sk000tch

I have no first hand knowledge of this but objects are not the same as terrain, so I don't think that's a safe assumption. From conversations with ED people (most of which I didn't understand), grapevine is that this is part of difficulty with AG radar and part of benefit of API change (something about allocating memory appropriate to hardware that stays put and same descriptor being able to render at different qualities for low cost - like out the canopy view vs. tpod vs. AG radar all see same object differently). That statement was probably ridiculous to anyone that knows what they are talking about, my main takeaway from convo is that there are limitations in current engine that make things they want to do difficult/impossible but that things they are doing now will make it better in the future (should have just said this and left it there) But to answer question - pretty sure DCS just calculates range, search volume, has some variables for radar max detect range, sensitivity, RCS, does a terrain mask and aspect check/ ground clutter check, and decides whether to display a return. More complex than that with trackfiles and modern radars with additional bells and whistles, but point being they aren't simulating waveforms via ray tracing or anything like that. Someday maybe, though I"m no sure what benefit it would provide outside maybe AG-- the light we can see is already expensive to render. I am very curious whether RCS of ordinance is modelled. Loaded hornet should be 3-4x more than clean but doesn't seem to be.

I wasn't aware, its not server option?

It works quite well actually, it might depend on VR vs regular, but it feels to me as though its at least as effective as when viewed through a helmet visor. It looks different, but similar in effect. If i'm in emergency missile defense mode, i.e. low angle off inside my circle, first thing I do is find the sun and decide whether I can get myself b/w bandit and sun. A break and ditch w/ flare burst out of the sun will defeat any SRM in the game, you don't even really have to execute it all that well to defeat the missile. Concealing your maneuver is more challenging because you must get the angle perfect, but done correctly it makes the ditch hard to follow, potentially allowing an opportunity for reversal. You might also expose yourself to a quick snap, but in that situation its not like you've got a ton of options.

I'm not totally sure what the last guy is referring to on a couple things. He's right, its not in yet, and its generally not very useful. But to clarify... It is possible to loft right now using manual release mode. In so doing you are relying on an educated guess for proper delivery to get JDAM close enough to accurately guide itself in. With some experience you can get pretty good results with it. But the auto loft functionality isn't in yet. The actual AUTO/LOFT and FD release modes (the other 2 of three primarily types) are not in yet though. Actual AUTO/LOFT when depressed will provide three options, a 45 (middle), 30 next lowest) and 15 (bottom). These correspond to desired loft angle at release, for purpose of displaying loft initiation cues on HSI and HUD. On HSI, the pull up line is a dashed semircicle. The HUD in auto/loft will show an ASL line as with most auto modes, but an elevation steering line provides pull up cue for your release point. In practice this mode is not used for pop up type deliveries, and as previous poster said at higher elevation lofting is counter productive. As a result I don't wouldn't imagine this is very high up on ED priority list, maybe right after flight director bank angle cues. For pop ups just use manual, depending on speed initiate a pull to 30-35 deg pitch say 7nm +/- from TGT. When IN RNG appears pickle. Note escape maneuver must consider you have ordinace below you climbing at similar attitude and speed, so get off heading before rolling over.

yep, though WIP, etc... Navigation and pilot relief modes have not been fully implemented. But yes, it does, and for nav purposes coupled steering will flying the plane to an offset point, as well as regulator waypoints, tacans, and courselines to either. Once implemented the UFC should have an O/S option (it will say POS, ELEV, and O/S). Entering O/S data relative to a waypoint will create an offset aimpoint (OAP), which then can be sequenced or designated as TGT as with waypoint or markpoint. Certain weapons can be programmed with offsets directly. JDAM and JSOW come to mind though I'm missing something. The exact programming method is different for PP and TOO, but Offset data can be entered relative to a reference point. Same basic idea, just more options. There is actually quite a bit of programming that can be done for jdam. You can, for example, enter a reference point (say friendly location), range and bearing of desired impact, terminal conditions (e.g. heading, angle and speed at impact), a release point (perhaps min safe distance from air defense), and if FD mode is used a desired even bank angle at release. Plane can use coupled relief mode here as well and fly itself there, though release requires pilot consent. tl;dr yes, multiple ways

Stalled? In a literal sense? Going to have to provide some addition details or track, pretty hard to accidentally stall a viper

Sorry man I wasn't intending to pick on you. The comment, even in sarcasm, was just perfect to quote upon which to vent my irritation (with a healthy dose of sarcasm as well). Even though I said it a couple times I should have been more clear about that as it came across more directed at you than was my intention. No worries bignewy, everybody is getting along. How are the projects going anyway?

