Bearfoot

I think just SHIFT-U (which presumably you bound to spacebar) is all you need. No need to go through radio menu.

Is anyone getting a signal from the deck crew to unfold the wings? I get directed to line up at the cat (though this is not always accurate), and then directed forward, and then to stop, and then to lower the launch bar, and then forward more, and then to stop, and then to run up the engines. But no wing signal. I thought I should get the wing unfold signal before the launch bar stage? Is anyone else getting it? Of course, I unfold the wings anyway, even if not told to by the deck crew. I'm just a rebel like that.

Oh yep, forgot about the the lack of FLOS indicator. It did not occur to me at all that this was missing as I was not expecting it either --- thought it was a special option. As an aside, you know what's weird? With the old carrier, I could actually see and understand the ball fairly well even in VR (Rift S, all settings really low). With the new carrier, the "glow" around the lights makes it more difficult to make out -- it's just a fuzzy mass of glow. So while with the old carrier I could do pretty OK without any "metavisual" aids, with the new one it seems I need it. Which is a shame! I know folks love the FLOS, but I find it and the little mouse pointer ball that pops up incredibly immersion breaking ....

As I noted, I didn;t notice anything at all different. Just boltered. I am not the greatest at recovering, but even if my numbers are horrible I can usually trap. My first thought was that I forgot to deploy the hook. But no ... So then I thought at first that some logic had been tweaked in the flight model to be really strict about AOA etc. Only after reading this thread I realized it was because I had not downloaded the SC. But otherwise, as far as I can recall, it looked identical.

Ha! Me too! EXACT same thing. Could not figure out what was going on. Tried asking for permission again and again until I was on top of the boat. Went in for a landing anyway, and failed to trap (though everything looked right), Went a-googling and saw this post. So, we are dolts together, but your sharing your experience helped me figure it out. For that, I, and I am sure many like me, thank you! Downloading now ...

See here:

Interesting, but I think the argument is flawed in two ways. (1) The PG may be smaller, and US carriers may go there there, ... but presumably would NOT if there were actually going to fight with (as opposed to rattle sabers with) Iran? This article in fact suggests that carriers go into the Gulf precisely when it seems that there is no shooting war threat with Iran possible: https://news.usni.org/2019/11/19/carrier-lincoln-enters-persian-gulf-after-6-months-nearby-truman-back-at-sea-ahead-of-relieving-lincoln (2) Furthermore, the antiship weaponry of the nations there have a much more limited range than those available to Russia (or the Soviet Union on older timelines). With KH-22 ranges > 400 km, a Bears can takeoff from bases deep into the east behind mountains and secured by iron clad IADS, circle the base, launch their loads, and then land again to recycle the mission with an hour. Sp. politics aside I find it difficult to accept that the US carriers would operated tactically in the Black Sea with any sane chain of command. And I don't accept the PG comparison either, b/c US carriers were not there operating tactically against any of the nations bordering the Gulf. The lessons of Santa Cruz remain valid to this day.:smilewink: I agree with Mbot's take: "You will quickly notice that the Black Sea, legal issues aside (which would be void in wartime anyway), would be too small to operate a carrier battle group in a hostile environment. The carrier's defensive screen would basically overlap with the enemy's own air defenses" and solution " I also agree with their solution: "You have to apply a little imagination and assume that the campaign takes place in the Eastern Mediterranean instead and that the Soviet Backfire strikes are coming across Turkey from their home bases on the Crimea." https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=260464

How do you switch to manual?

Thanks! I figured out how to do this thanks to help from the MOOSE discord. I will share the mission file anyway, so people (or the future me!) can see how to get it done.

Thanks! I've been messing around with this. One approach might be to spawn the bombers, and then grab the groups coordinates and spawn the fighters in the vicinity using zone (or zone that moves with the unit)?

Same.

I am trying to spawn a new group on the ground at a base, have it take off, fly to one offset point (random within zone), and from there fly to another point (another random within zone, say the IP), and from there attack a (known) unit. I can get it to do one (e.g., fly to a point within a zone OR attack), but not both. That is, the following has the spawned group correctly attack: function generate_attack1() NavStrikeSpawner = SPAWN:New("Strike #001") :OnSpawnGroup( function (SpawnGroup) target_unit = UNIT:FindByName("Target #001") attack_task = SpawnGroup:TaskAttackUnit(target_unit) SpawnGroup:PushTask(attack_task) end ) :Spawn() end But, obviously, there is no attack. And the following (seems to) route the spawned group correctly, but it does not attack. function generate_attack2() NavStrikeSpawner = SPAWN:New("Strike #001") :OnSpawnGroup( function (SpawnGroup) offset_zone = ZONE:New("Offset Zone #001") attack_zone = ZONE:New("Attack Zone #001") SpawnGroup:TaskRouteToZone(offset_zone, true, 450, "Line Abreast") SpawnGroup:TaskRouteToZone(attack_zone, true, 450, "Line Abreast") target_unit = UNIT:FindByName("Target #001") attack_task = SpawnGroup:TaskAttackUnit(target_unit) SpawnGroup:PushTask(attack_task) -- also tried: SpawnGroup:SetTask(attack_task) end ) :Spawn() end I am actually not sure if this is the correct way to route groups through zones. When I tried to PushTask with the routing I got an error. But it seems to work without that? The Spawned group are a couple of bombers with no waypoints or anything if it makes a difference. BTW, bonus points if someone can tell me how to set the flight altitude on the way to the zone so it goes nap of earth and then really low over the water!

