Leadnap

While it is a known bug and fix is incoming as the above mentions (yay!) - your GPU performance would not be the bottleneck for the performance issue I would think. From 60km to 120km you're asking your computer to model effectively double the simulation of radar detection, reception, etc. That would be a RAM/CPU issue I would think.

Put this up the other day: (The audio was a problem, so sorry about that) but this covered just about everything regarding the RB04E I could find. (Edit, I totally hit the wrong quote button... )

I did some testing, couldn't get them to release either (actually two of the pilots decided to crash into the sea instead of launching). Will do more testing here...

Thanks for the feedback - glad you guys liked it. You should be able to see the changes in the Illumination bombing one I also published today (only had to run 2 takes on that one! fixed the audio too!) Let me know if there's one you guys think is more needed than another - I am just plugging away until I cover it all :pilotfly:

Here it is... the tutorial I mentioned...

+1! This is 100% of my wish list. To be honest, it pretty much is the No.1 spot on that wish list as far as aircraft are concerned (more realistic fog and weather exist in front of it, but thats all ED). Not that I don't like other brands - but I think HB is the only developer currently who has the tools already to put it together. Hell I would pay upfront for pre-early access (like, take my money now, develop it and then I get one when it goes to early access). If I could code I would offer those services as well (but I can barely do Power Shell...)

Just in case anyone comes back to this - I'm about 1/3 of the way done putting it together and it looks amazing. Currently plan to release 2 versions - one with US style markings similar to the F111 (keeping her Sweedish...) and one with just the pattern.

Absolutely correct, I failed to explain that in detail when I wrote that, good job policing that up! Just getting the finishing touches on a new tutorial video for the RB04E (troubleshooting some audio issues) but will post that later today (I hope). I did cover in detail there the differences between GRUPP and ENKEL, as well as considerations like "in depth" groups within 2700m. That last part I did think was rather curious - if the principle consideration was convoys and landing craft, the later almost always approach parallel to the shoreline, which would require the pilot to approach along the shoreline's axis - greater exposing them to AAA. Otherwise the seeker would ignore the formation. The RB04 is, like everything on the Viggen, very easy to use with absolute consistency - so long as you know all the rules.

Okay so this made sense to me, and I was able to figure out the missing step which seems to contradict one thing you said here. The biggest key is the CK37 requires the 4G turn to strip them off - if you fly level over the target area they won't release but if you create 4Gs up or down (didn't try sideways) they release like happy little not-bombs.

Same issues here but I can't get the flashing distance line for release … Literally built a demo mission for it - altitude is 150, speed .9 (AB2 to get there... ) and I've tried in both ANF and NAV. Also tried PLAN & ATTK but the manual doesn't say anything. I know the sight switch has to be in ILUM. Anyone figure this out?

In general pointing the aircraft works because as already mentioned the RB04 will fly straight in the direction fired and detect the target . Now supposing that the two ships were within the 23' cone of the seeker at the same time then both missiles could track one target or both. However if you're two targets were distant enough from you perpendicularly simply aim the nose at one, release, aim nose at the other, release. An important consideration however is if both missiles will pass the first target, they will always go for the first target. Effectively the RB04 is not exactly the most smart smart-weapon and it will always select the first target it sees. The RB15 series on the other hand - can be given far more commands and potentially attack multiple targets (there is no communication between missiles so the chance always exists for the same target selected) and they WILL utilize navigation points and ignore a que like pointing the nose towards a different target. I think a lot of people think of the RB04 and RB15 as the same munition just one with extended range - which is wrong. The RB04 is much more useful in a patrol and target scenario, the RB15 in a strike scenario. Don't forget the 40 second battery on the RB04! I am sure this messes a lot of people's testing up!

Same here...