Well gosh that would seem to be a absurdly generalized statement with a few assumptions... What does 20% performance even mean? Frames per second? I realize everyone seems to think CPU is their bottleneck, but DCS is extremely costly to render per pixel. VR is worse, requiring a huge amount of pixels to be rendered to have a cockpit with readable gauges and MFDs. Vulcan's big pitch might be its multithread support but would you be surprised to know multithreading and vulkan are separate projects? I bet there might even be some benefit about not being on proprietary APIs? Ever see those driver updates that get released for AAA titles? Think MS or Nvidia answer the phone when the little russian 100 person dev with the niche flight sim calls? What if DCS is thinking down the road a bit and is planning mutli-GPU support, single pass stereo rendering, VRS support for foveated rendering, shader optimization that doesn't require brute force MSAA to make it look non-ass like? That would be better right? Makes you wonder why training sims that prioritize fidelity simulate flight throughout envelop very accurately, including simulating departures and other scenarios that are unsafe IRL, run on dual CPU behemoths? Fluids man, they do crazy shit. I wonder if ED has had to make sacrifices due to decreased CPU resources on consumer hardware? So if after vulkan and multi-threading is done, and implementation has matured, my plane flies better and has more accurate damage modelling? And the AI is better? Is that performance? Not trying to pick on you dude but none of this is news, they got something like half the dev team working on this and will be among the first sims on DX12 or Vulkan. Maybe MS beats them to it. Fair enough, they've got a few more resources. Maybe the reason is they sit on a 99% build for months to avoid these complaints. Low level APIs can be great as we've seen but do not reward poor implementations. It's no magic bullet and will probably be worse at first. Expect parallel builds. Maybe, just maybe, we should put away the pitchforks before we see what they pull off. Everytime this topic comes up it's just painful. At least nobody has posted a task manager/resource monitor pic yet, so there's that i suppose.

Nothing 9line said in his sticky was wrong, step should behave as he stated. The follow-on posts… well, they were qualified with an I’m not sure or equivalent. BRU-55 capability was spiraled in SCS 19C1. If someone has flown or crewed a 18C/D with 19C1 and knows how the SMS presents JDAM/JSOW stores on a CSSI/MSI interface, or has documentation to that effect, I’m sure they’d be happy take a look. In the past they’ve been receptive to that kind of assistance. Just for clarification - the idea that the SMS cannot communicate with individual stores on a BRU-55 is categorically false though. The 18’s station encoder-decoder would fault and power off if it could not ID and IBIT, much less get through req’s for release consent. The BRU-55 spec requires communications between the aircraft and individual MIL-STD-1760 mission stores via the digital multiplex data (Mux) interface, though a single Aircraft Station Interface std-1760 cable (decoded/routed at the rack to each CSSI/MSI umbilical). So the SMS must provide the same level of control to each store on a BRU-55, we just don’t know how the SMS wingform and JDAM/JSOW menus function when it is equipped. Tired excuse I know, but it is WIP. There is a ton of JDAM/JSOW functions not in yet - AUTO and release modes, quantity release, JPF, offsets, launch points, flight director, most of the HSI/HUD cues, TOT/TOF, etc. All of things require more button pushing, so I can live without until we get MUMI.

