Eddie

It's a known bug.

Set your TARS PTTs to different key assignments than your DCS radios?! I'd have thought that one was obvious. You only need the same 3 HOTAS buttons to use DCS with TARS as you do without. Just use a shift function to bring up the DCS comms menus and unshifted for TARS PTTs. But as for the OP, why waste time designing, developing, and testing a function that is already available using 3rd party software and supported plugins? Especially given how many other things there are to be done.

No. Not if you set your control config up right. TARS does exactly what you say can't be done with TS. It does everything IVC can do, and potentially more besides.

You'd be surprised how often pilots get "excited" and say things that aren't in the brevity manuals. Especially when they actually get to shoot a live weapon. But yeah, AMRAAMs.

In that case it's an axis configuration problem. Remove all axis assignments from your pedals and then reassign only the toe brake and rudder axis. DCS has a habit of assigning rudder pedals to pitch and roll on initial setup.

If you mean that the aircraft slowly rolls into the turn and also slowly pitches up or down, then well yeah. That's what aircraft do. If you mean actually elevator and aileron control surface movements are obeying commanded by your pedals, then yes there is an axis mapping issue. Call up the controls display via RCtrl+Enter and watch the pitch and roll axis to see if they move when you use your pedals. And most importantly, post a track.

Here you go. All altitudes to be used as AGL. As for bank angle to maintain base dist, that'll just be a judgement in the cockpit as it'll vary by airspeed etc.

How many weapons are you releasing in the string, and what base/release airspeed are you looking for? Also if you know it, what is the target elevation? High Altitude Dive Bomb

No, nothing had changed at all. SOI and SPI has always functioned this way.

Well if there is a requirement to deliver the weapon on a heading that will give a high crosswind you need to select a delivery type that will minimise the impact of any wind. That means high angle and low release altitude to minimise weapon time of fall. Such things are a big weakness of an AI JTAC/FAC(A), they just can't interact with you as a human could/would, and they can't consider every possible parameter. A situation where high winds impact the accuracy of a given weapon is exactly the kind of situation where a pilot would advise the JTAC an alternative weapon would be better, and/or refuse to drop. Something you can't do with the AI. The other thing to consider is the weapons you are carrying to start with. If you know that MK-82s are not suitable for the mission due to the target(s), threat environment, weather, etc, then select an alternative weapon type for the mission.

The first thing would be to select your attack heading to deliver with a head or tail wind. That combined with a 45 DB or 45 HADB will maximise accuracy and minimise wind drift.

Couldn't replicate the "invisible" IR Pointer in 1.2.6 (test version) or in the internal test version. However, it appears that the texture for the IR Pointer is missing, so I have reported that issue. I dare say it is related to what you're seeing.

Auto correction is just letting the IFFCC do its thing. It seems that people keep missing (or sometimes it appears ignoring) the fact that IFFCC corrects for wind all the time, even if you don't enter wind data. When doing so it uses the measured wind speed and direction (as shown in the CDU) and applies an algorithm that assumes the wind speed drops to zero at -4000 ft. This is adequate correction in most cases. You only need to enter wind data if you're flying in/dropping through wind layers that vary greatly in terms of speed and/or direction. In most cases manual wind data entry is simply not necessary.

Ok guys, I've done some testing this afternoon and the short of it is, everything is fine and working exactly as it should. I've performed around 40 deliveries in both still air, and high winds both with and without manually entered wind data. And in every situation the weapons landed on target. I've done these tests in the current test version, and confirmed the results in 1.2.6 with the same outcome. My thoughts on the issue are as follows: 1. You guys are perhaps not appreciating how inaccurate dumb bombs can be It gets said a lot, but remember PGMs were developed for a reason. Scoring a "hit" on a point target such as a single tank is not easy, especially in high winds and from high altitudes. There is a reason that an impact within 100 ft is considered a hit in real world training. 2. By not performing deliveries correctly (dive angle, release altitude, CCRP/CCIP, etc. you are performing inherently inaccurate deliveries. Shallow dive angles, low release airspeed, and long weapon time of flight, all reduce accuracy and by quite a significant amount. If you want an accurate delivery you need at least a 30 degree dive, if not 45 degree and it needs to be a dive bomb with a release altitude of around 4000 feet. Even a 45 degree high altitude dive bomb will have a release altitude below 8000 feet. 3. You are expecting 500lb bombs to do more damage to hard targets than they should. The "lethal" blast radius of a Mk-82 is only around 75 feet (depending on terrain and fusing) in the real world, and DCS does a reasonable job of simulating that. Don't expect an impact more than 50 feet away to kill a tank. Anyway, those are my thought and results. It may not be what some of you were expecting, or wanted to hear, but that's how it is. I've attached 3 of my test tracks in case anyone wants to take a look, there were recorded in the internal test build, but seem to work ok in 1.2.6. 82 45HADB - No Wind.trk 82 45HADB - Auto Wind Correction.trk 82 45HADB - Manual Wind Entry.trk

