Wizard_03

They are simulating a specific aircraft from a specific time period by a specific operator.

It discredits the work and research that goes into these modules. The realism is lost, it doesn’t matter that they chose an ANG block 50 from 2007 because we’re gonna allow users to put any weapon in any configuration that the jet “might” have had in its lifetime

The problem is; there’s no where to draw the line, then DCS becomes Ace combat. It defeats the purpose of using a simulator. And no it’s doesn’t happen they are simulating a specific aircraft not a frankinplane

please re-read my posts. Can is not the same is will. They won’t ever deploy the jet like that, so therefore it’s not realistic. If you want to have triple maverick or 12 120s or whatever that’s fine, but don’t say that it’s realistic cause it’s not. There are no circumstances where they would change the doctrine. Let me put another way, I can paint unicorns all over my jet if I wanted. Is that realistic?? No because they wouldn’t allow me too. You’re never gonna see that in combat because is tactically irresponsible..like tripe mavs. Can is not the same as will so for all intents and purposes I can’t.

No the primary end user, in this case the USAF, was heavily involved in the F-16s development, it was not a private venture by the manufacturer, they built it on contract and under the direct supervision of the end user. They decide what they can and can’t or should and shouldn’t do in close collaboration with the manufacturer. Same thing with hornet and 99 percent of military aircraft. Doctrine and capability in this case are the same thing. It’s not capable of that loadout because it’s neither recommended by the manufacturer or desired by the operators. So wether or not the jets physically able to mount the weapons in that way is irrelevant because it shouldn’t be used that way and therefore won’t be.

And I think that’s the real issue, DCS strives for ultra realism and some people want a video game, which is fine I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that, but this sim is not well suited for that. There are games featuring jets out there already that allow just that, and are much better for that kind of thing. But the point of my last post here, was that even if a “serious” war broke out they would never operate the jet like that. That argument is not valid because, those loadouts would be less advantageous in combat.

The problem with that is; the people making up the doctrine also decide what the jet “can and cannot carry” an infantry man is physically capable of carrying a shoulder mounted rocket launcher and a sniper rife at the same time. Would he ever be sent into combat like that...nope never so it’s unrealistic out side of halo. Would the F-16 ever be sent in with triple Mavericks? nope never. Would the hornet be sent in with 12 AMRAAMs? nope never. The doctrine exists for a reason, not only do those loadouts make zero sense from a tactical perspective, they also are potentially harmful for the jet. So no it’s not REAListic because you would never see that in the REAL world. No one would operate the aircraft like that under any circumstances. Regardless if the weapons can physically fit on the hard points.

I’d give you rep for this comment if we still could

The jet has plenty of functionality with a pod.

Nope

Thank you ED for fixing the HMD not blanking out beneath the HUD. :thumbup: Can finally just leave it on all the time!!

Working for me on the PG map, fresh mission cold start with pod loaded Current date. Map works/INS aligned well verified with TACAN Fix.

The Recce event button IRL allows the pilot to mark a time in the MC for maintenance purposes. The Little numbers above the menu button on the DDIs are the system time counters, for cameras recording them in the cockpit. The button stores a mark point in the telemetry from the time its pressed, this makes troubleshooting a little easier. And as already stated; on HMD equipped birds it toggles the display on/off as well.

So I'm not trying offend you I'm just trying to help, I don't have the same problem at all, and ED marked this as correct. Beyond my suggestions there's nothing else I can do, So I'm sorry that's happening for you and good luck.

Alright so it wouldn't let me replay your track because you have mods installed, I just use vanilla OB. However I replicated your release conditions using a target waypoint, level release at .8M from 9k ft AGL with a light wind I used a shipping container as target at 33ft ASL. I used Mk83s and Mk82s, the first 83 missed with about a 10ft lateral displacement from the target, second has a direct hit. The 82s by about 50ft with a horizontal displacement, both short and long respectively (I used Dives and Lofts for them). So no where near the misses your seeing, only what I would call reasonable inaccuracy given those parameters. So IDK whats wrong with your passes, my guess is either you have: 1. Junk Coordinates 2. Broken Install 3. Bad Technique One, All, or any combination of those. Your right, however they shouldn't be that inaccurate, they certainly aren't for me.

