Lex Talionis

Aviate, navigate, communicate ...

.... (thumbs up)

... if you were a marine aviator, your primary job was ground support. And it was a great job to have given you typically had chow or PTed at some point with the marines you were supporting on the battlefield.

Single seats went to the boat, but couldn't have a FAC-A. Two seats could have a FAC-A but didnt go to the boat . FAC - "Airborne" (i.e. the WSO could act as a FAC) was a pretty big evolutionary step for CAS back in the day. Before FAC-As, only a dedicated FAC could be a "FAC". What I mean by "dedicated FAC" is, FACs were always an embedded pilot (harrier or hornet driver) on a ground tour carrying a rifle with marine grunts, acting as their liaison for air support. The FACs butt was on the line when asking for fire support right along with the marine platoon that needed it. CAS is pretty near and dear to marine pilots, "every marine a rifleman ". Airforce A-10 drivers, eat your hearts out. That is all not to say single seats didn't do CAS. They certainly did. You just had to have a FAC imbeaded with the marines you were tasked to support or else you couldn't drop. ..... it has all changed over the years though.

... bread and butter for the marine corps.

.... i have 3 herniated disks in my neck from moving my head what little i could under 7.5+Gs. It is quite hard to move your aprox 10+lbs head, now 70+ lbs under 7+Gs. . Picture strapping 2 x 45lbs plates on your head and now move it arround like it ant nothing ...You cant "anti G straining maneuver " your neck Being able to just look arround unhindered, under hi load, would be considered quite remarkable and generally unrealistic. If ya really wanted to model ACM, your head movement thus total field of view could be further limited when under high Gs (8+). There are a multitude of consequences for pulling Gs as im sure you know. Of the more significant is the hindering of situational awareness by not being able to move your head intuitively. You would want to make sure your head is positioned on the head box such that your field of view will cover where you anticipate needing to look for the duration of the pull, before G onset. Because chances are your head is stuck there untill you unload. (Actually what was done IRL) Im not advocating for a level system. But maybe something that simply slows down your view panning speed as you increase Gs untill a point it is frozen untill you unload. Much like tunnel vision. Or something like that. Head movement limitations is a worthy consideration when developing a flight sim if BFM is a cornerstone feature. It would certainly make DCS a breakthrough game if implemented correctly. For what it is worth.

I am not talking about tactics. You are missing the nuance of my answers. The radar alone was typically not used to ID a target, what does that tell you? We couldn't always tell what the heck we were looking at ! You can go down the road of how pixilated the image is, or if it should lock on and all of that, but at the end of the day the image was hit and miss to reliably ID a target. Isn't that the jist of this thread? that the image is "not that good" ? And what we all have been trying to tell you is " yup, it wasn't that good, carry on." ... Has nothing to do with tactics, jstars, my "jet pilot unconcious biases ". I didnt say "absolutely impossible " and i am not "anti AG radar". There is a perspective between all and nothing. If you are trying to use the radar as a one-stop-shop for ground targets, especially as a substitute to even trying to find the target visually, it is going to suck, as you all have discovered. Welcome to " immersion ". Thats the best i can do, i dont know what else to say.

I dont know the capibilities of those aircraft radars for ground returns. That you are comparing two different radars, in two different aircraft, assuming they are similar is a theory. Even the same radar will act differently bolted to a different aircraft. One piece of gear should not be perceived better performance, or even equal, simply because of a time line or the perceived group they belong to. (In this case, miti role aircraft do not all perform the same simply because they are similar) Performance should be evaluated on an individual bases. I see your point, it is simply apples and oranges.

