sk000tch

Some real questionable advice here, and the rest is flat out wrong. Glad to see things haven't changed while I was away The language ED used in the manual is terrible (relative headings?), but the b-scope display is correct. It’s showing TA as 135 Right which is correct for the map you’ve drawn. I suspect we have some definition issues along with confusion about what its trying to display, but once you’ve got it down its quite intuitive. I'll try to break them down concisely and in a way that's relevant to the questions, but there is a lot of material out there much more thorough and better than anything I can do here. TA, or target aspect, is best thought of as your position from the bandit’s perspective. The bandit’s position from your perspective is Antenna Train Angle or ATA. So TA is how Bandit sees your, and ATA is how you see him - right? ATA is obvious from a B-Scope display, so the information a pilot needs the track file to computer is what? Target aspect right? On the scope its relative to straight down, so if TA is zero, meaning his nose is on you, the line will point straight down. It might help to consider that Target Aspect is what controls the hot/cold calls you get from AIC. Where TA is 180 - 120ish, AIC will say they are cold. From (I’m guessing here) between 0 and 50-60, AIC will call them as hot. In between the two they’re flanking. And again, this is 100% dependent on the bandit’s heading and how that changes where you are relative to their nose. Stated differently, target aspect is the angle between BH (bandit heading) and the angle between BR (Bandit Recip) and BB (Bandit Bearing). ATA his the angle b between FH and BB, and its synonymous with Angle Off. Aspect Angle is complementary to Target Aspect. Aspect Angle will always equal 180-Target Aspect, but it is defined as the degrees from BB to BH, or basically degrees to the bandit’s six. Hence the term high aspect, where nose on fighters are approaching 180 AA. In your picture, for the bandit bearing 045, AA is 45 right, and of course TA is therefore 135 right, as shown on B-scope. There are a number of other terms that aren't particularly relevant to the question, but very important for employing a fighter effectively. Cut is a good example, whidch is just the angle from FH to BR. It’s particularly useful for plotting intercepts where you wish to arrive with enough turning room. Unfortunately, in DCS the AI is frustrating, greatly favors high aspect engagements and lacks any 2vX sophistication. With a few exceptions, bandits will turn head on and keep you there until the merge. In that situation there’s nothing you can do to create LS, or to move that line from pointing directly down. One last thing that might help. I saw some flashcards that looked like the work of a T-45 student. Because its is so important to have all these down to second nature, it really helps to get fast with the definitions and relationships between fighter heading and flightpath, bandit heading, flightpath, recip and bearing. ATA, TA and AA. HCA and Cut, Elevation Angle, slant range and vertical displacement. And of course, lateral separation. Presumably they're still floating around somewhere

Others have commented on the penalty and high Vc scenarios, so i'd just echo that. As Eteokls points out its more that its occurring in geometries and Vc that it should not have a penalty rather than the strength of the penalty The ranges are a little concerning. Its currently detecting large fighters at ranges that are well below NLT for most of the intercept timeline. That's vague enough to not get in trouble yet clear enough to illustrate the issue I hope? Can't PRI and Commit by 30nm on something you can't see until 20nm, so to speak. Right now the Hornet feels like an Eagle compare to the Viper, which isn't right. The Hornet should feel similar, as there's a 40mm difference in aperture (compared the the 200-250mm in Eagle/Cat)

Neither it's just aircraft g aka load factor, so n = L/W, or as is elsewhere stated, cos (ɸ) where ɸ = bank angle. Lateral component isn't factored in, except in simplifying the lift equation with the equivalency of vertical lift component and weight in level flight.

