mad rabbit

CTD constantly here too. No crash report available.

Countermeasure dispensing modes need a little more bug fixing/development: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=217382&page=2 Seems like this is underway again following the F14 release though.

Noticed the following incorporated into the Viggen keybinds: \DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\aircraft\AJS37\Input\keyboardbindings.lua So maybe countermeasure features are being expanded?

I would but it just failed to find a target. But even if we don't consider it not to be, does it even fall back to WCS TWS though (again ignoring what is modeled in-game)? If guidance is set at launch i.e. active, then why/how would it fall back? You might be right about this one. In my mind I consider the SEAM pattern to effectively be BRSIT around the ADL, but it is technically searching in a double D pattern, so not strictly boresight. e.g. Su25T + R73 = boresight, no search Vs. Harrier + AIM-9M = search mode (but can also chose strict boresight as well) However my understanding was that flipping the ACM cover, and not an ACM mode (PAL, VSL, PLM) which is an important distinction particularly here, ignores the WCS track. Throw a player RIO into the mix and it's seems like a downright recipe for disaster as well! The lack of the AIM-54 to go pitbull in PD STT as a design choice, but can do so in TWS, still baffles me i.e vulnerable mid-range.

Read previous posts. Opposite. It shouldn't go active but it does because at the moment as it's modeled after the AIM-120 until HB can get access from ED to model it all properly.

I'd first consider distinguishing what should happen (real-life) compared to what is modeled in-game (most things). To answer some of your questions in regards to AIM-54 + PD STT, refer to the following thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=238762 In short, it should be SARH only but at the moment the AIM-54 works exactly like an AIM-120 until HB can get access to model it properly. To answer some of your questions to the best of my knowledge: AIM54 + TWS + NORM = Once modeled, the AIM-54 needs to be commanded active first, but if it loses track once active it can fall-back to PD guidance. AIM54 + TWS + PH ACT = PH ACT forces the AIM54 to go maddog. So I don't see how the missile could be guided in TWS, let alone launched, as it's relying solely on it's own sensor from launch. Need to test that target WCS prioritization even occurs in PH ACT?! AIM54 + PD STT = see thread linked above and comments AIM54 + PD STT + PH ACT = again this is a maddog launch. If a target is tracked by the WCS, then it is towards that vector, otherwise along the ADL. AIM54 + P STT + NORM = maddog launch towards WCS tracked target AIM54 + P STT + BRSIT = maddog launch along ADL. Ignores WCS targeted target vector Your table needs additional rows for AIM54 + P STT + NORM/PHACT Vs NORM/BRSIT. In short, PH ACT commands active on launch and BRSIT (flood mode) ignores WCS tracked target. AIM7 + PD STT = yep correct AIM7 + P STT = yep correct AIM7 + P STT + SP PD = good question! I imagine SP PD would override P STT. What I'm unsure about it is that if transition between PD to P can sometimes lose the lock pre-launch, are you more likely to lose the track with this conflicting settings as the launch is occurring? AIM9 + NRM + ACM cover = this should ignore the WCS track vector as the ACM cover is essentially forcing BRSIT PLM, PAL, VSL = all P STT Somewhat related, but transition from PD STT to P STT post-launch should lose the lock but again is not modeled yet: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3866269#post3866269 Anybody feel free to correct any of the above if I've made mistake. Thanks for making this summary table!

Fantastic! Thanks for the clarification Naquaii. Makes a lot more sense now. It still baffles me that the AIM-54 guidance in real-life has what seems to be a massive gap in mid-range guidance in that AIM-54 cannot be commanded active in PD STT, but can switch between PD and active guidance in TWS. If anybody can explain this design decision, please do.

I've got absolutely no problems/concerns, and completely understand the positions/limitations of both ED and HB. My aim is really just clarify how it works in real-life, what is modeled and what may come, purely for educational purposes. Nothing more. There are so many nuances to the way the AIM-54 can be launched. I'm making an F14 Kneeboard for distribution and want to ensure that what's written is accurate. There are also some gaps in the official manual, as has been expressed in other threads.

