LastRifleRound

No, only one NSEQ string can exist. TOT is not yet implemented.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned that helped me a lot is to use AFC to set trim when needed. It isn't cheating, the NATOPS recommends it as well. Bind AFC to a button, get the aircraft on heading, engage AFC. Disengage whenever you like and your aircraft is trimmed for that attitude. It can help greatly in lowering pilot workload. You can even adjust with the hat switch while in AFC. You can bring the jet right alongside the LZ without ever leaving it if you manage your throttle right. You still want to be able to manage the rockiness manually though as it's a good skill to have, so I'd get a handle on that first as others have suggested.

+1 they've earned my trust

Yes, it has never worked right

I have both, it's the same in both

Thank you for posting this. Having feedback from a Viggen pilot is invaluable. Looks like the pull is even lower than what I was doing. I will say before the update that made bombs fall short, bombs in dyk would drop later than they do now. Maybe after the next update we can give the 300m at 6km profile another shot. Can you do one on PLAN?

Is it possible to have waypoints that aren't in sequential? I.e. can I add waypoints 9 and 10 and have them not part of the polygon if I am using SEQ navigation?

My point exactly

See Ragnar's post above. It's a confirmed bug that has been fixed. I assume it'll be released in the next OB patch, whenever that is. I believe the reason you're hitting is because the logic of the designation may have changed to match the real aircraft. The designation point you deliver the bombs on is the point where trigger is held (so there is in essence two designations, one on unsafe, another on trigger held). This would match the behavior of DYK mode. If that is the case (I need to test more to see if it is), then it makes sense you hit in the video you posted. Attached is a picture of your pipper when you went trigger hold. I'll have to test a bunch tonight!

I am, because again, this is supposed to be a feature of the KA50 and A10 and it is NOT modeled there. So it is ambiguous as to whether this will be modeled in the hornet. They say "fully featured" but I don't know what that means, as it seems to vary from module to module and system to system. Search INU update for KA50 on these forums and you'll find hundreds of threads from people surprised and disappointed that INU update does nothing. I'm just trying to avoid that situation here.

I'm confused by this response. First of all, if the knob is in NAV, the INS is NOT updated by the GPS. You just said AINS updates the INS. I posted proof that AINS is not active if the knob is in NAV and so what AINS does is irrelevant. Are you saying any of this is wrong? You don't address it in your response. It came from the same document you cited, just several pages after. For the second part of your response, did you read my original post at all? It says "Do you plan on" and "I'm not asking for a timeline", so again, you seem to be making paper tigers here. I'm not asking anyone to prioritize anything. Just want to know if they're going to do it eventually, since none of their modules simulate drift, it's a legitimate question.

Hmm. Fri, did you test to see if the INU drifts now? That would be amazing. I know the Skval filters are inop on my machine at least

Right, my post was about structures. Structures do not show on the radar at all. Vehicles are pretty easy to spot, no matter the size and quantity.

AINS is only active if the switch is in the IFA position othwerise "loosely coupled" INS navigation is used. From VII-24-6, 24.1.6.1: "24.1.6.1 INS Mode Select Knob. The INS mode select knob has switch positions of OFF, CV, GND,NAV, IFA, GYRO, GB, and TEST. Selecting OFF removes power from the INS. Selecting CV commands the INS carrier align mode with the MC providing the carrier align display. Selecting GND commands the INS ground align mode with the MC providing the ground align display. Selecting NAV commands the INS navigation mode which enables the MC to use INS information to provide navigation steering. Selecting IFA without GPS, commands the INS IFA (Inflight Alignment) mode with an IFA display. Selecting IFA with GPS, commands the Aided INS (AINS) position keeping or GPS inflight alignment with an IFA display. Selecting GYRO commands the AHRS (Attitude Heading Reference Set) mode. Selecting GB commands the gyro bias mode enabling the INS to do a gyro bias calibration. Selecting TEST enables the INS to perform an initiated BIT upon command from the MC."

Can someone tell me what the air to ground ranging is for? Shouldn't there be tables tha go by slant range so we can effectively use this radar mode?

