toilet2000

You need to Sensor Select Switch Depress to IFF interrogate. Auto IFF interrogation is coming, but for now it's only manual and they removed the automatic IFF when in 15 degrees from boresight in STT.

For anyone with frame rate issues, delete the fxo and metashaders folders in your Saved Games directory. Went from almost unplayable to good and consistent frame rate.

Same behavior! That’s only on the third kneeboard page, which unfortunarely is required for RIO startup (DL page).

According to the TAC manual (TAC-000, 1-386), you are wrong as it is not a user mistake. TDC pressed down should simply set an aircraft designation, leaving the TPOD format page. It should never revert to the DMT page. According to real world AV-8B pilots, asymmetric loadout should be hardly noticeable, apart when landing. GBUs maybe. But the AV-8B N/A was used as the dumb bombs truck. Because of the ARBS, it was often more precise than AV-8B+ with radar ranging and was the preferred aircraft for delivering dumb bombs. With the ASL we currently have, that's a big problem. Doesn't matter how many GBUs you have, it's a matter of time with laser on. The Lightening should never overheat, and in the rare case of a failure and overheat, the "flashing L" would not stay on. Now that part about Ace Combat: c'mon dude, what's with the attitude... And anyway, TERs rack and GBU-12 loadouts are certified, according to said TAC manual (2-38 ). The default Chaff setting (I think it is "S") should still release a Chaff, just not a "Program", but a "Single". Again, no user error here, simply a bug. Good job on trying to discredit OP though. I do suggest you do some research beforehand.

The fact that the Maverick displays on the right MPCD is a bug. It should never ever show on that screen, as the sensor wiring doesn't even go to the right MPCD. The Maverick cool down is reset whenever you change MFD page, whereas it should continue the cool down/alignment procedure once you start it, whether or not you change MFD pages.

Most probably this is a matter of LOS angular precision. The HARM sensor clearly isn't that precis and that error in angle can lead to dramatic errors in ranging. At those ranges, even on a flat terrain, the range can be dramatically different. The targeting pod can be used to range, because you have a really rough idea of the LOS to the emitter, so you can zoom in an acquire the target manually. Just as an example, at 50 nm on a flat terrain, flying at 20 000 ft, an error of 1 degree in pitch angle can lead to an error of up to 18 nm. Combined that with the fact that the emitter could be mountainous terrain, making it even harder to get an accurate range (because of multiple solutions possible due to the angle error), it's almost impossible to get an accurate range. _____________ The reason why this works with the A-10C is the smaller range. The CCIP piper computes solutions for ranges of around 3 nm, tops. Translated to angles, a 1 deg from 10 000 ft at a range of 3 nm gives a max error of 240 meters, much better. At closer range and lower altitudes, that error becomes negligible. The range of the HARM missile makes it impossible to compute an accurate range to target from LOS only.

HAHAHAHA Good one. Like it's actually doable. I mean, with your "nice to have != necessary", I don't know why the Marines are actually buying new planes. CCIP is nice to have, but might as well just bomb manually, and not bother with a system that "could break". There's a reason why those systems are considered a basic necessity in today's airplanes, because they're not "nice to have", they're essential in today's battlefield.

Often during the Viggen over PG campaign, I get this error message: And it doesn't seem to progress the campaign (nor does it show the debrief text file). As far as I know, my missiongscripting.lui file is fine: EDIT: I fixed half of this error. The first missions still outputs a lot of errors, but I can still finish it by just clicking "Ok". The error when the missions finishes (and the fact that the save progress prompt would come up) was fixed by running DCS as admin.

In VR, the default behaviour of the flexible sight and door guns is to follow the head to aim. This is a really awful way to control the sight in VR (in fact, it's against the first rule of game design in VR). Is there any way to turn this off? I tried the key bind to turn off head tracker aim, but that does not work in VR. Thanks.

