toilet2000

It can't be a separate 2-step process without bringing tons of errors in. The DTED has to be used to find the intersection between the LOS from the aircraft own position and the ground. This drives both the lat/long AND elevation values. Otherwise you have to assume that everything is at a fixed altitude value (generally 0 MSL) and the intersection will give you lat/long and 0 elev. Then using the DTED at that specific position will lead to drastic errors whenever the terrain is not close to 0 MSL. For example, pointing a designation at flat ground but at 4000 ft in elev will make the designation appear much further behind the actual point you've designated.

Biggest issue here is the slippery slope. Simulations can definitely take shortcuts and not emulate the behavior, but this causes all sorts of issues. Knowing how the thing works "inside and out" and not just "out" can tell you a lot more on its behavior then simple logic like "if this then draw this". Here are some DCS examples done in the past to "simulate" in a shortcut manner like you described: - Thermal Imaging in DCS in general. There is no "heat", just a fancy color filter. - Radars before the Hornet and the new radar API, they were very simple all seeing eyes (except for range, elevation and azimuth limitations) - EW and jammers (even nowadays, we are starting to see more advanced behaviors) - Targeting and bombing solutions in some modules (those perfect death dot without any accurate way of getting height-above-target) - TGPs and their perfect digital zooms. The behavior should be closer to what Heatblur did with the LANTIRN. When using zoom levels (not FOVs), the quality should degrade. - TGPs and tracking modes, including perfect area track. Area track never drifts or lose track. Point track cannot lock on any object, only some specific objects that are qualified as "point trackable". - Range limitation for laser designators (a floating point in the sky basically) I honestly understand ED very well about taking their time to get not only a good grasp of the behavior, but some backing documentation on at least a general overview of the inner workings of the thing they're trying to simulate. Otherwise you end up shooting yourself in the foot with something half-baked.

According to the book Apache by Ed Macy, mostly the more powerful Rolls-Royce engine and the ECM suite.

Not all INS + GPS navigation systems are made equal... Especially when the tech was pretty new and it's made to be blown up. Even more so when you're using mostly off-the-shelf components from other (older) projects, like the Walleyes and the Maverick. Keep in mind the SLAM is a very old missile made from even older components.

There seems to be a lot of contradicting opinions on this point, so I wanted to see if some of you have better info on this. As far as I know in 2005, the ATFLIR was a slightly better pod feature-wise with a better optical zoom (3 FOVs), but much more expensive and less available (initial production rate). So what other differences are there in terms of usage?

Thanks Nineline for chiming in. That was actually my question to begin with: what's the state on that list, promised or not? If it was certain that they would be implemented, I wouldn't be asking the question. It was really just to know the stance of ED on that list, including: - Are there already weapons that were pulled off the list? (since the current plan for EA and out-of-EA does not mention some of them) - Are there weapons that we don't already have that are already confirmed to be coming? (an example would be the SLAM-ER, but unsure about the H/K version). Thanks!

I really like having the possibility of doing a Gulf War scenario, hence all of these weapons (Shrikes, Walleyes I/II but mostly I and SLAM) are of particular interest to me. According to documentation, all these weapons were still software and hardware compatible with the Hornet (even though they were out-of-stock/retired by 2005).

I am simply wondering if all the promised weapons (see below linked post) are still on the table? A lot of them are missing from the EA/out-of-EA roadmap. Examples of missing weapons: - Walleye I (we have the big Walleye II only) - AGM-45A/B Shrike - Mk 40/63 Mines - Mk 77 Fire Bomb - ADM-141 TALD Thank you.

No, SEA mode filters targets from a baseline water/sea return, generating synthetic bricks even on static targets.

As the other said, the PB mode in the Hornet is equivalent to the POS mode of the F-16. The POS mode breaks down into 3 submodes that basically defines the search parameters and flight profile of the HARM, but still is shooting at a pre-briefed point. Those submodes are: RUK (Range Unkown), EOM (Equation of Motion), PB (Pre-Briefed).

It takes a short while for the HARM on the Hornet now to actually show emitters. It took at least a 10 seconds for me to show. Don't forget that they did reduce the scan time on the F-16 this patch too.

