LastRifleRound

This looks like a mistake. If one mode is supposed to be 1.2 seconds after release, and the other at a set height, it could be they use the same method to detonate, and the 1.2 seconds is stored in there without any conditional. I.e., let's say there's a method "detonate" that tells the bomb to go off after 1.2sec. When in PRI mode, we call bomb.detonate() right away. When we use VT, we call bomb.detonate() at 1500ft. bomb.detonate() Probably a simple fix, detonate should check mode to apply or not apply the 1.2 second delay. Pure speculation, of course, but it would be an easy mistake to make.

Have you tried SEAD in this thing? 4xLD10's and 2 GB6 with SFW. I'm wiping entire BATTERIES off the map. Knock out the radars with LD10, mop up the launchers with GB6. :joystick:

I never noticed any drift, so I'm not sure. I'll be watching this one. Also seems like there should be a "designate" option for PU like there is for MARK instead of just "OFLY"

I don't think that"s quite it. Nseq appears to be more involved than this with ingree/egress options, color coding, etc

Could anyone shed more light on NSEQ navigation? I read the NATOPS, and it briefly mentions the setting when discussing EHSD nav functions, but refers to another document for more information that doesn't appear to be online. I saw Zeus's post about what it looks like, and I don't get what it's for. It shows ingress and egress points that look to be a linear (sequential) series of points. Does anyone know how this works and what it's used for?

No way. The doppleganger thing is definitely the right answer here. What were we talking about again? :lol:

Ny guess is that it puts realistic limitations on performance. Brings the min range further out, shortens the launch window so it's not like carrying 16 LMAVs.

Whereas I do agree that lofting is pretty edge case and therefore not that useful, I think auto modes handling of multiple qty release on pre planned targets is very useful, particularly if terminal parameters are involved. MAN mode treats every bomb as an individual, whereas AUTO treats every selected bomb as one pass.

Not implemented yet. This was just a preview.

Very cool! Is this set by the CAS page? Are there course deviation indications now?

They are not implemented, but knowing how the Hornet's system works, I can answer some of these (with a small amount of conjecture.) 1. This is because the system needs to center the scan around something. If it is in SP, it is ambiguous as to where you want the scan to be centered. It is likely there will be a designation "patch" if you are in SP and pick one of these modes in the future, where you can select where the scan should be, but this is pure speculation on my part. 2. I don't know what you mean by this. You can hit the designate button and designate an area of the map to recenter on. Pressing again on that same spot enters FTT. In the Hornet, FTT is entered only if there is a radar-discernible feature at that location (building, vehicle, landmark that stands out). Since this is the only way a radar could lock on to a ground feature, I'm assuming it works the same in the JF17. Since this feature is not complete yet, it always enters FTT. Having FTT gives you a much more accurate bombing solution than just designating a spot on the radar without it, as the latter is INS interpretation of the ground map whereas FTT is like laser ranging that point. 3. Press it twice to go back to the waypoint. Not sure if this is a bug. Again, until the actual radar API is available I wouldn't expect small quality of life stuff like this to be changed 4. This is a bug. Again, won't be fixed until the modes are actually implemented. I want it to be known that I do not have any advanced or inside knowledge of how the JF17 radar works, but there are things that are common among all radars that are logical. This post is speculative in nature and until the features are actually implemented there really shouldn't be any bug reports.

Do you mean GMTI or GMTT? GMTT is ground moving target tracking. It's analogous to STT in the air, all the radar energy is directed at one contact and all others are dropped.

I know for sure RCAF uses the cheek station.

It's not implemented yet. AUTO/LOFT does not literally program the JDAM to loft, that would actually reduce the weapon's impact range. It does provide a loft line, that will only increase range from the mid-low atltitude regime. Lofting a Jdam above a certain altitude is actually counter-productive. AUTO mode provides guidance to the center of a release point on the HUD. If a QTY of > 1 is selected, then you will be guided to a point where release is possible for all selected bombs and their terminal parameters. If such a point does not exist for the selected QTY (no overlapping release point for all selected bombs), then no guidance is provided. On the HSI, an LAR is displayed when aircraft heading is within +/- 15 deg of all QTY impact points and the aircraft is within +/-15 deg of LOS for all terminal headings (should any be selected). This LAR is a space where all selected bombs can be successfully released. Again, if such parameters are impossible, then the LAR will not be displayed. It's a very involved system and very cool. I posted a while ago asking when terminal parameters would be made active, and the reply from ED was when AUTO/LOFT was implemented. I hope it's finished after the TGP pointing modes are done. They did say it's in their "phase 1" (if they're still adhering to that) of the Hornet roll-out, whereas things like the AG Radar are in phase 2.

