LastRifleRound

Welcome!

Good deal. I'll include such references in future reporting.

Also it's in the tutorial in the sim that it should be there with a target designated

It's a feature request. I can't provide a track for something that doesn"t exist. If you read the description for action slewing, that is how it currently works in sim. Is there a procedure I should follow to demonstrate these missing things? And is it ok to provide references to the TACMAN and NATOPS here? I know the rules on that are touchy.

Didn't know that thanks for the correction. Looks like when the Air Force pulled out of JSOW, the 154B got dropped along with it.

Regardless of master mode, the deviation from the course line in NM is missing when a target is designated. This deviation is mentioned in the Rockets/Gun and attack methods tutorial but is not present on the EHSD. Designation course line: Non-designation course line. Note the distance deviation in the lower right-hand corner. Also the line itself is different with cross-marks, but I do not know if that is a bug or not:

With no designation, DMT slew with TDC NOT depressed should slew the DMT box relative to the velocity vector and not be ground stabilized. TDC action slew should ground stabilize the DMT and attempt 'lock' when TDC released. Regardless of designation, action slewing should be faster than non-action slewing.

I didn't know this and it is extremely useful, thanks

Welcome!! Depends on the target. Mk20's I find are very effective against soft skinned vehicles up to IFV's. It's like a Mk83 you get to be more inaccurate with. Against heavy armor, you'll need to up your concentration (drop in pairs and closer together). Against supply convoys, the Mk20 is an absolute column eraser. Just my .02 The JSOW has a variant with SFW munitions that will be absolutely wicked when it comes out (similar to I think the CBU97 the Hog and Viper can use).

Not sure about the Hornet but in the Harrier, if you park the jet, perform a full alignment, then move the knob to off (not NAV or IFA), then the offset angle from the carrier is saved and, if the jet is not moved, stored heading can be used on the next CV alignment. However, in your scenario, you are actually parking the jet after a sortie, shutting down, then starting back up. In this case, the jet was used between alignment and being shut off, so I think this is expected behavior. You can try to flip the knob to CV once parked, see if it performs any further alignments, then setting it to off, but I honestly don't know if that's a real life procedure or not. EDIT: Just realized I assumed you were talking about CV alignments. CV re-alignment needs to happen again before shutdown because the stored heading in CV is actually the angular difference in the aircraft's heading vs the boat's heading. In a GND alignment, you should be able to turn off the INS and, as long as you didn't move the jet, use the stored heading method.

Track attached. The designation position is wrong if bank angle is not 0 and or bearing to target is not constant, meaning the only way to get a designation at cursor position is with active pause. May not be a big deal when FTT is available and may be true to life, but I'm guessing it isn't intended to actually move around like that. hornet_ag_cursor.trk

Wouldn't it make sense for us to have a new sub-forum for missing features, just like bugs? Then, it would be one post per feature. The posts could be tagged [WIP], [NOT BEING IMPLEMENTED], [NOT REALISTIC], etc. This would fit better in to ED's existing workflow, and won't generate these huge double-digit page threads. EDIT: Though that is a damn good list :thumbsup: ANOTHER EDIT: What is meant by CCIP/Auto modes, second one on the list? CCIP and AUTO are implemented. YET ANOTHER EDIT: Should add the following: -DMT Tracked moving targets should have lead computed when dropping bombs in AUTO -AUTO mode should compensate for wind

Wow. Did they ban you, too, swift? I couldn't see any of your material up there. You and chicken have always been very respectful and constructive. If you guys can't lodge formal requests for features or bug fixtures, I don't know who else here could. By how much work I know RAZ still puts in the Harrier and Mirage, I never thought it would end up like this. It is utterly undeniable that the Harrier is missing key central features. Not bugged, just missing. Saying that the CAS page isn't finished because it's both classified and currently unused is astounding to me. I thought DCS's standard was they would only allow the making of modules with a certain baseline of fidelity, regulated by the availability of on-the-record SME's and available unclassified documentation? If it's true that all of these systems must be left out in order to have the Harrier, then perhaps it should have been an FC module, since it is not possible to meet the fidelity requirements of DCS? Also, this doesn't explain why certain things available in public documentation (NATOPS, certain available training documents) aren't in the sim. These are DEFINITELY unclassified. The INS system, all of its functionality and how it is updated is all publicly available and yet completely un-modeled in the sim beyond a rudimentary time-out for alignment. I really thought they were going to calm everyone down with their responses but looking at the various sources for information from RAZ, I have to say things have been made much worse. I now no longer have any idea what to expect from a given module. I had no idea so much "fudging" was allowed. I knew some (EW systems, exact aeros and sensor ranges, IFF systems) systems HAD to be fudged because they are classified for pretty much any time period, but I had no idea it was permissible to intentionally break a known correct system to make it less accurate to real world. I mean, if that's the case, then RAZ, a mostly out of US organization, shouldn't have this info from the USMC, either. Doesn't pass the sniff test. Kind of makes you wonder what a Mig23 or F15E would be like. How much of what you think you're going to get will be determined "classified" or "not on the feature list"? The F15E is still the air force's premier conventional deep strike/interdiction aircraft. I would imagine just as much about that bird would be off-limits. I know they made many upgrades, but so, too, did the Harrier receive many upgrades. We trusted RAZ would select a version of the Harrier they could more faithfully model in DCS than it seems like they are able. How was I supposed to know the quality of the A10 would be closer to real life because it was used for training? I thought all the 3rd parties were selecting aircraft with similar access to information. I had no idea that between 2009 and now, the standards were lowered, and it was never communicated here or anywhere else that this was the case. The only thing worse than poor standards is no standards. I will say again, no one here seems to have any idea what constitutes a feature-complete module because there is no logically consistent standard for it. If everything from the A10 to the Harrier is on the same playing field, then the stadium is way too big for the game being held. I want to be clear, I'm not mad that the Harrier isn't finished. I'm disappointed that the standard is such that you can technically say that it is when all logic and reason run counter. I hope this message reads as high in respect as I intended it to be, both to RAZ and everyone else here. I hope you all can pull it together. They did some great things in the Mirage recently, and they ARE working on stuff all the time, no doubt.