Ya, we just don't drop on targets we can see with the radar alone, it turns more into carpet bombing. The AG radar was not good enough to properly or consistently ID a target, that simple. There is no such thing as "BVR A/G" pre laser or GPS bombs. Regarding the INS, to do a proper inflight alignment you had to have a visualy aquire-able ground reference with known gps numbers so you could fly over it and "reset" the ins with a knowen coordinate. It was ridiculous. If i didnt have faith in my ins staying tight i would just render the aircraft not mission capable and get another jet. All that said, never had to do an inflight alignment. The INS was a rockstar (unlike the AG radar) I found it humorous when i realized drift was being modeled to creat a game dynamic we never really worried about. In short: the scenario you describe operates on the premiss that the ground is obscured to the point the AG radar must be used to VID and drop on a target, but you need to be able to see the ground for a known location to do an in flight alignment. The scenario has mutually exclusive concepts. This is how wikipedia and YouTube vids steers gamers wrong, you cant properly understand context from the learning individuals perspectives alone. It isnt that they should stop work on the AG radar *if it needs it*, it is that theories are being crafted to justify asking the AG radar be made better than it was so it can facilitate a game play that didnt exist IRL. I mean, knock yourselves out, demand it be better so it will do what everyone is dreaming up. Just understand it was simply not used as has been discribed simply because it wasnt good enough to to so. Has nothing to do with mission or that "we only do CAS now" or any of the other popular theories. It is simply that it wasnt good enough. As i have said before, yes, if it is all you have it is better than nothing. But it isnt a pod and thinking you can just fly arround sweeping with the AG radar to drop on a target that was never visual identified, like your trying to BVR an aim120, is simply wrong employment of the equipment in real life.This topic is much like that for the over G switch Since weather was brought up, i am amazed there are not posts like this one screaming for the fix of multiplayer cloud syncing. If you are looking for new and exciting ways to make flying more intresting, weather is the single most influential variable that changes how we fly. But it doesn't go boom so its not as important as the AG radar i guess.

We didn't prolifically use the ag radar because there were other tools that did the job better. It is that simple, nothing more, nothing less.

.... lots of theory crafting going on in here.

"and paddle switch has been conveniently placed on the hotas for a reason. " .... the reason you reference are not the reasons though. [EDIT] I just realized what i had done. My apologies. Please disregard this comment.

Catching a wire has nothing to do with your pass grade. And Flying on speed dosen't guarantee that you are on the proper glide path. You can fly a rock sold AOA approach with a completely jacked up glide profile. Hope this helps :)

This is the most complete aircraft carrier operations guide that exists for virtual aviation applications. Please thank Pieterras (@CF-RedHawks | Snakesh!t#9472 on discord) for doing this, it truly is a "one stop shop" for all practical CV information. Google drive link for future revisions. https://drive.google.com/file/d/13iSdavDzoHkTkoaD3ulQPprLWfjKCww-/view Aircraft_Carrier_Operating_Procedures_for_DCS_v01_8.pdf

1.5 is far. I would guess you are turning late. And 1.3 is a bit wide for 30 AOB in this game because this hornet has an on-speed airspeed that makes for a smaller turn circle than real life. All three of those will make you under shoot extended centerline and angle in. I use 1.2, just under 30 AOB (27-28), and as far as the abeam, it is hard to give a technique depending on what display system you use. Try taking note of where the sturn of the ship is aligned with a rivit on the canopy rail when you start your turn, then systematically move it 1 rivet for/aft at a time untill it achieves the correct numbers. In this game I find it is almost a 1.2 DME arc. Compleatly coincidental. If all that word salad makes no sense, find us on discord and I will be happy to show ya.

QA your front seat stick actuator meat puppet skills. Ensure you approach turn is as clean as you are assuming it is. 9/10 bad starts (hi, low, not acquiring a ball on roll out, not on centerline, fast, slow, etc.) Can be traced back to a bad 180 and a poorly flown approach turn. When you peak out at the 90 to assess your AOB for intercepting ext centerline, this should be where you make very deliberate AOB adjustments *if* needed. If you are slimming all over or completely shooting from the hip as what those AOB corrections should be, it is exacerbating the problem. Needless to say if your abeam distance isn't consistent, or the time when you start your turn (the 180) is not consistent, all the geometry we are talking about is a crap shoot. I would start with evaluating your 180 location, then approach turn geometry, and isolate variables. The burble and ground effect, if it is modelled correctly, you just fly through it, there is no standardized response to them other than "that pilot sh!t". Once you acquire the ball, all the other landing aids should be ignored. Hope this helps :) (EDIT: guess I should have read more of the thread before responding. Ya, the boat can be fuzzy. The new zoomed in ball graphics I think are a bit of a crutch, but it's a game. Maybe your groove length is to long ? )

Are you trimmed for "on speed" ?

Those alignment marks were there long before the helmet was a glimer in engineers eyes. It is to align the combiner glass to eachother and to the VV on the deck. As said previously, it can be used as a reference for many things outside of its offical use, but those would all be considered techniques .

When you WO, you pretty much just add power to mill/max no matter where the WO is requested. "WO" doesn't mean "don't touch the deck at all costs" it just means add power, discontinue the approach and the chips will fall where they may. Simply move the throttle to mill or max and let the trim do its job and climb you away on speed. This will effectively ensure that if your WO is "in close" or "at the ramp" or wherever, that even if you do catch a wire it will be at the proper AOA as to mitigate any possibility for an unsafe engagement. If you have an inflight engagement, its probably the front seat stick actuating meat puppets fault for not holding AOA. As far as the game, i dont think the jet would be damaged from an inflight engagement anyway. Hope this adds context. :)

Had a feeling this was going to happen. There has been much theory crafting going on regarding the viability of the AG radar (much like the paddle switch and over Ging the hornet). If it is all that you have, obviously it is better than nothing. But it isn't all that we have unless you intentionally make it so on your mission designs. As far as distinguishing the difference between a large rock and a tank, welcome to radars and ground*things*. Opinion: I believe what gamers hoped it would be, are going to allow those expectations to start dictating what they think it should be. And if it does not meet those expectation, bug reports will be filed regardless if it is "realistic" or not. I would think there would be things more desirable to request development on than this. ... accurate weather on all clients maybe so we can do more than cavu weather missions, things that make the playing field level between players for example, fix the ground effect, etc. For what it is worth.

(Chuckle)

Would be happy to. Catch us on discord.

The wire you catch does not go into grading at all. Dispit popular beliefe.

Ok, i will try and do a better job this time explaining the concept. ... aircraft naturally seek what they are trimmed for regardless of power, attitude, control type, etc (if in fact the pilot has the control of the trim in the first place). Positive longitudinal stability. If you are properly trimmed on speed, the aircraft will seek that. As it seeks on speed it will go through a series of oscillation (trading kinetic energy for potential and vice versa. basically the nose pitching up and down) if left to its own demise, those oscillation will eventual dampen out and reach equilibrium (on speed if that is in fact what you are trimmed for). You can expedite the aircraft seeking equilibrium by helping dampen out those oscillation with your right hand. this is the "influencing the nose" concept. What you don't what to do is over pitch the nose and exacerbate those oscillation. Nor do you want to change the trim (again, given the primes that you are trimmed for what you want, on speed) thus changing the aircraft seeking on speed, to something other than. The way this will all display in the cockpit and be useful information to you as the front seat stick actuating meat puppet is: The E bracket and velocity vector will move together. IF they move excessively independently from each other, you are flying glide slope with the nose and that is no bueno ... Hope that helps. :) EDIT: just read the previous page (sorry i am on my phone) and looks like others have said exactly what my dumb but regurgitated. sorry about that, carry on.

"eased guns", i.e. power off (or maybe other than MRT in the game) on landing ... you want full beans after the gear hits the deck (ya treat every landing as a bolter until you realize you in fact caught a wire) . But I have no idea how exactly the game is grading you. Sounds like it may be a bit to harsh.