SpecterDC13

Havent watched the track yet but make sure you dont have the Markpoint page up on the DED. I will watch the track when I get home from work.

Because I worked on the F16 and use to mess around with the TGP. And that is how it works. I can promise you it works as advertised. Because the TGP needs an image to go into regular INR in order to stabilize on. Inertial rate requires an image or it doesnt know what it needs to stabilize on. When you switch STPTs it will stabilize on a set of coords and doesnt need an image on that case. But once you have slewed the TGP you created slew errors and therefore it needs something to stabilize on. This is why it briefly goes into INR AREA/POINT before actually going into AREA/POINT. It is essentially saving the image in the image correlator. It keeps the CZ on the MFD anytime there is a slew error and pressing the MFD CZ is always treated as the "master" CZ essentially and tells the TGP/SPI to go back to the coords; whereas the HOTAS command is treated as a secondary option and is moreso telling the TGP to go back to the first image in the memory which can only do so if it can see (unmasked). Similar to how when you close your eyes and then spin yourself, and without opening your eyes try to face towards the last thing you were looking at before you closed your eyes. You can only correlate when you open your eyes.

Bump

Alright, I did some testing by taking control of your trk. - TMS AFT is not functioning correctly when masked. In the trk I uploaded you will see I mask the TGP, and I am actively pressing TMS AFT and it does not CZ or going into regular INR. HOWEVER, as the trk plays you will see that I do manage to CZ and even go into INR while masked. I am only able to do this because I am slewing the TGP ever so slightly to bring it out of INR AREA/POINT and pressing TMS AFT at the same time. Final conclusion: This is accurate and works as intended and here is why. You cannot CZ when the TGP is in: AREA, POINT, or INR Tracks (INR AREA/INR POINT). When in AREA or POINT notice you have to TMS AFT in order to bring it into INR first (not INR AREA or INR POINT just plain INR) in order to TMS AFT again to CZ. The reason you cannot TMS AFT 2x while in INR AREA/POINT is because that is the TGP correlating the image. You can test this out for yourself by having the TGP in front of you at the first stpt and slewing the TGP in order to have INR AREA/POINT appear and pressing TMS AFT twice to try to CZ, it will not work. So, if you have the TGP masked or it is about to be masked before you enter INR yourself, it will go into INR AREA/POINT, and that means it is attempting to correlate the image to what was stored in the memory but cannot do so. INR AREA/POINT goes away the minute you unmask. Now, if you have one stpt in view and switch to put the other stpt behind you; you will notice that it automatically goes into INR mode. That is because it is going straight to the coords in the memory and doesn't need to correlate the image because no slews were made. But the minute you slew it, it will enter INR AREA, and you will not be able to CZ or enter INR. The only reason I am able to enter INR or CZ while being masked is because I am triggering it between the time it takes the image correlator in the TGP to correlate the image and the time I stop slewing. It happens very fast, so you have to TMS AFT 2x very quickly. no TMS aft to INR - Rogue.trk

I've just tested and if you look at the Radar Scanning (bottom of the FCR) when you TMS up long it will allow you to move the radar with your JHMCS. You are expecting to see the oval symbology, but you won't see that in NAV mode.

The wings on the tail package of the GBU12/10/24 do not "ignite". The wire that attaches to the wing release latch gets safety wired directly to the sway brace of the MAU-12 or sway brace on the TER (there is no arming loop that goes into a solenoid). In the case of the MAU-12 with a GBU12 on it, you have two arming loops that go into the solenoids: one for the initiator that goes into the center solenoid, and one for the BFD on the CCG that goes into the nose solenoid which is slid onto the wire for the BFD. If you have a GBU12 on the TER, both BFD and wing release latch wires get safety wired to the sway braces of the station that the bomb is on, while the initiator goes into the nose solenoid on that station. So, in the case of the GBU12/10/24 on a MAU-12 the choice of NOSE is for the BFD arming loop and the initiator arming loop. This is considering the fuze you are using is either the FMU-139 or FMU-152. You can equip a M905 but it is not a typical configuration in real life. If you have GBU12s on a TER the choice of NOSE is for the initiator only. MAU-12 Selecting (GBU-12 with FMU-139/152): NOSE = Bomb will arm and guide (will DUD if using M905) NOSE/TAIL = Bomb will arm and guide TAIL = Bomb will DUD and not guide (will go unguided but will still explode if using M905) Just gotta remember what fuzes you put in the bomb. But you are always safe going with the N/T option.