ok what they hell... I wrote a response addressing many comments to me but i have one sentence left? I have no idea how this quote system works, so no point by point rebuttal. Probably good actually. My point was, actually my points were twofold. These forums are overflowing with awful information, much of it made up or pure conjecture, answers to questions that begin with "i think it should" or similar are rampant. I'm glad ya'll read a war college thesis or something, and maybe its a good piece of work -- many are. Nevertheless, extrapolating real world combat effectiveness to DCS isn't going to work well, but hopefully it provided a lot of detail about current or recent past capabilities. Keep in mind if its discussing late model pods it will assuredly not contain a discussion of all capabilities. Anyway, as to resolution - my point was that you can't examine a single characteristic without considering the whole. At least not meaningfully. Real world pods' image quality is a product of physics, lenses, wave mechanics, weather and other atmospheric phenomenon, image processers, software, etc.,. and as I previously explained, they change. LRUs are upgraded continuously, and in some cases the upgrades can significantly impact utility. What is the point in focusing on the exact zoom level if the pod is not correctly drawing contrast? If I say I am able to ID an AK at 40k slant range, and perhaps cite the lighting conditions/time of day, etc., if the game pod does not resolve sufficient detail to make that ID at that specific range, but zooms in further on the blurry image, is the solution to decreases zoom? I don't want to drone on regarding every single reply but my point about undisplayed detail seems to have been misunderstood. It ain't exactly rocket science, but if i'm flying a USMC legacy hornet with a lightning AT, I have a 1024x1024 EOTS that must be downsampled by the MC for the display. Again I know the pilot shit but not the computer shit, but the azimuth/angular resolution of the base image contains detail the display cannot show, thus when zoomed that detail is displayed, without any digital zoom interpolation. Hopefully that makes sense, the radar does something similar btw, but that is for another post. Again though, resolution matters but its one factor among many. The move from bandgap to quantum well imagers was huge, far more important that higher resolution of poor detail FLIR. There is a whole suite of detection related capabilities the pods had by mid-late 2000s that are not simulated. How should that factor in? Anyway, I said my peace. I don't come around here much so won't do the back and forth nonsense. And toilet2000 I have done my research. I won't boast about RL quals in how many DCS modules or hours, or even anecdotal personal opinions about specific pods. I'm not here to attack anyone or prove anything, quite the opposite actually. I came here for settings info for VR and swung by to answer a few questions, but certainly not get drawn into bickering match. Its either that or leave like so many others did, though I suppose my infrequence use is a less committed version of exactly that.

Precisely, DCS doesn't really model different "kinds" of zoom, or limitations of optics/digital zoom and so forth, nor sensor resolution limits. Please don't state conjecture as fact. These forums are riddled with answers to questions that begin with "It should" or "airplane Y does this so..." Just because you have experience with something kind of like another, does not equate to knowledge of the other. I recognize you know about pixels, and, you have evidently both zoomed in on your camera phone or in photoshop beyond where actual pixel data exists. However, these systems have nothing in common with the pods. The MFDs in the legacy hornet are low res, depending on what pod and what mode you are in there are usually many more levels of zoom data there before you would haver the problem you're talking about. Moreover, the pods we have in the sim cannot be compared in any meaningful way to RL pods. There's a few reasons for this, including it being very difficult to compare a pod zooming into detail of a rendered relatively low res environment vs. a pod zooming into a real world very high rez environment, the factors that contribute to loss of clarity or often optical or environmental in nature and aren't sim'd in DCS. Moreover, image processing and stabilization plays a HUGE rule in how an image appears yet it doesn't show up in pure stats. As a result, its impossible to compare apples to apples. What pods specifically are we talking about? Litening II with 320 or ER with 600 rez flir? What about atflir? Is it after LRU upgrade and software suite? Our litening pods don't have basic gen 3 functionality like multiple target cuing, so it must be a II. What about Sniper XR? The first HTS dual pod compatible targeting pod of any kind was Sniper, and only then it was, iirc (<-- see what I did ithere when i wasn't sure?) release 7 and S-3. So if they go with that, we've got multi-target cuing, auto target recognition and threat categorization with vastly increased accuracy coordinates, the full suite of NTISR .... actually, guarantee this won't be in game but we will be able to ID an ak-47 from 60k ft slant range right? *crickets* Actually in fairness if that's the sniper version then litening should be G4, or at least G4 kit upgrade right? 1024x1024 Flir, amazing CCD and the NIR/IR laser imaging? That's what the rafael got with its AVP so aren't we.... Yes, we should definitely get G4 right? I'm not trying to rub any noses in piss its just this place has a way of creating and then spreading misinformation. I don't know how much it affects the game design, but it doesn't take much for some nonsense to get repeated as fact. So please, i beg, unless you really know what you're talking about please hold off on comments like the Litening pod is simulated "too well." Its just not true, its not even close. Even if it were true optically, its missing so much stuff that it doesn't make up for. And even if you had lots of experience using the pods, as many do, you would likely agree that comparing a simulated pod to a real pod is harder than it sounds. Even if at a specfiic time we can document that the apparent zoom is higher than it should be, what matters is the whole package that sums to the pods' effectiveness. And asking those questions, it really matters exactly which pod and when you're talking about.

