LastRifleRound

Bingo. That's great technique. Definitely going to practice this. Much more practical in DCS anyway.

Thank you! That button was always hidden by the stick, so I never noticed it.

The least refined method of targeting is the HUD TDC, yet most procedural texts for the Hornet outlining AUTO bombing call for refining the designation with the HUD. In DCS, it has a resolution of about 10 mil, which at a release altitude of 6-7k ft if you were still slewing means if you're unlucky in your initial designation you can only correct in increments of 60 feet in any axis AT RELEASE. You're probably done slewing before this, so it's really something like 100-120ft. This limitation is X and Y, meaning it is literally impossible to follow these manuals. Something isn't right. Right now, if the designation is off, forget it. If you don't have a FLIR you need to undesignate and use CCIP (which is also bugged currently), as HUD slewing is utterly pointless. The procedures only outline undesignate and CCIP if your designation is too far off or there's no time for slewing. However, here if it's too close it's just as much of an issue. I can see this behavior being normal for the HMD, but the procedures outlined in these technical manuals are at odds with what's possible in DCS. Am I off-base here? Shouldn't the HUD slew in the Hornet be similar to the A10 or Harrier or Viper or JF17? If we're going with a preponderance of evidence standard here (which it seems like most things in DCS are), the evidence that the HUD slew should not work this way is overwhelming. Can anyone shed some insight on to why it works this way in DCS? Is there a document or something that says this, HUD video, something? I can find no evidence it should work this way, and plenty of evidence that it shouldn't. I just watched an A7 video from 30 years ago showing smooth slewing on the HUD. This looks like the gun dispersion debate all over again.

Isn't CPL mode, in the absence of course and with WP SEQ active, supposed to follow the dotted course lines between waypoints? Right now, it heads right for the waypoint even in this condition.

I have no problem wiping out IFV's with Mirage rockets. They're some of the more reliable ones in my opinion. Nothing is worse than the A10's FFAR's that aren't APKWS. The best by far are Zuni's, of course.

The lines that currently appear showing the aircraft your flight members have for an L&S on the SA format, are those coming to the ATK RDR format? It can be difficult to break up who is targeting who on the SA page as I can't expand the display, but I could use TWS EXP to do this and help sort targets. Is this a thing on the real jet?

The recursion of having the radar track your own AIM7 at launch is hilarious but disappointing.

Yeah I was confused, too. I realized it was me after having flown 360 degrees around twice and the radial position never changed a foot that the only logical conclusion was that the game logic had it tracking me. I didn't get a lock warning, but geometrically it had to be myself. Clearly a bug I hope gets fixed soon!

I'm seeing alot of conflating what may or may not be true in real life that I don't think is relevant to OP. As it exists now in DCS, the Hornet avionics give it a distinct disadvantage, largely due the current radar function. It is currently the only fighter that has it's range reduced and can actually be confused by missiles in the air. For any large scale BVR engagement, the pilot will struggle with what the radar is actually tracking. Contacts are lost with much more regularity, and the pilot is presented with a choice of brick clutter or having their entire track history wiped every 4 seconds. STT will jump from an aircraft to a missile, sometimes your own, with no warning. I have an issue with HACQ that the first thing it locks is ME. I have to undesignate and reacuire at least once in 1v1 now. None of the other aircraft in DCS has these hurdles. Some may be fixed, some may be added to other aircraft, but it isn't clear just how much and to what extent. TL ; DR: As currently implemented as compared to other aircraft as they are in DCS, the Hornet's avionics put it at a disadvantage in air to air combat against the F15, F16, Mig29, and Su27 series. LOMAC aircraft are simplified and so don't have these bugs that result from trying to simulate realism, and the Viper radar is far more reliable. This could change, but it's not gauranteed.

Problem is in the title and can be observed in the track. I launch an AIM7 at a Mig21, my radar jumps to tracking the AIM7 I just launched!! To recreate: 1. I guess fire a bunch of missiles in STT and watch the radar jump to one? Expected: 1. Radar keeps tracking bandit. If lock is broken, AIM7 doesn't all of a sudden get tracked, instead track is just broken Track attached. It was the "Strike Fighter" instant action mission on the Persian Gulf map. STT_Broken.trk

Patch notes mention that this was somehow related to the FLIR and has been fixed, but it was never related to the FLIR and could be done before even if the aircraft wasn't even carrying a FLIR. To recreate: 1. In the mission editor, place some structures from the "structures" menu on the map that are capable of being tracked by FTT 2. Place moving vehicles near these structures, as they are in the attached track 3. Go to GMT mode 4. Attempt to track the 'bricks' representing the moving vehicles, even using EXP 3 to ensure good placement 5. Sometimes observe that the radar chooses to track a structure instead. Conclusion: GMTT is behaving exactly like FTT would. Expected behavior: When attempting track on a synthetic return in GMT, only moving contacts would be tracked. In the attached track, I attempt track several time on two moving vehicles. I have the FLIR active so you can see what the radar is choosing to track. The radar instead chooses to track one of the buildings about half a mile away. Before the track ends, I slew the FLIR to show what the radar should have been tracking instead. GMT_Bug.trk

