LastRifleRound

Right, but see my post after. LAR's should be combined for ease of use. I had a scenario where I had to bomb a factory complex, 2 specific buildings. In order to avoid hitting intervening structures, one bomb needed an azimuth of 105 deg, the other 30 deg. The LARS did overlap in a small section, but I had to keep toggling back and forth to figure out where I was, as a sudden heading change would have changed the LARS and necessitated 2 runs. That's why this feature exists in the FA18, and I'm sure it's in the F16 as well, I just don't have any documentation to that effect. This is also how it works in the AV8B Harrier, though the RAZBAM implementation only partially models it currently. EDIT: Just saw your post. Thank you!

To add to this, the current LS6 implementation seems flawed, though I could be wrong. Just tested this. 2 LS6 bombs, 2 different PP targets within a few hundred feet. No probem. Set QTY to 2. Set impact azimuth for target 1 to 74 degrees, set impact azimuth to target 2 to 254 degrees. The system will show the LAR for the current bomb, yet it will still allow release of both bombs, even though at least one of the bombs has no chance of hitting its target. I released the bombs and sure enough, that is what occurred. Of course, you can pre-step through your bombs to ensure you're in LAR for all of them, but this is very unlikely to be how it works on the real jet. I believe if the QTY > 1, then the LAR should be the overlap of all bombs in QTY, or no LAR at all if overlap is not possible. Also, I was carrying 4 LS6's, but the max QTY possible was still 2. This may be an actual aircraft limitation, but just putting that out there. EDIT: Just want to point out this should only apply to PP mode. TOO offers Tandem and SBYSI options as it should and delivers to only one target

Just got back around to this, sorry for the delay. IZLAR is always displayed, regardless of terminal attack params, in MAN mode, if the current priority target is within 15deg of the nose. The current symbology isn't strictly correct. This is because the circle only applies to a defined heading to target. I.e., if you fly to the left side of the circle far enough, release won't be possible as the circle will dynamically shrink past your aircraft. That circle is just supposed to be IN RANGE representation in general, not IN ZONE, which is the only place release is possible. It's basically like RMAX for a missile. You shouldn't actually drop there, and the system I believe prohibits dropping if IN ZONE isn't possible (except in FD mode which I suspect won't be modeled and is very edge case). Thus, the IZLAR shows where you actually must fly with respect to current heading to target assuming +/- 15 deg. deflection from the target itself. IZLAR is even more important in quantity release, PP Mode wherein bombs have different targets when AUTO/LOFT is selected. In AUTO/LOFT with a quantity selected, the IZLAR displayed is the overlap of the IZLAR for all the selected targets and represents an area where all 4 bombs could be dropped simultaneously and still hit their targets. If no such overlap is possible with the selected targets, then no symbology is displayed and AUTO release is not possible. In this mode, the range circles are not displayed at all, and IZLAR is only displayed when the aircraft is +/- 15 deg of azimuth for priority target and within +/-10deg LOS for each terminal attack heading, should one be selected on any or all targets. Bottom line: I agree, AUTO/LOFT would be a great addition and I'd like to see it next, and AUTO/LOFT will use IZLARs always. I'm assuming they'll model all this, as otherwise I'm not sure what the point of adding AUTO/LOFT in would be.

I think you misunderstand my post. In a true quantity release, the LAR zone showed on the HSI in AUTO mode corresponds to every single station so a simultaneous release can be performed. The LAR zone in the HSI corresponds to the overlap of all targets in this mode, not just the active station. I am aware multiple individual bombs can be programmed for different targets then released one by one. Auto mode is different. QTY currently only selects the number of bombs to drop on one PP point, and maxes out at 2. The JF17 in PP mode currently behaves like the Hornet in MAN mode, I was curious if JF17 had a mode similar to AUTO mode as described above.

Ah ok I see thank you. Yes, I think you're right about parallax. I believe the same bug is in effect when waypoint placement is off. There's some mismatch between aircraft systems and the actual ground map in DCS.

This is true, but the RELEASE is done level, or pulling to level or climb. This doesn't work in this module. You must actually release the bombs in the dive or they will overshoot everytime. Also, if it were modeling disepersion of the radar beam, you would expect a dispersal of bomb patterns over multiple tries. In this module's case, the bombs always fall long the exact same distance every time. The bombs are very precise, but not accurate.

Unless you specify a fault with aircraft's GPS reciever or related systems GPS is omnipresent in DCS. HNS defaults to INS only on cold start, but defaults to INS+GPS on a hot start

Does the JF17 have an AUTO mode availabe to it similar to the Hornet, where when a quantity of more than one is selected, and those bombs have different targets, the intersection of all the selected launch zones only is displayed, and HUD guidance is given to this area? JF17 currently operates like Hornets manual mode. Not sure if the auto type release isn't implemented yet or is not a capability of the actual jet.

This is likely due to correctional GPS coupling. I wonder if the INS error is more notcible if FAST is used and HNS is left to INS only.

The manual indicates the Viggen does not flare on landing, but I find if I'm on glideslope at 12-13 deg aoa, when the landing symbology changes to show descent rate, I am always coming in too hard and need to nose up, essentially flaring and slightly extending my landing point as a result. Does anyone else see this? Am I doing something wrong?

The following bugs have existed for at least a year and a half: 1. INS ignores position update, instead resolving position error to 0. Essentially ignores what you actually input. 2. Waypoint positions are bugged. Waypoints don't appear in the game world where you set them in the ME. This, coupled with #1, makes IP bombing useless. It also means the Mirage cannot drop on a waypoint or perform any cold war style strike mission. 3. IP bombing is not consent to release like it should be 4. CCRP bombing will always drastically overshoot it's targget in less than a 30deg dive, making it useless. This, coupled with #2, means the mirage cannot drop bombs level That's just a few of the issues, but they are prominent and hit you right away when you attempt the training.

