LastRifleRound

FYI it works in the short version for Laser Mavs

I can't get the JTAC to appear on the radio menu, so I can't contact him. I've tuned to 125.5 on the UFC for my manual channel for both comms 1 and 2 and it never comes up. I've flown back and forth between wpts 1 and 2 and still nothing. I assume it's tuned to AM already as I can sucessfully contact Kobuleti by punching in 133.0. I think maybe it's a broken trigger? Easy comms of course is off.

Agree 100% with all of this

I find with thrust reverser on high some nose down on the stick helps greatly from veering.The reverser pushed the nose into the ground, but I think the modeled effect isn't enough if you have a lot of nose high trim added in. Typically when you're landing there's a decent amount of nose up trim you end up doing. When wheels on ground it can have an odd effect with he thrust reverser kicked on high.

I am confused by this thread. Every time INS bombing comes up I see two things come up. 1. Offset bombing is primarily for JTAC: This isn't true. This method is usually used for strike on pre planned targets, not CAS or front line interdiction. Before the age of SAR and targeting pods, most aircraft had nothing but visual methods of bombing. INS bombing gives you the opportunity to select an object on a known radial and distance and aquire it with precision to have a good location on a target that a.) May be much harder to see or b.) Is in a higher threat environment. The object may even be something that poor weather doesn't obscure or is easy to make out at night vs your target. On something like an F16 it may be something that shows up prominently on radar whereas the target doesn't. It was the most common method practiced for high threat bombing. It eliminates the workload and exposure of acquisition on run in 2. It's not that accurate. Citation needed. If you're using ip bombing your protocol is not to re attack. You should be dropping the whole stick of bombs. Also, just because it's less accurate, why shouldn't we ask for the tools to make this as accurate as it can be? Surely in real life you wouldn't pre plan a strike and unncessarily handicap yourself with imprecise measurements. The goal isn't to find the target, it's pre planned. You know where it is. The idea is to resolve precisely on a target using a much easier to resolve object. No one is asking for death rays, just give us the tools to use the feature adequately.

The training mission on navigation mentions it's possible after setting a course line to see the difference in nm from the line and degrees off from course bearing. I don't see this info anywhere, just the line. Is it missing or am I just not finding it? Would be real helpful for FOB landings and raked range patterns.

AFK reduces power to maintain 12deg alpha when gear is down. It only maintains 500 when gear is up. OP states that AFK was activated when gear was down. That being said I find the Viggen bleeds airspeed rapidly when gear down. The training has you do it when speed is below 550

I deactivate by control input probably why I didn't notice

Have you seen the chuck's guide? I always use that as a jumping off point to see what I should bind. I used that exactly, plus a binding for slow zoom in/slow zoom out (I do this for every aircraft even though I have trackIR I find it helps alot). I have a two-stage trigger so the only thing I changed was allowing the first stage to be "Trigger Safe (Hold)" and the second stage to be "weapon release".

I am not seeing this behavior at all, but I always engage Alt hold along with it to do some cockpit busy work. Maybe the alt hold is setting the trim and straight AFC is bugged?

I agree with this so much! This first hit me in the short landing training mission. They have you land in a pretty decent crosswind and it is SO hard flying a good crabbed approach! You have to estimate your vector. I can pull it off, but that seems like critical information to be able to see when you're supposed to be landing. I find level breaks in vtol master mode almost impossible. I end up staring at the FPM indicator to suss out my attitude which pulls my eyes off of the alpha indicator, which is why I should be looking at after I nestle the vector on the horizon. I end up porpoising and usually about 50-100ft off from where I should be when leveling out of the turn.

