RogueSpecterGaming

I don't think a lot of people will agree with this. Sure, it would be nice to have real time reflections that update immediately, and as you see in NineLines video, when you are maneuvering the aircraft, they update as so. Your specific problem/complaint is when you are not maneuvering the update rate is much slower. This could be a limit of the engine currently as mentioned, but I don't think it being there is that big of a deal as you are making it out to be. Most players aren't just sitting in the cockpit focused in on the smaller details like that when they are busy doing other things in the aircraft like setting things up or being shot at. Not saying this shouldn't be fixed, but you can't ignore the people that don't have good PCs that play DCS. Of course, they could add another setting to address this, but that is something I feel would be very very low on the TO-DO list. I think as time goes on and the engine improves further, I think we will see changes made. It is just going to take time.

Alright, hopefully this might help someone. Default values will/should allow you to slew full rate with all sensors and the Maverick but is very touchy and sensitive.Maverick Sens Default curve.trknull With a curve of 30, you maintain full rates through all sensors and the Maverick, and it is very controllable as you can see in the track. If you need it to be less sensitive still, I would not pass 50 for your curve. Maverick Sens 30 curve.trk What I saw in the video from the guy who posted it, is his max rate on the TGP only got to 7. Not sure if he was full deflection on what he was using but I was only able to achieve this with a Y sat of 75. This obviously is not idea as you will lose out on a lot of freedom over the sensors in term of speeds/control. I am running with the F16EX setup, but when I use to run the TM Warthog this was a problem with the mini stick, and I had to adjust the saturations quite a bit to achieve full rates with my sensors. So, if you adjust only the curve and still notice some "jumpy/twitchy" movements and you are not achieving full rate on your TGP then only then adjust the saturation. Maverick Sens Default curve 75 Y Sat.trk To make sure you are getting full rates across all sensors use the TGP as it gives you the indication #L/R/U/D as you see in my tracks.

In your video I can tell you need to adjust your curves still because you are only getting a max slew rate of 7 on your TGP. It should be going to 9. Not at my computer at the moment but give me a few and I will show you what I am talking about.

What is happening in DCS vs what should happen: When the TMD separates two of the three pieces stick together and follow the submunition dispenser down. What should happen is the TMD should blow away and the force from the wind should cause it to go aft of the submunition dispenser. This does not affect anything from what I can tell inside DCS, it is more of a visual inaccuracy right now. The submunitions are then dispersed individually rather than together (FWD section followed by AFT section) on the CBU-105. This is done correctly on the CBU-97 but not correctly for the CBU-105. The way they disperse the submunitions should not change. It should still go all FWD, then all AFT. They should not dispense individually. In DCS if you use a HOF of 1500 two or more submunitions collide with the ground. If you use a HOF setting of 1200 (standard) you will lose up to 5 with the CBU-105 and up to 11 with the CBU-97. From what I can tell this is happening due to a long chute deployment interval time once the submunitions are released from the bays. What should happen with a HOF of 1200 or 1500, is all the submunitions in the FWD bay get released and they should almost instantly start deploying their chutes one after another, then all the AFT bay submunitions should do the same. There should not be any that collide with the ground. Judging by the pattern of how the submunitions disperse under certain wind conditions makes me believe that you guys are modelling the CBU-105B/B which has the P3I munition in it. Even if the CBU-105/B, which uses the Baseline munition, was being modelled it should not have submunitions crash into the ground with a HOF setting of 1200. With a setting of 1200 (which is standard) the dispensers will still open at a predetermined altitude AGL. Depending on which one you are modelling will depend which altitude is correct. Right now, the only way to avoid losing any submunitions to ground collision is to set a HOF of 1800 or more. Here is a video to show a CBU-97 in action. Timestamp 4:33. In the video you can see how the TDM separates and then the FWD submunitions disperse, followed by chute deployment almost instantly (and the video is in slow motion.) In DCS it takes a while for the submunitions to deploy the chutes. Attached are tracks with various drops with 1500, 1200, and 900 HOF used. They are all short and can be watched and slowed down to view the submunitions going into the ground. Along with some pictures. And also, for the CBU-97, visually it has a WCMD tail package when it shouldn't for obvious reasons. Should be all green not silver. That is the biggest way to tell the difference between a WCMD and non-WCMD CBUs. Which you can also see in the video as well. CAT-UXO - Cbu 97 aircraft cluster bomb Another thing I noticed, when dropping a single CBU another dispenser appears for some reason at some point. You can watch the track here to see it.f16c_cbu105_1200_test3_double.trk The only thing that separates the 105 from the 97 is the WCMD tail kit. Everything else is exactly the same as the 97. All relevant documents will be sent to @NineLine (All testing done in a no wind environment with other tests done with wind) f16c_cbu105_1200_test.trk f16c_cbu105_1500_test.trk f16c_cbu97_1200_test1.trk f16c_cbu105_900_test.trk f16c_cbu105_1200_test2.trk All CBU-105 Tracks.zip

Pressing OVRD or selecting STBY that way will CTD and has been reported and I think fixed internally already

Ah ok. That makes more sense lmao all good.

