whats correct or incorrect behavior for the module.

Red navigation lights always on for hornet on certain LODs still not fixed??

Yes please

AFAIK all those settings are pre-configured with the MUMI data cartridge.

Looks incredible can't wait for the full overhaul.

I have a small performance increase after today's patch :)

They are but if your telling me I now have to pay again to use the modules I already bought I'm asking for a refund, for everything. It violates the EULA I agreed too and It's clearly a bait and switch. And I guarantee, others who have been here since LOMAC and Black Shark feel the same way. I agree with you that the current system has some major problems but I'm not sure what they can do at this point so far down the road except release modules in a more complete less buggy state. That would solve everything, it seems to me. But I do like what they did with the Super Carrier, having paid updates to the core game. I have zero problems supporting them that way. Same thing with the WW2 assets pack. Have a base level implementation of something like the Stennis and users can "upgrade" to the newer more comprehensive version like the SC. Problem with that is it has the potential to divide the community. But I think that that's really the best they can do right now, and so far those concerns that it would divide the MP landscape turned out to be mostly unfounded due to their implementation of the product. And common sense dictates that if your into things like this you'll likely be willing to make those purchases too. If your a fan of WW2 you probably want the asset pack, if your a fan of the hornet or tomcat you probably want the SC ect ect Bottom line is they need to slow down and Finnish things before they take on MORE modules and MORE problems. Maybe MAC will help with their revenue and expanding the player base but we'll have to see. I really don't see any sort of paid subscription service flying with this crowd.

Yep it's a nope from me, one of these stupid threads show up every couple weeks usually after a rough patch. I would have thought the last one with a poll was clear. The majority of players are absolutely against paid subscription plan and EDs hardline base would immediately abandon them if they even started to go down that road. But we'll say it again just so there's no doubt.

I'm glad, I know it's not you peoples fault. Hopefully the waters will calm down once we get core lighting stabilized for the 2.5.6. branch. Its upsetting but the night lighting in general has been terrible for years and we're finally seeing improvement so hopefully we'll be in a really good state when its all over.

It's gotta be, My money is on corruption between their build and ours. No way this stuff would have been missed. On some of the third party forums we're seeing reports from Devs that things we're working good (thing morning) prior to release and things only got broke for the public build.

Yeah you should be happy the damage model, radar, and lighting is broken.