LastRifleRound

Use the DMT spot tracker, when spot is found switch to TPOD and engage slave mode to verify visual at night.

Not sure how I would measure that, would a couple track files help instead? If I had to guess I'd say about 50-100m.

You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar

The lower-risk, more stable investment will always cost more up front

All the bombing modes and sighting systems seem to be working better than ever now. Accuracy and sighting mechanisms work smoothly and provide smooth guidance and accurate passes when done in the proper parameters. I have not tested High drag bombs, only low drag, rockets and BK90. There is one mode that still doesn't work, and that's NAV when executing the toss technique . NAV works fine when flying level, but if you try to follow the procedure in the manual, the bombs always land exactly in the same spot long of the target. I'm experiencing high precision but low accuracy, dead give away I'm dealing with a bug. If I execute a 4g pull to 30deg nose up then wait for release, or make sure I'm executing the 4g to 30deg during the release, the bombs fall in the same spot, long of the target.

I'd pay 80 for a mostly done module of high-fidelity, which this is

Also I want to point out that Ragnar made a bunch of fixes to the Viggen that didn't get added to the changelog last week because he didn't know they were releasing his updates

I see it now, you are right

This bit here is to what I was referring. Not trying to be too much of a stickler I figured maybe you mis-typed or something.

1. OP is below the target 2. This doesn't explain why contacts appear with the same parameters after an orbit. This implies the behavior is either broken before the orbit or after

Right I know the workarounds, but if multiple stations are selected the real aircraft gives guidance for all targts. Can we actually confirm that isn't happening here?

This is the correct behavior, radar ranging provides a valid slant range regardless of QFE. However, you will find your pre-ranging symbology far more useful if you have an accurate QFE setting. I'd also like to correct Kat that PLAN bombing does use radar ranging. CCIP, Rocket quick mode, and NAV rely on QFE and will not use radar ranging. As for BK90, accurate QFE can help with the ranging bar, as the in range calculations are done by the CK37 and thus rely on QFE to plot out the appropriate launch zone. The weapon itself, if released in parameters, does not require QFE in order to hit its target.

Good list. I'd also like to add that all INS target designation methods are not currently implemented, though the training materials act as if they are (HUD designation, HSI-to-target designation)

Wouldn't that need to be the behavior now? The launch zones are still dynamic in that you can't change the impact heading or angle, but you still need to be within the glide range of the weapon.

If I have a JDAMS programmed to hit one set of coordinates and another JDAMS set to a different set of coordintes, is it possible to select both weapons for simultaneous release and receive a launch zone and TMR that takes both targets into account? Does having different coordinates in the same mission do this by default, even when rippling?

I will tune in and watch while I write unit tests. Maybe I'll stream me writing code watching Ragnar writing code.

If this is true, why not do it the other way around?

The Early Access promise is intentionally vague. Agreements like this made in such an ambiguous manner (give us some money now, and we promise, in a REASONABLE time frame to deliver a FEATURE FULL product) are destined for confusion. The caps are the things up for interpretation. How long is reasonable? If the Hornet is in EA for 10 years, are you ok with that? How about 5? 2? Where do you draw the line? More importantly, where do the devs draw the line? What is feature full? How many bugs or missing features are permitted to call the product "complete"? None of these things are fully defined, and so all of the repeat questions you see in these forums are directed to these areas. It is not unreasonable to ask what's going on. We were told Hornet development would not be slowed by Viper development. That turned out to be wrong. So that means things have changed, the timelines are different, and your investment becomes ever murkier. Remember, you paid a slightly discounted rate to get into EA in contemplation of a full product. You have every right to wonder when and how that full product is delivered. I, for one, never jump in to initial EA. It just doesn't suit me. I usually set a milestone I would like to see, then hold off until that feature is stable. For me, that DLZ's for JDAMS and SLAM-ER weapons. That will give me an accurate representation of a mission type and capability not possessed by any other DCS aircraft. If the JF17 comes out first, I will buy that and wait for the Hornet to have AG radar modes before purchasing. It's arbitrary, but I've set the limit of what I'm comfortable with having for about a 1 yr period before the next major feature releases. Not saying you should all do what I do, but just throwing my thought process out there.

I'd buy an HB shirt, and that goes double for an HB Viggen shirt

Great work on filling out the bug tracker! Most of what I know is up there now :thumbup: However, big item missing is this: INS updates using radar or visual fixes do not use the location data presented by the radar designation pipper or ownship position respectively, rather they reset the error to 0. Same holds true for INS bombing mode. I assume this is either unintentional or stop-gap behavior, but it's missing from the bug tracker so I can't be sure.

It is bugged. They are precise, but not accurate, meaning they always miss exactly the same way. They always fall long. This is nowhere near true to life. To test for yourself, get a feel for how long they fall in a test mission. Use a tank to practice on. Now place another tank behind it that distance. Designate the first tank, and you will always hit the second. No matter your attitude at release or at designation. We use a similar procedure to zero in gun sights to differentiate between shooter error and an error in the sight presentation. If I shoot a sub-moa group at 100 yards, but every round is up from the bullseye, then I know the problem is my sights, not me. Also, CCRP is used in a dive to designate. The procedure is then to perform a climb-out until bomb release, so the bombs are not actually released in a dive. This is according to the documentation and the training mission included with the module. It should be fixed and definitely cannot be accounted for by the random dispersion you would expect from a generally inaccurate method.

Here's a video of it actually working with wind being manually input: I see this same behavior on my machine. Maybe it accounts submunition bomb fall times into the total bomb fall time, and thus comes up with the correct result even if the submunitions aren't explicitly in the equation? Also, wind correction doesn't appear to be implemented at all on PLAN and DYK for LD bombs, but does appear implemented on CCIP for HD bombs. I have not tested NAV or RADAR modes. Is this true to the aircraft or just not implemented yet?

Agreed. Also the profile you fly is unique. Screaming along at Mach .8 at < 100ft at dusk is a hell of an experience.

Power plants and most roads do not show on radar

I'm having trouble when making missions coming up with reasonable radar-identifiable nav points to use for radar fixing. Aside from coast lines, it isn't obvious what does and does not show up on radar. Are there placeable objects or other static scenery that make for good radar fixes?