You’re right, I was mistakenly arguing against the concept in this thread, not behavior I have personally observed in game. I should have been more clear about that. That said, iirc, I was able to pickle 4 jdams simultaneously with independent targeting before, which does not jive with reality. Truth be told I have not flown the hornet in a while, or anything for that matter. I am grounded IRL and DCS, the former for safety, the latter as I’m unable to sit in my rig (or desk) for very long. On a much more psositive note, I have surgery scheduled near end of this month to repair the stenosis/myelopathy in my c5-c-7 (common injury from G induced compression of spine with neck in rotation and flexion), and there will be a month or two where I can sim but not fly, so I’m very much looking forward to having lots of time, a nice buzz, and several months of dev progress. Wizard - I pretty much agree. Only thing of significance is that I don’t have a problem with them making educated guesses when necessary. Realism is ideal but some pragmatism on this topic pis required given the subject matter. There are many examples but a particularly good one is HTS on the viper. It’s very unlikely they have the documentation necessary to model it, R7 is still very much classified secret/banned for export/not in public domain, much less the dual pod config and details like the datalink functions between pods of the same flight. Personally, I would rather they exercise some creative license than not have the wild weasel capability. I don’t mean that as a criticism of DCS, far from it actually. But as someone with RL time in 3 DCS modules, 4 if a yak-54 counts for 52, there just a lot of little things about how individual systems or aircraft as a whole feel (and my quals are not in the more modern modules). I am new to desktop/recreation type a ims though, and thus don’t really have anything to compare. But I am constantly amazed at how well they do model such a wide variety of aircraft, or how much I can get lost in the moment, particularly in VR with friends in MP, despite the quality of the world/sky/terrain not being at the same level as the planes.

Hey Wizard, apologies for delayed reply. I tend to pop in here sporadically. C/Ds were able to employ 8 JDAM on BRU-55 racks independently targeted eventually, or more practically 4 JDAM on 2 BRU-55. It's a matter of timing. There was high demand for the weapon beginning in OEF, with rapid development of multiple concurrent upgrades to fuzing, anti-jam and anti-spoofing that affected the JDAM interface on the wingform display, while simultaneously there was rapid development of what was termed net centric operations. Our hornet is late 2005, I believe supposed to be SCS 19C, which is further complicated by spiral fielding of VMF and DCS that took place at that time. I don't know if ED has ever clarified what level of DCS we will receive (just digital 9-line or the 2005 upgrades), what atflir functions we will have. VMF would seem pretty easy, as they are already pretty loose with the cross link communication (f-18's showing on A-10 SADL and vice versa). Regardless, its difficult to know exactly what ED plans to include, as sometimes things are changed due to lack of documentation or other reasons. I said I wouldn't start sentences with I think, but if I had to guess I suspect its one of two things. Either its the old WIP issue, as there are a ton of JDAM functions not yet implemented, from release points, fuze configurations, TOT/TOF displays and functions, auto and loft release types, HSI and HUD cues for these, etc.. given the length of this list, certainly this could be an interim solution. Alternatively, there could be a disconnect between SCS versions and capability. It's possible ED has documentation for stores/jdam page from an earlier SCS where dual racks weren't included. I do not know personally know the specifics of how the SMS/JDAM pages looked in late 2005 with bru-55, so its also possible that this is correct in appearance. What I can say is that the behavior is currently wrong. No Hornet can drop ripple release JDAMs without using Quantity Release. The basic methodology is after weapons are programmed with mission data, fuzing and release type, routes are created factoring any launch point or terminal conditions, and depending on which stations are selected, the HSI displays cues to overlapping LARs. On release consent they do not come off the rail simultaneously, but rather the SMS will run the sequence so long as release is held, but each weapon is separated by a miminimum of 300ms. They do not just come off the rail like dumb bombs.

Or winwing relents and sells thottles standalone, but until then, upgraded hog is as close as you get

Actually, I suspect it might take a non-Russian dev to do it. They are funny about state info. My daily driver is a Sukhoi, and we’ve had to mod everything due to parts export issues and/or technical info. They are... interesting (searching for right word here). Though I haven’t flown a modern mig I’ve burned a lot of fuel (and runway length) in VK-1/F based jets, they are a blast but temperamental af, have to peg your numbers and ensure you understand the likely poorly translated prohibited maneuvers in POH. Again though I am Sukhoi fan. They make well designed and absurdly overbuilt planes, literally everything is made from titanium, and they punish poor stick and rudder skills. I would love to see a Su-35, though that’s probably not possible, but what about something like a dual seat su-30? Multi crew is fun, interesting plane. Once you go glass you can’t go back, so I’d love a 35 but don’t see it happening

