av8orDave

With nothing on the keypad, hit the button on the UFC right next to the "LOW ALT" text. This will switch LOW ALT to "OFF".

Well, it seems you’re pretty close. I’ve discovered through this process that on the Winwing Orion 2, the paddle switch is managed as two buttons. When it is held depressed, it shows as joystick button 8. As soon as you release it, it shows button 7. When I mapped it, I clicked the paddle switch. You briefly see button 8 as the mapping for like a millisecond and then it switches to button 7 as you release it. So the paddle switch was effectively in a continuously held state. When I realized this, I remapped it while holding it down, and now it all works properly. All I can say is that this is a strange one.

One more update: whatever sense this makes, if I hold down the paddle switch, the autopilot kicks in for both steering and altitude hold and the plane starts holding altitude and follow the path. As soon as I let go, the autopilot goes unresponsive.

Ok, so as follow-up... Checked that the autopilot disconnect switch is set to NORM. It is set appropriately. Double-checked and cleared all bindings on my HOTAS relating to the autopilot. Made sure I have a bit of a deadzone on my stick so as to not accidentally kill the autopilot. Switched the AP switch to alt hold, and the other switch to strg, and nothing... it doesn't work. I checked on both Nevada and Syria. I'm using the multithread open beta branch with no mods. I've used the F-16 autopilot for years with no issues.

No, it shouldn’t do that. Once you designate it should stabilize, but instead it starts drifting. If you slew the TPOD crosshairs again after designating, it re-stabilizes. Seems like backward logic.

I’ll check. As a note, I’ve not changed anything from prior usage of the autopilot. I’ve never heard of the autopilot disconnect switch, nonetheless used it, so if that’s the culprit, something changed in the default state it is set to.

Autopilot isn’t working for me either. I’ve never had a problem with it in the past, but it seems completely unresponsive. I have no mods. Also, I’ve checked my inputs and also stick to make sure I’m not having unintended control inputs. Even added a dead zone. Nothing, no autopilot function. Playing on the multithread open beta.

One thing that doesn’t seem to be simulated in DCS is over speeding weapons. I’m pretty sure the Paveway series have a max speed limitation.

Yeah, it seems to be a bug. But what he is saying is go to the A/G load page, load the bombs on the page, and it’ll work. step by step: click on ARMT, then A/G Load. Then click STEP until you see GBU10M, then click the station for the left CFT. You’re good to go.

I wouldn’t mind seeing this high on the priority list. It’d be real nice to be able to enter MGRS coords sooner than later.

Cool pic. How many people staff a maintenance operation to keep a squad of Strike Eagles flying? Is the F-15E "reliable"?

Understood. I guess my question is whether the real aircraft feels like it is flying “on a rail.” It currently feels so stable in level flight that it almost doesn’t feel like flight.

What are you trying to show here? Looks like you're yanking the plane up and down. The stick inputs look really extreme and exaggerated. Are you referring to the plane's tendency to slightly return to it's prior pitch after the pull on the stick? I'm honestly not sure what I'm supposed to be seeing. Not being critical, just trying to understand. After the latest patch the pitch response seems pretty good to me, maybe even a bit too stable and lacking a need to trim. I'd actually be surprised if the real F-15E is this steady and "hands-off" on the pitch axis. It almost doesn't require any trimming in level flight.

Agreed. It is definitely not the correct behavior, but that is what it is doing right now. The ASL seems to move significantly with the pitch of the aircraft. Weird stuff.

Ok, so this evening I noticed that when flying level, the ASL is off to the side of the target. When you bunt forward to descend and put the nose on the target, it drifts over and corrects the steering. If you pull back up to level out, it drifts off to one side again. Not sure why this is the case, but it indicates that if you aren’t descending at a steep enough angle that the ASL aligns with the target, you’ll miss to one side.

The current behavior of the TGP seems incorrect. In the pilot's position, designating a target de-stabilizes the pod, as seen if you maneuver following designating a target. If you then move the pod again, it stabilizes, but re-designating once again de-stabilizes the pod until you again slew it to another spot. This seems contrary to both logic and the pod behavior in other aircraft.

I'm still under the belief, at least until told otherwise by a subject matter expert, that designating a target with the TGP should ground-stabilize the pod. Currently, designating a target seems to remove ground stabilization until you move the pod again, at which point it stabilizes. This doesn't seem correct, but what do I know...

Has anyone tried A2G guns? I haven't given it a shot (no pun intended), but when I tried some strafing last week, it was pretty much pointless. By the time you walked the tracers on to the target, you'd be out of ammo. The sight was basically useless. Not being critical, I know it is early access, just curious if anyone has seen an improvement since the update.

Hey all, I'm looking for either some references or ideas around real-world LGB employment tactics, or maybe even just what works for everyone else. Here's the scenario: - The target is maybe some mobile Scud launchers. They aren't defended by strategic SAMs (radar guided), but may be defended by MANPADs or SA-9 IR systems or AAA. Daytime, although I'm not sure if it makes a difference if it is nighttime. My current process: - At the ingress point, I'm fencing in, setting up my weapons, all of that stuff. I'm also checking in with AWACS and getting bogey dope at least 40 miles out, and then a bogey dope update about every 10 miles afterward. - At about 12 miles out, I'm starting to try to pick up the target on the targeting pod (not easy given the current pod). My altitude is about 20,000 ft. and I stay there throughout the attack. - Once the target is sighted (usually by about 8-10 miles), I'm getting an initial designation and starting to follow the azimuth steering line. I'm also watching the TEWS to ensure I'm not being targeted by any aircraft or SAM systems, as well as to maintain overall situational awareness. - I sweeten up the designation as I approach the target by redesignating as I close in. - Once about 20 seconds from release, I'm starting a gentle dive, maybe 5-10 degrees nose down. - Once I've released, I crank about 20 degrees right, then start a gentle turn back to the left to maintain laser designation. - After the bomb has impacted, I'll fly about 12 - 15 miles out, then re-attack from a different heading. Any thoughts on this procedure? Any idea how they do it in the real world?

Yikes. Not what I was hoping to hear. Performance improvements were my main hope. I'd take worse night lighting in favor of better performance.

Definitely interested to hear if there is a Syria performance improvement (I think it was mentioned a couple weeks ago that this was targeted for the next patch). I really like the map and would love to see it perform like the Persian Gulf map. Won't be able to really try it out for a few days, so let me know if anyone sees any improvement!

A random question for F-15E experts: You often hear in the F-14 world about the underwhelming performance of the Pratt TF30 engines, and how the GE F110's on the F-14B and D made it the aircraft it should have always been. You hear a fair amount of anecdotal stories that the A model was badly underpowered, and that the Bs and Ds flew with a night & day difference to the As due to the extra thrust. Is there a similar thought in the F-15E world about the 220s vs the 229s? Do pilots complain about the performance of the 220s, or praise the performance of the 229s? Is it less of a storyline than it was with the F-14? Does the 220-engined jet have performance issues or limitations in certain conditions, or is the feeling that the 220 is adequate but just not as powerful as the 229?

Agreed. I'm no longer using GBU-10s as a result. I've noticed it most often when also having a mixed load of GBU-12s and 10s, although I think I've seen this when carrying only 10s as well.

Definitely a thing. I've experienced this as well. I've stopped using GBU-10s as a result.

Start at about 13:00. He says “it also has a forward looking infrared camera as well that was actually used prior to night vision goggles.”