This module went dormant for a while and is coming back to life, but in my opinion is still critical-feature incomplete. I'm surprised that no one is telling you the core functionalities that are missing. I wish someone told me before I went for it. I will list them and then you can decide for yourself. 1. CCRP bombing does not work. People will tell you if you fly a high dive angle, almost table-based approach with a designation before the target, you will sometimes hit. Up to you if you think that "works". I don't. 2. The INS updating does not work. If you update the INS position, it reduces the error to 0, instead of using the position you designated to update ownship position. This makes INS bombing difficult to be precise with and is silly looking in practice. There has been no indication, even in the MLO, that anyone intends to fix this. 3. The waypoint positions are wrong. When placing a waypoint in the editor, it will be off, sometimes up to .8nm in the simulation. Same when punching it in to NAV. Again, mostly a concern for A/G INS bombing. Again, there is no talk that this will ever be fixed. 4. The INS bombing mode HUD representation does not accurately guide to release, and does not release automatically (releases immediately when bomb release is pressed) The concerns, as you can see, generally relate to A/G missions, specifically cold-war era INS-based bombing in high threat environments. I bought it in tandem with the Viggen to fly this mission in addition to its A/A capabilities and was let down as a result. Most of the people who like ground pounding are using rockets which work fine and LGB's where the aiming problem is mitigated by the guidance system. You seem to want the aircraft for its A/A mission. The radar is going through an overhaul right now that looks to be pretty extensive, while not including any of the A/G modes, it does seem to orient the A/A radar closer to the real thing. I think as an A/A platform, the Mirage is a lot of fun. Some people say the radar breaks lock too easily, but when I fly below to counter the notch I'm not seeing any issues. It's a 70's era radar, notching works well against it but that's real and expected behavior. I would like to point out if you're into A/G, the Harrier is a LOT of fun. It's not feature complete, but most of its core missions can be completed without ridiculous bugs and the V/STOL aspects take weeks to learn on their own. Bottom line, if you want an A/A dogfighter, I'd pick it up. Not too much is going to change in that realm after the PCA updates and it's really fun to fly in this regime. If you care about it's A/G capabilities, I'd wait to see if they're going to do anything about the waypoint positions and INS fixes, as well as a fix to CCRP. None of this has been mentioned so there is no guarantee it will happen any time in the near future.

23500lbs. seems awfully light with that amount of ordinance and 100% fuel. I know just 100% fuel alone has my bird around 23,500. However, I do routinely VTO/VL with that weight because the short carrier VL training missions didn't teach me to fuel dump, so you have full fuel and land heavy. I got used to it. You definitely need water to hover at that weight.

Cool article re. Av8b and jdams use. Not sure which version of the harrier this was. https://www.2ndmaw.marines.mil/News/Article-View/Article/522816/avengers-unleash-wrath-with-historic-jdam-strike/

If the target point is vehicles (they should be if you're employing bk90) you can get a fix on the target itself. Vehicles show up reliably on the radar.

Is there wind? There's a known issue of the wind correction being backwards. Try flying without wind and check your results. The bug can be overcome by manully entering the wind in the ck37 once in the air. Also note in "valb" the default mode is "long", not "compact". If you want to use the weapon without takt input, switch to STD.

Well, what kind of war? The doctrine was for short range sorties with quick turn arounds in a general defensive action from a soviet invasion. It makes sense in that context.

Great can't wait. Following other threads it looks like the hud symbology is off but it sounds like the bombs still fall true.

Last time I checked code wasn't written with a magic wand. I believe those changes should be prioritzed, that's the whole point. To each their own. I voiced my opinion and I'm not trying to hijack the thread. Carry on.

This is good stuff, so I'm truly not trying to be a downer, but any news on the non-trip dependent fixes? Regardless of the function of the PCA, the nav fixes need to corrected, the waypoint locations are all still off, and CCRP still doesn't hit its target, and OB mode still requires a manual release. These are all things that aren't mentioned in the MLO or in this thread, but really need to be fixed. The above seem to be new ways to get into still-broken modes.

Exactly. Viggens are purpose-built for known targets. A Viggen would be tasked with a general area (that'd be the waypoint). If it's close enough to the position of the actual location of the enemy shipping, you could input the coordinates for the known waypoint to BX8, then switch to BX8 as your active waypoint, then initiate a fix to move it to the proper location. If this were the intention, however, BX8 would probably have already been set on the ground to this likely target location so it's position could be refined.

I think he means if the BX waypoint was not input in the system already (so from the data cartridge or by entering coordinates via REF/LOLA) you could not initiate a fix at all. Further, if the point already exists, initiating a fix will slew the cursor from the position of the existing point, not from in front of the aircraft, so if the waypoint is off-screen you will not see the cursor.

Anything I should know about using iron bombs in the harrier? I'm seeing conflicting information that auto mode at least is way off. I don't want to waste a bunch of time like I did in the M2000C trying to hit something when in fact it doesn't work.

I mapped this to my hotas in the DCS control settings and it only takes me one press. Are you sure you're giving no stick input when you press it? Sometimes I'll jump the gun on the button press and it won't engage because I am giving too much stick input at the same time. ATT won't engage if the pilot is currently exceeding the mode's authority (which I believe is 20%).

No problem glad it's working!