LastRifleRound

GPS weapons really shouldn't, though. Laser ranging is a necessity for getting good coordinates for JDAMs, and the laser does not follow the cursor.

Harker, that's a great write-up. It doesn't surprise me that AGR can't 'see' structures. Most sensors in DCS ignore the presence of structures (laser rangefinders, FTT doesn't recognize them, etc). I assume when these other sensors can recognize them, so will AGR.

We knew because BN was on discord the night before saying it was in the test build. It is super vague in the notes. I had to go back and look because I was like "wait, how did I know about this?"

TACMAN actually says NOT to use DMT for toss as sufficient rates won't be generated until you're in the pull at which point it will mess up your solution. Recommended procedure is WOF on an IP with an offset as the target to get a good HOT before initiating.

In real life, would an impacting rocket and the resulting smoke and debris scatter the laser spot such that follow on rockets could have accuracy issues?

Should you be able to set a course line through a TGT on the HSI?

You should only see 0 unless a speed error accumulated in your INS. In reality it would fluctuate a few knots because that's the margin of error for radar speed measurement. Speed errors in the INS likely are not modeled, so this value will always be 0. Still can't find any info on AGR track for the Lot 20.

Did some researching and discovered a few things about AGR: 1. It definitely does SOMETHING. Take your hornet for a spin in the mountains (Cacuses). Point ccip cross on mountain, THEN SCS up. The reticle will shift. 2. The velocity delta in the format is the difference in the radar calculated aircraft velocity and the INS. If you have velocity errors in the INS, this is one method you could find them. I don't know if you can 'force' velocity errors in the INS, but if you could, this would show some non-zero value. PVU's I know are generally less accurate than the general accuracy of a coupled INS, so it makes sense for all of us so far, this number is 0.

Never thought I'd see a near mid-air with a UAZ! I found it ironic you attacked ED's logo on the ferrari bldg for messing up movers but missed the bird because the dispersion is crazy. All in good fun, of course!

I think his image is sharper because he is closer and more off-angle

Having the same issue, MAVF won't lock BTRs.

This still isn't implemented. Track attached. harrier_no_DMT.trk

Ok, getting very mixed results here. Sometimes it's ok, other times, something reeaaaallly whacky happens. See the attached track. Note I have no mods installed at all. This isn't the result I get all the time, but do get every 5th drop or so. What is going on here? What exactly did I do wrong for the bombs to drop that early? This didn't happen before the last patch. EDIT: And Hornet shack is the very next attempt, direct hit. 2nd EDIT: Did another run, 4 drops, same target. Uploaded below. Some closer than others, 100% are short. Something is still going on. I would expect the pattern to be all around the target if it were general inaccuracy. Instead, all are some degree of short. FINAL EDIT: Ok, I see what's going on. MK83 haven't been touched by the patch. All the tests you'll see below are Mk83. The bug I reported is still active there. If you bomb level at 7kft 370kts you will hit reliably with these, just like before. Mk82's, however, which were in the patch notes, seem to be good in pretty much every flight regime I've tested so far. Haven't tested Mk84 yet. hornet_wth.trk hornet_shack.trk hornet_short.trk

Will test more tonight. You must love the Viggen!

True enough. Perhaps I misunderstood what I read. Think it's time for another look!

Getting similar results as you at 5k and below. Try 7k and up.

Am I invisible? :cry:

Never said it should. This is an acknowledged bug by ED before the patch, I'm simply commenting it's not fixed yet. I'm not talking out of my behind if you know what I mean, my friend. :thumbup: Acknowledged bug thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=282730&highlight=auto+mode

PLEASE, before commenting, watch and reference track. In the track, you will see me attempt designations and demonstrating using TPOD video the error in the point selected. There was a bug reported before the latest patch that FRZ mode designations wouldn't react to aircraft positional changes. I believe this is related and isn't fixed yet. This was an issue before the patch, in that to get an accurate AG radar designation, you would designate behind the target. Now, post patch, it's even worse. If you designate on something, the resulting designation will always be off coincident with the inverse of the angle of travel. That is, if you are traveling offset to the right of a target, a designation dead center of it will ALWAYS be off back and to the left of the target, as if the designation is not accounting for aircraft movement at all. I believe this is a bug and not general system inaccuracy because it is off exactly the same way in the same method every time, and by active pausing the sim, I'm able to get accurate designations, pointing to an issue correlated to aircraft movement. hornet_ag_desg.trk

Ok Track attached. I offset, pause the sim, and bring up TPOD video on the left and radar format on the right and cycle through the various designations to show that FTT does not track anything or alter the designation in any way in any circumstance. hornet_ftt.trk

There are, though, some flight regimes where lofting does produce a benefit. I read a document on it and don't remember what the reco's were, but there were some fringe medium-to-low altitude flight regimes where lofting would provide a benefit to stand-off distance. Can't remember exactly what those params were, though. Even if there are benefits to lofting at that altitude (and you can bet I'm going to play around with it once JDAMs are complete!), the stand-off probably isn't as good as fast and high alt but hey, like skootch said, sometimes in DCS you just need to burn grass to avoid getting pasted on ingress in this sim. Could be just the ticket in a pinch in DCS.

It depends on your release altitude. I tried high alt, high dive angle bombing before the patch and the speed/alt rule still held. If you were at a 40 deg dive, before you got to release you would certainly be "too fast" for the algo, and it'd let your bombs go early and they'd drop short. I.e., if your drop alt was 7000ft (so you probably started at something like angels 17-19 if you're diving 40deg at 450kts) your bombs would land short 100% of the time, in roughly the same area every single time. I now have to do more testing post patch, as it seems the problem is different but worse. I've only had an hour or two of flying since the patch. I'm about to head in and do comprehensive testing now.

Wouldn't this cause a type error instead? C doesn't have type coercion.

I think Wags meant is that you can't select it from the format page and its only available with certain parameters such as TDC to the HUD + CCIP, or TDC to the HUD AUTO with no target designated. Doing one of those selects AGR for you, therefore it is indirectly selected.

Thanks I'll do the same