I exactly described what kind of proof in my post. Something like that is a really good proof of activity: https://github.com/opencv/opencv/graphs/commit-activity I'm sorry if I care about where my money goes. I guess I should just throw my money at everything without asking question in your humble opinion right? It worked really well for a lot of DCS customers before right? Um um VEAO.

There’s no way to gift an already activated and binded license. That, and it’s against DCS World EULA.

Nice, my comment was deleted. I will reformulate if it came out as "abusive" or "insulting". It would be a good idea to actually provide proof of that (coders actively working on the Harrier), because unfortunately it is what it is, there hasn't been any substantial feature release or bug fixes for the Harrier in 6 months (last substantial patch was in August 2018 ). Even some features shown in Facebook videos in July aren't implemented in the current version (Quicksteer Function using the WP Increment HOTAS button). I know programming sometimes produce no tangible results for a while, therefore what I think would be a good proof and help people regain trust (as, lets been honest, there is kind of a trust issues lately) is a picture of some metrics from your code repos, i.e. number of commits over time or number of code lines added/modified over time. I think this would be a really reassuring move on Razbam part and could benefit this community.

The Mirage we have is supposed to be getting an overhaul after inputs from the AdA (Armée de l'Air, the French Air Force). Theoretically though, the Mirage has never been feature complete, with several features simply missing (almost all the VTH switches and features are not present in the sim, the ground mapping radar tech too) and other broken things (CCIP and CCRP are notable examples). I would say the Mirage is still in a better place (with 2018 has been a good year for the Mirage, at least in respect to what Razbam delivered so far) than the AV-8B by a large margin. You can definitely do what the Mirage 2000C was intended to do with the current state of the module (although I've heard that some issues have popped up about TWS being broken, maybe that's fixed though).

It was in their promised features list when it released in early access, so we are supposed to be getting them...

The A-10C has them... And it had them from its release in 2011. JDAMs are definitely in DCS!

At the very least wait for a sale. Bugs are rampant, a lot of features are missing. A lot of people mistake bugs and unfinished systems for not knowing how they work. The thing is, almost every single mission the Harrier is supposed to do is completely or partially blocked by a bug or a missing feature. Examples: CAS: TPOD is extremely buggy. Not only can you not slave the TPOD to a waypoint or the A/C line of sight (the opposite is true, but really buggy, as soon as you designate the TPOD changes for the DMT page and you loose your TPOD picture), but moving target track is not working, the laser designation is extremely limited in range (compared to IRL counterpart). Moreover, the inertia of asymetric load is absolutely ridiculous and overdone (according to RL Harrier pilots) making it hard to stay on station while pickling off one GBU at a time. On top of that, the CAS page isn’t implemented, as is the CAS Datalink that the JTAC are supposed to be using. That, with a broken coordinate input system (unable to input a waypoint if no waypoint are present at first, no "precise" decimal waypoints as is required for accurate weapon delivery) and no JDAM makes for a hard time doing modern CAS. Low level strike: AUTO bombing symbology is simply broken and unhelpful. One of the most useful feature of the Harrier for low level delivery (CCIP to AUTO designation) is not implemented. Night strike: broken FLIR, no hotspot tracker, no NAVFLIR calibration means you can’t even CCIP correctly. Battlefield Air Interdiction: the Maverick implementation is extremely broken in the Harrier. No ground stabilize, no IR Cool switch functionality and you can’t even align the seeker without losing a MFCD for 3 minutes (because as soon as you change the page, it resets it). No TPOD to Mav handoff because of the broken TPOD. Controlling the seeker is actually extremely buggy, because you have to have the seeker page on the left MFCD to control it but it appears by default on the right MFCD (where it shouldn’t even show at all IRL). And yeah, it could be a pretty good module if Razbam actually did something. But it’s been in the dark for the last 6 months (ie no new features, extremely minor bug fixes). Even their bugtracker is updated maybe once per month, at tops. Would not recommend, certainly not at full price.

