mobua

Just my two cents. As I dabble into the dogfight servers every now and then I've found ways to work around this. When offered the opportunity in combat I make sure to STT in the CRM mode. This issue has never manifested itself in a STT acquisition in CRM. However, as stated its always there in a ACM acquisition. I'd like to know why this is. If the issue was inherently linked to the nature of a mechanical pulse doppler wouldn't it be manifesting across all types of STT locks? Heck, even a TWS track gives a better and more reliable HMD transposition. Looking forward to any insight offered. Sincerely mobua

Gold dust, thanks for laying it out clearly. I consider myself capable in the DCS F-16 but there are some things to take away from this. Again, thanks!

Hi Frederf and thanks for your insight. Do you by any chance see what the connection AIFF would have with JHMCS or is it just me being led down a rabbit hole by a poor framing of the sentence by ED? Referring to: "Integration of the JHMCS with the HARM Targeting System (HTS), Link 16, and AIFF".

@BIGNEWY , @NineLine . A penny for your thoughts?

Very intresting indeed. All things considered I'm expecting that the correlation as presented on the FCR/HMD via MIDS should be on par with what we're seeing in the Hornet. One could also wager than ownship IFF (i.e non correlated tracks) would not be visble on the JHMCS. At this point its just alot of conjecture, I do wish ED would step in and clarify or change the phrasing in the thread for planned systems so us not to lead as astray. Sincerely mobua

Not to beat a dead horse but in EDs own thread for planned systems it states: "Integration of the JHMCS with the HARM Targeting System (HTS), Link 16, and AIFF". Is it possible that the JHMCS as a system bypasses the FCR display in regards to Mode 5 IFF? Assuming this to be true we should via our HMD be seeing symbology for friend or foe... yes? Sincerely mobua

Thanks Kengou for the clarification, this however leads me deeper down the rabbit hole. Im curious as to why ED would list AIFF on the Viper road map if it has no discernable implication or tactical function, what's your take on that? Also do you know what AIFF stands for when it comes to the Viper? I always assumed it meant Automatic IFF. Edit: Advanced IFF Here's hoping that ED or any SME can shed some light on the subject. Sincerely mobua

Thanks, well that answers that. Do you by any chance have some insight into what AIFF entails in regards to the Viper? Sincerely mobua

Hi, the updated IFF features for the Hornet had me hopeful for what was to come for our beloved VIper. Then I saw one of Big Newys replies stating no auto IFF on the Viper. Ok, fair enough. I do however remember seeing AIFF in a list of Viper features. Could someone please expand on what AIFF brings in the Viper? Is IFF symbology overlayed on the HUD a reasonable expectation or are we forever resigned to Mk II eyeballs and looking down on the FCR ? Sincerely mobua

Thanks for clarifying, I'll stay off the mavs a while longer then until its sorted out.

Hi, With the latest patch I'm having an issue where the waypoints are not correlated between the ESHI and HSD. HSD is displaying the correct waypoints whereas the EHSI/EEGS is showing me a waypoint 109000 NM away. Would appreciate some corroboration to rule out error on my part before I post a trackfile.

Just had to chime in. To me this is clear as day that history is repeating itself. Much of the the complaints I see in regards to the Harrier and the (mal)practices of Razbam was brought to light by the M-2000C community prior to this (IIRC already 2 years ago). To be honest I believe that at some point ED should really begin to consider their partnerships beyond the short term monetary gains, moving from a tactical to strategic perspective. Is this really a partner will contribute to the long term success of the ED/Fighter Collection brand? When ED is having to direct man hours to manage 3rd party PR issues (that have a negative spill-over effect staining the core product) I believe its time to part way. I made the decision two years ago to not invest any more funds towards Razbams offerings hoping I was not of a niche opinion and that the problem would "self regulate"; i.e. Razbam not being a factor moving forward. I stand by that choice and I'm content with not being personally invested in this latest debacle with the Harrier. I am however viewing this from the viewpoint of a ED supporter hoping that the time has come for this to be sorted out. Any decision made in this matter should ideally produce clearer guidlines for future partnerships towards 3rd parties. I believ thats about my two cents worth of thoughts and ramblings.. Sincerely... mobua

Can't thank you enough shu, its really astonishing how this isn't a standard with the maps we are given. Much thanks to people like you we can run proper ground procedures and ad hoc recoveries. Again thanks! By the way, I'm using Kneeboard builder and I'm not able to get the Kneeboards to show up in game when i place the .png files in the terrain folder. Aside from importing the files to each module, do you know if the Syria map has a new directory for kneeboard files? Sincerely mobua

i believe b006.9 indicates the slant range. might be wrong though..

Great job on the push and strides you guys are making on the viper.. really stoked for tomorrow's OB patch.. I'm curious if there is any update to be had in regards to the ACM Auto acquisition for the bore and vertical modes ? Kindly mobua

any news on chaff and flare dispensers not being rearmable?

would like to add to the low hanging fruit plea.. would very much like to the see the missle step function being completed. AFAIK we can only step stations within the weapon selection, missing the long press to switch missle in A-A mode..'

Thank you for the clarification, much appreciated... Now, based on your statement above. Shouldn't there be a third condition where sustained turn rate and the lowest possible radius intersect? If so, is there an term for this third condition?

Fantastic presentation yet again. Would it be possible to get the speeds for the min sustained turn radius? Also not sure if at all possible but the intersect of max rate and min turn radius. As I believe this would equate to the "corner speed" of each aircraft (welcoming any corrections if I'm mistaken).. //mobua

would it be possible to get a graph showing the intersect between Max sustained turnrate and optimal turn radius?

Hi, mobua for M-2000C please.

[16AUG2019] DCS INTERCOMMUNITY EVENT: Real W Sign up Callsign "KONG" for SU27 pls.

It looks like you haven’t n’en following the news lately ? They hired a new coder who is only dedicated to Mirage right now. (Leonardo aka Elwood on the forum). He is recoding the weapon system, adding functions to the radar...it takes time, but Razbam didn’t give up on the module. Hi JoJo, I carefully chose my words as I don't believe in needless slander or mischaracterization. My response was in hindsight and in reference to unaddressed bugs leading up to the current state of the module. I for one have been left with an very strong impression that the Mirage indeed is the Cinderella of Razbam, AV8B and MIG19 are a testiment to that. With that being said, I carefully follow whats posted in this forum (not on FB) and I'm carefully optimistic with the news posted during the past week. However, until delivered ill consider it a repitition of past promises.

M-2000C Mid-life Overhaul Unfortunate as it is, the Mirage in regards to work being pushed out via updates is a proverbial Cinderella, i.e no love from the parents. At its current state it is littered with bugs, most of which are seemingly quite simple. This has been going for months with little to no feedback on the matter. I cant say much about other Razbam products as I only own the Mirage. But looking from the outside their other projects seem to be fairing quite well. Once they decide to prioritize the Mirage I'm certain they are fully capable of delivering on a long overdue promise... Sincerely...

Bump, any update Decoy? Thanks in advance..