LastRifleRound

The reason you would use an OAP is because the target is not something that could be easily acquired. It wouldn't make sense for the TGP to slew to the offset.

This is CAS. What about BAI? OCA? Deep interdiction? All Hornet missions and all don't involve this TIC situation you're describing, all against things that could have moved only in single player, all pre briefed. It's the antithesis of air quake.

No I'm saying I think the designation position should be updated when trigger is held.

No, still hasn't even been officially acknowledged so who Knows if it will ever be changed. This is what I mean when I say I wish they were more specific about what the intended end state of these EA modules is.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=268670

The Arbs requiring contrast lock and generating angles could be simulated with no changes to core DCS by using a function wrapper that calls back to the bombing API. Use a PID-like system to narrow down the accuracy over time at different rates depending on the slant angle. This doesn't simulate how the sensor works in real life, but it DOES simulate what the user would see and the problems they would face if they didn't do things correctly. I.e., it simulates the experience of using the sensor accurately, just not the way it actually works (which, quite frankly, is most of what DCS does and it's perfectly fine). Contrast lock could be implemented by simply removing the ability to use the area track API.

Does the JF17 have a more precise way of updating it's nav system using sensors that aren't modeled yet, or does it only have overfly updates and no designation updates?

Yes, you are correct that the manual is inaccurate when it says level bombing should be performed at 200m. It should be done at the safety height, which by default is 400m. There is no max altitude, but you will find your cues glued to the top of the HUD and they won't be too useful. The reason you are instructed to maintain mach .8-.9 is it increases the chances you can go trigger press (flashing "wings") with the target in view, which should translate to better accuracy due to aim refinement (but doesn't in DCS, because the initial designation point is used for impact, so it doesn't matter how much you refined the aim). Now here's where I go in to speculation mode, but the actual Viggen manual (not the DCS one, the one for the real jet) suggests that the final target point that is used is the one under the pipper when you hold the trigger, not the point of trigger unsafe. Essentially, there are 2 designations, one at unsafe that guides you to the target at the right attitude, and a second when you hold the trigger, that the SO then indicates. This is probably why the real Viggen manual repeats that going trigger pull early will lead to a less accurate bombing solution. In DCS, you could hold the trigger right away and just fly the SO and it's just as accurate, so aside from the general benefit of going faster, maintaining mach .8-.9 doesn't do anything as far as the bombing algorithm goes. You'll be just as accurate at mach .5 as you would be at mach .8.

Ok I understand now. The manual is somewhat inaccurate. The default safety height for LD bombs is 400m, not 200m. Your cueing is below the Hud because it is commanding a climb. The system is designed in such a way that when you go trigger unsafe to designate a spot, the reticle shifts to show the desired flight path. You must maneuver the aircraft to place the pipper back on the spot you designated. So, if the reticle is low, nose up to place it on target and you will climb such that at bomb release you will be at the safety height. When you depress the trigger, the steering order performs this same function as the target. Keep the dot in the SO, and the correct attitude is achieved. As to why there are different heights, I think more than frag pattern is considered, like threat levels, terrain, egress maneuver, etc. The Viggen is designed to have 99% of mission params done before takeoff. Hope this helps.

Never said it was pointless, just pointing out it's pure opinion and I have a different opinion driven by a different set of anecdotal factors. I'd like to see AG done. DL is good enough after the bug fix goes through that's already in the change log in my opinion. I think whether something has a point or not there's nothing wrong with posting it on a forum. What the hell else can we do these days anyway, so I welcome the discussion. Just thought I'd weigh in with my .02

Why pick? Shouldn't we have both a functioning datalink AND AG radar? I think that's what was advertised for the final build any way. Also why are you flying strike without CAP? And how do you think we get on target in Harriers and Viggens? By datalinking and lobbing fox 3's when there's things that need bombing? It's just a false binary in my opinion. It's all good. Deka's going to get it all done at some point.