Just a pedantic terminological clarification: "dogfight" usually refers to close-in WVR BFM engagements, BVR A2A engagements are, well, "BVR A2A engagements" or some such :)

Fighters are tough to track. Small fighters are tougher --- I've found Mig-21's cannot be picked up till they are crawling up your nostril. I have often see them visually (contrails / labels) before relaible TWS tracks are generated by Jester. Re: filters --- there is the Zero Doppler filter and the ground filter. And if they are coming hot toward you then the effective velocity puts them out of both filters anyway. In general, it is true that looking up avoids ground returns so do you don't need the ground filter. Not sure how this plays with AI RIO Jester. But either way you don't have to be very low -- just lower. So even 1000ft or two is plenty.

THANK YOU, deadlyfishes, for an incredibly immersive, well-designed, challenging-yet-doable, and VERY fun mission! I would like for the mission to generate bomber packages ("bomber intercept mission") with two enhancements (1) (Organic) Fighter escorts. Right now the random auto fighter spawns and with bomber intercepts on auto as well mean that many times bombers and fighters come at different times and different directions. This makes the bombers pretty vulnerable. It would be nice for interceptors to deal with escorts. They do not actually have to be in the same group, but at least flying in the vicinity (same axis, either ahead or behind of the bombers) and definitely around the same time. (2) Strike the carrier group (or other ships). It would be nice if there were stakes/consequences for interception failure or tardiness! Are these possible?

What sort of targets (aircraft type -- fighter, bomber, small, large)? What is their (ballpark) altitude / speed? What is your (ballpark) altitude / speed? AI or human? I've found that my success rate is much higher when I am going > Mach 1, and roughly co-altitude (+/- 1000 ft). IRL,at least, going fast gives energy to the missile, and going > Mach 1 avoids the missile using its own energy to accelerate past the very draggy Mach 1 sound barrier. Don't know if this is modeled, but, like I said, it seems to help a lot. As for altitude, too low and the missile has to use its energy to climb. I don't think too high hurts the missile PK (maybe?), but it does put the other guys against ground clutter and makes you stand out against the clean cool sky ... Still, at even 15-25nm, I think I would consider it to be a very good day if I got more than a 50-75% hit rate, especially against smaller/faster targets. I always count on Sparrows to finish off the leakers at closer range if dealing with 3-4 big aircraft (and tighten up for a BFM knife fight if dealing with fighters). Disclaimer: I'm not an expert ...

Not a fix, but this hack not only makes setting the emergency wingsweep relatively painless, it actually increases immersion and makes it pleasant even in VR: Hopefully the axis and toggle gets incorporated as a standard binding by Heatblur. Note that the behavior is still problematic / buggy, but more for aesthetic reasons (i.e. you cannot actually stow the handle in oversweep mode, which does not break anything): https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=271868

Pre-2001, electronic components in the laser receiver would arc causing a fire above 24 or 25K ft (? something to do with the ionization of the thinner air?). As the LANTIRN could not be jettisoned, this would make for some rather lively conversation in the cockpit, I imagine. Post-2001, upgrades/fixes allowed for operation to 40K ft. Not modeled in DCS, though ...

I guess that this will require Jester to call out intercept geometry flight instructions as the pilot cannot see the Pulse Search on the repeater? But how cool would that be if implemented!

Maybe he does not want to give away his position? Maybe he just wants accurate modeling?

As per the title. I see we can ask him to go to TWS (though apparently not TWS Auto?) and RWS, but there does not seem to be an option to go to Pulse Search?

By "manual" do you mean pilot bomb mode (CCIP)?

Try it on some different patches of ground / terrain. CMPTR/TGT aka CCRP is my favorite mode when delivering GBU's, and it's the one I use most of the time when I do A2G (which, admittedly, is only 10-15% of the time). But even so, I find it can be finicky to get a lock. "It" here meaning not just the system, but my (still learning) skill + system challenges. Probably more skilled people have it down without issue. In practice missions, I've sometimes had to make 3 passes before I get a lock. I need a steady flight, good terrain marks, etc. etc.

I've noticed this as well. Thought I was doing something wrong. If so, it seems like I am not the only one!

I am curious what folks do when there are some sort of air defenses. I find computer target mode very accurate --- I just have ground designate very crudely and that is enough for the seeker to find the basket, and then can rely on the laser guidance to make up the slop. But my gameplan is not great when there are SHORAD SAM's, as I come in high (>10-12K) so I can designate the ground point from a distance. Do you folks fly low, pop-up and dive in CCIP? Or do you use computer target mode? If so, how?