Py

Could you clarify what was changed in interval mode?

This was discussed before, and I believe the actual pilots said its very rare to drop tanks in both peace and wartime. It was only done in emergency situations.

Thanks for doing these tests, it's interesting to see how things compare. Fuel pods would be good to add if you're not sick of testing yet :)

Nobody else seems to be having this problem, so there must be either something wrong with your DCS install, or you are doing something odd in your procedure. If you post a track of you doing a cold start and the JHMCS not functioning it will help us figure out what the issue is. If it turns out to be a bug they will want that track too anyway. If other people run the track and it works then we will know that something is wrong with your installation. Otherwise we will see what is wrong in the procedure.

That seems rather low, I usually use ~10,000-15,000 ft. I don't know of a simple way for a tanker to keep up with ship movement, though I'm sure it's possible with scripting. I would just set the tanker to orbit (advanced waypoint actions) in a racetrack between the start point of the carrier and a point further down its path, roughly where you expect it to be at the end of the mission. Hope that helps!

You probably have the "role" of the aircraft set to CAP so you are only seeing some preset AA loadouts. Just make a new loadout and you can choose from all the available weapons. Initial targeting pod is expected in a few weeks.

And the point people have been making is that there should be, because the PC hardware we need to use doesn't have the appropriate functionality to match the real aircraft.

It might only be modelled for units with a radar? When they get damaged (maybe below 50%?) the radar antenna stops spinning and they just sit there doing nothing. They also disappear off the RWR.

It would be helpful to post your timezone so you can find someone who can fly at similar hours to you.

I'm assuming that flying the F-16 will be similar to the F/A-18, where you barely ever use the yaw axis in flight. You mainly need it for taxiing and staying on the runway for takeoff and landing. You can use it it assist in very low-speed maneuvering eg during a dogfight near stall, but at any decent speed it does almost nothing. If you want to fly the F-14 or warbirds things are different and the rudder is much more important. Actually it works quite well. The wheels/rudder don't turn instantly, they have a certain slew rate. So eg to taxi at 50% you hold the button for a bit, maybe 0.5s until the wheel reaches 60%, then keep tapping it regularly to maintain the turn. It doesn't oscillate 0%-100% as you're thinking, it would be more like 40%-60%. Not smooth like an analogue axis for sure, but very manageable. In my opinion, a good HOTAS setup is MUCH more important than a yaw axis, particularly for highly HOTAS-dependent aircraft like the A-10C and F-16. The concept of HOTAS is that you rarely need to take your hands off the controls to press buttons, and you don't need to look away from what's important (eg a target outside or on a MFD) to find and press buttons. So the important buttons are the ones that you can access quickly without looking, not the ones on the base of the throttle. It's also not just total number of buttons that matters, its also the distribution of workload over both hands. The F-16 stick has 4 hats, while the stick you showed has 1. That means you will have to use combo buttons, probably using your other hand. They will need to be easy to access without looking, so you will use up important buttons on the throttle...which means you have to use something else for the F-16 throttle buttons, which you may want to be using at the same time... It won't be comfortable. The number of buttons etc may look like plenty if you haven't flown a modern aircraft, but look at all the controls you will need to map for the F-16: http://www.f16simulator.net/hotas/hotas.htm That is just for the HOTAS. You will also want to map things like gear/flaps, and DCS specific things like zoom.

They look pretty nice, but doesn't that add up to more than the cost of a warthog HOTAS? If you go for those, I would get the grip you like most. You're not going to have enough buttons on the other one. The rudder is going to be the least used of your controls flying the F-16, a cheapo set of rudders or even the keyboard or a throttle switch would work. Make sure you are completely happy with the stick+throttle because you will be using them for many years!

I just tested with a cold start. It doesn't work until you move from the initial position, but then works almost the same as with an air start. The only difference is that it doesn't auto-increment to WP1 when you press AUTO after a cold start, while it does for an air start. Minimal track attached, showing how AUTO doesn't work until you move after a cold start. Just a minor bug, but might as well get it fixed. test_WPT_AUTO.trk

Apparently the RTX2080 Super will be coming out soon, with better performance but the same price as the RTX2080. I agree keep your current monitor for now, don't get a second. After a while you may decide to go for VR anyway...

I haven't tried any Virpal products myself, but have heard they are good. The brand doesn't really matter, as long as it has enough buttons and people who have it have said the quality is good. Personally, I prefer to save up and get the best rather than buy something "ok", because I will eventually get sick of the "ok" one and buy the best as well, costing more overall. You'll definitely need a good throttle too, as I've heard the F-16 is very HOTAS integrated. Perhaps you can find a used warthog stick+throttle? You've said you're putting a lot of money into the computer, maybe if you post what you plan on getting people can recommend you alternative parts that may be cheaper. As for modules, it depends on what you are most interested in. Single player or multiplayer or both? Air-air or air-ground or both? The summer sale lasts for another week, so now would be a good time to buy. The F-5 is ok, depending what you want to do with it. Personally I think the F/A-18 is the most interesting at the moment as it is very versatile, but as you said is a bit expensive. The A-10 that someone suggested is good fun (though very slow), but only if you have a good throttle+stick setup with lots of buttons, preferably the warthog ones. Perhaps the AV-8B harrier? It is currently $35 on sale and is good for air-ground but not air-air.

