toilet2000

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.

No, not at all. Currently, the ARBS acts like a perfect "INS" mode, with the INS designation mode not even implemented. The ARBS needs a track for a certain time to compute an accurate slant range. Currently, it is instantly "perfect" and can track anything, including untextured flat terrain. There's a lot more depth to targeting systems than just "put the thing on the thing". The A-10C does a good job of explaining that, so does the Viggen.

You're talking about FTT (Fixed Target Track) and not AGR for target tracking. AGR simply uses the radar to determine slant range from the HUD and CCIP (a bit like the Viggen does), instead of relying from baro alt/rad alt or a digital terrain database. FTT on the other hand is a way to track an AG radar return. Simply sensor select toward you AG radar page when the TDC is already assigned to it, it will attempt a return lock on the point underneath the cursor or the currently designated nav-stab point. The big difference between FTT and Nav-stabilized designation (what we had before) is that the FTT is actually a real return lock whereas the nav-stab one is simply a point in space determine to be where you put your cursor via the INS. The latter is therefore prone to INS drift, cannot follow a moving return and is prone to "misaligning the cursor with the target". The former (FTT) does require keeping the target in the radar FOV.

Completely agree with that. Deleting the bug threads will not be seen as a good move, for good reasons too. Some people have put a decent amount of time in making bug reports (including community bug trackers and lists). I'd honestly say to start with the community bug tracker. It is still the biggest and best bug list and tracker available currently for the Harrier.

The collimation logic was removed from the Viggen sight a long time ago, because there was an issue with the head position reporting in VR (according to HB, the DCS SDK would not give the right position of the head). Now it's a fixed texture on the collimator sight.

No it's not. the Raduga sighting system started from a 1930s submarine periscope, but it is modified extensively with gyro-stabilization, extended zoom and more. It's a myth that it is simply a submarine periscope. It's purpose built, but based on a periscope design.

That is very well put Swift. Totally agree. Sure you can "do" most of the things, but it's not at the same "true to life" level as what we expect from a DCS module. This isn't a "lite" sim. You should be able to mostly follow procedures, which is not the case in the Harrier. That's on top of simply breaking issues like the slew.

I agree with Pikey on this one. The Harrier is just not at the same level of quality that I personally expect from a DCS module (and it seems to be the case for several other customers). The HUD repeater on the MPCD is a good example of the "low quality" on top of the tons of missing features and functionalities. Same goes for the more than 2 years old bug of Sensor Select Switch Left making the EHSD appear on the right MPCD. While we can expect an EA product to get better quality implementations of systems and improve much further over time, the same cannot be said for a "product sustainment" phase. IMO, a product leaving EA should be close to if not entirely feature complete (with a clear roadmap of the missing features if it happens to be so) and at the best quality it can. I understand that bug fixes (from older bugs or from new ones) can be part of the product sustainment phase and I agree with that, but quality and polishing of the systems that are in place should be done before leaving Early Access, and a clear roadmap of the small amount of potentially missing features should be laid out, at least in my humble opinion.

You're dead wrong. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3341529#post3341529

Oh didn't know a fuel truck and a radar signature while a T-72 or a BMP are stealth vehicles... /s There are issues with the rendering tech that have nothing to do with the AG radar resolution or whatnot. Check the forum thread linked by LastRifleRound. EXP2 will have higher resolution than EXP3 at close range (something like 5-7 nm).

Very good write up. Thanks! This has been my experience too.

The best detail is attained at 45 degrees from your direction of movement.

Most if not all of the image processing on those kind of systems aren't done via "CPUs" or "GPUs", but rather via dedicated chips (custom made) or FPGAs. Saying our CPUs and GPUs are much better than back then has little to do with the processing requirements. We don't have hardware dedicated to apply a specific processing almost instantly, but rather rely on programmable "general use" hardware (even on a GPU). This is exactly the reason why even the best GPU available can't beat ASICs in cryptomining. Application specific hardware is best in terms of performance.

That's definitely something I would like to see for the Hornet too. And as Swift said, considering we have older weapons like the Walleyes and the AGM-84E SLAM, the Nitehawk wouldn't be off at all. +1

uboats said the aircraft isn't ADF capable, and won't get symbology for it, even if the radio panel has an ADF mode. See: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4462924&postcount=55 As for HNS, currently setting the INS to HNS (INS + GPS which makes the green UFCP light near the HNS button light up) does not fix the very fast error rate of the current INS. After a 30 minutes flight, the whole INS can be more than a mile off currently, with no real way to fix it expect with a ground alignment or an overfly alignment.

Here’s another source: Source: https://www.16va.be/4.2_les_mi-24_part1_eng.html Says it’s gyro-stabilized, has narrow and wide FOV + infrared tracking (at least for the missile SACLOS). Moreover, the Mil Mi-24 Attack Helicopter book cites the Raduga-F as being a LLTV/FLIR. This answers applies to @Fri13 comment too. Edit: some more info/sources: https://www.deviantart.com/stealthflanker/art/Raduga-SH-268189991 Since we have a Hind-F (P version), the Raduga is the Raduga-Sh with at least different left fairing for the Shturm guidance antena.

That's actually my guess too as to why the US Navy/Marines didn't really use/train on AG radars in the Hornet, whereas other countries did train on it. I've been told by people in the know that the RCAF did train on the AG radar and it was used. Canada doesn't operate JSTARS or the like.

The Raduga-F is a FLIR system, as far as I've seen, with the "orange" thermal color as seen in games like ArmA. See this timestamp:

There’s a very distinct difference between emulation and simulation.

It's dumb that my base model Honda Civic doesn't have a turbo. It's dumb that Honda sold me a base model Honda Civic and doesn't give me the same things as the Si. Different planes, different systems, different nation, different weapons. It's not because it shares the same name that it is the same aircraft. The AV-8B+ has a lot of differences in system to our N/A for example. Razbam is supposed to give us the closest UK Harrier to our N/A, the GR-7, but there are still notable differences: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=187214

See this: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj5mYeaztLqAhWRmHIEHZyDDFMQFjAKegQIAxAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftrace.tennessee.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D6123%26context%3Dutk_gradthes&usg=AOvVaw2aV4JkrwHoXIKjjJ_nEeCe This quotes a 512x512 image.