TheBigTatanka

If you watch videos of SA-3s and SA-6s, they loft up above their target, and make a pretty aggressive downward turn to impact from above. I'm told that SA-2s do the same (by a guy who dodged a lot of them in Vietnam). It would be cool to see that guidance behavior in DCS someday. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Yes, the bug here is only on cold started jets that the GPS clock doesn't auto set the system time of the jet, as it should. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

It works great to keep track of your wingman, unless you lock them up with the FCR, then it freezes their PDLT position, but i think there's already a bug report on that. I used it th other day in a 4 ship tactical formation flight and it was sweet. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Yup.... It's great now! I've never felt so listened to by ED, lol. I made my post maybe a day or two before it was fixed in the last OB. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

DangerZone for ED community manager! Well said. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Flight simmers have a long history of generosity and producing freeware for one another. This is a community in a real sense, many people here have known one another for decades and have been simming for 30+ years. There's also a lot of talent, and a lot of passion for bringing to life the aircraft, environments, and systems that we care about. I spent an entire summer in college developing a freeware Mojave desert scenery for FSX back in the day with photo real scenery, custom objects and airfields, and a new terrain mesh. It was awesome, and i never thought of charging for such a thing. I would love if the map making tools were available to the public and groups of people could tackle maps together, so long as they were always free. I don't think that's the business model that ED envisions though. Ideally the sim eventually transitions to a new terrain engine and a global map system. I think the challenge with that (in a combat sim) has always been the need to have damage models for all the building and the ability to route the AI vehicle traffic, and the ability to generate bomb impact craters in believable ways. Again..... Shamelessly..... I think we have enough middle east maps. How about a new Zealand or Spain or Norway map? I don't care about conflict regions at all. Give me pretty scenery and a historic training airspace all day long. Right now, 99% of my flying in this sim has been on the NTTR map since it released, even though I buy all the maps. I just can't bring myself to fly training ops elsewhere. And the NTTR is a great map. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Something i really enjoyed in the new patch was the shortened time for smoke from the BDU-33s. It's now possible to use them on the range with a flight of 4 and not obscure the target with smoke. This was a very good quality of life improvement, and our training squadrons on BSA rides will now carry the BDU-33. Thanks to ED for that fix. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Thanks for continued support and work on this revolutionary tool! Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Well, they hinted Afghanistan, and that would be cool. I think we have enough mid east maps as it is. I wouldn't buy an Iraq map, because the mid east maps we have are good enough substitutes. I've flown combat over iraq and Syria, and even i don't think we need an Iraq map -- Syria map is a good enough representation. I'm pretty stoked about the Razbam south Atlantic map, that will give us some really distinct scenery. Besides Vietnam, i would love to see more stateside training maps. Alaska would be amazing, as would the American Southwest around Luke AFB down to Holloman New Mexico -- iconic fighter country. A historical map of 1950s California would be great too. Model Edwards AFB and George AFB, and Norton. Even a new England / north east USA map would be fantastic for the scenery and insane amounts of airports to explore. But count me out for Iraq, I've seen enough of Iraq. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

PM sent, obviously without source material. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Fredderf, you're not understanding this, and I'm not sure I can explain it any better without violating forum and other rules. If you have access to current employment manuals on the jet, look at the minimum-lock-criteria section. You can 100% lock onto a single history (brick). Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

You should be able to get a lock and track the target as soon as the FCR shows you a brick. By the time it shows you a brick, it's already detected it and done the math to filter it out from clutter. ED is right... Track range is not the same as detection range.... But from the point of view of the pilot, it is. They need to fix this, and I'm sure they will when someone with some authority looks at it. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Model MPRF, don't allow any defeat besides kinnematic once the missile is MPRF. Problem solved. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

ED should be commended for the work they've put into making the missile harder to notch through the velocity and range gates they've added recently; but the OP is correct, being able to easily defeat the missile is laughable. I would like to see the implementation of MPRF mode on the AMRAAMs, where the missile seeker cannot be defeated by notching (only kinnematic defeat). Also, +1 to the comments about the improper modeling of of radar detection vs radar tracking ranges in digitally filtered radar sets. That needs to be fixed on 4th gen western aircraft ASAP. ED has been getting a lot better about listening to the community, so hopefully that happens here too. They've proven they can model whatever they set their mind to, so I'm sure this is all fixable, if they have leadership with guts to fix it. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