This is true. Though the A4 has the most intuitive terrain avoidance feature in the sim with its Escope. I would say the Viggen map is more useful than the JF17 right now, because the JF17 can't actually detect or track anything in it's RBM mode, and EXP, DBS1 and DBS2 aren't functional yet. For movers and sea targets, however, the JF17's GMT and SEA modes are outstanding. The Viggen is the only aircraft currently capable of bombing a target using nothing but the radar in it's RR/ANF mode. Terran is easily recognized, but vehicles and ships just appear as dots. Buildings don't show at all. You should get all 3 just to be safe!

Is this sourced from the NATOPS? I know in the Harrier NAV is loosely coupled, meaning automatic inflight alignments will not be performed with GPS even if available. That is why there is a GPS option under UPD on the EHSD. I also know that the procedure according to real Hornet pilots is to have the knob turned to IFA all the time, not NAV. Not sure why this would be their procedure if it was strictly only for one-time alignment. I will read the NATOPS for the FA18. I assumed it was the same because all the options for the UPDT are already on the Hornet HSI in DCS, they just don't do anything yet, and are just like the Harrier.

After much study and some hilariously bad translations (trigger unsafe=unsecurity, designate=uncertainty, dropping as in precision drop=precipitation to name a few), I had occasion to thoroughly read the flight manuals posted graciously on this forum. I learned a lot that I didn't already know, and it brought up some questions as well. This comes from part 2 of the manual. Page numbers (the .pdf page numbers, actual pages are missing from the document so they don't line up) are listed to support the insight. pg10 The WP circle (referred to in the manual as the PPI) is docked to the edge of the radar scope in the direction you'd find it when it is out of view pg15 When RB04 is selected and mode ANF, the center vertical line in the CI is actually canted to account for wind (so it isn't straight up and down in the presence of crossing winds). Laying the center line on the target will adjust for wind. Not sure if this is modeled in our version pg18 The Bscope with RB04 also shows the wind-corrected vertical line, as well as the horizontal ranging lines if one of them happens to be in view. Not sure if modeled. pg17 A2 mode is designed to show an area +/- 20 degrees to either side of the PPI with a distance of +3.5km and -6.5km up and down from the center of the PPI. The view is stabilized there until you get close enough to the bottom edge when it starts to "snowplow". How close this is is dependent on your current distance setting as follows: 1. range setting 15: display snowplows when aircraft .6km from the bottom edge of the scan zone 2. range setting 30: 1.2km away 3. range setting 60: 2.4km away 4. range setting 120: 4.8km away pg58 The vertical line in RR bombing mode is also wind-corrected like the RB04. Unsure if modeled. pg59 The HUD should guide to the safety altitude in RR mode with trigger unsafe. Not sure if it does. The next few pertain to PLAN mode: pg55 This one is a little confusing. This page talks about PLAN mode. The 6 prior pages are missing, but the page starts off saying "Osakring(3) should not occur at a distance greater than 4000m if the attack is carried out from a height that is less than the safety distance" I'm not sure what this means. I wonder if it has something to do with the pre-designation guidance? I can't seem to get a good translation on the word "Osakring", coming up with something similar to "fuse" or "cocking (like making a firearm/bomb ready)" in English. pg55 If you pull the trigger before the wings flash, the bombing solution will be less accurate pg55 When the wings flash, you have .5s to pull the trigger. Anywhere in that .5s will yield the same results. If you are late, the bombing system will make up for it by clustering the first few munitions as necessary closer together until it can release the rest at the right spacing. pg55 The actual designation for the bombing solution is at trigger press, not trigger unsafe. Trigger unsafe designates the target for height and lateral guidance, but the final solution is determined by the cursor position when you pull the trigger. This is where the target fix is placed as well. pg55 The steering order should be followed even after FALLD LAST, as it it is timed to turn off after the last bomb has IMPACTED, not RELEASED. Presumably this is to ensure you don't dip below the safety altitude. The next insights have to do with DYK: pg54 -Ideally you will have 3.5s of 'dot on target' before release to get the most precise firing solution -The trigger should NOT be pressed before wings lit. Though possible, the solution will be degraded. -Again, where the dot is when the trigger is pressed is the spot you are telling the bombing computer you want to hit. -Nowhere in this particular manual does it say it factors in a 4g pull to have proper bomb spacing. The way it reads, you should achieve proper spacing even if you do not pull up at all. -The steering order is not a 4g pull up cue per se. It is the position your dot should be at or above 2.4s after release has commenced, and is based on your safety altitude. The higher the altitude, the earlier you need to release before dipping below. 2.4s after release has begun your targeting dot should be at or higher than the SO. The SO is ALWAYS supposed to be above the targeting dot while diving. It does NOT have anything to do with your G being pulled or enforcing proper bomb spacing. -The manual shows the Viggen pulling up to an altitude of only 800m on this maneuver, so you are meant to pop up much closer to the target than is typical and your dive angle is meant to be shallower than what I'm used to I have a lot more testing to do! I'm going to test out the DYK mode to see if I can perfect the delivery, and see if wind correction is currently active for RR and RB04 modes, as well as the Bscope mode for RB04. Interestingly the manual does not say anything about radar fixing in A2, so I think it was right to pull that. I guess it could be a feature of the real jet but it would be odd for the manual to not mention it at all if it was. Hope others find this useful