JDAMs are currently only using "Relative Targeting" at the moment. In other words, the JDAMs on the F16 do not have the GPS enabled just yet. This has been talked about to death in a few other forums if you just search "JDAM". You are doing everything correctly though by the looks of it. In relative targeting mode the accuracy for JDAMs is a 30m CEP. Your bomb is falling within that 30m CEP judging by the pictures. Make sure you lase at the base of the target though before dropping and lase as you press & hold the pickle button. The reason why you want to hold the laser down is to ensure the coords (including the correct altitude) are correct. You will notice this if you were to lase the top of the tank you will get a different elevation compared to lasing at the base of the tank. As far as impact angles those are going to be relative to distance. See above as to why you lase. It is common practice to lase before dropping a JDAM in the F16. Being in Area or Point track doesn't matter as the SPI is controlled by the TGP either way. MAN/AUTO is specifically for AGM-65s for Handoffs. Not related to this at all.

Why not just save the loadout you made, give it a name, and then all you have to do is just select it from the drop down menu? That saves more time than anything honestly. I get the idea but the saving loadouts options is pretty good.

Not everything is fully modelled like the A-10. The A-10 is much much older and has had plenty of time to be worked on and outside the A-10C II, the regular A-10C is a fully finished product.

I would get rid of the way and DICE, unless you fly the A10C, A10C2, AV8B, M2000C then keep those, but this program works better for the F16C, Strike Eagle, Hornet, and Apache, and incorporates both those programs into it. And you can also share your settings with others if you play in a small/large group, and with the new update they added a kneeboard function. And you said the DiCE program doesn't work anymore so for countermeasure settings DCS-DTC is the next best option for you.

Release Version 8.1.0 · the-paid-actor/dcs-dtc · GitHub Use this. It is literally the best thing out there right now for the F16 and a few other aircraft and it DOES NOT break IC at all as it doesn't mess with LUAs. You're welcome.

How the MAV behaves in regard to SOI is correct. Let's keep this on topic please. The OP is correct that there seems to be an error in when the MAV is being stabilized. While the jet is over mountains it isn't stabilized, but the minute the jet is over leveled ground it is stabilized. The MAV should not be stabilized unless correlated with the TGP/FCR in PRE, or when using BORE. If using VIS it should not ground stabilize unless a TMS up action has been done as the missile is slaved to the TD Box in the HUD (or JHMCS). You can see in the tracks that even if using PRE the missile does not ground stabilize until leveled ground is reached.

@BIGNEWY if you watch the tracks that yumemi5k posted, it shows where when the jet itself is over leveled terrain the MAV is ground stabilized, but the other track shows that when he is flying over mountains that it does not ground stabilize, but as he continues flying and meets leveled terrain the MAV magically ground stabilizes. That is incorrect behavior, as it shouldn't ground stabilize at all on its own, as even you said yourself. It should only ever be ground stabilized if in track mode, AREA mode (65H, G, K) or in correlation with the TGP (specifically PRE).

bump

Go to the appropriate timestamp. This is the best tutorial you are going to find about the AGM-65. https://youtu.be/aZFphYmt3qo?si=HTqR8Y1M9Mq5YZQk