One way that ED could handle this is to say, OK, we know that at the unclassed level these light weight fighters have an expected contact range of 40-45nm against hot fighter sized aircraft as visible to the pilot in the cockpit. That means the radar is seeing (detecting) returns on those contacts further out, but maybe needs a little time to process those returns before displaying them to the pilot at 40-45nm. So if they want to leave this 85% targetable limit in, they need to extend the range of the radar by 15% and not display the brick at all until it is targetable. But, this just seems like a convoluted way to approach the issue. What would be really great too, is if RCS and therefore expected contact range of a fighter sized aircraft changed based on the loadout they were carrying. Maybe that flanker would be visible a lot further out if it was carrying a full air to air loadout vs clean. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Employment manuals are clear that you should wait for a second sweep before locking (as a technique) but that you absolutely can immediately lock a brick that's been displayed on the FCR, because it's been digitally filtered and processed by the time the pilot sees it. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Yeah, i flew it yesterday, and was easily getting 9 Gs with an empty centerline tank and holding energy until the mid 400s. It was sweet! Jet felt great. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Nice video! Yeah, the current bdu-33 smoke time makes it unusable on a conventional range with a multi ship flight. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

I had a weird Maverick issue the other day, flying DCS at night with an IR Maverick. Got a column of tanks in the TGP in white hot, but nothing at all on the weapons page. Had to go through dry, because they never appeared on the weapons page. On the second pass, i had my night vision goggles on, and with the goggles on, the tanks were clearly visible on the weapons page. Flipped the goggles off.... Tanks disappeared. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

If you look at the Korean or Norwegian F-16 employment manual online, you will see a huge section on pop up planning and execution. Sure, you could put a Steerpoint on a target and sort of guess how much to turn, how high to pop, when to pull down, etc.... But it would seem that as late as the early 2000s, the bread and butter of F-16 surface attack involved being able to execute these complex pop attacks from low level with dumb bombs. And it looks like mission planning those attacks was a big part of the core competencies of the community. The VIP/VRP gives you the exact points to fly to match the exact parameters of your pre-planned attack. Maybe you do this to avoid threats, or to avoid the fragmentation from your wingman's bombs by deconflicting with time, altitude, or geography in the pop. Think about flying at 500 feet at 500+ knots in a tactical formation and then attacking a defended target. You don't want to be reaching up to the ICP to cycle Steerpoints and checking to see if the sensors slaved to the target. VIP/VRP is a tool to have all that complex attack stuff tied to one STPT. Now.... How much has anyone used this stuff in the last 15-20 years? I don't know. Flying in circles over the desert doing unopposed CAS with JDAM and GBU-39 probably hasn't done much for these skills related to conducting CAS in a major combat operation. Neat thing about DCS, is we can see how useful the tools are in any scenario we want. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Fromthedeep, Can you explain generally what the laser basket is? Or maybe where we can go read about it at a generalized level? Does it apply to DCS? I'm guessing this impacts why medium altitude lofts aren't great for PWII, in the way that they can work for something like a JDAM. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Yeah, there's not a lot of documentation on this stuff. The one thing I've seen is a write up that an avionics tech did years ago on the 184, and all i remember was that stuff didn't seem super logical to me. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Frederf -- don't inverse video highlight the Convert feature before hitting enter. Just dobber over it and hit enter. You're right, you can't re-convert something if you haven't made a change to the parameters, but I'm not sure why you would want to. I'm not seeing any issues with the MGRS conversion / input implementation -- the only thing I could think of is it would be nice if the jet knew the grid you were in and had that inputted automatically for the first 3 digits of a full MGRS coordinate -- but I have no idea if that would be accurate or not. Having to edit 5 numbers/letters before being able to put in the grid is a little annoying, but again, no idea how that works in the jet. I'll try to ask someone.

Frederf... I'll mess with it tomorrow and report back. What happens if you just dobber right again instead of hitting enter? Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

But what you can't do in DCS is fly to another airport, shut the down jet with a cock-on procedure, then fire it back up with a stored heading alignment and continue. And that makes my inner nerd a little sad. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk