Marsvinet

Interesting update. Will be fun to wrestle with my muscle memory for the TPOD with these updates.

It could possibly be set as a sticky, but I don't think that it is necessary. I feel that pretty much all the major areas have been covered by my summary and the replies in the thread. With that I expect that Razbam has an internal list that cover at least what has been brought forward in this thread, hopefully using this thread as a source. So no need to beat the dead horse just yet.

For shits and giggles, you can manually toss the GBU-16, very much like the GR.3s did over the Falklands. Perfect skill to train while waiting for the automatic implementation. Head towards an offset point, located 4nm away from the target while flying at 500 Knots and 200 feet above the target. Also make sure that the weapon release mode is DSL, otherwise the plane wont let you pickle. When at the offset (and heading towards the target), pull 3G until the velocity vector is at 30 deg, or about 1600ft above the targets altitude, pickle, roll over and dive away. As long as a target is being lased and the bomb has not smashed into something on the way there, it should hit .I have a 95% success ratio with this delivery. I know it is not the same as the automatic mode the SHAR and the AV8B has, but it is fun to use and practice. If you want to set up a profile yourself, the numbers are in the NATOPS TAC-050 at 2-164.

It has a doppler based navigation system, similar to the one on the Mi8. But the Hinds version is more advanced, with its "moving map". Don't know any specifics, but I'd say that other than reading the map, you're not gonna be able to get any coordinates of anything.

Can you actually do that now? Has never worked before, but I can't verify if it actually has been fixed now.

I'd say keep it the way it is. There are more obscure bugs hidden in there that have never been touched as far as we know.

I do not envy your role Elmo, but I wish you the best of luck around these parts. Also a long stick to keep people at bay, possibly to poke suspicious things with it too.

After reading through it again and seeing what others are posting, i'm really impressed, Prowler. You managed to write that entire post without addressing anything that was discussed in the now closed thread. I really hope that your rewrite of the Harrier is worth it. Because if that leads to the same "feature complete" we have now, then it will the biggest disappointment seen around here for a long time. And that includes the Christen Eagle reveal. But you fixed these bugs! Only took ~3 years! Yay... And completly off-topic: It is fun to see that both sides now have rabid defenders, makes for interesting threads.

Well, thank you for some insight, it has been sorely needed. Just took a little bit too long, and that's not counting from last week. A complete rewrite of the Harriers internals? As long as it includes bringing the major systems up to a realistic standard, I'm game for waiting for it.

The links are broken because the comments BKthunder made broke rule 1.16

As if you took the words out of my mouth. Nicely written. People really need to chill. Yes, your anger started this, that is about the one thing it has managed to actually do for the Harrier. Let ED sort them out. Anger just breeds more anger and it does not help anymore. DECOY, you were really given a shit hand starting as CM here, but you definitely did not do much to make it better and you then stepped down because it just kept growing worse and worse. You call them trolls, and on some level I do agree with you. But Razbam themselves is what created part of how they are acting. 3 years of being mostly ignored by the ones you were trying to help. I really don't think you'd be happy with that either, right? If what ChickenSim is saying is true, much of that anger is sadly justified. I would recommend that you should just observe right now, because even if you were not connected to Razbam, just what you are saying is like throwing napalm on a dumpsterfire. You're making the anger worse, so let NineLine and Bignewy continue their incredible work. You are even starting to piss me off, that takes some shit to do.

Added the FM things from you, BK

Guys, some of you are posting what are clear bugs. This thread is meant to highlight what is simply missing from the Harrier. I know the line is kinda blurred in the case of the Harrier, so if you think otherwise, please say so. Otherwise, please post the bugs in the "Bugs and problems" section where Tea_cypher is doing a great job going through all that is posted.

In the same vein as NineLine, Vstolmech has noted that the harrier fleet around the world is very diverse in upgrades. So I guess that in certain squadrons there were/are no Night Attack Harriers with the switch and others with a mix. I'd say this is not a battle worth fighting.

I have added some more of the things you've mentioned to the first post now. I'd say all of these are covered in the summary on the first page summary. Please correct me if you think otherwise Interesting that the INS drift info is that public, guess I have missed it. Nothing stopping on that end then.

The FLIR overlay is in the sim, unless it has been removed since I played around with it. The hotspot tracker requires work on EDs side (new thermal view system) and is possibly the one thing Razbam has stated they are actually working on together with ED. But I will add it to the list too.

There are sub modes to both, depending on which source is used to calculate slant range to target. Sources in the Night Attack is the DMT/ARBS, radar altimeter, GPS altitude and barometric altitude. These exist in labels shown on the hud, but they don't actually do anything to the targeting right now. I went with the short route and just covered these in "Realistic ARBS" because both are required to fulfill that.

I have now added the summarised list. toilet2000s list actually had many items that I know are in, but others that have flown the Harrier more recently could verify that. I have skipped what are clear bugs. Those belong in the "Bugs and problems" section where tea_cypher is doing a nice job. To help him in his job, please remember to add a track if possible! Also, please verify my list and note if I have forgotten something.

The community tracker is for bugs mainly. NineLine requested a thread/loads of PMs with what everybody deems to be missing features, which is what I started since nobody else had. Good idea. I'll add up from this thread and that list.