Perhaps it makes sense but it is wrong. I am not trying to offend, just provide accurate info. I am honest about the limits of my knowledge on these forums (as above), do not make things up, use other sims as sources, or begin sentences with “I think,” “it should,” or similar (as below). I won’t get into how bomb racks work or specific interfaces as it’s beyond the scope needed for this discussion. JDAMs can store multiple target data sets per weapon. They can be loaded pre-mission via MUs, or sent to the weapon from the Hornet’s MCU. In TOO specifically, each weapon can store two targets - TOO1 and TOO2. If, for example, you have a station selected (ignore duals for now), depressing wptdsg sends that target info to the weapon. If another station is selected manually or via step, or undesignate is pressed, the MCU will step to next weapon or undesignate the waypoint as directed, but the TOO target info is stored in the weapon until it is overwritten or powered down. When that weapon is again selected, the stored TOO target is still there, and will become the active target. This workaround being discussed in this thread exploits this by storing TOO1 and TOO2 on both weapons loaded on the rack, then releasing one at a time, first w/ TOO1 as tgt, then again with TOO2 as tgt. Most PGMs are the same way, as well as missiles. Tgt size and RCS are set per station, or, in the f-16 for example, bore/slave settings can be set differently on different stations, allowing pilot to quickly step to a missile configured as desired.

We shouldn't assume that a pilot can independently BRU-55, I've not seen documentation of it personally. I don't want to open a can of worm, but there is no documentation on the interface between BRU-55 and OFP of an era close to our jet for a reason. As of FY 05, the Navy did not certify JDAM on BRU-55 weapon racks due to problems associated with the rack (not the weapon). The determination at that time was that although this inability prevented use of the BRU-55 rack to carry a load of eight 500lb JDAMs on 18C/Ds, the limitation was operationally insignificant under current employment scenarios. See feasibility argument above. As of 06, further testing and OFP development was planned, but that's where my knowledge on the topic stops. If someone wants to dig and find when and how the capability was added be my guest - but I am not even sure what year our Hornet is supposed to be exactly? She's a bit of a frankenbug.

reset should always clear DT1 & 2, but it can be a little buggy. To gentlemen re 1 vs. 2 button presses, having to remove hands from stick is slow and more effort. Personal preference really- hence the "if you prefer"

if you prefer hotas, you can switch to guns to clear, then RTS

I can't reproduce this. It should be cursor enable, but neither works for me. To clarify - we're talking about toggling bore/slave modes of aim-9 in dogfight mode? Is this working for others and its just me or what?

They wouldn't, but that's a feasibility issue, the system behavior is mostly correct. The QTY part isn't authentic. I don't quite understand what he's described, but without selecting QTY and boxing the stations it won't release consent and will hang. A lot of shit happens between when you press the button and the weapon releases, and if something ain't right - such as MRI Fail, it's not coming off the wing. The Hornet won't actually drop jdam simultaneously. Quantity releases require minimum release interval of 300 ms. The feasibility of eight TOO targets is another matter. Bring back capability is poor in the Hornet, and it wouldn't be loaded with eight JDAMs unless you knew they were going. ED is kinda between a rock and a hard place on the BRU-55A. It is much better now. JDAMs are missing a lot of features, but the fundamental behavior of how the - indeed the reason this trick works -- is right. TOO1 and TOO2 targets are weapon specific. Designating TOO1 transfers that target to the station, stepping to another jdam or undesignating current target doesn't erase the information from the weapon. It just selects another station, such that if you cycle back, that TOO will still be there. Unfortunately I'm not sure what a legacy hornet interface with BRU-55 looks like. I know it allowed individual targeting, but how the mission data and jdam format pages display stations with two stores I can't say. The E/F was different in how this was handled, so we'd need to find a relatively recent marine charlie pilot to know for sure.