Thanks for the answers Naquaii! As an overall, are you able to detail how much of what you've described is modelled in-game and if not modelled, are there plans to model it? Not trying to hold yourself or HB to task on anything, and indeed I'm certainly fine with any best laid plans not coming to fruition. However it's difficult to discern at the moment the best tactics in the F14 when there is: a) Guidance that is modeled and in-game b) Guidance that is not modeled but there is plans for it to be e.g. matching what is stated in the official manual and external sources c) Guidance that is mis-understood i.e. a lot of players believe the AIM-54 should go active in PD STT d) Guidance that cannot be modeled but a stop-gap has been introduced in the interim e.g. AIM-54 behaving like AIM-120s A specific example of this confusion in relation to what you wrote above would be that: 5) An AIM-54 being guided in PD STT should never be commanded active. However as AIM-54 guidance is behaving much like the AIM-120 at the moment, is the AIM-54 in DCS currently able to go active in PD STT? Some more specific follow-up questions: 2) By your comment "out of pulse-doppler before the active command is sent", is this again implying that an active command is currently sent to the AIM-54 due to it currently being modeled on the AIM-120, but it shouldn't and will not be in the future? My understanding from your previous comments in other threads was that PD STT to P STT switch should lose the lock within itself, but it's not currently modeled. 3) By 'sensor LoS' do you mean that the AIM-54 will fire in the vector of the PD STT tracked target, much like P STT with the ACM modes, or the AIM-54's own sensor? I ask this as again, this seems a way to circumvent the lack of active command being given to a PD STT tracked target, but perhaps restricted by the AIM-54s own sensor range and coverage if you meant the latter. Some other questions: 6) Do the ACM modes, P STT, PD STT + PH ACT all command the AIM-54 to not loft? Again, please correct any of the assumptions included in the above questions and I would appreciate a distinction between what is, isn't and planned in regards to modeling. Thanks!

Making a separate thread for this question as it got lost in the larger AIM-54 Guidance mega-thread: AIM-54 Guidance Deleted that post and also clarified some points below. =============== If I understand the above thread and the nice included summary provided by Beamscanner here correctly, AIM-54 guidance is either: a) LONG RANGE (50nm to 20nm): TWS = guidance from PD then commanded active. Guidance always transmitted in-case seeker fails to find target. b) MEDIUM RANGE(20nm to 10nm): PD STT = SARH only and will never be commanded to go active i.e. effectively long range AIM-7?! c) SHORT RANGE (<10nm): P STT / ACM modes = active at launch (maddog) but if WCS track available, AIM-54 will launch along track, otherwise launch along ADL EDIT: Seems like 'PH ACT' is automatically commanded if AIM-54 launched < 6nm cold target or < 10nm hot target Please correct any of the above statements. So some follow-up questions: If PD guidance is being utilized for TWS and then subsequently commanded active, why is an active command not sent during PD STT? It seems a waste to guide an AIM-54 in PD STT that can never be commanded to go active especially if the PD STT lock is lost. Post-launch switch from PD STT to P STT should lose lock, as mode is set at launch, but I believe has been stated by Naquaii that it is not modeled REF LINK. And P STT allows for maddog launch at WCS target track. But if PD STT cannot command the AIM-54 active and P STT can only maddog launch in the general vicinity towards WCS tracked target, doesn't that leave a massive mid-range gap in the ability to guide the AIM-54 to specific target then command it active, without utilising TWS (less tracking)? If a target is low then it seems more beneficial to utilise PD STT over P STT to avoid ground interference. However, as discussed above, PD STT will never command the AIM-54 active. What happens if you launch an AIM-54 on a PD STT target but the RIO has set 'MSL OPTIONS' to 'PH ACT'? Does this allow a maddog launch towards a PD STT tracked target? If guidance is always sent during a TWS launch in-case an active AIM-54 loses track of the target, does this mean the AIM-54 is constantly switching from active to PD guidance? I still don't understand that if guidance mode it set at launch, then why can the AIM-54 switch between PD guidance and active guidance in TWS, but not PD STT. Again please correct any of the above assumptions if incorrect. However after reading through the HB manual, the ED forums, watching a lot of the available videos, I still don't have a clear understanding of the best way to utilize the AIM-54 at medium ranges. But to me so far, it seems like I would never want to launch the AIM-54 in PD STT. At most, lock in PD STT, transition to P STT, then launch. If possible, I would appreciate answers that distinguish what is modeled in-game as opposed to what happens in real-life. EDIT: My testing seems to confirm this i.e. PD STT > AIM-54 launch > immediately turn cold > AIM-54 never tracks