The INR revert mode must have been something added to later version of the LITENING. Don't forget that our F-16CM is from ~2007. My estimated guess about that tech is that the aircraft masking would induce a dramatic drift in the recognized AREA or POINT track (remember that these modes are matching an image pattern with what's being seen by the pod and updating that pattern in real-time). Newer LITENING probably simply have a logic for detecting a large change in the image pattern and reverting the pod automatically to INR. INR basically looks at the slant range and position of the "gazed point" and infer its geographical location, then tries to maintain the pod on target by knowing where the aircraft is. This is thus prone to INS/GPS errors and drift (if applicable). The "OPR" Hornet mode is already INR. It doesn't track a scene, but simply track a reference point using the INS and slant range (either via laser ranging or something like the DTED - digital terrain elevation database). In the Hornet, you have to manually force the AREA or POINT track after which you cannot move your designation.

It represents the track that would be automatically L&S if you bump Auto ACQ (AACQ, castle toward the radar page when it already has TDC priority).

Hi Flappie, Here it is, after doing exactly what you described. Thanks! dcs.log

I have enabled a while back the stereo parser/culling option in the config files and enjoyed the better performance that it was giving, but some of the issues of it (namely flood lights, heat blur and such only rendering in one eye) made me try and revert back to what it was before. The issue is that if I set the stereo parser option to false, it prevents me from actually seeing the communication menu. The input command registers (I can test it in the controls menu), but the textual menu does not show up. In the exact same scenario but with the stereo parser option set to true, I do not have this issue (I can see the communication menu just fine). Tried repairing without success.

For people saying to make a snap view in VR: why don't you do the same in 2D? If the real hog (and asked by the 355th to be this way) is like that, then simply change the viewpoint to your liking. I'd rather have it realistic and adapt it if needed than the opposite. As someone else said, in VR moving the viewpoint screws up the occlusion masks around the HUD and cockpit.

Did you enter the coordinate in PRECISE format? If not, the accuracy of 6 digits UTM/MGRS is 100 meters, so enough to be way off target. With a laser designation it shouldn't matter though.

Indeed, DMT should not be "ground stabilized" but rather lock onto contrast and keep that lock when possible. The "ground stabilized" slewing is done through the INS mode, by using the Sensor Select Switch to select this slewing mode. This lets you "ground stabilize" the designation (most likely using a "plane" at alt 0 according to you alt, might be integrated with DTED with newer version though), even when slewing Mavericks around. Right now, when the aircraft is set to use the DMT as the targeting/TDC-enabled sensor, it acts like a combined (and perfectly accurate) DMT+INS mode.

The name and trademark of it is. The actual simulation of how a system works isn't. If they can name it "ARBS", they definitely can implement how it works. You'll see plenty of examples of that throughout the video game industry for example. You can't use a specific gun name in a game without license, but its simulation (without the name) isn't subject to this kind of copyright licensing, AFAIK. It's not a absolute indicator, but it's generally related. Something that is not in active duty anymore, especially in the US military, is generally easier to find information on. But in any case, the documentation about the ARBS and DMT is definitely available, so your original point doesn't stand. Again, not talking about performance. I'm talking about usage. Yes, the Harrier JDAM implementation is definitely not exactly as IRL, Razbam have said it, but the HUD for example is accurate. The reason here is because documentation is simply unavailable/classified. Not the case for the ARBS/DMT. JDAM usage in AFAIK all airframes in the US military is classified. The manual for the Hornet about JDAM usage is actually available online at your "controversial favorite leaked document" website, and considering it says "secret" on every page, I assume it is classified, although someone better versed than me in the controlled documents jargon can correct me. EULAs are known to be second place when put against consumer laws. Consumer laws in a lot of places prohibit this kind of things. But even without going into laws, promising features and not delivering those would be dishonest and just a bad thing to do in general. (EDIT: not saying that's what Razbam is doing currently btw, hence the precise choice of "would") Thus, the community can definitely (and IMO should absolutely) ask for these features to be properly implemented. IMO, I think all in all these backlashes have a positive outcome in the end and should not be silenced or dismissed. Some people definitely go overboard in that manner, there will always be extremists, some people lack respect (and those can be on both sides btw) and this is definitely where I cut the line. But all in all, I think the vast majority of vocal users did so in a respectful and constructive manner, even though this might not have been a "nice" thing from RB's PoV. Criticism is never nice when taken at its first level, but the intentions behind it can be very nice and its consequences, even better.

Absolutely agree. We're not looking into emulating the planes. A simulation does not follow the exact implementation of the systems so as to have a "as true to life as possible" experience, but rather an abstraction of those systems that cover 95% of the cases and limitations of the aircraft. That is the difference between simulation and emulation. Unfortunately, this is not something the AV-8B currently does. It's not because the Nav system has waypoints, that I can drop bombs and things go boom that it's up to the level I expect from a 70 USD DCS module. Sure, I can "wait for things to improve", but I think the community's worries about it never happening and the resulting backlash are justified. Chicken (one of their SMEs who had a "misunderstanding" with Razbam lately) gave a testimony on how the Harrier was actually heading toward not having any depth to these systems. I'll link his post in an edit. EDIT: here it is https://imgur.com/mQvzCn8

They are. Simulating a system is not a matter of licensing. On top of that, from SMEs the ARBS isn't even used anymore. How can we get GPS weapons that are definitely classified, yet Razbam wouldn't actually simulate systems that aren't? The documentation about the ARBS/DMT is at most restricted, but most of it is public domain. Just look it up. That goes with my final point on that. Razbam's excuse on that if you go on their Discord is because "the facilities are not in place" and "it would slow your computer to a crawl", for which I personally refuted both by showing that HB can definitely track scenery objects for example with their LANTIRN pods, and given my field of research (computer vision and robotics), I can say that a basic contrast lock would never slow a computer to a crawl. If you actually go on their discord and see my post, I basically said that it is understandable that they don't wont to go through the hassle of simulating the DMT contrast lock though, but it's definitely not because of the reasons they gave us. As for the INS designation, this is something very important and is actually part of several tutorials (eg the Maverick INS designation, which basically only says "it's unimplemented yet"). This, mixed with the limits of the DMT and ARBS (requires time to compute an accurate slant range due to the way it uses angular rates of the track, tendency for the contrast lock to move a bit due to the nature of image processing), were very important in how the AV-8B N/A was used. According to SMEs, the ARBS in good condition was even more precise than radar ranging (AGR) when given a good lock and time to process slant range, but at other times they had to manually switch to CCIP because at the last moment the lock would start moving. Currently, the INS and DMT modes are basically fused together in a perfect "can track everything instantly" and under the DMT mode, whereas the INS mode is basically unimplemented (can't slew at all in it). Those things are absolutely part of any mission, be it CAS or a strike. The Viggen and the A-10C both give you a very good understanding of what goes into getting a good slant range/designation and the intricacies of that. EDIT: oh and one last thing on that gamble thing. Promised features are not a gamble. They're either delivered, or the customer can go through legal action. A list of features when buying something is a binding contract.

Oh, yeah. The DMT, INS and ARBS are really obscure "rivet" systems... Totally forgot about that.

Ha, the good ol' "you're too poor to play". You know you can have an discussion with someone without trying to go for personal attacks? And anybody with a head on their shoulders will want to use their money wisely to buy an honest product. Not just say "meh it's just 70 USD". And btw, early access is NOT a gamble. It's just exactly what is says: it's an early access to a product that is not finished yet. It doesn't include the "you might never actually get the finished product at the end" tag. And since you're saying the definition of what is EA is not clear, the discussion about what it is and what it shouldn't be is definitely a pertinent one.

It's not because you can fly and navigate it that everything's all good. Mods like the A-4E and MB-339 can be flown and still they're not "up to 3rd party level". Don't get me wrong, they're awesome mods. But they are that, mods. Not 70 USD modules, but free mods. The issues with the Harrier makes it Early Access worthy, definitely not "release" worthy, which has been the arguing point.

I'm pretty sure the [NOT CORRECT FOR YEAR] applies to the software and not the retirement/introduction years of weapon. Lot 20s from 2005 still had the logic implemented for launching SLAMs and dropping Walleyes, as these are in the documentation available publicly. Just look for the Hornet tactical pocket guide.