I'm going off script here and saying JF17 and Mirage. Reason is the FBW pitch axis is squirrely in these two and both aircraft trim extremely coarse, so it's impossible to get level flight. The Mirage gets easier over 300 kts but tankers, even kc135 are rarely flying that fast. The Hornet is the easiest and the Harrier, once you get a feel for where the drogue should be is very fun. The throttle response in the Harrier is a joy to work with. I know everyone says focus on the tanker and for hornet that does work. However, I find it easier to focus on a mid point between the drogue and probe and then "drive" the aircraft into contact. I find this is better since unlike reference points if you have to refuel on a different side than you're used to or an unfamiliar tanker, the same techniques work. I subconsciously make micro corrections that lead to a straight on smooth hook up. Once hooked up I concentrate on flying formation with the tanker. Just my .02

But I like AG....

I guess I don't understand the question. Could you re-phrase what you don't understand about the safety height?

Glad you got it sorted.

What do you mean? Safety height effects SO guidance, but does not inhibit release in PLAN.

Yes, this is confirmed. Units are now km. For elevation feet is bugged so use meters there.

I noticed this also. Thought the campaign missions might have cross wind so I made a mission in ME with no wind and the same thing happened. Wondering if those who say they don't notice it have rudder trim checked in the special settings, as I don't. Those who have this set would be trimming it out at take off and that may hide it rest of the flight.

I posted some tests on this forum demonstrating the walleye will not lock a target after 5pm regardless of actual lighting conditions. This is based on real world accounts from Desert Storm where Hornet pilots had trouble getting lock at dawn and dusk. It is likely there is a time (5am ?) before which lock is not possible with the walleye.

Works right now. Once you go to that master mode and setup your displays, returning to that master mode will re-init those same settings. Also, if you change the displays and want to revert, the revert HOTAS command returns to the displays that you set. Basically, to permanently save your master mode settings, change the displays to your liking, then navigate to any other master mode. When you return, your displays will be saved.

Does this apply to STT locks only or also to TWS bugged target?

I find the JF17 and the Mirage hard for the same reason: the pitch response is incredibly squirrely. The Harrier bounces around, but it feels natural so I find it easy. The Hornet is easy enough to refuel I can do it in my sleep

It's not that it's too accurate, it's that the next step after fixing the bombing algorithm should be to try to recreate the sensor. The DMT wasn't inaccurate before, the bombing solution was. The sensor requires angle rate information, which means it needs to follow a specific point on the ground over time to get its slant range. The more data, the more accurate the solution can be. I find the current level of accuracy acceptable, it's just that to achieve it should require a contrast lock and several seconds of tracking. This is also why the Harrier has the very cool feature of being able to pickle to designate in CCIP but stay in CCIP. This is so you can get that tracking info to get great slant range, and still pickle yourself using CCIP. VERY accurate using it in this manner. However, you could have nothing at all designated, use CCIP and hit something on a mountaintop dead center. This shouldn't be possible. It is half simulated, so if you designate a high point, and CCIP on a lower point, the solution is off like it should be. As of right now, the DMT cannot contrast lock nor does it need to, this isn't accurate to how this sensor actually behaves. The frustrating thing is, like many DCS things in pre-release, we don't know the end game. Is this as simulated as the DMT is going to get? We really don't know, no one's addressed it. Same with things like navigation, INS drift, etc. The developer's end state is not known. Hope that clarifies what people are talking about with regards to the DMT.

I agree but I'm not sure I've seen anything like that in this thread. Complaining/criticizing != badmouthing or ranting. Sure those threads come up from time to time, but most of the time the criticism is about the same things and it's usually pretty specific, specific enough to be productive. Coupled with a bug tracker that is rarely up to date, a bug section that does not delineate what is a bug, what is intended, what is being worked on and what what got fixed, and changes straight up missing from patch notes, I find threads such as this one essential. When they are not at the top of the forum list, there is no other cohesive area to know what is working and what isn't, particularly for new users. I don't disagree that people should be polite, but I don't think it's enough to send new users off to youtube or to the documentation, because those things are not an exhaustive representation of the what the product is actually like currently. Hope my position makes sense.

The mission also works if you land at the airstrip, re arm and turn around and take off.