LastRifleRound

I like all the positive accolades, and as a guy who has been onobard since LOMAC came in a box, I've been a long time fan. I just see a lot of this false binary where criticism == hate. You CAN and I DO simultaneously think some things could be much better AND greatly appreciate what ED does as a business. If I didn't, I wouldn't have hung around this long.

I think he meant more the course selector knob as present in the Harrier, Hornet, A10, and Mirage, so that you could set a course on a WP independent of your flight plan and have it show on your HSI/HSD.

Thanks for the clarification.

Right, I think DESG might also be part of the completed PU as well. Just speculation. Thanks uboats! Would be cool to run some missions with degraded GPS and use that radar and tpod to do updates.

I see what you mean. There's no way to do this per se, but I wonder how the system handles offsets?

Yes, you still need lat long. It's the heading that you don't need to enter.

I think so. I've asked but haven't gotten a response. I'm guessing there's probably a "desg" option in addition to "ofly" like there is for markpoints

Whoa, you guys just blew my mind. Does this show on the HSD with SPJ equipped? Anywhere I can find out more?

Should a fully functional INS really be considered a "wish"? I'm not making a request, I'm asking if this is intended to be implemented.

It's in the HUD at all times in NAV master mode. Get lined up before going to AG. If you're talking about a non pre planned course outside of the flight plan, I see what you mean.

It's the best strike aircraft in the sim right now. Fully functional TOT, easy to use navigation system, fully configurable IAMs, a great targeting pod, MITL cruise missiles, and pretty accurate with dumb bombs if released level below 10k or in a dive. All this stuff works and is mostly bug free. It is the best SEAD platform in my opinion as well. The LD10 is an excellent ARM. The F16 would be better if it got HARM and HTS. It's excellent in BVR. The SD10 is a great missile and the aircraft is datalink enabled. In the dogfight, the airctaft is underpowered. You'll have a turn or two to make something happen or your toast. Fox 2 is ok, but nowhere near as good as the Archer or 9x. Cons: Strike: range, payload and speed. You're a erage speed on your way in will be 50-100 knots less. Aar is being added which would help. Payload is limited and you'll likely need tanks, meaning you'll probably be carrying two PGMs on your mission. SEAD: Not many, but no HTS means you won't have as great a view of the threat rings out there as you'll have no ranging data on emitters. Then again, nothing else in DCS can do this now, anyway. BVR: Datalink not finished and not as complex as other aircraft. Gimball limits 20 deg smaller, scan sizes smaller, puts you at an acquisition phase disadvantage if no datalink used. Underpowered engine means defensive maneuvers need to use altitude judiciously. You're not a Mirage. If you're firced to the deck, you're stuck there if OPFOR is still nose hot. Dogfight: Gun is hard to use, rates are mediocre and engine is underpowered. No JHMCS. Really not the aircraft's strong suit. I love it. It's a unique airframe designed to with a sensors and systems first approach. Hope this helps. All just my opinion of course, others may disagree.

Keep pressing TDC action repeatedly. If the crosshairs are on the target you shouldn't have to slew. Make sure IR mav is selected with sensor control up (assuming you did this because you can slew). If that doesn't work let me know I'll run my own test on it.

You have DYK and PLAN confused. The ring in PLAN release is a steering order to maintain lateral attitude and the safety altitude. Shouldn't be any g involved.Please read the documentation. The ring in DYK commands a 4g climb at release. You don't need to pull G to separate the bombs in a level release because you are traveling, well, level. Also, if I designated a few meters in front of the target, why did the WHOLE string miss? How come if I PURPOSELY designate a spot past the target (any target), I can hit dead center? You also never adjusted QFE, which is odd, because in your first post that is the reason you told me why I missed, which leads me to believe you weren't certain how this system worked at first. Of course, QFE only affects pre-designation symbology if radar ranging is used for the designation, it wouldn't effect bomb accuracy is AGR is used. Also, see further evidence of NAV mode and RR mode, both landing short the exactly the same way. Also see Random's post on bombing the runway threshold where he was able to repeat my results using something that isn't as finnicky as an ammo dump to target. Also, I never said toss bombing was inaccurate. Actually, I think the recent changes to toss bombing that made it accurate are what broke these other modes. It's like if you're not pulling G at release you land short. In fact, I'm not sure what you're talking about. I never posted a track demonstrating toss bombing in this thread at all. NAV mode isn't just for toss bombing, you CAN do toss bombing in that mode, but it isn't necessary. Is that what you're talking about? Target motion measurement is off by default, has been I think since an update early summer of 2019 or so. Again, I cannot stress enough that up until the update 2 updates ago, I HAD 0 PROBLEMS WITH ANY OF THESE MODES FOR 2 YEARS. Only when tossing in NAV, wherein the bombs would always land long. Now, toss doesn't land long, and everything else lands short. Could be a coincidence, but this is definitely a bug. I will conduct additional tests tonight. I wonder if the system doesn't work unless you're pulling G? Tonight, I will posts tracks showing purposely designating long, then a track pulling G at release, then I will target something flat, like a runway to eliminate designation as a factor. Do you have a track of this video you posted? Random and I both found it a bit deceiving where you designate if you can't zoom in on the HUD in a track. EDIT: Here's a video from 7 months ago, start at about 2min. As you can see, no g pulled, using the steering order to maintain attitude, same designation spot, bombs bang on.