Post a track with the controls indicator open, also are you using the ball and chain method with the hud to “confirm the diamond is on the target” or are you using a designated waypoint with precise coordinates? Because there’s gonna be a Huge difference in accuracy between the two. There’s no way you can assure the TD is on target at 6k with just the HUD.

And that is perfectly understandable, and I'm not trying to be-little your team's work. I wish the documentation was available for you too. But I'm also glad you guys don't take too many liberties or model systems you don't have data on, that IMO separates DCS from other sims.

I've been lobbying for that since they revealed we weren't getting PTID. I was legitimately confused at why they picked an F-14B that is so similar to the F-14A. My thought was that we were gonna get an F-14A with all the classic tomcat equipment and systems and then a much more modern F-14B(U) with DFCS, JDAMs, Sparrowhawk, and PTID that would fit into DCS a lot better. In actuality the way Heatblur implemented the LANTIRN is somewhat unrepresentative of they way it was actually employed on the real jet (with PTID). While the pod and controller could be integrated with the fishbowl and may very well have been used in combat that way, (at most a single deployment, as quasi; "proof of concept/wanted the capability sooner due to real world needs") the vast majority of LANTIRN capable F-14Bs (and As) got PTID as well, and the ability to use JDAMs, that was the whole point of the upgrade. Sparrowhawk on the other hand came at the very end of the F-14Bs career. But personally I was really hoping for PTID and DFCS at least.

They do explain how weapons are integrated into, and handled by the fire control system, Might be interesting to them since they're looking for a alternative too the Aim-54. In any case I'm sure the US navy's attitude is they'd rather be safe then sorry, so why even take the slightest chance someone could use that information. IDK Just a guess I could be wrong, maybe they accidentally classified it. :)

My guess is it might give the current F-14 operator a potential upgrade path. Specifically in the WCS/fire control department.

It doesn't fall short for me, I can get AUTO deliveries right on target consistently. Just not while level at 10k ft and eyeballing it with the ball and chain method. lol You shouldn't expect that to be accurate, AUTO mode isn't magical. You've got to make sure the TD is right on the target and you have good elevation data, then be very smooth and stable during release while staying on the fall line as close as possible. All that aside from the fact that it's not a great choice for dumb bomb delivery to begin with, but its certainly possible to get a direct hit.

Most times it’s used in a dive/loft. Again, it’s about the quality of the coordinate data, (which can definitely be improved with a TGP/FAC ) and the fact that it’s difficult to make last minute fine adjustments close to the RP like you can in CCIP. But if your coordinates are perfect and the targets not moving then yeah it works fine. But the reality is they often aren’t. The OPs situation is definitely is going to introduce errors in the solution, which should be expected. The problem with CCIP is it requires a step dive angle which is not preferable in heavily defended skies, and you have to actually see the target.

There's a couple reasons its better CCIP typically requires a larger dive angle, which means higher velocity on the bombs, making them less susceptible to wind and decreasing the slant factor. Lower altitude employment allows for radar altimeter usage in the solution and therefore more accurate slant range, rather then pure INS calculations. You also can typically see the target better and make adjustments. The human factor makes it more accurate, because your using the plane to help aim, not pure math which is highly dependent on the quality of the data you have to begin with. In a perfect world AUTO would probably be just as accurate, but IRL its less then desirable for dumb bombs, because they're so many variables that come into play.

Your right because the publicly available version of the manual calls it ILS when it references the the AN/ARA-63 however that's a nomenclature difference because it's referring to what we call ICLS and the receiver is not compatible with civil ILS microwave systems. The manual is not the end all be all, especially the outdated version you'll find out on the internet.

Even sight oscillations in the stick and how closely you stay on the fall line have a huge effect on accuracy, at 10k ft I wouldn't expect a whole lot more from auto mode with dumb bombs then what your seeing. Also without precise terrain elevation data, the computer is just not going to be able to get a great solution for auto to begin with. The GPS/INS is good but not that good. That's why in practice you wouldn't really see auto mode used for that kind attack. CCIP is always going to be a much better option for unguided weapons.