PawlaczGMD

In mission 2, the mission script did not proceed after killing manpads with a maverick. Additionally, I just dropped the gbu on the structure anyway, and the bomb was a dud despite setting efuze to inst. Recent fuze update messed it up?

Big issues dropping GBU-12 in various campaign missions. I'm getting duds. I'm setting efuze to inst, bombs hit the target but don't explode. Bold Cheetah mission 2. Green Line mission 1. Very frustrating...

I started asking this question because it is used in some campaigns (Operation Cerberus North). Perhaps it is realistic as you fly from airports there, so I guess you're not using navy weapons.

I just rechecked, and the Mk-20 Rockeye only has the timed fuze. The CBU-99 has both timed and altitude fuze. If this is as intended, I will just swap for the CBU-99 and use the altitude fuze, as the bombs seem the same otherwise. Still, out of curiosity, I would like to know how to use the timed fuze in the Hornet - that is, how to get a reasonably accurate CCIP/RP with it.

if you look at the pedals when started, are they depressed or released? You could also bring up the control indicator to see your inputs - R-CTRL ENTER

OK, so assuming the fuzing works correctly now, could anyone tell me how to correctly drop Rockeyes in the Hornet? They only have a timed fuze - how to translate the fuze settings into the A/C computer to get a good solution? The Hornet asks for burst height only. When I tried some CCIP drops with default fuze settings, and various burst heights, the bombs just drop to the ground dead and never open. I assume the fuze was just too long, but is there a way to tell the A/C so it calculates CCIP/CCRP correctly?

I've got to admit, this look weird. The tailwheel starts centered, but seems to just turn 90 degrees by itself. 1:35 - are you sure you have tailwheel locked, and toe brakes released? Some modules default to brakes pressed in when starting, so maybe try tapping both toe brakes lightly before applying power to reset them? If it's not a bug, then it looks like your front wheels are locked up, check axis bindings, etc.

Thanks for the quick hotfix for the recent Quadviews visual bug. While you're looking at this, can I bring your attention to the other visual bug that remains? In certain lighting/weather conditions, the central FOV square has different shading/contrast compared to the rest of the screen, which makes it stand out, the square border is clearly distinguishable. This is visible with certain angles looking at the sun and in storm clouds, among other instances. Would be great to have this sorted out also. Pimax Crystal here.

I found this thread before rereporting this, so let's bump. @BIGNEWY @NineLine As outlined in this thread, all older (WWII) artificial horizons in DCS are lacking the self-correcting pendulous vanes mechanism, which makes them not very useful. The drift due to maneuvers is modelled, but no self-righting is modelled, so the AH just build up drift. In reality, they should correct if you're flying the aircraft straight and level. So errors caused by maneuvers should be there, but they should decrease gradually when you stop maneuvering. They don't do that. I don't have specific data on the Ka-50 but it is rather obvious that it must also have some self-righting property - this one is the most useless of them all (backup one).

>66% resolution Sorry, but that's low. I want to run above 100% in the center region, as it improves visuals massively. If I wanted to use 66% of the resolution I would have bought a $500 Quest 3 instead of a $1600 Crystal. I'm not necessarily criticizing the DCS engine, but it is one of the heaviest games out there, and QV is an essentially free and massive performance boost. It's critical to the VR experience.

Just to add on to the noise - with the current DCS performance, Quadviews is absolutely critical to play the game on high-end VR headsets. ST is unplayable in VR for me, and I don't think a GPU that can achieve decent FPS at decent settings without QV exists. I will try the fix posted here, but if it doesn't work, I can't play DCS until this is fixed. This tech should be supported officially, and I am more surprised that AMD themselves didn't pick it up rather than ED.

Same issue. Makes DCS unplayable for me.

I don't have the module, but the order of magnitude of these depression values is completely unreasonable. FYI 850 milliradians is almost 50 degrees. This depression setting would be well outside the HUD, somewhere inside the stick. Hard to imagine any sight would be able to display more than 200 mills. Maybe the sight scale has hidden decimals, so 999=99.9 mils?

Do you have the Mav display uncaged and as SOI? It won't launch through the TGP.

If you can edit the wingman's loadout, I would generally give him an extra bag if he struggles with fuel.

Yes, it probably doesn't show up for him because he didn't meet the conditions. I think you need to use ATC comms correctly on approach, and actually be in the groove at the right distance for this to be available.

Thanks, locking with AIM9 selected and then switching to gun works quite well, and solves my problem.

For sure it is not doctrine or even a good idea to strafe with the gun in the Hornet, but regardless, it seems that the PGU projectiles are not modelled correctly if your description is right, as their energy seems to matter a lot. This does have a use in the game, as we don't always have a large package with dedicated CAS roles, so you might want to finish some targets off.

I'm just interested in learning how it works on the Hornet and less so other jets. That is because I observe not great drop accuracy, especially CCRP, and I was interested in how to fix or otherwise correct it. I've seen someone say that changing you position source from AINS to GPS improves it, but I wasn't able to fully verify it. I think the F-14 has better CCRP accuracy than the Hornet, which sounds concerning, as the Tomcat has INS only as far as I know. For another comparison, the KA-50 can have some crazy INS drift, like dozens of meters easily, but retains good CCIP/CCRP accuracy. And yes, it can be updated by overflying a fix point. I don't know of such function in the Hornet.

Oh yeah for sure! You might be getting much better results then me by getting in real close. I was testing it in combat, so I was shooting just after the in range cue and rolling out. Reduced distance might push the penetration over the edge, interesting.

Shouldn't ground radar be able to do this without relying in INS position that gets less and less accurate?

Not with Cluster munitions, the current fuzing bug aside. OK, this might be it. So wind is corrected by GPS signal, rather than some airflow sensor? How does the Tomcat correct for wind?

Could you give more information on this? I've observed quite poor accuracy with CCIP/CCRP drops. I am always in IFA with GPS on, and have tried switching POS/AINS to GPS on the HSI, and it might have helped a bit? Does CCIP/CCRP rely on knowing the jet's precise position? It seems like all it should need is relative data - slew angles and range/altitude provided by radar or TGP. is it a bug that self position data even affects such modes?

I've had no luck killing even lightly armored targets with the Hornet gun. What kind of armor penetration is it supposed to have, and what kind of targets would you recommend attacking? For example, the BTR-80 which has I believe only 10 mm of armor cannot be hurt by the gun. I was also barely scratching the SCUD, which seems like it should be a completely soft target. I've tried both the default HEI ammo, as well as the PGU SAP rounds, but it looks like anything more than a truck is a struggle. Is there a trick to it, or should I not bother with such targets?

I agree on the tanker, and also my wingman is not accepting orders to refuel or RTB. Honestly, if you have this problem, you're not giving the AI enough bags. Give them 2 bags.