Xechran

Next thought. I see from google-chan that there has been discussion for years about moving the F10 map to a view port. Does not look like this was ever done? Would be handy to be able to find Lat Long coordinates marked on one screen and be able to enter that into the the Cat's CAP or Hog's CDU at the same time. Dread to think of what the perfmance hit would look like, unless the main viewport is continually rendered under the map as is?

The forums being messed up is making this more difficult than it should be, I think. Current issue. Have setup correctly with cockpit viewport on right hand monitor and generic left/right MFCD displayed on left monitor. Trying to setup Hornet. Have changed the size and position of Hornet MFCDs by giving them unique names in indicator viewport_config. Can not get the AMPCD to display at all. Renamed the center mfcd to Hornet_APMCD in AMPCD_viewport_config. Reverted back to Center_MFCD in both the indicator lua and the monitor lua. Is there new syntax or another file overriding this? What stuck out to me was the extra code AMPCD has that other panels do not, including dedicated viewport definitions. MultiMonTest.lua

That makes the primarily used cockpit viewport appear on the right monitor, correct, and I have done so. But the windows/driver control system has to see the left most monitor as primary to assign that top left most position to 0,0. Just have to make that left hand monitor primary when entering DCS and revert when exiting. Not doing so in this example would put MFCD on the extant right hand monitor and push the cockpit view off to a non existent monitor further right of that. Bummer. Such a waste given the Devs included the function in the past.

Have everything setup. Mostly. Running into an issue with my IF / ELSE. Is this function no longer supported? function reconfigure_for_unit(unit_type) If I include the function call the lua will not load and be seen by dcs. If I exclude it the conditional statement will not return true, and it falls back to ELSE. Wouldn't that make the alternative modifying each aircraft init file to have a differently named MFCD to deconflict screen space, since they are not all same size/shape/number?

The windows assigned primary monitor is given X0 Y0, and for me its on my right. Looks like I will need to reassign primary/secondary monitor, dcs requires primary be leftmost.

Certainly cleared that up. It lists properly, at least. First note was I have my primary on the right. So i had to change MFD address to -1920 etc. Still wont display anything on left panel though. Primary functions correctly. Will continue the trouble shooting from there. Thanks for the help, would have taken me ages to spot that missing comma.

Have a two monitor setup that I am trying to get working with a new lua file. Its two 1920x1080 with primary right. Want MFDs on left and AMPCD displayed when in Hornet. The new lua file is not showing in the monitor drop down in the settings page. I have edited AMPCD_init.lua with dofile(LockOn_Options.common_script_path.."ViewportHandling.lua") try_find_assigned_viewport("F18_AMPCD") File MultiMonTest.lua saved to c:/users/USERNAME/SavedGames/DCS.openbeta/Config/MonitorSetup and also in the config/monitor folder on the install. The game is showing the many sample luas included which are in the main install path. I am doing something wrong, difficulty in figuring out what/where. Code and file below, if someone can help point out my error. _ = function(p) return p; end; name = _('MultiMonTest'); Description = 'Variable output of MFD to secondary (left hand) display' if unit_type == "FA-18C" then Viewports = { LEFT_MFCD = { x = 190; y = 0; width = 675; height = 540; aspect = 1027/768; } RIGHT_MFCD = { x = 1056; y = 0; width = 675; height = 540; aspect = 1024/768; } F18_AMPCD = { x = 641; y = 541; width = 675; height = 540; aspect = 1024/768; } Center = { x = 1921; y = 0; width = 1920; height = 1080; viewDx = 0; viewDy = 0; aspect = 1920/1080; } } else Viewports = { LEFT_MFCD = { x = 0; y = 0; width = 960; height = 718; aspect = 1027/768; } RIGHT_MFCD = { x = 961; y = 0; width = 960; height = 718; aspect = 1024/768; } Center = { x = 1921; y = 0; width = 1920; height = 1080; viewDx = 0; viewDy = 0; aspect = 1920/1080; } } end UIMainView = Viewports.Center GU_MAIN_VIEWPORT = Viewports.Center MultiMonTest.lua

Still having issues with this. Loaded missions with no tracer and tracer round setups. Used radar gunsight and funnel with 48' wingspan set for su-27. Sights are always lower than ballistics arc. Im better off closing the range and using the boresight marker. Track: https://mega.nz/#!cv5F1Qqb

AI Mirage clocks in 770-800 knots true with no burner. Super cruise for sure. IR signature on the Mirage is the issue. The 2000C is only giving tone at 6nm from a head on aspect. Its anomalously low range. F-16 11nm F-18 12nm F-15 14nm Su-27 15-18nm Mirage 2000-5 11nm Mirage 2000C 6nm The signature is nearly half what it should be. And signature strength also plays into countermeasures, flares. Stronger the signal the less often the missile will get spoofed. Lower, the more often flares will defeat it. The 2000-5 and 2000C should have the same profile. They do not. Mirage forums say, "and thats fine."

Following up. Actually found 2 bugs here. One is the Mirage AI flight model is over performing, and can apparently travel at high speed without afterburner. Second is the IR signature is bugged anyway. Tone at 6nm, where it should match Mirage 2000-5, which uses same engine and airframe with different avionics, at 11-12nm.

IR signature is certainly not correct. The system is set up in a way that the IR signature is derived by the power of the engine, its bypass ratio (try this with an A-10), and the thrust of the afterburner. As the lone outlier in the system, where should share a signature with another existing model, it must be brought in line. If you think the system is wrong, make that case separately. Be a great time for it, as ED is correcting and addressing the AIM-7 and AIM-9 for the Hornet. Making them what they are supposed to be. If you can show they're making them wrong, please do so.

So, the Mirage is not bugged. Simply every. other. single. air frame in the sim is. And the RMAX computations on their fire control systems. Or it could be that your inference is a groundless stretch, and the one outlier should be brought in line. If you have documentation that the 9m is out of line or bugged you should take that to ED separately. Think you'll need more than a document about a different seeker altogether, though.

Looks like thats got it! Increased AI speed to 970knots true and now get tone at 6nm as well. Whether that is correct is a separate issue. The M2000-5 locks at 11nm, and uses the same engine iirc. Updated OP.

Correct. Which is why the 9M was used in every setup but the first. The first setup was just to explore the difference between the 9M and 9X. The M2k stood out as an obvious bug. Thus the subsequent iterations with the 9M. Noting that it did get tone for a fraction of a second is simply full disclosure. A 9M may also find tone, then, since the results of the tests are consistent across the two missiles. But its not stable and is likely to drop off. No other airframe does so.

For that there is the question of, "do they have different, larger heat signatures in afterburner than not?" And the answer is, "yes, they do." Any issues past there would be balance questions, not bugs as this is. And we wouldn't want to change these things for balance, but for accuracy. If someone wants to run the stoichiometry and solve for X, be my guest. Thats outside the scope of this inquiry though. Will note that there is a logic to their progression, at the least. Larger engines and twin engines produce a stronger signal than not. Holds true all the way through the SU-27, which has much higher afterburn ratings than the F-15.