Supmua didn’t they post on their forums that they were looking at the best way to do it? I think we successfully convinced them there’s demand on par if not exceeding their other consumer stuff So we wait... with cash in hand *exit- confirmed- Dragon post a couple weeks ago they are thinking how to, last post with the throttle wishlist thread

I’ve played some of Baltic’s stuff where a flight lead performs what appears to be very scripted specific maneuver based on a trigger of some sort. I assume it’s possible to have another aircraft fly a defined path or specific maneuver, but not, say, have an aircraft fly an adaptive path based on certain relative parameters (like range or angle off) or something like a conditional if/then flight path? If that is the case then things like butterfly set for HA should be doable as it’s just two turns, but that’s just more realistic training of the same HA BFM. Something like offensive 3k perch, where we would need AI to execute a correctly timed ditch and attempt a deck transition would almost definitely not be? Big assumptions here about what’s possible or not, just making educated guesses based on what I’ve seen others make it do. I’m just thinking through various drills and the learning objectives, and what we’d need the AI to do to fly them correctly. I think you’re right, I suspect most would be difficult or impossible to do without more direct control of AI. Perhaps ED can?

Definitely, thanks. I agree it’s cool, I watched more and like the focus on fundamentals and practical tools like visual cues, how turning room is explained, etc. Sorriest looking class of officers I’ve even seen though. ED does a good job with the familiarization stuff, I think YouTube format is more flexible, can use tacview, in game footage, etc. Even better though— we have the sim. The a-10 missions have the practice/check ride part, but lack the instruction/study material. the aggressor campaigns just have bandit spawn out of nowhere, so no PADS/set-up for different sets or merges. We got people with the knowledge, docs, someone should make a campaign that combines the education material, training flights, checkrides- not sure how specific discussion items or debrief would work. I don’t know limits of mission creator, never actually made one.... so, maybe not possible. But I’m just talking basic stuff- formations, shackles, tac, in-place and cross turns, maneuvering, rejoins, most importantly all the sets and drills, including setups, not just high aspect 1v1 over and over (even then should be beam/ butterfly setups)...flat/rolling scissors and snapshot drills, 6k/9k perch sets, etc. maybe different visual pickups (forward vs dear quarter), lost sight... just need someone good at making campaigns to do all the work ;) An advanced SEM would be awesome but don’t think AI is up to it

I'm still a little confused, this is basically just a previous sim's "hey everyone, wags here?" Thanks for the tip, was it in response to my comment? Not quite sure what you're referring to or describing given context (comment was very general, just climbing the corner of EM, e.g. Ps for rate)

Humor aside, trading in some potential to get your nose around is certainly a reasonable thing to do. Never heard it called a "slice" or a "move." Usually called a turn. But more importantly, wtf am I watching? Why is this guy... I actually don't know what he's doing... but the audience and content? Is this like some 90s era recruiting or ROTC thing? Also why is his duty uniform so tight? And... thin? I am confused. Killer mustache though