Man sometimes I sympathize with ED... The irony here is what you ask for is counterproductive to the larger goal you say you want. Its an absolute truth in software development that strict adherence to frequently updated incremental releases is horribly inefficient. If what you want is the best game as fast as possible, shut up and let them work. There will always be delays in development. Sometimes you plan well and release as planned, sometimes you don't. If you have to waste a week getting an incremental patch ready for public release before it logically makes sense from a development perspective, that week is wasted. It is spent only on that incremental release and has negligible bearing on the final product. And btw, the whole "everybody knows that" or "nobody believes you ED" thing is Trumpy and unpersuasive. I'm honestly not trying to pick on you, just noting that relying on inaccurate broad characterizations like you have, particularly when they are obviously untrue (I disagree with almost every sentence you wrote and I suspect many others feel the same). It distracts from the point you're trying to argue rather than augment it. Just chill a bit. Even if the community agree with your viewepoint the incentive you create for ED is to reduce the amount of information they share regarding their development plan. There will always be delays and the product features will also change, forcing strict adherence to the information they release will not change that, it will only change the amount of information they release.

I am curious about the opinion of those with the stick as well. I know it had some issues early on, but its improved? Any of the stick snobs pick one up? I've got a fssb r3L w/ f16GRH on the side w/ Gunfighter and MCG pro in center. I've been contemplating going virpil so as to be able to use realsims f-18 grip. I don't suppose anybody has had hands on both? btw intend to pickup winwing throttle and probably panels, hence the question. Big realsim fan fwiw if it maters

The obvious potential explanation is priority, if not aware it can only display 7 tracks. I haven't had the opportunity to play with it in MP with flight members, but the little time I did have donor tracks did seem to get a little laggy. Do you think it was a network issue?

I suspect you might be taking "do not loft" as an absolute. Elevation angle rate of change and flight condition allow the LOBL to utilize a variant of PN guidance (RWR slaved modes as well to a lesser extent). The flight path ends up being an arc with, in some cases, pitch stepping like you would see from a JDAM. If you compared it to a range known flight path the range known would climb much more and stay at altitude longer, though once it stiches to homing it will fly similar How much lofting are you seeing? Like what was altitude and range at launch, and how much did it climb?

Sk00tch also said that straight and level release provides superior stand-off in all flight conditions. There is no benefit to lofting in range, and it gives a substantial precision hit. Same with dives for that matter, no increased penetration or accuracy/precision. The non-ballistic JDAM flight path is most efficient when given altitude, speed and time. A release at 30k ft and .9 Mach should give you 12-15nm stand-off, with maximum gps guidance time There are always tactical situations you can come up with. As a result, there is a procedure for loft release but it says the same thing I’m saying Again though, this is a game... everybody should fly however they want! Just because it’s less efficient doesn’t mean it’s not fun

I believe HTS is scheduled for later in phase II. I wouldn't expect anything until you see PB mode in the Hornet, since hey are both range known LOAL modes. Probably should expect incremental capability as well. I.e. HTS first allows HARM range known mode, then JHMCS integration, then Precise geolocation for PGMs, then maybe left side mounting with dual pod/enhanced PGM capability, then HTS threat categorizing/sharing via link16, then maybe the 3 aircraft rapid acquisition and targeting stuff or maybe someday we'll get a rivet joint and that dlink - just examples, I have no idea how they will actually release Question though...I know many here have played other f-16 consumer level sims, how did they do the HTS simulation? I'm sympathetic to the classification issues ED deals with, and the need for documentation. The AN/ASQ-213 is only classified as confidential, but documentation of technical nature or that discusses performance parameters, vulnerabilities, or performance against specific threats, war time threat tables are mostly classified secret for HTS R7 - the 2007 revision. Ive never seen any decent HTS documentation floating around, much less anything with the detail to simulate it? Also, I haven’t been following the viper too closely, but has ED said whether they are going to dual pod HTS w/ litening(v)? Far as I know that's not possible, but whatever... if there's some reason they can't do sniper I'd rather they bend the realism rules a bit than lose the dual pod config. They ever explain why sniper ATP got axed? I mean, it's real similar to litening(v), little less max range but I doubt that's xtra 10-15% would be all that usable in DCS anyway, I'm more worried about the dual pod thing

Not an a10 pilot and don’t have any 1st hand knowledge, but there were issues early on, at least in development, where the rocket motor exhaust causing damage over time to the laser sensor of other rockets in the launcher (even though they’re ~center of rocket). I don’t think that’s what that is though. Again, basically an educated guess but I remember something about a variant or 2nd gen, at least for some platforms, that is longer and would be likely cause for longer launcher. I hate it when people spread bad info here with posts that start with “I think” and I am breaking my own rule here, but this forum is pretty slow still. I’m sure someone that knows what they’re talking about will come around eventually and correct me.

Yoda- I was just commenting on the question of losing JDAMs as a general matter and his 2nd question of how do you typically attack a high threat target. I don’t know that I’ve seen the same lone wolf stuff in forums, I think most DCS players understand fighters fight as a section. While I do see players and/or mission designers tend toward older tactics, specifically low level, I suspect this is due to DCS lack of EW (and stealth). Because that critical element of modern tactics is missing, players defeat surface to air threats by flying nap of the earth. I am not criticizing DCS, it would be impossible le to accurately simulate. And, frankly, overbanking ridge lines is much more fun than ensuring your positioned between a growler and threat. While I wouldn’t say every strike includes sweep, sead, strike and EW, yours is a good description. There are many who argue that the massive reduction in low level training hours is a mistake. But, while pilots still terrain mask and penetrate low level when given the option at LFEs, low level strikes against defended targets died 30 years ago when f-117 flew circles around Baghdad and intruders/tornadoes came back with 30mm holes. For better or worse it’s not a part of modern doctrine. For anyone interested, yt has a nice almost tacview style overview of the first night that includes all plus some of what gods described:

Couple things - let's just agree not cite Reaper videos as evidence of real world employment Loft delivery profiles do not improve JDAM performance due to the shaped trajectory commanded by the autopilot. Lofting reduces the range capability afforded by a straight and level release under the same flight conditions, and significantly increase the standard deviation from mean point of impact due to autopilot inconsistencies and LAR uncertainties in the dynamic IZLAR. Release profile against high threat targets is ideally high, fast and on-axis to maximize standoff distance and TOF to maximize GPS guidance. Against isolated SAMs, a tangential off-axis release along the threat ring to exploit JDAMs high off boresight capability can be used to good effect. Against IADS or well defended targets JDAM is not the most desirable weapon due to its minimal standoff relative to JSOW and propelled weapons. I don't know what you mean by "first world opponent" as its not a well defined term. But, assuming a modern force with a significantly degraded IADS, the high potential of GPS jamming also makes loft deliveries a poor choice. When GPS is denied the weapon can be released INS only, but due to INS drift the accuracy degrades significantly as TOF increases and/or off-axis or shaped loft deliveries are used. Additionally, the GPS antenna is rear mounted in part to utilize weapon masking of jamming signals. A loft trajectory's upward glide will maximize exposure of the antenna to the jamming signal regardless of orientation and its long TOF will maximize INS drift, the two most important parameters in accuracy/CEP. Bottom line - while you can loft a JDAM in manual release, if the 12-15nm standoff of a JDAM isn't enough use a JSOW.

It seems from comments on their forum that it’s moot at this point, but I don’t think realsim would produce a consumer product and price it out of consumer price range. Their current lineup is a good guide, their stuff is expensive, but not prohibitive for the segment they target. I would add that extrapolating costs from Otto switches doesn’t make much sense. On average I fly irl probably about as much as I play DCS, and while it does make me extremely picky about things like stick feel, the deflection force (or switch force) that feels right when your sitting on a chute at 9G would feel outrageous for a sim control. For example, I like about 8lb pull on my realsim fssb f16grh combo, but my RL ride is a 40+lb pull at 9G. The strength/robustness (and reliability) is also a factor, I’m pretty sure if I stomped my crosswinds the way I do rl pedals they would disintegrate...