I think this is a good thing, but the core issue of what ED thinks a module out of EA should look like has not been addressed and will again rear its ugly head here or in some other module in the near future. It's not just a RAZ issue. You can't say EA isn't for everyone if there isn't a meaningful difference between EA and non EA

Just want to drop this piece of advice here, as well. It's something I've been saying for a while and it applied directly here. The features page needs to be more specific. Here's the problem I see here. Newy, you state that a module is considered out of EA when it has all of the features mentioned on its features page. Fair enough, that seems logical to me. However, the features page leaves a lot up to interpretation. Here's an example. Nowhere at all does the features page mention a TPOD or ARBS. This means, the Harrier could be released without either one of those systems and be considered "feature complete". I doubt there's anyone on these forums who would consider a Harrier without an ARBS to be feature complete. It also says "Realistic weapons, sensor, and defensive systems include:" and it mentions Mk series bombs. There's an entire bomb mode missing (dive-toss). It is unrealistic that I can't use a Mk82 in dive-toss mode. It's also unrealistic that the bombing computer does not account for wind or movement. Is that feature complete? It's not a bug, it just was never done. The problem with relying on the feature pages is it doesn't seem a whole lot of effort goes into those with regards to what exactly a consumer should expect. It lists a whole bunch of systems that aren't completely modeled, and leaves out key systems. It mentions the ECS is modeled, but it has absolutely no effect on anything. So what exactly does this mean to the user? It seems like maybe just the knobs move? I'm not asking for the ECS to be fully modeled, mind you, and I don't think anyone else is, either. Just giving an example of how the features pages are disconnected from expectations. I really don't think you all have a good system currently to set what a "feature complete" aircraft is. It requires us to do things like quibble about the meaning of the word "realistic" on feature pages, and I don't think that's what anyone wants.

In terms of dropping dumb iron, what does it do? I know it's not currently modeled. Is it something like if you have to run it a certain heading/altitude you get additional cueing?

Good question. It was whatever speed is displayed by default on the HUD

No need, issue has already been reported elsewhere as indicated earlier in the thread.

Agreed. Should have "REPORTED" tag and be moved to the bugs section.

Not sure why the title says cannot reproduce. Anyway, no need for debate. This is already acknowledged here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=284442 For now, if you're making missions, use static objects, they work really well. And both track modes are still being worked on (FTT, GMTT) and are currently unavailable.

I just did a full carrier align and did not receive this. Were you able to repeat the bug? If so, can you repeat it and post a track?

Just want to say by this time I've tested almost all of the static objects in the ME and their radar returns. Everything seems to work as it should with respect to those objects. Said it in another thread but going to say it again. Great job ED!

I think it's 30. I think Gonky said something about that, plus an A+ pilot on an AMA. Though I think the comment may have specifically been about 0g, not -g. Either way, the consensus is that negative g sucks on the body and the jet.

Just want to say I made some scenarios with placeable structures using the radar to prosecute large complexes, ammo depots and the like. ED has done an excellent job with this system in that regard. Static structures have returns and scenario makers can make their own complexes and other large target areas if they wish. You'll have to practice a bit to know which groups of structures will provide enough of a return to reliably ask someone to target, but they're definitely there. Great job ED!

It's not my job to prioritize or focus anything. Those bugs have been reported and acknowledged with myriad threads. I have found another bug and made a report in a separate thread. It's not a popularity contest. If you want to make a thread in the discussion section talking about what priorities HB should have, by all means do so. But this thread isn't about that.