https://youtu.be/zCTG8wcUUy8?si=W-KzAMFUyGmb3IBl This video shows it better than the first which I did put in that one reply you quoted, but it was at the bottom. But let me explain what I am looking at. But I promise you, that movement you see is not very precise or controlled. Between 0:19 to 0:23 seconds you can see how he is going from left to right/up and down but as he makes direction changes it sort of floats then moves in the opposite direction. From 0:24 to 0:28 seconds you can see as he is trying to make small adjustments to get over the target, it pretty much floats or sways right past it. And at exactly 0:27 seconds he gets the seeker close enough and does TMS up to lock. As it locks you can see the pointing cross, the smaller + symbol, lag behind. Remember, the pointing cross shows the relative bearing between the LOS of the missile seeker and the longitudinal axis of the missile. Essentially, telling the pilot exactly where the seeker of the missile is pointing in relation to the actual missile. This is why it is important to make sure the pointing cross is inside what is called the keyhole. But, in that exact instance, you can see the pointing cross lag behind indicating that the seeker had stopped and the torquer motors (which control the up/down/left/right) had to be stopped again by the braking mechanisms. These braking mechanisms act like brakes on your car, they help slow the seeker down, and once the seeker is stopped, they hold it in that position. If more movement is needed in the tracking state, then the guidance unit takes over control of the torquer motors to maintain track on the target. If you are constantly slewing around the seeker these brakes are not going to be activating very often resulting in a floating seeker/image. That is what I am referring to. And from the pilots I spoke to back in 2022 when I loaded these onto F-16s, that is exactly how they describe it. Mavericks are complicated to use for that very reason. That is why most of the time they employed them they did so using BORE mode. I am not overcomplicating anything or causing any confusion on the matter. I am simply stating my real-world experience with the aircraft controls as well as knowledge on the missile and how it works. In my opinion, the AGM-65 for the F-16 is probably the closest thing to the real-world counterpart. For the cursor itself, the rate of cursor movement is a function of the force applied to the controller. A steady controller tilt causes a constant rate of cursor movement. Increasing or decreasing controller tilt causes a corresponding increase or decrease in cursor movement up to the maximum or minimum allowed. Generally, the cursor moves across the SOI display at a constant rate for a given force as follows: Slewing is optimized for the closest ground stabilized symbol (A-G TD-box, steerpoint diamond, offset aimpoint triangle, pop-up point, and steering circle) within the HUD FOV (if any) and the closest in range outside the HUD FOV (if none are within the FOV). The closest slewable HUD symbol moves over the HUD at a constant angular rate despite the range to the point on the ground. Cursors for target acquisition, GM, and slewable ACM move over the MFD at a constant linear rate despite the selected radar range scale. TGP LOS is slewed at a constant angular rate for a given FOV (slower rate applies to smaller fields-of-view). AGM-65D or G, LOS is slewed at a constant angular rate for a given FOV. HSD, HAD, and HAS cursor movement mimics the CRM/TWS cursor movement. So yes, certain things inside the jet have a slightly different slew rate depending on if it is angular or linear. I can tell you from personal experience that slewing the TGP vs slewing the Markpoint cursor in the HUD, feel very different from each other regardless of being controlled by the same cursor inside the jet. In cases with the TGP and Maverick, the FOV definitely affects how the slew rate appears to the user. The same goes for the slew rate when you are using the FCR with the EXP function selected, the slew rate is decreased by a factor of 4 when using the expand function. Not sure if they will do this, but when we get the Sniper pod, it has an option to change the slew rates. I also believe hardware parity is definitely a big factor in this and how it feels or appears to the user. The cursor movement inside the real jet is very much a function of the force you apply to the controller on the grip. Our at-home hardware does not mimic this not even to the slightest degree. It is the same with using a full range of motion stick versus using a force-sensing stick in the F-16. Or using a stick that can do force trim for helos versus not using one. The feel of how something operates is going to be different to the user as well as appear different in most cases.

If the SAM turns off/gets destroyed, it will turn green on the HAD page. If the SAM is offline for a while it should remove from the HAD page over time. The AGM-88C is suppose to remember the last location and fly to it instead of just doing it's own thing. I believe a report has already been made for it.

For sure. Those precision rings help a tone. Im trying to find a better solution to stiffen it up but nothing yet. Im sure I will find a better solution.

