Banman

CCIP has been broken for a very long time, like 1-2 years. When the module first came out a few years ago I could load up with 10 MK82 and usually get 10 hits. Really never less than 7-8 in a sortie. Now you can't even get 1. I kept thinking someone would report it but I guess not. This is in single player or multiplayer. Here are two track files showing the issue. The second track is shorter and shows the error with almost exact bomb impact offsets for both bombs on the first pass. On the second you can see I pickle DEAD ON TOP of the target and still no hit. PLEASE FIX THIS! F18 CCIP.trk F18 CCIP v2.trk

Really cool documentary that would be a cool mission to create. If someone is skilled at Mission Making and would share if they build it, it would be appreciated. https://youtu.be/PeHc4vbQrNY

Those are the next 2 weapons systems I am hoping come to the Viper. They will make it more of a SEAD threat. Right now with SAM's in the area the F/A-18 does a much better job and I want to get some more seat time in the Viper. Really looking forward to those 2 weapons.

I have accidentally hit the (wrong switch) APU switch to on during flight and I have got the warning message. I would turn the APU off immediately but the caution warning would not go away with obviously the right engine running. Seems like if you are in flight the right engine would automatically charge the system and the warning should self clear? Even after acknowledging the Master Caution it would not clear. Guess I will try this if / when I do it again. Thanks!

So, if the guidance frequency changes immediately on launch, then why when someone launches on you in TWS mode your RWR does not give a launch warning until the missile goes pitbull?

I have noticed a pull as well. It is aggravating.

The problem is also exacerbated if you are using the keyboard for rudder / nose-wheel steering because it is either all or nothing. A depress of the X / Y key gives FULL nose-wheel or rudder. It is horrible. I use my rig for dual use of both flight sim and racing. So when I do not have my flight pedals on because I have my racing pedals mounted, it is virtually impossible to take off with an asymmetric load out.

So I am all for constructive criticism and I agree you do have a valid point. I only included 2 options because I could not come up with a 3rd. (At the end of the day I think THRUSTMASTER is only concerned with would you spend money or not.) If you have a suggestion for a 3rd or even a 4th poll option you can PM me and I'll see if we can add it. Don't just point out problems, propose solutions.

Moderator can you change the name of the poll to. "Would you buy a new F-16C Standalone Throttle?"

Please vote in poll above! So with the announcement of the new "Thrustmaster® HOTAS Magnetic Base and F-16C Viper™ HOTAS Add-On Grip" (which appears to be a Warthog base and dare I say A-10 grip that you can buy separately, which I think is awesome BTW) it got me thinking like most of you I am sure....Now that I can customize my grip, I wish I could pick and choose an aircraft specific throttle too. If we get enough people together to show THRUSTMASTER that if they built a new standalone F16-C throttle (a new Cougar basically with a USB plug) with all of the advancements in sensor technology that they have learned over the years that it would sell like hotcakes? I have a full THRUSTMASTER WARTHOG stick and throttle. I love them and they work fantastic. But I really like the F-16C as well and get a lot of enjoyment doing A/A engagements in the F-16C and F/A-18C. A large portion of being successful in A/A is being able to work the radar modes quickly and efficiently. Trying to manipulate the radar elevation with the WARTHOG throttle obviously can be done, but I feel if I had the radar elevation control wheel like on the Cougar I could see how that would be more advantageous. I think there is enough of a design difference between the A-10C and F-16C throttle where it could warrant me purchasing a different throttle and hence that is the business reason that validates THRUSTMASTER to build it. Meaning that there would be a large enough market to warrant it. Being able to customize your sim how you want now by being able to buy a base separate and choosing which grip you want, the F-16C / A-10C or the F/A-18C which is really close to the F15 as well, is GREAT! Now I just wish I could purchase a separate throttle where I could unplug my A-10C throttle when I "climb out the Hog" and plug in my F-16C when I "jump in a Viper" and have a near 100% "real" setup. Need a UFC controler :). The hope of this thread is to show THRUSTMASTER that "If you build it, they will come". So maybe this thread will get some traction and the decision makers over at THRUSTMASTER might consider to green light this project, or at least have a meeting about its feasibility, fingers crossed. Please vote in the poll above and feel free to add your comment below if you would be a buyer.

My explanation is for using the seeker in the Maverick. I don't even fly with a TGP if I am bringing 4 Mavericks. Station 5 would have either a drop tank or MK82 x 2.

My technique is to come in from fairly high and a long way out so that your dive is no more than about 25 degrees max, 15 to 20 is better. Have the A/P (auto-pilot) page up on the UFC, nose down so that the center of the HUD where the Maverick seeker defaults to is on / near the target, put the engines at idol to have more time, hit the ATTH (attitude hold button on the UFC) so that you don't have to fly the jet for a bit and can concentrate on the Mav seeker in the MFD, Rifle the first Maverick, slew and Rifle the second and so on. Pull the paddle switch to disengage auto-pilot and throttle up and get out of dodge. I can easily get 2 off in a pass, 4 is possible but it can get dodgy. It's safer to just Rifle 2 and make one more pass before you're Winchester A/G and RTB. The closer the targets are to one another, the easier it is to slew to the next target. Also when you nose down it may be easier to center the HUD on your second target so that once you rifle the first missile it will be easier to find and lock the second target. You always have more time to find your first target and get a lock.