There is a lot that is taken into account when picking and setting fuzes. It all depends on the mission and the desired effect the pilot is trying to achieve. I can tell you common settings for MK82/MK84 M904/905 fuzes are usually 4 or 6 seconds for the arm delay, instant(0) for the function. Typically, the only bombs that will use function delays are your penetrating bombs (GBU-24A/B, GBU-31v3, and any other BLU-109 bomb body). They are usually equipped with a FMU-152 or more commonly the FMU-143. GBU-38s will typically be set to 14 seconds for the arm delay and instant(0) for the function and will either use the FMU-139 or 152, just depends on availability. GBU-12s and 10s typically get 139 fuzes are settings for the fuze vary depending on the mission task.

That is not what I said. I never mentioned anything about configurations. I specifically am saying the switch automatically SWITCHES ITSELF as if it is a magnetic switch, which it is not. It should not flip itself automatically when MMC gets turned on. That is not how the switch works mechanically. Not once did I mention configuration loadouts.

The only thing I have notice be a bug is if you start the jet in CAT I even with A2G stores the moment you switch MMC on the switch automatically flips itself to CAT III which is not correct. The switch is a manual flip switch not a magnetic switch, so it should do nothing until YOU flip the switch yourself.

DO NOT boresight the maverick at 500ft. You will only cause yourself more pain. Check out my tutorial which goes into more depth about the Maverick and the various ways to boresight and employ the missile.

The MPO switch is only for nose down authority during flat spins or other stalls. It does nothing for you for pitch up maneuvers.

That is why you should have a TGP with you. When you lock a target on the HAD the TGP will be in the general area of the SAM. The higher the PGM the closer the TGP will be which will allow you to create a markpoint. Sounds like a lot of work but that is where being proficient with the aircraft comes into play and lots of practice.

I found deleting the FXO and Metashader2 folders worked. I had the issue of setting it higher and it turned them off for some reason. Also, be sure to check the Special tab in the settings as some aircraft, like the F16, have options for static reflections for both the canopy and MFDs.

T80SIDEArmor.trkT80FRONTArmor.trk I posted your tracks here for you. Looking at the side profile shots first from two M1A2s the armor on the side of the T80 seems correct. nullYou can see in the night screenshot that I was able to find the round being ricochet off the front armor of the T-80. I have also provided the track. In the daytime picture of the T-80 I have outlined the aim point that the Abrams is aiming at consistently. This is the area that the ricochets are coming from. This appears to be the expected behavior/expectation from the front armor of the T80. In both Abrams night screenshots, you can see the round hit under the angled portion of the tank. That first shot on both tanks immediately destroyed them. I don't think it is a problem with the front armor of the T-80 as it is performing like it should (since you can see the rounds ricochet) and ricochetting the rounds as proven. The problem would lie in the M1A2 armor as it is not deflecting any rounds despite the angle of the armor. In the track file "M1A2 destroys T72B one shot" you can see one Abrams gets destroyed while the other one takes out the T72 one shot. Same goes for the track with the T72B3. When it comes to the T90, the T90 does take a hit but I could not find the ricochet round. In the track you can see it hit just under turret or slightly on the turret but doesn't do much to it. The T90 was able to take out both Abrams with one shot. The side profile track is of course one shot as well. Both side and front profiles were tested with the M1A2C SEP v3 and same thing with the armor. I will do more tests later to ensure the Abrams are using penetrating rounds. But as it stands right now, the Abrams cannot take more than one hit from the front from close range. I will run more tests as well to test distance and see if that plays a factor. I will also test out to see what RPGs do to the armor as well. I would imagine and hope the Abrams could take a standard RGP shot from both front and side without taking too much damage. I am also not sure how thick the armor is on the front of the Abrams, but from what I can find it should be able to take a somewhat of a beating. This puts the Abrams in a very difficult position in DCS as from what I have tested here so far appears to make the Abrams rather weak from all angles no matter what. Whereas the Russian tanks appear to have stronger front armor as expected. T80 Front profile shots destroys two M1A2s - night time.trk M1A2 Front profile shots - nighttime.trk M1A2 destroys T72B one shot - nighttime.trk M1A2 destroys T72B3 one shot - nighttime.trk M1A2 vs T90 one shots - nighttime.trk M1A2 side profile - nighttime.trk M1A2C SEP v3 front profile - nighttime.trk M1A2C SEP v3 side profile - nighttime.trk

F16 Yaw 1.trk Yupp, providing another track for good luck. Definitely happens more when roll input is exaggerated and you try to over-correct it. Only happens this bad at low speeds with gear down and when making sudden rolls and pitch inputs as you can see when I do a go-around.

Yes, please post a track so we can see what exactly is happening.

