LastRifleRound

This isn't exactly true. I read the flight manual cover to cover last night, and I was surprised at just how much is wrong or not modeled. Not the Tacmanual or NATOPS, the actual manual supplied by RAZBAM. The manual is full of "this doesn't work yet but will later", including critical things that are more basic like HOTAS commands, TDC action/no-action, ACNIP switchology, etc. Also, AUTO mode should lead moving targets and correct for wind. Chuck's guide doesn't address any of this, and many times the manual says something isn't implemented when it is, or says something works that doesn't. Redkite is often praised for his tutorials, and they are great, but he usually releases them right at the time a new feature is released, and so it's not a great representation of how that feature has evolved or what bugs it might have months on. There's a whole world of navigation procedures that should be modeled by now, too. It's not Chuck's guide's fault, that's only supposed to show you the Cliff's notes of how to get things done in the sim, not tell you how it should work but doesn't. It's a great resource on how the sim does work, not how it should work. I enjoy the Harrier quite a lot, but it is aggravating that HOTAS commands and bombing modes aren't done yet. Seems like they should be among the first things that get done. It's strange to get things like overlays before properly functioning HOTAS. This is far from "hating" RAZBAM. I don't "hate" them at all. But, if you're being honest, you have to admit the order in which they do things is unpredictable and probably not in line with expectations, and the length of time it takes to get things done is significantly longer than other developers. Potential buyers need to see not only what's available, and what's planned for the future, but how long they could potentially expect to wait and to what level of detail the final product is planned for. There are hardly any resources for this and we can only use past performance to leverage a guess. That is why every time someone asks what the state of a module is, users dredge this stuff up. It matters.

I actually didn't test a waypoint designation, so that would be another bug. I will test dropping in auto with only a waypoint designation next.

Same here, angle doesn't seem to matter at all, so I'm guessing the actual lighting conditions don't matter, only time of day. I also can't get cautions to populate with that configuration

No kidding! The only thing I find easier to refuel than the Harrier now is the Hornet. I can refuel that thing in my sleep.

This is all speculation but I suspectAG radar would be next, as ED has said thay are now actively working on the AG radar for the Hornet and Deka said they were waiting for that to finish the feature on the JF17

They may have altered the default height of burst, or the setting may not have functioned before. I regularly practice on a convoy and haven't noticed any diminished effects. Try messing with that setting on the sms page

Also note, time of day drastically changes the walleyes ability to lock. The above track is at around 5PM local, at sunset. The walleye will not lock any of the targets below (even though there is plenty of visible light, perhaps there's too much? Don't know if this is modeled or a bug). The below track takes place at 12PM local. Look how easily I'm able to lock the targets and hit them. Also this is evidence that I do know how to use the walleye and that I question the ability of the bomb to be "flown", as I easily hit both of the targets here by locking them walleye_noon.trk

I have realistic TDC enabled, using the datalink The Walleye does NOT follow the cursor, not at all. It only follows the cursor IF it has a lock. On some structures, the walleye just will not lock, so it seems there are certain structures you simply cannot hit with the thing. I don't see this mentioned anywhere. Am I the only one who notices this? Everyone talks like the bomb can be steered in flight but it seems to completely ignore all of my slewing unless I get it to lock on to something, then it "jumps" right to the target. Am I doing something wrong? Every tutorial I've ever seen doesn't mention anything about this at all. Attached a track for evidence walleye.trk

HOooooooollllly crap I did it, and you are not going to believe what the issue was. After flying great approaches for an hour straight, I decide to look at the probe as I am explicitly instructed not to do, only to notice it clipping right THROUGH the drogue! I thought "maybe a glitch? Maybe I missed and had a bad viewing angle". It happened 3 more times. I then googled it, found an answer on the FA18 forum here. I did ask for refueling, and the tanker did drop the drogues, but you have to request pre-contact again when you're closer to the drogue. I also expect that if you don't do it, even though the drogues are out, it is impossible for you to refuel from them. I think I got locked in to the training mission so hard, I didn't realize I was skipping that step. Hope this helps someone else in the same situation as me! At least I know I'm not going crazy!

Hey Rudel, are you going to highlight the SBYS and TAND options for TOO as well? They work really well after the latest patch. Combined with Azimuth options and GB6 SFW it's a convoy eraser from broadside or straight down the column.

Are you in PP or TOO? If you are in PP are they assigned the same target?

