Eddie

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.

We can but hope.

ALL jet engines produce smoke. The amount produced and colour of it (be it black or lighter brown/yellowish) and the power settings and other conditions in which is is visible vary between engines, but they all have it, even modern western jets kick out some noticeable smoke at high power settings at low altitude/airspeed.

Actually quite a few "realistic" payload options are not available. The option being asked for in this thread is one of them. I have to say I'm not a massive fan of the current payload selection system in DCS, it's a bit too restrictive. A system which allows more varied loading, such as the system in Falcon would be better. What we have now works, but it does mean variations such as the above get missed out. And adding them just makes the drop down lists when selecting payloads ever longer.

You're not wrong. SEM every time, for every attack, with every weapon. BDA can wait, if you can watch the target blow up yourself you're doing it wrong.

PGMs often aren't much good when you're down at 300ft or less trying to hide from enemy fighters or air defence systems. In a high theat environment good old dumb bombs can actually be the better choice. PGMs are also less numerous and are more demanding from a logistical standpoint. They are after all the same old dumb bombs with kits added, and the guidance kits come seperate to the "bomb" and fuse etc and must be built prior to being available for loading to aircraft. Although this is true of all weapons, PGMs are just have another layer to deal with, such as the extra air freight capacity for the PGM kits.

I smell a Walter Mitty.

Not all the time, and not all aircraft types or air forces. But yes, even today gyro stabilised binoculars are carried on some missions. During air ops over Libya in 2011 even Typhoon pilots (with all the aircraft's sensors) went up with gyro stabilised binoculars on some A/G sorties (those without pre determined/fixed targets).

Copy, paste. Don't really need a sticky tutorial for that. ;) Or at least I hope not.

Yes. Either TACAN or map, compass, and stopwatch. Or a bit of both

Doesn't help when you're at 300 feet AGL, below the MERAD/LORAD coverage, trying to hide from hostile aircraft though does it.

It'll be DRA. As in dual rail adaptor, which is what the two LAU105 launchers are attached to. Otherwise the problem is sorted, CATMs aren't going to physically leave the rail. If they do it's normally a bit of a problem. ;)

Well, I suppose when you've never taken your aircraft into combat you have to do something to make people think you've done something worthwhile. And training "kills" at least let you paint something on the jet so you don't feel left out.

And that is a bug by the way. If and when it gets fixed all Mav stations will be selected under the same profile, even if different models are loaded.

It makes perfect sense when you understand how the Maverick and LAU-88 work and what capability the combination gives you. The LAU-88 does more than simply allow 2 or 3 Mavericks to be carried on a single station. It also provides a function called quick draw. Very simply quick draw sends sensor slew commands sent to the station to all loaded missiles simultaneously. This means that while you only see the video from the priority maverick on the launcher, all the missiles on the launcher are on and looking at the same spot. What does this do for you? Well it simply, as the term quick draw would suggest, allows for rapid ripple fire of missiles upon closely grouped targets by removing the need to slew each individual missile from bore sight to the target area. As quick draw is a function of the LAU-88 and not the aircraft, if you reject missiles to select another station or deselect and deselect a Mav station the missiles will be boresighted (just as they are when carrying singe missiles on a LAU-117. So the same station is selected until the LAU-88 reports to the aircraft that the last missile is gone and the station is empty. To further understand why quick draw is like this remember that when LAU-88s are used IRL they are used because maverick will be the primary (and likely only) weapon used on that mission. And furthermore, although use of markpoints and the like is popular almost members of these forums, it is not "how it's done for real". But that's a whole tactics, techniques, and procedures can of worms I won't go in to here.

No such issues here in the current public release. I just test fired 20 missiles and every single one hit the intended target, even those that should have missed by real world launch parameters and weapon capabilities. In short Mav still work as intended, and they are still too effective.

Have you ever tried selecting both TACAN and ILS on the NMSP? Because you can. Obviously a single instrument can only display from one source at a time, but you can indeed have a nav data from both TCN and ILS selected together, and doing so gives exactly the same information as selecting ILS/TCN in the Viper.

They didn't, and nor are they in DCS.

Yes, the Flap Lid is tracking and missile guidance only. It should be a bit more sneaky/evil than it is in DCS really, but with the current modelling in DCS, you have it correct.

Well, I've finally had chance to download this and take a look. Well all can I say is, well bloody done! This is absolutely superb. The flash "study" apps are just icing on the cake. While the tones may not be the same as in reality, it doesn't matter, they serve the same purpose and perfectly well. I'll be retiring the quick & dirty mod I made for the 476th and recommending this to everyone in the future. Good work Tetra. A few more like you and the DCS community would be much better place. Now, I have a few constructive comments for you. 1. You missed the SA-10 tracking RADAR from the RWRTACVIEW_AA app. The Clam Shell and Big Bird search RADARs are there, just not the Flap Lid tracking RADAR. Although the RWR tone is the sounds folder. 2. RWR Symbology. It would be good it you could incorporate a few symbology changes into your MOD that "fix" a few errors in the default DCS implementation. Details below. a) Remove the leading zeros from the single digit systems, i.e. the SA-8 should be "8", not "08" b) The P-19 Search RADAR used by the SA-3 should be represented by an "S", not a "3". The reason for that is that the P-19 is used by several air defence systems (in reality), not just the SA-3, or even a stand alone search RADAR station. I've made those changes to my copy of the ALR69_param.lua from your mod (attached) if you want to just use that to save a few seconds. Anyway, once again, great job. ALR69_param.lua