Is this going to be implemented for the Hornet? I.e., when in NAV instead of IFA, will we see drift? Will the various navigation correction options be implemented such as desg, tacan, gps and map? I ask because past ED modules don't simulate this. The only modules simulating this are Viggen and Tomcat. M2000 simulated drift but the correction methods aren't implemented properly. To be clear, I am not asking for a timeline. I just want to know if this is planned to be implemented for the module to be considered feature complete. I appreciate your time and interaction with the community. :thumbup:

I think I agree with USMC_Trev on this. It isn't obvious at all what the finished state of these products will be. Here's a past example and a future consideration: Both KA50 and A10C product pages indicate they are full fidelity flight systems that accurattely simulate the aircrafts navigation systems, among other things. I remember buying the KA50, and being very disappointed that inertial drift was not modeled, so navigation updating is pointless, even if you simulate degraded GPS. The same goes for the A10C. To this day neither module simulates INS drift. Is this complete? If the loosely coupled mode of hornet is never simulated, is it done? Hard to say what ED thinks of that. Future consideration: past flight sims have never been able to properly model EXP modes for their aircraft (BMS, Janes FA18 etc), instead of showing an accurate ground map where man made structures appear as part of the map, synthetic contact bricks were shown instead. The reason was that the typical user hardware couldn't handle a raycasting and doppler processing simulation without severely hampering performance. If ED ends up taking the same approach, or if structures don't show on the radar at all, is the AG radar done? I know these are features other people say they don't care about, but I care. The reason I first got into DCS was fidelity, first and foremost. I think most of us who bought that KA50 DVD are in that camp. Seeing comments like "I don't mind if they don't do X because I really care about Y" disappoints me. The whole point of DCS is that there should be BOTH X and Y, because they exist in the real aircraft, period. User preference should not be taken into account. It's unclear what a "done" INS, JDAMs auto mode, AG Radar, SLAM-ER look like because what they plan on simulating is only spoken about in general terms. This vagueness does lead to more of these posts, then the squabbling over whether said feature should ever be done or should be done before this other feature. Perhaps ED, instead of telling you what systen will be modeled, they should tell you what you will be able to do. Example: After the Spring we plan to have the INS improved. Vs.: After the Spring, users should be able to place markpoints with overfly/designate, drift will be enabled, user can correct position with desg map, desg wp, tacan, gps. Raw input update will not be modeled. Just my .02. I'm happy with ED, just offering my personal experience and how I think things could be improved.

Please view track files. All QFE settings are correct and aim points selected with AGR ranging active. Another user independently verified my results.

Ok I think I know how Raz is going to do this. Just noticed the data block of abeam offset of the course is now active in the lower right of the EHSD. Very cool and very sneaky Zeus! Not sure how accurate it is, but it's there and reacting in a logical fashion.

Very cool, I understand now. Is there allowed to be more than one NSEQ string?

I've been asking for this one for a while. I think we'll see it eventually, it's mentioned in the training mission on guns/rockets when they teach you how to run attack profiles.

If it auto sequences a route to a target, and is pre planned, how does this differ from the sequential flight plan? Why did you use this over just having the ingress/egress as part of the flight plan?

Bump

Ok I think I get it. We'll have to wait and see what Zeus has up his sleeves I suppose.

I think you're right, even for radar correction we know there is a CCRP method that is choosing a location at the end of the day, which gets plotted on your HUD. I think the problem might be deeper than this. What if they're not modeling drift at all, rather just shifting the waypoints around to make it look like drift? This would explain why it's not done and why the waypoints resolve to the correct position. Would also explain why waypoint positioning in general in the Mirage is screwy. Pure speculation of course. If they are actually modeling drift, I have no idea why they wouldn't finish the INS, because all of the hard parts are done already (designating positions, modeling actual drift, VAL function). However, if drift is being "faked", this would explain it a bit better. Still, 3 years for this is way too long. It's core systems functionality in the Mirage, not some edge case procedure.

I think the reason you can't use the radar (or VIP bombing mode) is they use AGR, which isn't implemented yet. However, you should be able to use the TPOD to do this. Then again, maybe the real jet will only use AGR for this operation and that is why we don't see it.

This! Though I have to say I don't find the LD10's too accurate, I find HARM's randomly miss on active emitters that are tracking me for no reason. Several shots at tracking radars at 25k feet within 20nm and the HARM just lands 10 feet to the side of the radar. Weird. I do agree, GB6 should be able to be shot down as easy as a JSOW. To be fair, I won't use them until I've knocked out the search and track radars, as it is a bit cheesy to just chuck a couple grid erasers in there and call it a night.