VERY cool! Thanks for all your hard work.

What type of target is showing in your radar? Is that vehicles or buildings?

What about foul weather? What about other theaters where visibility is more often worse? What about those who simulate older conflicts? Georgia, Nevada and the Persian Gulf are all dry, mostly clear climates. Scenarios around the English Channel would be much different. For the JF17, I no longer have to choose between the SPJ and the WMD07 if I'm running SEAD. I can carry LD10's for emitters, the SPJ center pylon, use the mapping radar to acquire the launchers for IAMs. If I'm on an MP server and I'm tasked with strike, I can identify buildings out of a complex sooner without pre-knowledge (i.e., I can be tasked with a waypoint at the location of the complex, then different flight members target different buildings) Again, it's a tool, a useful one, and not subject to user opinion on whether it ought to be implemented. Also, DCS was never meant to simulate cutting-edge equipment and tactics, because there just isn't enough publicly available data to make it anywhere close to the standards DCS has for fidelity. I bought the FA18 because it was to be the first to introduce a modern DBS/SAR capable AG radar according to ED's advertising. I expect it to be implemented as faithfully as we have documentation for, because that is what DCS is all about. That other users don't care about it doesn't concern me. I didn't enter into a buying arrangement with others users. Not trying to be harsh but I feel people trying to pester ED into NOT finishing promised features needs to be met with the conflicting side so that they know this isn't anywhere near a universal opinion.

I've gotten it pretty accurate. The primary problem with offset bombing is the inaccuracy of the map ruler. It only measures +/- 1 deg, but should be +/- .1 deg. If you zoom all the way in on map with the ruler out about 5nm, sweep it around you can see just how large 1 degree is. It's 100's of meters, far more than enough to miss your target. If you ensure your offset is at the boundry of this degree change, you'll find you'll be able to hit a building sized target 19 out of 20 times with a stick of 8 mk82's. I put in a feature request on the dcs wishlist for a more precise ruler (this would also benefit the F14), but no one has taken me up on it.

Glad you got this sorted :thumbup:

I don't care. When I looked at the product page it said it would be there, I purchased in contemplation of that. It didn't say "fully modeled AG radar modes, unless some people on a forum prefer not to, in which case totally forget it" Also, the theaters and conditions our (US) military are currently engaged are vastly different from the types of engagements simulated here. Low intensity conflicts at small scales on mostly point targets lead to TGP as your primary sensor. A protracted air war with a peer or near peer adversary forcing more all weather sorties will engender vastly different approaches. Supplies become more scarce, degraded sensor environments more common. The more numerous and sophisticated your enemy, the more tools you'll need in your tool box. AG radar isn't a panacea, but it's another tool in that tool box. In Bosnia and desert storm, AG radars were used extensively. And, oh yeah, they should be modeled because they said they would be.

Post a track and we can help you. I can confirm Mavericks work fine in the latest OB and no other users have reported an issue of them just not leaving the rail.