Current folder set for F-14 kneeboard in Kneeboard Builder is incorrect. I suspect this is because the install/mod folder for the F-14 currently is: \Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\aircraft\F14 Thus Kneeboard builder uses this to create the following kneeboard folder: \Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Kneeboard\F14 However the current (not necessarily correct, as I believe this is a bug on HeatBlur's behalf) is: \Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Kneeboard\F-14B tldr: Kneeboard Builder will put your kneeboards for the F14 in a directory called 'F14'. Rename this to 'F-14B'.

+1 for this implementation on MP

Note that I've found a bug with the KONT/OFF/INT switch selector i.e. KONT = OFF and OFF = KONT: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3774967&postcount=14 Regardless, what is the difference supposed to be between INT and KONT? I've certainly not noticed one in my testing.

There's no mention in the RC2 manual or any other source I could find in regards the difference between INT and KONT modes. However I have noted a few things from my testing and fixes that I've been trying to incorporate: 1) The KONT/OFF/INT switch is incorrectly assigned to 3002/3004/3003, when it should be 3030 +/- 1.0 (as described in the above post). From clickabledata.lua: 2) Automatic (mode A, streak 0) and manual dispensing is working but only for modes INT and OFF. However the animated switch is in the KONT position, no chaff is being dispensed, which leads me to believe a mix-up (bug) has been incorporated between OFF and KONT modes. 3) Despite this, I've noted no difference in the dispensing of chaff between modes INT and OFF (=KONT, refer to (2) above). As initially stated I'm also not sure what the difference should be anyway.

Make sure you're not putting the copied lines from the keyboard\default.lua into the joystick\default.lua into the joystick axes bracket. i.e. insert them around line 640, before the joystick axes bracket {combos={{key='S'}},pressed=device_commands.ASPtargetSize_kb,up=device_commands.ASPtargetSize_kb,cockpit_device_id=devices.ASP,value_pressed=0.01,name=_('Target Size +'),category=_('Weapons / ASP')}, {combos={{key='S',reformers={'LAlt'}}},pressed=device_commands.ASPtargetSize_kb,up=device_commands.ASPtargetSize_kb,cockpit_device_id=devices.ASP,value_pressed=-0.01,name=_('Target Size -'),category=_('Weapons / ASP')}, }, -- joystick axes axisCommands={

Thanks to members of DDCS community that let me know about it (in addition to CCRP being broken as soon as I started trying to learn the harrier...). Apparently the sidearm/sidewinder volume change was only announced via the RAZBAM Facebook page.

Absolutely understandable and again I'm reserving judgement (and possible reversion to the nipple) until I've trialed it for several months. I also notice that the wobble is exacerbated by the fact the when the throttle is pitched forward (i.e. thrust increase prior to target designation) the angle of the hat is more slanted, which in-turn angles a direct downward press. Regardless, the quality from DeltaSim is fantastic! Are there any shorter hats available commercially or from DeltaSim? I have no experience with 3D printing or design, but thank you for providing the CAD file. The stem on the original hat is approx. 10mm, half of which seems filled. The shorter version you describe above is a 2mm reduction, but I was hoping for something more dramatic such as 5mm. Structurally, how much of the stem is required to be filled i.e. what is the maximum the stem could be reduced by? It would seem like only 5mm is required for the shaft friction, so a 5mm total steam length could be feasible if little/none of the filled stem was required structurally. For me, the majority of the benefit comes from the larger surface area of this hat and not the stem length i.e. 'throw'.