Well here's my $0.02. While I understand that the code on the seeker of the LGB is set on the ground by the ground crew and not the pilot, here is the difference and why I think in the Sim the pilot SHOULD be able to change the code of the LGB in flight. (Obviously you can change the code of the laser that the targeting POD fires in the cockpit by the pilot, A10C, F18, F16, ect). In many missions on the server I typically fly you can spawn in a JTAC via completing side missions or Helo in JTAC's via a CTLD script we run. The JTAC laser code is automatically set when they spawn in and you cannot have them change their code. Where in real life obviously you could tell a JTAC what code your bombs are programmed for and have them change their laser to that code. So say you take off with 8 LGB's that are programmed for 1688. Then a JTAC is spawned in and he is on say 1113, he might as well not even be there because your bombs would be useless for his code. Where as now, in the F18, I can program my bombs to his code and pickle away. I really appreciate the level of realism the sim brings, and would err on the side of realism taking priority 97% of the time. But at the end of the day there will always be certain limitations and concessions that need / have to be made because it is a sim and not "real" people controlling every aspect (AI units like JTAC's). I feel this is one of those areas where concessions are acceptable.

In another post Wags confirmed that the jet is already INS aligned on engine start. A full proper INS alignment sequence with the approximate 4 minute wait time will be modeled later in early access.

Thanks for the response. I had the same question and figured it was probably 120°.

Obviously the module is new and will have bugs. However, from Wags video of the AMRAAM employment the "A" under the Rmax / Rne / Rmin staple where it shows an "A" for time to active then a "T" for time to impact. That value showed an "A" for time to active all the way until the missile hit the target. Thought I'd share what I noticed. Thanks ED for the amazing work and I can't wait to get home to try it out. I did not see this bug listed in Nineline's post of known issues.

The 457th Spads out of Ft. Worth because that's where a couple buddies fly #553, #222.

So what's the best VR headset right now to buy?

Not if the Steering Dot was centered and the target aircraft does not maneuver. Hence the point of the Steering Dot, to display perfect lead for the target aircraft so the missile comes straight off the rail and fly's dead ahead with perfect lead calculated prior to launch to the target. It may gain altitude to preserve kinetic energy but should not veer left or right.

1. Throttles to Max AB to get my weapons up to as fast as possible to extend their lethal range. 2. Not sure if it does anything for my AI wingmen but I first give them the command to Jettison Weapons. All this does is make them drop their center-line tank, not missiles. I am hoping to increase the jets performance for them, speed and turn rate. The 3 jets with you will comply, the other flight of 4 will not. 3. Left Win + B gives them the command to engage bandits to get them in offensive mode. 4. I drop my tank and make sure my counter measures are set to "By Pass" (switch in front of stick) so I can dump my chaff / flares as needed. (I have this mapped to my HOTAS) 5. I do an F Pole to defeat their first shot, then turn into them and launch a 120 at about 12 NM. I'll turn cold if necessary or press and try to get a quick second shot off. You just have to see how it plays out. The second shot is either a 120 or Aim-7. If I can get off a quick shot but know I need to run and turn cold it's a 120. If I think I can keep my radar on them until impact, I don't waste my last 120 and will use an Aim-7. By that time, if not well before, it's every man for himself and you have to just play it as the fight comes to you. It's really hard to plan past getting your wingmen to drop their tanks, telling them to engage bandits, setting up your own aircraft for the fight and firing your first 120. After that it's a crap shoot. Note: I do try to defeat the enemies first volley of missiles kinetically by using F-Pole, Notching and changing my aspect as to not use any countermeasures (chaff) that I am really going to need once we get in close. It doesn't always work. If I get launched on close then I do dump chaff because you would not have the time / distance to defeat the missile purely on kinetics.

As Py said it is the Radar Alt alarm. I have had the same issue however, turning it off then back on did not reset anything. It kept going off so I just turned the Radar Alt knob back to 0 to turn it off completely.

IFA is In Flight Alignment. It sounds like you were aligning properly on the ground. From there you should switch it to NAV or navigation mode once alignment is complete. No need to align during flight, that's what you just did preflight. Also keep in mind that INS is not even working right now and never has to my knowledge. You are correct that the time would count and the quality would go from 99.9 down to 0.5 and that let you know it was done, but skipping that step didn't have any negative effects, but it's coming soon and not doing so soon will give issues. Before that last patch at least you literally could crank up and go directly to NAV mode but the procedure you were performing is correct. (At work and have not DL new update) In Flight Alignment is not yet implemented. When it is, you will need to fly straight and level for a long time before the system would get aligned. Like 50-60 miles or more according to a buddy who flys F16's IRL. So you would likely need to set BALT hold and a Heading hold in autopilot. IFA is more of any emergency option but certainly not standard practice from my understanding. The Internal Navigation System should be aligned preflight on the tarmac / deck using either ground or CV depending if you're at a land base or the boat respectively.

The reference was for explanation purposes. The point was that IRL you would not designate targets from 15NM. Thank you. 6MN, hummmmmm pretty close to that 8NM number I have seen people say that DCS limits the laser to. Coincidence? I doubt it.

While the laser may go +17.3NM it would never be used to target from that far. The laser has a beam divergence as all lasers do. Meaning the beam is nice and tight near the pod and it grows like a cone the further away you get. The tighter the beam divergence the tighter the cone will be. When using the targeting pod to paint for say a LGB or a Maverick you typically (99.9%) are looking for a very precise impact point. From, say 15NM, your laser would be painting the size of a football field or more and no telling where the ordnance would land inside of it. I cannot speak on ED's behalf but they may limit the range of the laser to simulate the "effective range" of an actual laser. Not how far the beam can actually go. DCS usually does a very good job of modeling the game play to simulate actual "real" capabilities and having a FAC-A or even self designating targets from extreme ranges would not be very realistic.

Exactly, its incredible the amount of time some of us spend playing for a one time purchase / expense and many think ED should continue to support the game, environment and development for years later for no return. It just doesn't make financial sense for them to be able to do so.