A skilled pilot makes all the difference. FTFY. No "if the other is lack, or if starting from defensive." It ain't the crate. I’ve flown a lot of BFM and never once whipped out a fn POH to check turn performance. Besides that, as I said, the chart was totally misleading, represented information irrelevant to any tactical scenario, and was deliberating misleading in the irrelevant information it represented. A literal trifecta of garbage. I would have been nicer about this buy you pissed me off. Expect more of this.... btw, I searched for the thread... It totally was you with the g-limited thread. Throwing a big hissy about how it jerked when pulled, all the hornet drivers were like don't ever pull the limiter, like 8,000 combined hours and nobody ever pulled it. But you griped, eventually Lex left, said something about this kind of shit is what makes things unrealistic. Pulling limited should result in damage (which, btw, in assessing whether you are offensive or defense in BFM, a damaged aircraft is even higher than outnumbered and low fuel state). My guess is you've got no idea what the consequences of gonking a $30M piece of government equipment, that then requires pulling every panel, checking stress gauges, inspecting everything with a flashlight, and heavy maint if it fails. Ever seen a hot shit naval aviator get demoted to assistant crew chief for the night? First off, you came at me bro, I didn’t start this. You got all butt hurt because I clowned on your MS Paint. I’ve said it before, but you are literally comparing the turning radius of a Ferrari, Lambo and Porsche, except the Porsche was doing 60 mph and the Italian’s 100mph. Worse, having driven neither of them, nor likely raced a circle track, you then got on a soap box and preach about how all circle track drivers would care about turn radius. You’re a lot less savvy with EM charts than you seem to think. Why is the first chart always sea level with Ps lines at upwards of -800? I posted sea level numbers because that’s what I posted before. I could have just as easily posted loaded up at 40k showing 4d/s. I get that you know nothing about actual aviation, which is fine as this is a place for simmers, but the point was to emphasize why we label charts. You might be surprised to learn that those charts are not actually made in MS Paint. It’s a combination of empirical data and equations, which, if you want a technical discussion about what Ps or Rutowski paths are, we can have one. I’d rather not relive that part of my life, and I don’t expect many players want spend weeks learning understand the calculus of why Specific Excess Power is equal to the product of velocity and the difference of Trust Available and Drag, divided by weight; or how those plots describe aircraft performance, not directions. Those Ps contours are obtained by repeated solution and interpolation over a mesh of points, where lift equal load factor * weight. It would, as you say, be rather silly for the first chart in the f-16 flight manual to include a curve for sea level performance with a vertical decent of 800 fps? Perhaps there’s something more to it? Hmm, makes you wonder about eh? Maybe the ms Paint chart was deficient in some respect after all? I’m looking at my instructor materials and the first slide (actually second slide,j first is title) literally says GOAL OF ACM: gain firing solution and kill enemy, deny firing solution to enemy Now, that seems a bit more practical? Pursuit Curves, turn circles, bubble, RAC, offensive vs. defensive tactics, coms proficiency, and ultimate section tactics are what result in the “GOALS of ACM.” I am some/many people here know all of this, but many don’t. Core concepts like 3/9 line, what turning room is, what lateral separation is, what turn circle, bubble and post are, control zone, how to control RAC to maneuver attack window/wez. Actually, lets stop there a sec…. RAC, RAC, RAC, RAC (its important) RAC – Range, angle, closure. If I’m offensive: I can trade angle off for decreased range and increased closure. I can trade altitude for airspeed to reach WEZ I can trade airspeed for altitude to avoid an overshoot fyi, turning room belongs to whoever takes it. If you see it, tighten up and take it out for angle off else your opponent will If I’m defensive: If Bandit has positional angular advantage, my goal is to immediately increase angle off Maintain tally over shoulder – do not lose tally, watch for and defeat initial weapon employment Maneuver to deny follow on, neutralize advantage when opportunity and transition to high aspect. Pursuit curves When is lead pursuit appropriate? (to employ weapons or decrease range) When Is pure appropriate? When you creeping on his bubble trying to get on plane, or concerned about an overshoot When is lag appropriate? Manage closure, correct back to control zone, solve RAC problems. Flow – one circle v two circle (ignore others for now) During 1-circle, radius has advantage. Pitch out of plane to improve radius if necessary, first cross is only chance to bug out usually. In a radius fight, turn rate is irrelevant. During 2-circle, turn rate advantage creates angular advantage, decreasing angle off. Depending on airframe, pilot may wish to trade some potential or kinetic and pitch down for energy – (F14 F14 F14!) Look, practical short semi-drunken tips without a single chart (imagine what I could do with a couple planes on the ends of sticks) Once you can execute BVR without mistakes (sort, commit, lock, launch on single or multiple targets as required, on time, know how to recognize if you’re winning/losing,, whether to follow on or bug out, how to dictate flow from BVR transition, how to execute 1v1 BFM, then the real fun – SEM and engaged/free fighter doctrine. In short, engaged fighter keeps bandit busy, free fighter maneuvers for kill. The importance of formation – e.g Combat spreads, lead trail, wing, high low, the importance of free fighter maneuvering out of phase, but if you can’t maintain formation while executing BVR or create/solve BFM problem, you can’t fight as part of a section. Sorry to be a dick dude but damn, I feel my retaliation was proportionate.