To compute CCRP or CCIP deliveries, you need a range metric. In the A-10C, that ranging is done via triangulation, either: radar, barometric or delta (switchable via the Altitude Source toggle on the armament control panel). You know the height of the aircraft (via the altimeter setting), you know the pitch of the aircraft (via the INS), you can find the hypothenuse of the triangle, which is the slant range. If you have an SPI setup and you are releasing in CCRP, it's going to use the GPS/INS coordinate to infer slant range. The problem is, if the target is at a different altitude than the ground under your aircraft, then the slant range solution will be inaccurate (or you need to set QFE accordingly). One way to alleviate that problem is to compute range directly, via an AGR (just like the AJS-37 does) and this is what the F/A-18C should be doing (via the AGR surface radar mode). Another way to do so is via a system like the AV-8B N/A's ARBS. Another way is the laser-ranging way, which is what the Su-25A and T do. In fact, when no radar/ARBS/laser rangefinder are available, most system fall back to barometric or radar altimeter triangulation, which is what the F/A-18C should do.

The Harrier used to have different bombing modes depending on the current HUD data source (i.e. barometric or radar altimeter, locked DMT or no target). By that, I mean that R/B+CIP/AUTO meant you were using the barometric altitude or the radar altitude for the bombing solution via triangulation. If you locked a target via the DMT, it would automatically compute the range via the ARBS. The Harrier used to have that, but this disappeared for some reason. Here's an example of that from an older RedKite video: EDIT: My bad, this should be moved to the Problems and Bugs section.

Is this vanilla or did you add it yourself or through someone else's LUA? Because for me there's no template available except my few own.

There's a pretty good way to tell if your weapon needs QFE or not. Smart weapon: it doesn't (BK-90, AGM-65) Otherwise: is there a "fin" appearing above the aiming dot on the HUD? Yes -> No need for QFE No -> You need QFE

I think you're absolutely right about that. Makes totally sense, and it corresponds to the description of radar ranging used in the manual. I'll try setting QFE as soon as I'm home and report whether it works or not. Although there is still an issue with the symbology (both in A1 where the symbology is not a cross, but a simple curve like in the RB-04 symbology, and in A2 symbology where it simply does not match at all what is presented). Actually, I think the A2 radar mode isn't what it is supposed to be. As far as the documentation goes, I feel like the A2 mode should be more useful than it is currently and certainly more detailed. It seems like the radar continues to scan at the full 123 deg at 110deg/s pattern instead of the 64 deg at 60 deg/s pattern described on page 112 of the manual. That, and the transformation from A-Scope to B-scope seems to put forward the low amount of rays using for the raycasting simulation of the radar.

This is true for the Nav release (i.e. if you stay in Nav master mode and go trigger unsafe), where you actually need QFE. For RR (radar release), it shouldn't need QFE at all since it is using radar ranging. The problem is, switching to ANF and going trigger unsafe doesn't seem to switch the systems to RR bombing, but instead it keeps everything just as in Nav bombing. That, and the RR symbology from the manual do not match the symbology shown in game at all. In fact, the symbology in A2 (B-Scope) mode is simply wrong.

I had the same problem today. Datalink not working in MP at all. Can't receive or send.

I tried bombing using the RR radar move (master mode ANF). The symbology shown on the radar does not match the manual (both in A1 and A2 mode) and the bomb would not release at all. I've attached a track showing this behavior. Latest open beta patch. ajs37_rr_bombing_bug.trk

That doesn't make any sense. The reason why some airplanes (like the Harrier) cannot "use" the Maverick on certain MFDs is because the video wiring is absent on one or several screens. It should prevent the user from showing the Maverick feed on the right MPCD (as it is not wired), but the user should still be able to control the seeker, as it is still wired to the HOTAS (if the seeker is uncaged). And the Cage/Uncage behaviour (i.e. it shows the feed on the right MPCD) is a bug. From the official RAZBAM manual: