LastRifleRound

Could you macro that I wonder?

Won't save me a single second. Any links to those vids? I searched and found nothing

I think people are too excited for mission cartridges.

Agree on all of this and thanks for the FM info, I genuinely didn't know what people were talking about with that, and now I do.:thumbup:

Respectfully, I think you're wrong. 1. Wanting AG radar != thinking it's a panacea 2. You have no idea why people are excited about this and can't possibly know how excited they should be

Point out where I (or anyone) said it's a "magic bullet"? This is a paper tiger. No one needs to try to tell me it's not a magic bullet because I never said or thought that it was. My other car is a Viggen. Also, forgot to check the counter on your appeal to authority. Here it is: Do you think the Navy puts in the AG radar just for pretty pictures? Or: Do you think they bothered to put in EXP3 and complicated DBS modes just for fun? Or: Do you think Rhino drivers waste time training with their radars just to play games? The problem with your logic is that it assumes that because one sensor is useful, others aren't. Why are they putting AESA radars with advanced SAR in those same Rhinos if all they need is is the TPOD? Ag radar is useful. It's another tool. It's not the be all end all, it's just another tool, just like your TPOD is just a tool. Just like your DTC and multiplayer QOL items are just tools. No one is arguing any of them should exist in isolation. As for you can't rely on it alone, you have no evidence for that. In certain circumstances you can. FTT yields an accurate bombing solution. Designating with a TPOD is redundant for some targets and impossible in certain weather conditions. Finally, for the fm, do the stores not drag enough? What is reverse ground effect? What is PA mode for ATC and what does that have to do with the flight model?

This again. I am fully aware of what it is and what it does. Are you? Why do you think I need to slew another sensor if I've achieved FTT on a structure or vehicle? DBS3 resolution is quite good. Do you know of a better way to resolve large areas through a cloud deck, or moving targets on the ground? If you're bombing, wouldn't it be nice to leave the TPOD at home? Tell me, which of those things do you think we don't understand? And the flight model. This keeps coming up. Tell me, what EXACTLY would you like changed in the flight model, and which 3rd party dev is responsible for us not knowing better? Most 3rd party aircraft are not FBW and are nothing like the Hornet. I'm not saying it's 100% accurate, but no one who complains about it ever goes on to say what should change. Do you think the Mirage or JF17, both of which are harder to handle than the Hornet, is spoiling us? The Viggen? The Harrier? Air quake is what 5% of the customer base does. The rest of us got into DCS for the opposite of that, for fully modeled authentic systems that aren't "buffed" "nerfed" "balanced" or pay any attention to their usefulness when on a 100 person server with immovable ground units. They are in the sim because they are in the real jet. TL:DR; ground radar isn't unimportant, it's unimportant to YOU. There's plenty of us who find all the MP aides useless and wonder why it would ever take priority over fidelity of systems and airframe

From the VRS page: "10.2.1 Acquisition Phase Regardless of the method used to command acquisition (see above), the Radar must actually find something at the commanded position before it can enter Track. This phase of looking for a target is known as the Acquisition Mode. When in acquisition, the Radar will blank all options from the format and display the Designation crosshairs frozen at the point of designation. The Radar will continue to try to find a suitable track for up to 5 seconds before aborting acquisition and returning to search. If acquisition is successful, the Radar will enter Track. Tracking in MAP, EXP1, EXP2, or EXP3 is known as Fixed Target Track (FTT), and tracking in GMT or SEA is known as Ground Moving Target Track (GMTT). Both of these modes look identical and are only distinguished by internal processing. 10.2.2 Tracking Phase After acquisition, and with a valid track, the Radar maintains lock on the target in FTT or GMTT as long as the target remains unmasked and within the A/G gimbal limits, or is commanded to break lock. If a break lock or commanded undesignation occurs, the MC will create a stabilized ground designation at the last point of contact." As well as: "Designation of an aimpoint is therefore a three step process: The Acquisition Cursor is slewed over the area of interest ▲/▼/◄/► The TDC is designated ENT which invokes the Designation Cursor and freezes the display. The Designation Cursor is slewed (or not) and designated once more, which places the Stabilized Cue, removes the Designation Cursor, and unfreezes the display. The Stabilized Cue represents the NAV designation on the radar format much like the TD diamond represents the ground target in the HUD. Weapons may be employed on the NAV stabilized target just as with any other ground designation. However, note that a NAV stabilized designation is NOT the same as a Radar Tracking Designation. It is a fixed-geographic point just as if it were designated through the HUD or via the HSI as a waypoint/OAP." To command track, you do sensor control up with the radar DDI as SOI. At that time, the radar attempts a track at the location of the nav stabilized cue.

You are agreeing with me. The strongest return over a run is contrast. It is the strongest return as compared to other returns. The EO/IR spectrum a TGP uses to track is using the same concept in a different part of the EMS. If there is no consistently strongest return I think the FTT fails.

Right, I think it has to resolve a distinct return. Basically, I believe the same logic that would allow the AGR mode to auto acquire a ground target is what would be used for FTT. You command FTT on the map, the radar focuses there and sees if it can make out an object of contrast. If it can, FTT is entered. I believe this doesn't work if commanded to FTT on open ground, because there isn't any contrast there, or insufficient contrast to actually "track" something. I guess I'm just asking ED how in-depth is the simulation of FTT going to be. Most other sims get it wrong as mentioned above. You just pick a spot and 'poof' you have FTT on whatever spot you picked from the map.

Define "functional"? Does it drift in NAV but not IFA? Is there a way to correct drift?

Very excited to see FTT coming to the Hornet. Some questions about this mode: 1. Does FTT need to resolve an actual target to initiate, kind of like STT in air to air? I.e., if you attempt FTT on open ground nothing will happen, but if you do it on a building or vehicle, if you are close enough, the beam can resolve a discernible return from background and enter FTT. 2. Does this include the 'scoop-up' mode pilots talk about, where they would basically have an ACM like mode that could lock ground targets under a boresight symbol in the hud for accurate bomb deliveries. Read several accounts from pilots who loved this feature. There's plenty of documentation out there for EXP/DBS/SAR, but not much on just how FTT works.

I don't know if it's a bug or not, but you cannot manually slew MAVF with an active designation. Also, if you select MAVF before FLIR you will run into the bug where TDC depress won't work on FLIR until undesignate, like the MAVF logic crosses over or something. Bottom line: always open FLIR page first and designate target, THEN open MAVF and uncage. From then on you should be able to refine using TPOD if you wish. If you want to slew the MAVF at this point, you need to make MAVF SOI then hit undesignate. MAVF should stay where it is and you can slew it now by holding TDC depress. PS note RAID/FOV button will not control the FLIR no matter what is SOI if the MAVF page is open. This is intended behavior.

Specifically, the way it's modeled in DCS, if you lock a target you are technically locking the ground behind your target. Without any sort of active measuring like radar or laser, the aircraft draws an imaginary straight line from your aircraft straight through the target to the ground and uses that as your slant range. Lasing updates the slant range to stop that line at the target. In real life, LITENING uses angle-rate information to plot a solution in the absence of lasing, so accuracy without lasing wouldn't always be falling long like it does in DCS, but it's still less accurate than lasing.

I have NOT tried this, so take it with a grain of salt, but the first thing I'd try is cage then uncage. If you didn't TDC depress anywhere else while you were slewing, the designation should still be where you left it

I will echo what most people are saying here. That list of features to be added next year is far too comprehensive to be considered ok to be left out at release. However, on the good side, I like the roadmap itself. More complex first is the way to go, especially with the remaining items you have. I like the list of things planned to come out in 2020 vs. 2021 (though I thought we already had AGR mode when we went CCIP?). I love that a lot of those things are sooner than I thought. Definitely agree to get the AG Radar done first. A lot of other modules waiting on that and many people excited to finally see it. Look, we knew this whole thing wasn't getting done in 2020. It's ok as long as steady progress is constantly being made. Admitting the Viper was holding things up and giving us an honest roadmap was a great move. Seeing that makes me actually believe you've made some of the key changes necessary to move forward at a more reasonable pace. Just stop calling the stuff in 2021 "improvements". The Hornet will still be in early access without them, no matter what syntax you use, and that's ok.

This is wrong. You can change presets manually in mission

Source? Not being skeptical, just would like to see it.

Right but it's not done in the real jet. DCS is optimized for realism. Four SD10 and rwo tocket pods is a bizarre loadout for the real wirld. Your mission planner is cruel if he expects you to need 4fox 3's to do your BAI mission. That's really more of an "air quake" setup. More realistic would be to have two fuel tanks on those inner pylons. Takes a long time to hunt down and shoot 32 things.

You don't, if it says INS+GPS, the button should be lit green and it should be working...

I can repeatedly hit a BRDM with a pair of low drag mk82's with no interval level in AUTO virtually every time at 5k ft and below, level flight. Start to get above that and accuracy suffers. Designation method was TPOD. I can hit house-sized targets routinely with a pair up to about 10k. AUTO above 10k should only be done in a large ripple and would never be all that accurate. One thing I've noticed is you need to repeatedly update your TDC designation if you are in POINT track on a vehicle if you've designated far out, and must make sure your laser is on when you do so. POINT track tends to lock at around 10nm. I activate the laser, TDC depress. I do do this several more times as I get closer, and stop when I'm within 5nm. I supposed I could just do it once more once within 5nm for the same effect. The following is pure speculation: I suspect the actual center point of point track may not be precise, so until the vehicle mostly fills the reticle what you are actually lasing could vary.

How long ago did you test this before this most recent test? I reported a bug a few weeks ago that was just fixed in last week's patch. The bug was that if you didn't manually switch to AUTO in the SMS, and instead designated a target (which automatically switches to AUTO), the bombs would always fall long.

Yes. Bombing in AUTO smaller targets, if laser isn't active when TDC depressed, bombs have a tendency to fall long. You can also see the effect by tracking a target with the TPOD, noting it's distance in the hud, activating the laser and hitting TDC again. Seems to use the same logic as the A10. Affect most notable on vehicle-sized targets.

Do you have some of the source documents for this? PM if you can, I've heard a lot of talk about these modes but they're missing from the NATOPS

No kidding I offered to help for free in a separate thread. Without access to the actual dev branch this isn't something I could mod in. I need to see the C code itself. My expertise is in business software, not really gaming but I did write my company's proprietary web based accounting software. I was able to get us off of Quickbooks, amocrm and our travel invoicing system as well as no longer needing to pay our payroll company to pay our 2500+ IC's. I know what I'm doing in general. I also am a stickler for testing (you don't get to write sloppy accounting software). I'm sure there are many others like me who would love to help, not just develop but communicate and community manage as well. I would be happy to sign an NDA as well. I'd love to fix the Mirages INS updating methods and the HUD parralax bug first, as those should be relatively easy, have been long standing and would make a big impact. To be clear Raz doesn't owe me a damn thing (except completed modules at some point), I just want to help. I'm sure others do, too.