If you felt and used the real RDR cursor on the F16 you would understand where Im coming from. Adjusting the curve actually makes your hardware closer to the thing as from my experience our sim hardware we get is not up to par as the real thing. The real thing is much stiffer and far easier to control things with finer movements. You should see in-sim the difference not just with the TGP but using the HUD to slew the Maverick around you will notice it does not move like the Maverick image on the WPN page. When you control the Maverick directly is when you notice it the most as the input is going directly to the wpn and not just being transfered or translated to the maverick. In my tracks even with the curves set to 30 it is still a bit jumpy and i have to really focus and give the smallest amount of movements in order to make fine adjustments. But i dont have to focus as much with the TGP. If we had a company make an actual 1:1 replica of the real life throttle grip oh man it would be amazing. Its hard to decribe but slewing things around even something like the markpoint in the HUD just moves so smooth and even moving it a hair is so precise. But then you slew the Maverick screen and you can tell a difference that you arent really controlling something that is part of the jet. You can see in this video when he starts to move it the seeker almost looks like it floats as he is trying to get onto another target. That is the gyros slowing the seeker and the pilot has to fight that essentially any time he moves it. So small movements is always key. At least our seeker dont float that bad...yet lmao. And this is on an A10 as well. This video definitely shows what Im talking about with the floatiness of the seeker. Now imagine being told to use this as your targeting pod, which A10 pilots were told to do during ODS https://youtu.be/zCTG8wcUUy8?si=W-KzAMFUyGmb3IBl

For the Mavericks we have yes. If we got the G2 or K2 then you would see a slight improvement but the D, and standard G and K are quite old. The USAF has slowly been phasing them out due to multiple factors and ease of use is one of them. Ive talked with plenty of the pilots I work with and they all say that the maverick is/was the hardest weapon they had to use. Plus due to some countries upgrading SAMs and MANPADs it is not a viable weapon anymore to bring into combat for modern day at least. But yes, I highly suggest tweaking the curve. I would not touch the saturations.

Why should they slew at the same rate? They are not designed the same. The Maverick seeker sits on a gimbal controlled by gyros which arent the best, outdated, and very easy to mess up. That is why when you are maneuvering hard and fast you should not have the wpn page up or wpn pwr on as this would mess up the boresight of the maverick. This is why the uncage feature is there. Also, the same reason you arent suppose to takeoff with the TGP out of standby or the maverick pwr on and wpn page up as well. Damage to the gyros could occur. Now that isn't all modelled in DCS but I do know pulling a lot of G's over time will mess up the boresight alignment on the Maverick so there is a small amount of detail there with how the gyros interact with the weapon itself. The TGP gimbal/gyros are much newer and better than the maverick's which is why it is easier to control. Also, zoom plays a factor as well. The more zoomed in you are the more fine movements you can make as seen in the tracks I posted. The maverick does not zoom as much meaning small fine movements will translate into a decent amount of movement in the image you see. Which is why I suggested the curve to make it less sensitive and easier to control the finer movements that you are trying to achieve. I have the WinWing F16EX HOTAS with the Orion 2 throttle setup as well and do not have a problem slewing the maverick. Adjusting the curve itself will not effect how fast you can slew the TGP or maverick. It is only adjusting the sensitivity and how quickly you reach the slew rates. And if you have a deadzone on it I would take it off as that is not going to help you. Should be noted as well that the WinWing grip's RDR cursor is very free in movement compared to the real aircraft's RDR cursor. To remedy this I added two of these (the black ones) which helped stiffen up the RDR cursor thumbstick on the grip itself making it feel closer to the real thing. Not saying you have to do this but I did and have been able to get very movements quicker and more easily. I took them out for those tracks I made though. https://www.amazon.com/KontrolFreek-Precision-Assist-Control-PlayStation-Controller/dp/B08TRMS8PS/ref=asc_df_B08TRMS8PS/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=475858350123&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=18055223619493420539&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1022649&hvtargid=pla-1186136705027&psc=1&mcid=eb3a1a6294fc39d0a645122eb9ac135a&gclid=CjwKCAiAjfyqBhAsEiwA-UdzJDLgpfuMjLqbcoDodaqjJBPq7B5X1jPZapPYifQiDjYvZSsGY0YB0xoCslYQAvD_BwE

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