Update: "ICS Aux Volume Knob" on right knee, controls sidearm/sidewinder growl volume. Not listed in the official manual, Chuck's Guide or any of the unofficial online tutorials.

I've started learning the harrier today after the recent patch, and spending half a day realizing that it wasn't me and that CCRP release of GBUs was broken... At the moment I'm not hearing any tone/growl for the sidearms and/or sidewinders from a cold start, despite being able to fire them at both SAMs and aircraft respectively based on symbology. I'm able to hear the tones from pre-set sidearm/AtoA training missions from RedKite, but encounter the lack of tone from cold start in those missions, my own in Mission Editor and on the a MP server. Any thoughts? Is this related to the discussion above?

\Mods\aircraft\AV8BNA\Input\AV8BNA\keyboard\default.lua this: {down = psp_commands.Switch_OXY, cockpit_device_id = devices.ECS, name = _('Oxygen Switch OFF'), category = _('Environmental Control')}, {down = psp_commands.Switch_OXY, cockpit_device_id = devices.ECS, name = _('Oxygen Switch ON'), category = _('Environmental Control')}, should be: {down = psp_commands.Switch_OXY, cockpit_device_id = devices.ECS, value_down = 0, name = _('Oxygen Switch OFF'), category = _('Environmental Control')}, {down = psp_commands.Switch_OXY, cockpit_device_id = devices.ECS, value_down = 1, name = _('Oxygen Switch ON'), category = _('Environmental Control')}, i.e. 'value_down = ' was missing. Will enable both Oxygen OFF/ON to be bound and utilised.

I just received my slew upgrade and installed it with ease. I've got somewhat mixed feelings about it at the moment. The slewing certainly feels more sensitive and tactile now. I think this is just a matter of getting used to the new feeling and adjusting curves as needed. However the target selection press is now more wobbly given the increased distance i.e. longer neck of the stick. I've been messing with the deadzone settings to allow for this wobble whilst pressing the stick for selection, but I keep wondering if the stick was just shorter would it allow me the best of both worlds. I'm going to persist with it a bit more, but given that this is stick is derived from the Playstation/XBOX controllers, I wonder if it's possible to get a shorter stick to try out for comparison. Any suggestions?

I like the fact that the BK90s are no longer one big bomb and have a fantastic visual effect in MP now. But whilst I can't comment on the very detailed report made to initiate this thread, the damage output of the BK90s seems very much "less than expected". Utilizing the nice quick training mission pack by cor.vinus: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3302241/ I had been trying to use a mix of MJ1 and MJ2 to get good coverage, but barely made a scratch on artillery units. So I then switched to a pure MJ2 composition, and I only managed to kill 3 x T55s, despite fairly good coverage (see screenshots). I can't imagine this being viable for more modern tanks at all.

Upvote from me. Same server.

I've never selected it. However to be sure I've selected and then deselected it again. Interestingly, an error message appeared in regards to not being able to find 'DCS.exe' in the '/bin/ directory. I believe this relates to the previous issue I mentioned above in regards to the Kneeboard application not keeping the path to the OpenBeta directory, despite numerous reattempts to set it (whilst running the program as admin). This pathing field always remains blank. I've even tried to set it myself before startup by editing 'KneeboardBuilder.exe.Config' and '<add key="DCSpath" value="" />', but this field always stays blank! EDIT: Being unable to turn kneeboard pages after create a custom kneeboard also encountered by another on a different forum: http://www.476vfightergroup.com/showthread.php?3102-DCS-Knee-Board-Builder&p=59617&viewfull=1#post59617 EDIT2: Another mention of the kneeboard key assignment and inability to change pages bug in these forums here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=178610& EDIT3: And here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=181335& EDIT4: And here:

Related thread. Seems to be a persistant bug with DCS as suspected c.f. problems with Kneeboard Builder. http://forums.eagle.ru:8080/showthread.php?t=179389