It'a possible there's some time zone difference I'm not aware of, so I can't say this is a bug, but yhe correct times to use on the HUD are 0605 and 0615

Ok I pulled this mission off, landed, but my score was 0 and results was 50. Is this from incorrect ID of some of the targets? It's almost impossible to make out what I'm looking at. I pop up to 25k (I wasn't doing this before, so the SA8 near WP10 was getting me), but can barely make out many of the objects. I can make out the HAWK site and the attack Helos pretty easily, but as far as the rest of the questions, I was just guessing. The train yard, in particular was impossible to identify if was a CP, fuel transfer, etc. Any more tips on this one? PS, to beat the Mirages you simply need to get in right at 6:15 (time in the HUD) recon all the targets then turn tail on full burner to WP12 > 13. They are on a timer. By the time they launched on me the BRA call-outs had them at over 60nm, way too far to attack me. Once you get in your own SAM net near WP 14 you're good.

Right, ground vehicles do show up rather easily. However structures do not show up at all. I've attached two pictures here. In the first, the WP has a very large metal hangar in the middle of it. The return does NOT show on the radar at all. In the second picture, I added a small CP vehicle in the hangar's place. You can clearly make out the return of this vehicle, even while not in LOG mode. Pic 1 Pic 2

Just tried RR, NAV and PLAN modes again. ALL are falling short. This is a big problem. Viggen cannot accurately drop LD bombs in anything but DYK, probably because the pull-up cue is always too far up so it compensates for the issue (plus you're in a dive). HB you really need to look into this. I can attach more tracks if necessary, but the ones I've already posted should suffice. Ran another try just to be sure. Here's a track of a run in NAV. Used to hit this all the time no problem. Now, bombs short. bomb_short7.trk

What is overlay 1?

Thanks for the advice guys. In summary: 1. Keep elevation higher than desired scan zone 2. Unreliable over 40nm in all modes 3. D/L still ok

Those are good ideas also

So, what EXACTLY is the problem with the radar? I've read this entire thread and it seems to contradict itself a few times. I will be flying the JF17 this weekend and just want to know what to expect until it gets fixed. It looks like the antenna elevation is lower than shown, but the reports on range and dropping contacts seem to contradict. There are some people saying RWS doesn't work outside of 15nm, but there are pictures here showing RWS contacts at 80nm. There are some saying TWS works fine inside of 40nm, but others saying it won't show contacts at all and drops them immediately. I know it's getting fixed later, just want to know what the current work-arounds are

Excellent. No one in the community works harder for DCS than you and charly_owl

There are several aircraft capable of offset bombing in DCS now (including OAP for IAMs). They resolve bearing to the 1/10th of a degree (e.g. 284.7) or more, but the ruler is not capable of this. Would be nice if we could do a similar thing as Alt-Y with the ruler and gain some significant digits on the ruler.

I agree, vote with your wallet. I will say, however, that many of the complaints cited here are real and prevent one from making a good buying decision. With the M2K (which is the least complete of all the modules, so if that's considered out of EA that is really not good), I had NO IDEA of all the broken things on the aircraft. Indeed, you seem to think it isn't even in EA anymore. I had no idea the INS, CCRP, PI, TWS, etc were all not working. I downloaded the manual before buying, watched training missions on youtube, looked at the actual training mission scripts. Everything referenced completed features that were not actually complete and were known to be working improperly. I'll never forget how annoyed I was when I first flew the INS training. Why the hell won't the cross go in the right place? Why can't I even seem to move it? I bought it and the Harrier the same day. I should have come on here to see what was wrong first. If it wasn't for the people complaining, I wouldn't have any idea that these things weren't my fault, because RAZ does not have a reliable bug tracker and often marks unresolved bugs as resolved. I don't have a problem with any other EA module, each one (the latest for me being the Hornet) I was able to keep track of and buy when I found it to be as feature complete as I thought necessary for me to enjoy. Haven't complained about the JF17, F14, AJS37, FA18 at all. The only one I have a problem with is the M2K, as it was made impossible for me to make a good buying decision. You can't hide behind "it's EA" and at the same time hide or unintentionally obfuscate what's actually going on. This kind of ambiguity is what breeds this atmosphere. I participate quite a bit in this community in all the forums. It just isn't like this in those other forums. I mean sometimes, but not nearly as much as it is here. I am looking forward to the update and I hope we see much in the way of progress. If they patch up the M2K and Harrier as they indicated, I have no problem buying a MiG23 and a Bo105 from them, but communication needs to improve or features need to come faster or this sort of stuff is just going to continue on and on. I'm rooting for these guys. If their modules were complete rubbish I would make one negative post saying so and move on. They're not complete rubbish, not by a long shot, which is why I try to come on here and as honestly and gently as I can offer feedback, and I see alot of other people doing that, too. It's going to come down to this; if they largely finish the AV8B and M2K and leave no major bugs this year, the tone around here will shift. I know I wouldn't mention it anymore at least. If they don't, then expect this sort of thing to continue.