I just CANNOT AAR this thing. I have no problem refueling literally any other jet in DCS. No problem with blind approaches. Landing on roadways with a viggen, helos, VTOL, you name, no problem. The problem with the Harrier is I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE SUCCESS CONDITION LOOKS LIKE. As someone extremely left brained, you can give me any objective, and I can quickly work out everything that needs to be done in precise order to accomplish that task. With the Harrier, I have no idea where the damn drogue should be. Markers like "above the eyebrow" and "hose above the left mirror" ignore parallax issues. My primary problem is lateral line-up. I have no problem vertically, no problem with being trimmed in stable flight. My problem is I have literally no idea where that Drogue should be on approach. I'm either inside or outside every time. What the hell am I aiming for? On the FA18, I keep the drogue in peripheral vision, focus on the tanker, and since I know what my goal is, I can hook up no problem. In the Harrier, I have no idea where I'm supposed to be. I've tried this 2 weekends for 7 hours now, and I don't know a damn thing more than when I started. A virtual social-distanced beer to whoever can help me figure this dreadful thing out.

Also CCRP requires designation using the top of the designation diamond, as opposed to the pipper. Forum user Ramsay confirms this is parrallax issue. Also, waypoint crosses are not in the right location. They seem to refer to some location below ground.

Don't forget INS doesn't update using position of cursor or jet, rather resolves error to 0

I stand corrected. If you deduct .1 from the course solution, it's pretty darn accurate. Accurate enough to hit a chemical tank sized target if you fly to the symbology well (and update your INS and click "VAL" even though the docs tell you not to)

I've tried this software a month ago and it doesn't seem any better than using the ruler. Maybe with this update it's worth another try, this time in KM instead of NM

You can release now, but the release point is up to 2nm off. Set up a BAD at least 4nm away from your IP on your target. You'll notice the release point refers to a very bizarre location. It appears the BAD itself is way off, not the release point itself. In fact, when entering PI, the initial point itself seems to have shifted. I don't know what's going on here but it's worse than ever.

That's because it doesn't exist in the real jet

Here are two tracks to show the same conditions on the same target. track "Hornet_miss" shows not setting AUTO manually, track "Hornet_hit" shows manually switching to AUTO. This test was repeated 5 times with the same results. Definitely a bug. Hornet_miss.trk hornet_hit.trk

AUTO mode is far more accurate in NAV than IFA on the INS switch. IFA mode will always overshoot target. To test, cold start a jet. Put the INS in IFA. Pick a smaller target that can be POINT tracked with a TPOD. POINT track the target, laser range it. Drop in AUTO at 5000ft. Repeat the same process, but instead put the INS in NAV instead. You'll find the bomb dispersion in AUTO is the same (which is to be expected in a level delivery) but in NAV the pattern of dispersion is centered around the target, whereas in IFA the dispersion is around some position way beyond the target. ( I use BRDM80's for my testing). Also, IFA causes a CAUTION on startup (when switching from GROUND ALIGN) whereas NAV doesn't. For now, I recommend moving the knob to NAV, even though it should be IFA. EDIT: Be advised this is only an issue on a cold start. On a hot start the jet will be in IFA but there will not be an issue.

Track attached. Target is BRDM80. Weapon is Mk82 dropped in pairs. Target is locked in PTRK, lased (for ranging. Not sure if this is necessary. It is in the A10 so I do it here), and designated (with TDC depress). 4 passes shown on same vehicles with same conditions, level release between 6500-7500ft AGL. Bombs always land in the exact same spot short of the target, thus not random dispersion error. Bombs are precise, not accurate. EDIT: Compared this against using the same aimpoint to drop JDAM in TOO mode to see if it was an aimpoint/designation issue, or an error in the AUTO bombing algorithm. The problem is with AUTO mode. It always drops short, regardless of track mode. You can designate a spot, drop mk82, they land short. Drop a JDAM in TOO on the same point, direct hit. EDIT: This affect is directly related to altitude. The lower you are, the less short the bombs fall, until you get below 3000ft, wherein the bombs will be bang-on. This is why CCIP works so well, you are always a lower altitude when dropping, so CCIP MAY be effected as well, so not sure if it affects both bomb modes. So, as of right now, I can confirm AUTO mode is bugged above 5000ft AGL, as instead of random dispersal issues (indicative of a larger WEC due to innacurate bombing methods), the mode always drops the bombs short in the exact same spot. FINAL EDIT: Isolated the issue. You must manually select AUTO mode for you bombs before designating a target (the system will automatically switch to AUTO mode if you haven't selected it already). If you let it automatically switch to AUTO mode, your bombs will always be short. So, at least there's a work around for this at the moment. hornet_short.trk

Watching this one closely, sounds a great team and a promising mod

More like AIM-9U-turn :megalol:

Great on vehicles and ships. I fly mostly SP so when missions have moving vehicles, JF17 has the easiest time detecting them. Hard to say over all how useful it will be since the EXP and DBS modes aren't ready yet and rbm mode does not show static structures of any kind

Never tried nor knew CCIP existed in PI mode. Is that when you have high drags? Does it work the same way just with manual release, or is it just like a regular CCIP release?