deadpool

A Maverick will not generate you GPS coordinates for a JDAM drop either. The seeker in the HARM rolls with your airplane and will not have the angular resolution that a camera for optical wavelengths (that are even constantly "transmitting" so to speak) has. Imagine a search radar like a sometimes on, sometimes off laser spot. Now imagine a TPod without internal stabilisation and own INS and range information. (the JF17 tpod comes close as it can't generate range information above 20nm). As soon as the radar is no longer emitting (if you even find it quickly enough) your seekerhead will drift away from it's position. Yes, it will be in the neighbourhood to quickly find it again, but you don't get a solid fricking box pointing you at it. It just doesn't make any sense. How else would you explain systems like the HTS (or the Hornets version, the TAS)? They require - in the case of the hornet - two swapped out Pylons to generate range and precision azimuth information by ownship movement. http://www.ausairpower.net/API-AGM-88-HARM.html Interesting reading material there, as - for example - the HARM in the FA18 without TAS will not be able to get range information to the transmitter it's targeting, meaning it will not Loft unless you fire it in PRE-Mode "at" a waypoint and hope there's a transmitter closeby. This means that the range of the HARM in non-PRE mode should be significantly lower than for the F-16C with HTS pod which can generate range information. But that's something for the future. If a single HARM missile - which doesn't even have a stabilised seekerhead as Wags mentioned - can provide you a rock solid, non-jittery target box in your HUD then the USNAVY wouldn't have invested in the TAS. I would really like to know from where ED got the idea for that and if it's not just a debug feature. It defies every information that is out there on the reason why systems like the HTS and TAS exist. If it's really just about showing that box, pointing a tpod at it .. using the planes internal terraion map to get the range to 0 AGL there then it could very well be automated, and AGM88s would be fired with range information and loft even in modes like SP or HAS. The fact that this isn't the case and that they build HTS / TAS systems shows you that it's seemingly not an option. So why is it that we can in DCS just slew a TPod across to the box, and have the coordinates for a theoretical PRE shot with lofting profile? The public information is that TAS generates you information that is off by a few percent. Now that's a specialised system. And the HARM is supposed to give you a solid non-jittery box? As for the Viggen, it's pod can pinpoint emission sources and then use angular triangulation using it's own course to guess it down to a box. But have you seen the ELINT exports? the "boxes" for the radar sites are quite big, and radars of the same type in close proximity are merged into one. And seeing this quote in another thread: It makes me even wonder more how the FA18 would even get the information where the HARMs seeker head is looking at so steadily for it's HUD .. if the information coming from the weapon comes over as video feed.

Is that the same reason (will it be also changed) that apparently the agm88c alone can generate a stabilised and dead accurate box on your HUD for the targeted emitter? Something that would normally take not one F16 with HTS, but actually 2 working together via L16?

You don't want that. If you release next Wednesday, you need to test the package early. So I hope that it's pretty clear already whats in or not. Otherwise there might be some surprises in there as well.

Hornet performs better in almost every envelope, Hornet has bugs that make it unmeasurably more deadly in BVR Hornet gets generally way more love Hornet gets all the toys, as they are not sticking to a "realistic" edition of some squadron end of 2003 or whatever. Just pick the hornet, you will be more happy if you're unbiased yet.

Also as the LAU-88 was mentioned, do we get that, or do we get the proper LAU-88/A version of it with a ton of less drag?

As was asked in a comment: Why did the plane call out altitude as the weapon hit the target at 12:37 ? ( ) as can be clearly seen later the altitude warning was set to 5000ft. They don't lock on dead vehicles .. so you can differentiate between dead and alive O_o ------------- I wonder what they mean by "dual targeting" not being implemented, yet. Do they mean MSL STEP and then assigning different targets to different missiles to shoot two or more in one pass?

Parents with two kids. You know which is loved more and who got the presents for Christmas. :-)

Are the FLCS oscillations normal that start to happen <= 15.000ft at around 580kts IAS when low on fuel?

I'll try to get it to show again. Will provide the track then. Are you with ED? Because I want to know if you're just mouthing off at a customer for the way they essentially provide free quality testing. Or if you're a fellow virtual pilot. If so, dear colleague, start showing a bit more gratitude for me posting bugs, which I have done throughout the last year however desperate things looked. Something that you profit from as well. So respectfully: if you have nothing to do but question my bug report and giving me a harsh time, don't bother posting and take out your frustration someplace else. Thanks.

Awesome! Thanks for figuring this out so quickly!

