LastRifleRound

First try, I get sent to the first checkpoint, report to overlord I understand they clear me hot. Wipe everyone out. I hear nothing. Pop on labels, no enemies in sight, can't see anyone left, no one ever says anything. I wander over to patrol 4 and then 5 and then bullseye, nothing (radio properly set to 135.3 the whole time) The next two times I make it to axeman, all the way to the part where infantry are closing in across the river. He calls for gun, but unfortunately trees in DCS are now hard cover an invulnerable, so it is impossible to take most of them out with the gun. You used to be able to strafe their position and they'd break off, but now the mission asks you to kill every....single...last....one of them. Which I did, with a combination of rockets for the ones in the trees and guns for the ones lagging behind out in the open. I pop on labels, everyone's dead. Nothing. Can't radio anyone (Yes, I hit spacebar and did the read back and got the cleared hot), no one says anything, mission won't proceed. I noticed my last attempt when hitting mic switch forward, instead of getting UHF, it's pulling up the interphone. I checked the control mapping while still in the mission to make sure I didn't change anything, and nope, HOTAS is set properly. For some reason trying to mic switch forward in the mission now brings up the interphone. Could have something to do with it I guess. Also, the only option for comms is ATC. All other communication options are missing. Good thing they combined branches so main existing content wouldn't be broken! That'd be annoying..... I've got 6 hours in this damned thing now between all my attempts and until I hear back I really don't feel like bothering again.

You know what? I have to take back what I said. I hadn't used MAN in a few flights. AUTO handoff is much, much better on average run-to-run than going to MAN, particularly on moving targets. You were right @Hobel The difference is subtle, but I decided to test on a grouping of 4 close APC's over 15 iterations, and the results with auto handoff were consistently superior until about 5-4nm. You're not going to notice it until you test a bunch, and use a hot start jet to eliminate an additional variable with boresighting.

You're not addressing my argument. I'm not arguing that no one should use auto handoffs. I'm arguing that auto handoffs in DCS, unlike in real life, are just automated TMS up in WPN, so those who are seeing odd behaviors and not sure why someone would go through the trouble of making such a feature can know the system in DCS is greatly simplified and not representative of the actual advantages the system may have had. It seems silly in the same way offset Hornet cursors seem silly. That some people found ways they made such a feature useful in DCS does not mean they are implemented correctly and it does not mean the feature will make any sense beyond the backwards rationalizations people propose for it. If you find it useful, great. But this thread started from someone wondering why lock precision isn't enhanced even slightly with an auto handoff vs TMS up in the weapon page, and the answer is that the feature isn't really implemented beyond saving you a button press.

That's because manual handoff is bugged. The initial engagement was just as speedy. And the second wasn't that much slower. 2 updates ago after launch the next missile would be at SPI and the TGP would be SOI again. This changed in the same update that broke auto handoff completely. Auto handoff was fixed in the next patch but many other things were not. VIS is also bugged in that at times the SPI is lost entirely and at minimum TMS down is necessary to cue the next missile. The bottom line is there was another layer of processing going on with auto handoffs (hence "auto handoff in progess") that does not happen in DCS. There is no difference in maverick target selection between an auto handoff and just switching SOI to WPN and hitting TMS up.

You seem to be confusing a manual handoff with slewing a maverick around with no pre-targeting with a TGP at all. There is no functional difference in DCS between what you did and using manual handoff and then pressing TMS up until it works.

It seems like you are saying you believe the only difference between a manual handoff and an automatic one is you may be able to press one less TMS up.

Also, you guys aren't understanding what he's saying. All these explanations on why handoff works the way it does, does not explain why the behavior changes within 6nm. You're using forum truisms like "hardly ever used" and "not that accurate" when this user is showing you inconsistencies within the sims own internal logic. If the tracking gate is too large at 7nm because there's two targets in it, why is this not also true at 6nm when there are still two targets in it? What does auto handoff (read, not maverick information in general which is not useful in this context) do that a manual hand off does not? Is the auto handoff and waiting period literally just to save an extra TMS up? Seems unlikely.