As per NineLine's request, I am creating a thread here, detailing the functionality that I know the Harrier is missing. This will by no means be a complete list since I haven't flown the Harrier for while and that my head is not really cooperating with me. ARBS: The ARBS/DMT right now seems magic. It automatically know altitude of the target and therefore knows slant range etc. It can snap onto anything, not just contrast, which also ties in to "It knows everything". It functions nothing like it is described in the NATOPS. Right now it appears to be nothing more than a budget TPOD. It is also missing its crosswind compensation and by extension, ability to handle moving targets, which again ties into how it locks onto things. It currently has none of the limitations of the real thing, except the slew limits of the camera. Basically, the ARBS itself is what is missing. CCIP/AUTO targeting modes: This is in the same vein as the ARBS. The plane magically chooses the targeting mode (CCIP, RCIP, BCIP, GCIP etc.) for you, but what it chooses does not matter because all of them seem to be the same right now, aka the ARBS/plane already knows the exact data of the target. This is probably the same thing as with the ARBS. The modes are there, visually, but they are one and the same right now. Back up modes: There are back up modes missing for targeting (DSL, DSL(1) and DIR). Simple as that. Toss bombing mode: There is a sub mode to AUTO which is a toss mode. It is not implemented. INS drift: This is not as important as the ones above, but since the limitation of GPS has been included into the sim, modelling a scenario without GPS would require drift of the INS to exist. This might not be modelable since data for INS drift probably is classified, but I'm bringing it up anyway. This is what I can remember off the top of my head, but I know I can't recall all of the missing stuff right now. So if anybody knows more, just write it down here. And please correct me if something is off! Head do stoopid right now. Summarised list of this thread: Realistic ARBS CCIP/AUTO Targeting modes Back up targeting modes Toss bombing AUTO mode Realistic INS (MAVF instead of MAVG. Pet peeve of mine) Missing keybinds Correct AWLS MGRS Coordinate input NWS button toggles MAV FOV Many functions missing from EW page HUD/INS Slew [Weapons Release Data Page] Separate brightness/contrast settings for different types of MFD pages CCIP pipper should occlude velocity vector, designation diamond Gunpod should not be able to function unless sufficient air pressure is supplied (I can't remember wether it was vstolmech or a pilot who pointed out this out and now I can't find the post) DMT slave to sidewinder Full VREST page features Ground Power panel EMCON mode Expendables programming Expendables auto release Target point and Mark point data entry Magnetic variation and its effects Tarawa promised features (AGM-65 ship mode, this is on ED side if I remember correctly) [TPOD data such as coordinate display, north arrow etc] AFC features during jet borne flight [TOT and connected features] Fuel dump animation FLIR Hotspot tracking Various BITs Configurable IFF to let SRS/LotATC/etc. interface Various FM deficiencies: Ask BKThunder, original comments broke 1.16 "The EW Menu page that provides the capability to control map, waypoint, RWR and Radar footprint (radar aircraft only) symbology displayed on the EW page" LAR button on EHSD to show JDAM LAR. AGM-122 Primary & Hot mode Missing Cage/Uncage functionality. Missing HUD symbology for caged seeker. Missing symbology when uncaged seeker symbology is HUD limited. Sensitivity should increase when uncaged. brackets [] is for things I can't verify/remember myself parantheses () is for minor/possibly impossible things.

I really hate to join in on a thread like this, but I feel the need to voice my concerns too. Yes, most of the systems are there. But they are full of long standing bugs that have never been acknowledged or has even been completely ignored. Many are minor, like designating a waypoint as target and the undesignating via HOTAS forces you to cycle the waypoint designate. Easy to work around, but should not be there. But then there are bigger problems. Mavericks refusing to align properly unless staying on the STRS page and not touching any weapons religously? That bug has been there for as long as I can remember. Then there are major systems that are so simplified that the NATOPS is not even useful. The ARBS is pure magic right now. I can understand if it is partly because of limitations in DCS engine, but nothing has been communicated, even when there are at least 4 threads discussing different aspects that are weird or even missing with the ARBS. Back up modes are missing everywhere, INS drift in case of GPS not being available is not modeled. Nothing has been said. It would be nice to get some clarity on all these things by now.

Another problem that I know of with the CBU-87/103 for the A-10 is that the default RPM (Rotation speed of the canister) is set to 1500RPM. This leads to bomblets being spread over a much bigger area than if the RPM is set to 0. I have had situations where the bomblets literally spread out so that the target tank was in a 100% bomblet free circle within a section of the bomblet cloud. I would assume that the same problem exists for the F-16 since I have not found a way to change the RPM for the bombs. Then again, I have had solid drops on M-60 tanks, with low burst altitude and 0 RPM, with no effect at all on the tanks, so it might also just have shitty damage from the bomblets overall.

This really belongs in PMs, not out in the open, since this is a personal deal between you and others. But I will say what I can see as a outsider of the discussion. You act like a troll in that you refuse to see the angle that others were presenting to you, which you instead responded to with vaguely hostile and honestly, childish comments. Yes, you have flown the real deal and know more about the plane than anyone here will ever know. But in the sim that is not always applicable. Bugs appear and we must learn to work around them until they are patched. Others tried to tell you this and how you could mitigate the bugs, but you simply refused to even consider it. Flying safe at night is a reasonable thing to expect, but when the simulation shits itself, you need to adapt until it is fixed. I guess there are similar things to how a real pilot needs to be able to deal with the unexpected. Just what I could see.

Yes, you need at least one countermeasures pod. The AJ Viggen never had internal countermeasures, even though there were places to mount them. I guess it was considered not needed due to how it was supposed to operate.

That is most definitely a bug. Simply has not been fixed yet. Would be very nice if it could be.