It will, when time & resources permit.

Thanks Nate, saves me a job.

It shouldn't. That is a bug.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=112872

What's not right? I don't see anything wrong in that screenshot. You're going to have to be much more specific than just saying "clearly not right", because it isn't clear at all. Your view problem is likely because, as I understand it, something has changed between previous versions and 1.2.6 so old snapview configuration will no longer work.

Snoopy (paulrkiii) actually. One of the feature on the cockpit spelling/labels fix he made ages ago, that finally made it into the sim by the looks of it. But, those marking on the blank UFC keys don't relate to suite 3 functions, so they might end up being removed in future versions. And they obviously do nothing in DCS.

We can only hope. But if not they are easy enough to add, well some stuff is anyway. The towns and most "buildings" are just made from stacked shipping containers. And as you can see, the range targets are easy enough to make. But the smokey SAMs and threat emitters are things ED would need to add I think.

Bloody hundreds. It's what the Nellis ranges are all about. Strafe targets, conventional targets, nuke targets, mock towns and airfields, SAM simulators, the list goes on.

Guys, please, read your own threads on this matter. Most of the questions you guys keep posing on wind correction and unguided munition delivery have been brought up and answered ad nauseum. Example: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1850234&postcount=20 If there are further questions that haven't been asked and answered then please keep them in the same thread so that you, those of us trying to answer, and others looking into the same subject stand even a small chance of keeping up with what is going on. Honestly, and while I mean this in the nicest way possible, I (and others) are getting really tired of answering the same old questions on this subject time and again, and continually seeing our previous responses ignored.

It was non functional. And then a patch or two ago, as stated in the change logs it was fixed/implemented. But what hasn't changed is that people do not understand its function/operation. And neither do they understand that in most circumstances, when correctly employing unguided weapons, manual wind data entry is not required as the IFFCC is always correcting for wind (and always has). It seems that there *might* be an issue with IFFCC wind correction at present, but I haven't has time yet to test and either confirm or deny. But even if there is an issue, it is not a major one. Neither I, or anyone I fly with has encountered any noticeable reduction in weapon accuracy. And the fundemental problem is people not employing the aircraft or weapons correctly in the sim, but still expecting to obtain real world weapon and aircraft performance. Or in some cases not actually understanding how effective, or ineffective, some weapons are.

It does indeed seem there is something not quite right with the IFFCC at the moment. I'll take a look and report as needed, as and when I have time over the next couple of weeks. But, as said above, I think you guys are expecting far too much from the IFFCC wind correction. In light winds, and using low level/high angle releases, yes it should be able to compensate for winds. But with 40+ knots of wind, a medium altitude release is never going to be all that accurate. In previous versions of DCS the wind correction was too good, as it was near perfect in any winds. It shouldn't be like this. But equally it should be a bit better than it currently appears to be. But it's hard to say if there is a real problem or not without performing some proper deliveries and looking at the results. Try performing a manual delivery using nothing other than the depressible pipper. Then you'll quickly find the answer to your question. As I said, without knowing the release parameters (dive angle, airspeed, ToF, etc.) is hard to say. But for s slow, shallow release with such high winds that isn't a far off as you might think. So in summary, there may well be a bug, but it's not as drastically off as you may think. I'll say this much, during my normal flying I haven't noticed any significant reduction in weapon accuracy.