If you read that article more carefully, you'll see that boresight procedure decsribed is not to co-witness with a TGP, but the starting point of the seeker when used in isolation.

This is a problem regardless of boresighting and has been since before they updated (or broke) any of that stuff. The issue is there doesn't appear to be any "inner working" to this. The auto handoff just commands lock at whatever the maverick is looking at (which if you're in PRE is whatever the TGP is looking at) just as if you switched SOI to maverick and hit TMS up. You can test this by locking with maverick zoomed out with AUTO vs zoomed in. Zoomed in maverick will give you a better result when using AUTO, which seems to suggest there's nothing special programmed here, just some additional animation and hold time before the maverick is just told to lock whatever is under its crosshair. It's been this way since they implemented auto hand off

If I had my vote I'd say the jester context button should do this for a VIP overfly

I beleive the descriptions around the youtube tutorials and the training mission are inaccurate. As far as I can tell, the LCOSS is not giving steering or windage indications in DT of any kind after pickle. Rather, it is simply giving roll indications. The manual further bolsters this assertion as the LCOSS section says the only modes it provided any steering indications are offset and tgt find, and that it's a roll indicator for every other mode. Is the indicator supposed to be providing steering to the selected point? It matters quite a bit when attempting the level and glide patterns shown in the manual.

What I don't understand is not integration testing features. There will be a maverick update in the patch, and mavericks will be broken. I honestly can't understand how it makes it past testing or, if the testers know about it, why it doesn't get added to the patch notes, especially since there is no more separate beta version. You would think if you were pressed for time in testing, then you would at least test the things you know for sure were changed. If they do test it, you would think they'd put it in the patch notes so we don't waste our time and theirs reporting stuff they already know about and are working on.

This is completely broken now. Automatic handoffs don't work at all as far as I can tell

It definitely doesn't work right, because you can trick the system into functioning properly by TMS up, DMS down to get TGP as SOI again, then use TMS right for all other designations. Only problem is if you slew in point track over something you don't want and linger too long it'll hand off every time you stop slewing, when it should really wait for another TMS up or right. This will force you to DMS back to WPN and TMS down to break the lock. The way it most likely works in real life is TMS up once to point track and hand off. TMS up again will switch to WPN. Slewing in point track won't hand off until TMS right is used. Subsequent TMS up once in point track switch to WPN. That's how the other two modes work, how the real manual describes it, and makes the most sense. Preponderance of evidence is making this look alot like an FA18 ATFLIR offset cursor situation.

What is the practical affect of the INS changes for the F16 going to be? What will the player notice? Are there any behaviors they should change?

I gotcha, keeping up with the update pace can be tough, but some of the systems this stuff is based around have been around for over a decade, including the JTAC. I recommend looking up some of the A10 videos on youtube of people dealing with the JTAC. The code the guy gave you are coordinates in MGRS format. If you go on youtube and search "DCS Viper MGRS" you'll get a useful tutorial on that. However, if you watch some of the videos on how to work with the JTAC, you'll see DCS is assuming some knowledge from you on how to work with JTAC you probably just don't have yet, namely that if you did a few more radio calls, you'd tell them you were inbound, and they would then mark the target with smoke, and the mission triggers would likely work at that point and you'd be able to proceed. As far as sighting, I struggle with that, too. There is an option in labels to have, instead of labels which kill immersion, dots to be superimposed over all items. Visual acuity in DCS is MUCH WORSE than in real life, and ED knows it, but there just aren't many good options for it right now with the current tech, so this method is provided as a stop-gap until the engine is further refined. Don't be ashamed to use it, it's meant to be used and it's not cheating. There's plenty of coaching available, I had a brief time with an online squadron. I can't remember their name, but they were very cool guys and life commitments didn't get in the way I'd still fly with them. I didn't need so much training at the time, but they did offer it. That's not helpful save for the fact they're out there and I don't really know anyone who had a terrible experience with one. The general cattiness you see on these forums goes away once people start talking to one another one-on-one in a cooperative environment. Good luck.

Yup, we're on the same page here. You shouldn't have to make a mark point at the designation, then set the O/S on that. In your example, you should be able to apply the O/S to the waypoint, designate and refine on the JTAC, then hit O/S and be staring at the target with no other steps needed.

Yeah it's weird. When you give a waypoint an O/S it becomes an OAP, because you are supposed to be aiming at it. When you have the OAP designated, and then refine it, say with TPOD and designating with TPOD, hitting O/S should apply the offset to that new, designated position. Instead, designating the OAP, then refining the aim point, then hitting O/S makes the O/S overwritten with the designation, instead of applying the O/S to the designation.

That's part of what makes what I'm decribing necessary, but it is not itself what I am describing. Also offsets are DEFINITELY involved with INS drift. Please read Hornet tacman, see W-OF function in Harrier tacman, watch linked videos in A-7 forum, or reference dash manual for the Viper for OAP/VRP/VIP if you don't understand. Could also be a scenario where you have a great relative reference but poor absolute coordinate positioning.

Use FRZ mode to avoid the snap-back issue for now, works well

It's my understanding from the TACMAN that offsets in the Hornet should work like this: Let's say we set up a waypoint on a prominent feature, like a radio tower. Let's say our offset will be a target that is a known bearing and distance from that tower. Let's say by drift, the waypoint is displaced a bit. When I have the tower in sight, I designate the waypoint, then slew either the HUD or sensor over the tower. I hit offset, I should be looking at the target. Instead, any slewing or designating I do on the waypoint changes the offset to what I designated, and no offset is applied when hitting offset. Am I wrong here? The current implementation makes no sense. There was this comment in the November update, but it doesn't seem to work. Fixed: OAP designation is incorrect with CCRP - fixed calculating relative TD OAP position

There's a bug burried in an intentional (though possibly not correct) change. AUTO target handoffs are bugged. The handoff is only attempted the first time you TMS up on the TGP, whether successful or not. SOI then changes to WPN. If you undesignate (TMS aft), then DMS down to make TGP SOI again, any subsequent TMS ups will NOT engage the handoff, and will instead only change SOI. The only way to get it working again is to cycle the modes to VIS and BORE back to PRE EDIT: just read the post above about TMS right...maybe intentional then? Will check it out tonight.

Same here, can confirm order does not matter. If you set VRP to MSEL, THEN change bombs to CCRP the crash happens immediately upon clicking CCRP. Also was not online, was just a single player mission I made up in the ME.

No way the Hornet still has bombing issues? It's only been 4 years and it's early access so you deserve it. Oh, it's released? Well it's your fault because open beta. It happens in the stable version, too? Ummm....bombs aren't that accurate. Real pilots don't use auto or something. Need more tracks, thread closed because we can't reproduce and if we can it's supposed to do that anyway. You don't know it's a bug because you don't know the exact version, revision and favorite kool-aid flavor of everyone who worked on this Lot Hornet's software. Go TOO ripple 43 JDAMs or something. In all seriousness, try making sure the temperature in your mission is 20C, there is a glaring error in certain designations at lower temperatures that I'm not sure is throwing the aimpoint off (it's always short when using radar and waypoints). Probably not the issue as in the Viper you can correct the designation in the hud by slewing on target before release but it will at least prevent the two bugs from compounding on one another, as the temp bug is a universal DCS issue at the moment. I've posted 4 or 5 bug threads about this issue in its many forms throughout the years. I'll tool around tonight and see if I can't add more tracks for you, though at this point I'm not sure it will help. It's been years of the same issue.

Good stuff my dude