You're essentially working with the developers actual development files... 1: The 1 & 2 files are NOT left and right. "1" is a (probably early) less complex file and the developer suggests making the livery layers there then copying them to the "2" file to export as DDS. I just exclusively use the "2" file. "2" files are the complex and detailed .psd's 2: The 5 files from the developer is what they released to us. The in game sets include the pylons and what not … so enterprising livery makers colored over those too and include them. (I don't for that matter, my darker under grey color still works with the pylons so I figure WTH). I made a video for a different threat, but covered a lot of this on YouTube:

The Heros tails are amazing, Only thing, and maybe its just me, but yours seem to have a touch too much contrast. In most of the photo's I've seen the darkest shadows in the portraits match the dark grey color of the pattern. Still - bloody amazing work! [EDIT:] I stand corrected - oddly - right after posting that I saw pictures that match yours to a T. Not sure why - maybe they changed the patterns a few years ago? My photos are a little older and the contrast of the two tone grey is way more pronounced, but was just watching some 2017 Athens footage and both greys are practically white, and sure enough, the portraits are stark contrast images, almost like you photocopied their aircraft into your livery. Amazing work.

Huh. Well I will make a mission this weekend to test.

Yea but this is some Mr. Miyagi stuff - the original question is how to fight, and we're in here telling you how to wax a car - because every missile never fired never hits you :D Dodging missiles is a simple theory in all craft: change angles, change distances, pucker, and hope that works long enough for the missile to miss.

You're effectively shooting yourself in the foot because USB's transfer rates compared to SATA which will be 3 Gbits/Sec to 6Gbits/Sec while USB 3.0 is at 5Gbits/Sec or 2.0's 40MB/Sec! That however is only a tiny part of the equation because all your USB ports run via the USB Controller which will share lanes on the motherboard with other devices - and while the SATA controller usually shares lanes on lower end boards, board makers know that SATA will always be HD data so they share lanes with devices with less demand, while USB can be anything and might be sharing data with lanes you don't want. A 7200 HDD on SATA 6 will perform better to run an application than a SSD USB3.

I prefer to keep AMD chips with AMD chips and Intel chips with Intel chips. It always seems to work better. On a different note however - I have a 4GB 570 on my build and the VRAM is always maxed out, don't neglect the VRAM even if it means a slightly lower GPU.

Then you are definitely not doing your pre-flight checks! Confirmed it is on mine too, running current patch.

Question - did you input the bx waypoints in ME or during flight? For the AI groups if you input the bx points in the ME - that would "allow" them to fire at specified range. The AI might simply be waiting to identify the target prior to launch (because IRL you would want to make sure the mass of black dots on your radar was the actual target). Also look at the other settings related to the groups mission - is their strike an Anti-Ship attack? the "master mode" of their mission might have the AI ignoring things like radar contacts until a different command requires them to pay attention, then its catchup time. Likewise what are the variables for the RB04/15 in the ME because the AI will probably do better with those input. Did you input an advanced waypoint command for the attack?

#2 - I know they did have an active evasion phase prior to impact to avoid CIWS, but not sure if that evasion is vertical and horizontal or just horizontal. What we need is a former Swedish armaments technician to spill the beans!

All this time I just assumed it was my pc … Yep, if I want to get footage on a replay I either start hot from runway or in flight. I rarely use the reverser on the ground so I don't think use of the reverser is the issue, but it probably does introduce a parameter into the reply track by existing that screws things up?

Right - the BK90 has an INS. However what I originally was saying is that I don't know that the poor performance of the BK90 in simulation in wind is necessarily a "bug" but rather relative to the fact that as a "guided" munition it would have greater potential for poor performance in wind - thus the simulation may not be far off. Is the accuracy poor in wind vs no wind - yes, is that intentional, possibly.

The BK90 has no rocket or other motor to propel it - it relies entirely on the inertia generated from the host aircraft to reach it's destination. It is a glider. In this case then it would be more like a guided gliding bomb than a missile. Look at the difference between gliders and conventional aircraft in wingspan - gliders typically have massive wings to take advantage of lift which then allow them the ability to maneuver. Gliders are also as light as possible. The BK90 has small control wings and isn't light. As a result guidance is more limited, especially during later phases of it's "glide." This also means that it generally starts with less inertia than say a Maverick which does have a rocket motor and thus has less ability to correct than the Maverick. Greater corrections also result in drag, so too much correction can lead to a glide trajectory that doesn't reach the destination - so it may even be programmed for less correction. The BK90 also suffers from the fact that the overall design is one that allows for aided lift (the boxier flat bottom) vs most missiles which are cylindrical. Lateral wind will play a larger effect on that surface, which combined with less control availability, makes for a weapon that doesn't like wind. Yes the battery on board would operate the control surfaces but that has nothing to do with it.

Awesome!