Not sure what you mean. Most vehicular generators pass energy to an alternator, which produces alternating current. In fact, the alternator is likely simpler in a Harrier than a car since the energy is largely radial in a jet engine (it's a turbine system) as opposed to the piston IC type engine in an automobile.

It's a great introductory airframe to learn ACM, takeoff, landing, basic aa radar usage. However, it's a terrible introductory aircraft for learning systems, navigation, and anything at all air to ground. Many of the training missions reference systems that don't work right or flat out don't even exist yet. The air to ground capabilities are completely bugged in almost every aspect, INS won't work right, etc. It is fun, I just wish it were better taken care of. I have a feeling whenever it happens, when Mirage is realease candidate many of us will agree with OP. However, seeing guys like jojo, who have defended razbam and kept a positive attitude throughout, get discouraged is a bad sign. I think they need to pour 100% into one of their existing modules and get it to release candidate. They're clearly very talented but I speculate they are spread too thin.

So you think breaking every USMC procedure and standard and not accurately modeling real life, actually used systems is a good idea because you think they're too "fancy" and you don't "need" them. This is subjective language arguing against objective reality. This is a slap in the face to the FAC guys. Calling in air support well takes special training. This is like saying they shouldn't have combat medics because every soldier should know some first aid. Modern equipment and tactics (like the CAS package in the Harrier) greatly reduce fratricide, increase response times, and can reduce needed station times. Also, not sure how a feature that exists in the real aircraft being modeled in a mil-sim is "over hyped". All major mission types should be modeled accurately because that is what DCS is all about. Your personal preferences should never be considered, only true to life accuracy. If you want to just use your eyes and maybe some radio, try a different aircraft. I know you're an eastern bloc guy, I honestly don't know how they do things, but this is how it's done in the USMC and so that's what it should be like in DCS Harrier.

The gun reticle is a cross, not a circular reticle with pipper like the a10. Just used the gun to blow up a few BTR80's. works great.

LOL. Yup, basically what I did. I own both. I do wish I had a better idea of what was/wasn't implemented when I bought the Harrier and especially the Mirage, but there you go.

Hey Zeus, In selecting more than one pre planned target, the system allows the selection of target points that are too far to be in both LAR's. Essentially, the centroid steering cue will take you between LAR because the targets are too far apart. Does the real aircraft permit this? I can't find any literature on the subject. Didn't want to put this in bugs because this might be accurate implementation. Also, will terminal params ever be implemented? They are working currently on the JF17 and I know ED will have them done soon on the Hornet.

Auto boming on moving targets or windy conditions. Can you do that one? Accept CAS target through JTAC data link transmission? The A10 can do that. What about the Harrier? Despite this I do enjoy flying the Harrier. The JDAMS implementation is probably the most accurate in handling single pass, multi target scenarios, though I suspect the Hornet won't be far behind in this regard. It does some things really well wrt the real airctaft, some poorly and yet more not at all. Up to Op how annoying you'd find that. OP, what do you prioritize in a module? If you could sum it up in a word, what would it be?

This. The Mirage, an aircraft without GPS, can't even do a proper INS update or bomb accurately. The Harrier can't even track a moving target with DMT. I'm not going to tell anyone what to do, but I will say I won't buy anything RAZBAM until their current modules are 90% complete with all offensive capabilities modeled.

Last mission of Mjolnir Response. If you exit the mission anytime after bombing the bridge, DCS will CTD. Open beta version. First time was after landing, taxiing and shutting down. Tried again exiting after passing egress waypoint 6. CTD both times. I sent the error report with the debugger tool.

Just out of curiosity, what is the ETA for the AG radar submodes? Is it on the same path as the Hornet (late next year) or will Deka be looking to have their implementation completed sooner?

Fun thing you can try in your JF17. This is far from SOP, just a work-around until EXP and DBS are brought online. Not sure what the ETA is on those, so here's something you can do while you wait. Make a mission in the ME with low cloud/fog cover, such that the TGP is unable to resolve targets. Make some static targets to bomb, put a waypoint in their vicinity. Make sure you bring a TGP in your loadout. On ingress, fire up your AG radar, make sure it's set to SLV. Bring it to DBS1/DBS2 mode (Many times you may even be able to resolve the returns in EXP). Make sure you haven't TDC slewed the cursor at all. Now, switch to the TGP as SOI. When you're about 20nm away, hit TDC designate with the TGP as SOI. Now slew the TGP, but look in the radar screen. You can slew the radar cursor by way of the TGP, and avoid the bugs in the AG Radar. Slew over one of your targets in the radar display. Now make the radar SOI. Make sure you have not moved the radar cursor. Press TDC designate. You should be in FTT on that target point. Drop bombs. Works like a charm. The procedure will be similar except nix the TGP when the radar is finished, and I'm sure you'll have to fly offset from the SPI to get a good DBS picture due to the nature of DBS imagery, but this makes blind bombing against non pre-planned targets posiible. Have fun!

What is the practical purpose of using OAP with IAMS like the ls 6? Particularly in pre planned mode. Also, is there a designate method available for PU like there is for mark mode? Is it not available because AGR isn't implemented?

If you have more than 1 qty selected and are using pp, to which station does the HSD symbology apply?

1. C701 has no aiming circle, but the track will show at one point I put the target on the boresight cross 2. It can't be weapon release binding, because the same key is used to launch BRM, which in the track you can see I am able to do successfully.