Track attached. Steps to recreate 1. Ensure aircraft equipped with FLIR and Mk82's 2. Enter AG master mode 3. Ensure no designation present 4. SCS up to get AGR mode 5. Set FLIR on a DDI 6. Dive on a target, pause when CCIP cross over target 7. Observe difference where FLIR is pointing and where CCIP cross is. 8. Conduct drops on boiler house sized targets. Observe that you will miss using the CCIP cross, but will hit under the same conditions using the FLIR. Expected results: 1. FLIR reticle and CCIP cross co-located 2. Bomb accuracy should be the same regardless of which cue the user uses, provided the cue is over the target on release The attached track I make three passes. Pass 1: My line up is terrible, so I abort this pass, but I do pause it. You can see the CCIP cross is above and right of the target, the FLIR center dot is below and left. As I sit, for some reason, the CCIP cross eventually adjusts in line with where the FLIR reticle is. Pass 2: I pause here. When the CCIP cross is over the target, the FLIR still hasn't reached it. I tried to drop on the FLIR cue but couldn't get my hands back from the pause button to the HOTAS to drop it on time so I missed. Pass 3: I don't pause, but you'll see at release the CCIP cross is past the target at pickle. I am using the FLIR as a guide. Bombs on target where the FLIR was pointing. FA18_CCIP.trk

I agree! I love the challenge of iron bombs, and I never expect them to be dead on, which is part of the fun! For Aim-off with the Sabre, I mean more of a visual marker of where the approximate FPM would be if the Sabre had one, kind of like the A4's FPM on a wings level dive unloaded of G would be at about +20 mil. In the Mig21 the top of the 'net' is about where it would be. Holding to the aim-off means I can pick a feature that's about at the dive angle I want looking at the ADI, then go eyes up the rest of the dive and just hold there and let the reticle drift up to the target. I'm great with the Mig21 and the A4, but I'm terrible with the Sabre

outstanding

Can you minimize this effect with steeper dive angles for things like radar updates and designations for CCRP? Forget what the French acronym is for CCRP, but the mode you get when using standard Mk82's.

I watched this before. I like Bunyap's content, but he didn't hit here at all, landed way long, so it's not exactly something I can emulate. I'm looking into info a little deeper than this that others may have, such as what are the adjustments one should make if diving shallower or steeper or releasing higher or lower, and if there are any structures in the cockpit you can use to aim off. I know you're a big iron bomb guy yourself Holbeach, what's your experience been in the Sabre? Any pointers you can give on MPC bombing in the Sabre?

Computer doesn't release in MPC mode. That's normal mode with Auto release selected.

The manual has to be wrong on this procedure. It instructs the pilot to roll in and place the reticle on the target and hold it there until release. This is a curvilinear approach similar to normal release mode and leads you to pushing the nose down fighting the gyro the whole time. I'm assuming the actual procedure is closer to the A4, wherein you roll in and target an aim-off point, then let the reticle walk up to the target. Provided numbers were hit, reticle should be on target at release altitude. Can someone elaborate a more comprehensive approach to this bombing technique as it works in the sabre? The gunsight doesn't give you a great way to establish aim-off. I'm great with the A4 bombing without the computer, but I struggle in the Sabre.

OK, I am able to get consistent results now. It appears the reticle should not be moving at all for about 2 seconds before releasing uncage (notated in manual) but also 2 seconds after releasing. Dive angle and preliminary parameters seem meaningless in this mode provided you start the process above release altitude. It is also imperative that the reticle at release is on the same spot you released uncage on, and it does not matter if it's still on the target, it must be the same spot on the target. Hope this helps anyone else out there. I love the Sabre, but it's documentation is the poorest I've seen in DCS.

The problem with the radar is some map objects and placeable objects (mostly structures) are completely invisible to the radar, so much of your briefing map won't show up at all. For instance, place a large metal warehouse or tech combine in the ME to use as a fix point. The object will not show up. Now, place a BTR on top of it. The tiny dot of the BTR will show but the giant building it's on top of won't. This behavior should probably be addressed.

Which patch then? I was extensively testing this through that period and my recollection is not having to overfly was changed in the patch that updated to 2.7

Tried several, most common is 300kts, angels 15, 50 degrees to start. I tried shallower approaches as well, since the technique requires the dive angle to steepen during the attack, so I've tried 10k ft, 300kts at 20 degrees as well. Same results either way.

Bombs in Auto and normal, I either hit right between the eyes or short, never anything in between. Accuracy, not precision issue. I've read Chuck's guide, the manual, watched several youtube videos and flew the training mission 10 or so times. There is clearly some other mechanism at work other than what is being instructed. I am told you hold the pipper steady on the target 2-3s with electrical cage held then release and hold weapon release. Steadily keep the pipper held on the target until release. No problem consistently getting released, but there is clearly something I am sometimes getting 100% right that I routinely screw up in the same exact way to land short all the time. Any other insights out there on what might be going on or how the sighting system works? I'm clearly not being told something about how this thing operates that would be very useful to me.

It was changed. Now overfly is not required, so the procedure now matches the behavior described in the training mission

I guess if helo BFM with fox 2 is what you're after. I'm just a fix what you have before you make new stuff kind of guy, but I can see why some people might be excited for it.