Here is a tool I quickly wrote to compress the IDs .. also fixes some problem I have been seeing with the EPLRS pointing to wrong groups. https://github.com/destotelhorus/DCSMissionTools No idea if that's really creating that stable missions, though. Use at your own risk!

I don't fly in VR. As mentioned this is the recording of my wingman who encountered the same problem.

The two F-16s I have created there haven't been created by template import. It was me just clicking an airplane into the mission. Saving, flying to test. Then returning to Mission Editor and repeating. And I was left with that huge of a gap.

How about a defect? I could only manage by now to upload the video of the occurance of my wingman. When he tried for a second time and landed the game actually went to 0 fps and he had to force close it. As you can see it's clearly not "natural" stutter. I will try to recreate it when I have the time, however I thought it might be wise to report it first thing. I am a bit displeased with being told twice that it's most likely my PC or something when it has occured on two very different PCs at the same time.

Here you go. I basically deleted everything but two equal units, different only in ids. JTF-88_Op.Desert.Sword_S007_mandatory_v1.1_DP_4.miz

I just had a mission where people crashed when they were in the cockpit. I rolled back to a version that was working but didn't contain the players airplanes and created two planes. One F-16 on RAMP in Bandar Abbas, saved, tried to fly it .. worked. The added an F-18 on RAMP in Bandar Abbas, saved, tried to fly it .. crashed, but F-16 works still. Changed the F-18 to an F-16 .. first F-16 worked, second doesn't .. it crashes when stepping into the cockpit. checked the unitIDs .. Name groupId unitId Working1 190525077 594092539 Broken1 387368192 1207852785 changed the broken1's unitId and groupId manually to 6666 and 9999 respectively .. and it worked. I will be writing a utility to compress my missions soon, BUT: 1.) Why doesn't the mission editor warn or help stay within limits? 2.) Why does the mission editor skip 500 MILLION possible Ids before handing out the next one?

Sometimes 100% realistic isn't perceived as 100% realistic. Just go outside and look at a moon very close to the horizon, how big it is .. and then take a photo and look at that. You will be surprised to see the moon is actually way smaller than you have seen it through your own eyes. ( Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_illusion ) With those glares, they do move in a different depth layer and they have a different brightness that might only be truly appreciated with HDR. The human brain / eye can filter it way better in reality than in the sim. Hence a dimmed down effect might make it more closer to the real thing. Much the same seems to go for spotting far away objects. Another sim out there has some options for smart scaling objects in the distance so that they appear to what's considered more naturally sized for the human eye in reality.

It's an AI, so don't expect this to be in any way physically realistic behaviour.

There are at the moment multiple models in the pipeline by ED, the decision has been made to focus on the model which came out earlier, the FA18. However as ED likes to emphasize: F16 still gets upgrades as promised. TPod recently got an upgrade. We might get Mavericks and/or HARMs in HAS mode potentially as soon as this Septembers update. Don't get me wrong, I am as frustrated as you are. But you either accept the state it's in, or you play something else. That's what it boils down to. I don't think that posting on these forums here will have any effect whatsoever, so I try to restrict myself to potentially helping people out and/or occasionally posting a defect or two. Love it, Change it, Leave it. Those are the three choices :-)

I have no trouble using the TPOD in A2G mode with snowplow, or other modes. I have 32 GB of RAM, whole system is on SSD. My wingman had the same problems, and only when landing with TPOD in A-A as well.

Haven't tried it anywhere else for now. I specified runway and Airport just because it's a defect in any case. :-)

Steps to reproduce: - Take an F-16 with TPOD (hot started even in the air) - turn on Tpod to A-A - extend gear and try to land (i tried it on runway 23 in Incirlik) Frames will plummet until you are at a frozen screen.

This thread is a very good example why negative learning is bad. It will bite us in the buttocks a few more times before we get there though.

I can't believe why we have to discuss this here and find funny words to describe it. Anyone that sits in the cockpit and uses the rudder with NWS on the ground and in the air is hit by this in the face. I see no point in explaining this any more. Defect report has been filed. Either it gets fixed or there is a good explanation why it's supposed to be the way it is unlike any other plane. Same with the HUD Boresight circle. I really don't understand why it has to be explained when the problem can be seen, as it's immediatly visible in a hot started jet when looking outside. I don't get these things anymore. It makes me feel quite weary. I'd rather spent my time here either helping fellow F-16 nerds or filing a bug report that's not immediatly obvious but actually something that might have slipped through. I just want the plane to be realistic, that's all.