Shadow_1stVFW

You can unpack the newest script from the mission Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

I could have sworn this was correct for an update or two. Though maybe I was just in the habit of switching to true headings. Either way, +1 to be addressed. Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Probably still the same issue. I've noticed that, if your crosswind component is less than 6 degrees (in the Caucasus) then that can happen Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Bump. To be worked on in a future update. Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Makes sense. Thanks. Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Just wondering if anyone else has noticed the ground track indicator points incorrectly? I'm away from home and when I get home I'll make a proper bug report but want to know if anyone else has this issue. It appears to be connected to MAGVAR. Like the indicator works, you can see on the ground it moves around like you'd expect but it's just off. Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Basically it's how the airplane knows it's not moving. Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

That sounds like a parking brake not being engaged. Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

I've noticed the map scale changes with the scale of the knee board map. Hit K and cylce through the different maps with [ and ] and see if that helps. (Totally not supposed to do that. I've been meaning to report that as a bug) Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

For completeness sake, the C-130 worked very well. Spawned fine. Flew it's waypoint and went back to base to land. Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Now I have to try. haha

It works. Very nice and neat. So, as kind of a niche` end user I'd say the only thing I could think of for you to add is some sort of test to determine if the unit is a Tarawa or Stennis to set the offset angle for the heading. Reason being is the way I have it I couldn't use the script to control a Tarawa and Stennis at the some time and their headings be correct. Just a thought, not sure it's worth your time though, don't know how many people would use it for both. Though I just thought about it and the rotor heads can use this for their small ships too. My last question, since I just thought about that too. Does the tanker script set the tanker waypoints from the ship or the tanker start point? Like, could I set up a C-130 from the shore and it still orbit the Tarawa?

Thanks. That's awesome. Good work. I'm testing it now.

Hey Wrench, I'd like to adapt this to the Tarawa for Harrier ops. I thought about it and the offset angle for the CVN needs to be removed. Is the section below the section that deals with setting the heading? Specifically setting the 8 to 0 should make the boat follow the wind? Thanks.

+1

I've reported this. The tacan and waypoints will scale it and show on the opposite display given the right distance.p Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Looking at your example again, the airspeed was correct. Your airspeed indicator will show your speed plus wind. That's why you can see that on deck as well. Your groundspeed should match the ships speed Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

What was the temperature? And were you sure the ship was doing the speed you thought it was? Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Bump this one on MO servers. The centerline pylons is not visable to other clients Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Agreed. When this was was fixed for the other bombs the GBUs were missed. Not sure why. But everything else was fixed. Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Bump Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Thank you. Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Welcome Decoy. I look forward to your contributions to the team. To the Team, I appreciate your move here. I hope this will satisfy some of the dissent on the forum.

IF the accuracy of the ARBS could be fully modelled vs the conventional CCIP bombing calculations. AND The ground radar and it's operation sufficiently modelled. THEN I wouldn't mind paying full price for both. I doubt the accuracy of the ARBS vs CCIP will be modelled to that degree though. At it's base level I think (but what do I know) the calculations for the two are probably coded the same. Even if they weren't, the Sim doesn't handle ground vehicle damage models to a degree the the CEP difference would matter. My point being, there is a reason the NA is still in service alongside the II+. The ARBS is a very powerful tool. If it could be modelled that well, it'd make sense to charge full price. And I hope it can be. But I'm skeptical. As an aside. I love this airframe. So I'm buying both, I don't care how much they cost. But that's just my 2 cents Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Totally agreed here. I was sent this from a friend, I don't even have Facebook. I think I've read somewhere their primary mode of communication is Facebook. I mean, I'm glad to see it address (albeit after a couple of months since I've posted about it). But if they saw it, even a short acknowledgement would have been nice.