I just tested it out, works perfectly for me. Try the super simple attached mission. All you have to do is press AUTO on the HSI page, for me it then automatically increments to WP1 and boxes SEQ1 and WPT. It increments near/just past each waypoint for me. If it doesn't work for you, maybe DCS needs a repair or a mod is breaking it? Or maybe something is different with a cold/ground start? test_WPT_AUTO.miz

I did some testing of this on various radar units. Tested various altitudes and speeds so the HARMs had both high and low energies, and came in at both high and low angles. Out of 20 tests it was effective every time. It is much less powerful than before, but seems to still be effective (just less exciting). I found that around half the time it destroys the unit, sometimes not instantly but the unit explodes after a while. The rest of the time it damages the units enough that they stop functioning, even though they are still alive, a "mission kill". This was on clear flat ground. I think it fails sometimes in practice when there are hills and the HARM comes in at a low angle, hitting the ground or trees before it gets to the target.

Sorry I don't have enough knowledge about pulse doppler radar to answer that. I suspect though, that due to the more complex signal processing that goes on in pulse doppler vs CW, the filtering can better remove unwanted signals such a ground clutter.

I ran a test with no wind on flat terrain, 2 JSOW A released in TOO mode, first with burst height at 1500 (default), second with burst height 900 (what Wags used in his video). Both did hit the target, but not with the centre of the bomblet pattern. The first was slightly long, with about 2/3 of the pattern past the target. The second was similar, with about 3/4 of the pattern past the target. So both did hit, but not in the centre which is what I would expect. Things to check: Wind, as someone else mentioned. Is the height of your target waypoint correct? If slightly high, bomblets will go long. Was the terrain sloping? If sloping away, bomblets will go long. Mission and track are attached. test_JSOW_A.miz test_JSOW_A.trk

No I didn't intentionally leave anything out... As long as the dynamic range is large enough to handle the signal, and the noise floor low enough, FFTs are great at separating signals at different frequencies, even if the magnitudes differ by a lot. I don't have experience with high power pulsed radars, only small CW radars, but the same principles apply when talking about this part at least. You are correct that the large ground return causes a problem (large dynamic range of signals), but you design the signal processing chain around the expected signal magnitudes. More modern technology = more processing power/lower noise = better separation of target vs ground clutter.

I know it's not your exact wish, but just a suggestion for now: You can see each axis (separately) in good detail in the "axis tune" menu in the control settings. It has helped me debug a jittery controller in the past, and shows exactly what DCS is seeing.

This. Same with the weekly "are we getting an update today?!?!" threads, always posted a few hours before the updates typically come out. Seriously, just stay calm (those people), you'll know soon.

I have both of those sticks, and while the sidewinder is good for somethings, the warthog is much better for complex planes like the A-10C, F/A-18, and F-16. The force feedback is good for warbirds and helicopters, but when you want to fly precisely eg for A-A refueling or CCIP bombing it has problems. The centering force drops to zero close to the centre and there is a small hardware deadzone that you can't turn off, so there is some wobble in the middle where the stick does nothing. When you need to do a fine adjustment, I find I have to do tiny quick jerks out of the dead zone instead of a smooth adjustment like you can do with the warthog. It is really much more precise to use. The number of buttons is also a problem. With the sidewinder in the F/A-18, I have to quadriple map each button and hat switch (normal plus combo with shift/ctrl/alt) to get enough buttons. With the warthog there are enough buttons to map everything properly, including the ones on the throttle. Basically, get the warthog :) Do you have trackIR (or similar)? That is the most important thing to get, even more important than the stick in my opinion unless you decide to go VR. That's another thing to consider...

Just for your interest, it actually is! As Beamscanner mentioned, the signal is "downconverted" by mixing it with the original signal eg 10GHz. That results in sum and difference signals, and by low-pass filtering you can get just the difference signal. That gives you a simple low-frequency signal to measure (1.7kHz in the example), which an FFT can do very accurately.

The radar filters out the ground returns by ignoring anything that is stationary or moving very slowly. When a plane is flying at (or very close to) 90 degrees from your flight path, its relative speed is very low so is filtered out and the radar cannot detect it "in the notch".

Unfortunately tracks don't seem to show the problem anyway. I recorded a track before when it happened, but when playing back the track the gun sight shows as being in the correct place! I don't know what else we can do to help ED find the bug, as it seems to occur randomly.