Pretty much the point that was being made, the whole difference between EGI and the INS between the two despite the F16 being "newer" in terms of the year. Different branches different things. But better said. Thank you.

Negative. That was a different issue altogether.

Do you have a track by any chance? Also, 400kts seems a bit slow to be releasing those types of bombs.

Just set something up on Caucasus. INS Drift HUD & JHMCS sym.trk this was with unrestricted SATNAV and 2005. Setup was about the same distances as you mentioned give or take. During the flight I monitored my NAV page on the DED and at some point, during the flight the SYS ACCUR turned to MED. Did a FIX on the first STPT which was not over where I had put it, it changed back to HIGH after fix taking. On my way to STPT two my SYS ACCUR turned back to MED. Did another FIX on STPT 2. On the way to the target none of my points were where they should've been. Afterwards, I stuck around and looked at each point and each one was in a different place if I was looking through the JHMCS or the TGP. Seems like some type of an issue with symbology alignment maybe. So, if I took a fix using the JHMCS then the TGP wouldn't line up to the same spot. If I took it with the TGP then the diamond in the JHMCS wasn't in the same spot. I think this misalignment between the two is what is causing the issue. So, no matter if you actually need to take a fix or not the symbology is not going to match each other resulting in a weird sighting error. Pretty sure that wherever the diamond is looking should be the same spot that the TGP is looking. If they didn't match each other then you are going to get what we are discovering here. And since the TGP can control the SPI placing the TGP over a TGT and then looking through your JHMCS the TD BOX or diamond should be over the same spot. I feel like that is just fact. It definitely through me for a loop when looking out the cockpit and saw my TD BOX away from the tgt. Caused me to overshoot my pulldown height and because the TD BOX was closer to me than it should've been I came in shallower once I lined up for the target. Point of the matter seems to be: - The HUD/JHMCS indicates small to large drifts. - Unrestricted SATNAV at least in the year 2005 in the ME seems to make the SYS ACCUR go to MED randomly (seems not right? especially after a very short period of time) - Sensors don't line up with each other it seems like causing confusion on where you are supposed to be looking So really, I don't think it is so much the drift being the issue rather than the sensors (TGP and HUD/JHMCS) not matching each other. If I look through my HUD or JHMCS and notice my diamond for example isn't where it should be then when I go to take a FIX and I move the diamond over where it should, if I notice the delta exceeds the 300ft (~0.06NM) when I take that FIX ALL sensors should be looking at the same spot then. They shouldn't be looking in different areas like they are cross-eyed. "In order to perform a FIX/update certain factors must be met, and they can include: SYS ACCUR, GPS ACCUR, and GPS TRK/NOTRK. Now assuming normal GPS values of <50 feet and GPS in track, the Blended KF will have more confidence in GPS-aiding than a 300ft fix/update. But once the SHE exceeds 300ft for whatever reason, then a fix/update on a known stpt may be recommended. The position delta is estimated from the coords of the stpt. That delta is displayed to you on the FIX page."

Syria GBU31.trkIt worked for me. How long are you flying before you drop? And are you doing any hard maneuvering like pulling more than 6+Gs and if so, how many times? Yeah there are quite a few posts already about the JDAM and Ive been trying to tell people that it is still work in progress as told by Lord Vader multiple times. But they still want to argue about the JDAM stuff for some reason. Currently about to test the original stuff now.

Ok and that is fine, but don't come at me for not watching your tracks. And when has the ED team ever been the only ones able to help people?

Much appreciated. I will test this out. But in the meantime, read this and try adjusting and let me know your results please. Go into the mission briefing area before going into the mission and make sure the stpt is at the base of the target (so at whatever side of the building you will be coming from). Also verify the coordinates both in the mission brief and on your DED Nav page to ensure they match to include elevation. So the max range for the GBU-31 is 15NM under the right conditions (doing about 450-475 KCAS @25000ft, and hopefully no headwind). If you are doing 300-350 you are making that distance shrink down to about 5 to 8nm, so I would have to guess you're dropping inside that? Which is fine if you are trying to achieve a top-down attack on the target. I would still suggest bumping the speed up though and you can still drop at no less than 6NM. So it would look like this: -25000ft MSL -450-475KCAS (I know damage to weapons isn't implemented but try not to exceed .98 Mach if you can help it lol) -set your Impact Angle on the control page to 75-80 degrees. (This will ensure a more top-down attack. If you set this and try release at 10nm the bomb will not achieve these angles on impact) Try that and let me know the results please. I will test your scenario out in the meantime.

No problem. Glad you figured it out.

Can you give me the scenario? I don't have the campaign and have been hearing some weird things. Info that would help: - Mission Date & Time - Distance/Altitude/Speed to target when releasing JDAM. (Which JDAM 38 or 31?) - Weather - Any onboard sensors being used? (FCR, TGP, HUD, JHMCS) - GPS available? (I would assume so, but you never know)