kengou

Firing on a target from about 3 km away with shkval locked, manual or automatic modes, the cannon rounds land off-target in the direction of wind. Adjusting the lock to correct for the wind results in rounds on target. I believe the cannon aimpoint should be wind-correcting.

No white square means your radar isn’t seeing him at all, it’s a datalink track. Therefore you can’t lock him. You need to work the antenna elevation and bar settings to locate him with your onboard radar.

Great, thanks for the insight. Can multiple NSEQ strings be set up and toggled through (now or in the future)? And as far as I know, TOT is not yet implemented right?

Gave it a try last night. Pretty easy to use. I like the AA refuel overlay especially, and the colors do help with SA. That said, I was a bit confused on how this is used in practice. I thought I'd just set the IP waypoint and the target waypoint as my ingress, then the single egress waypoint after the target as my egress. So when I switch on NSEQ, only the ingress and egress points show up, and the rest of the waypoints are invisible. I have no reason to doubt this is the way it is in reality. So should I be setting every waypoint as either ingress or egress? Also what is Term used for? Or should I just be switching on NSEQ when inbound to the target?

Thanks, I'll try to record something soon. I tried it last night and found that even in automatic weapons mode, it seemed offset a little bit to the right (same direction as wind). Could that be recoil or something else?

Gun seems to work fine against soft targets at that range, if I can get rounds on them. Good against light AAA emplacements or trucks.

I understand not penetrating armor at that range. And that is a problem at those ranges. And I understand a wider spread of rounds at that range too. But rounds shouldn't be offset to one direction of the locked target consistently based purely on range. It's got to be wind, right? Edit: I see that in manual mode, the manual recommends adding lead to account for wind. I might have been using manual rather than automatic mode. I'll try it again today.

For air to air combat I recommend Pete Bonani's Art of the Kill. Great book on the fundamentals.

The antenna elevation in the real jet is a spring-loaded switch that returns to center, instead of a wheel. It's much better to control it using a hat or two-way switch rather than a rotary. The elevation increases as you hold one direction and decreases when you hold the other direction, and stops moving when you release. There is no way to center it that I know of.

I believe the T-38 or T-45 have a tactical training manual out there somewhere on the internet. Covers what an F/A-18 pilot would learn in training regarding ground attack techniques, tactical formations, that kind of thing.

The final variant of the X-32 would likely have looked much better than the monstrosity Boeing created for the prototype: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20971/this-is-what-a-boeing-f-32-wouldve-looked-like-if-lockheed-lost-the-jsf-competition

I recommend finding Art of the Kill by Pete Bonani, it was the book that helped me the most with the fundamentals. It can be found free online and isn’t too long. Keep in mind it’s meant for the F-16 but it’s all concepts so once you get a handle on it you can adjust it for the Tomcat.

Can you elaborate what you mean? Ar you talking about the functions those buttons perform? Each one is context sensitive and would be a pretty long list in some cases. Do you want these explanations spelled out in the control binding menu?

Is the cannon supposed to be wind-corrected? I had a stationary BMP locked with the shkval and fired the cannon at it from around 3 km. The rounds all impacted a couple meters to the right of the BMP, consistently. If I offset left to take this error into account, it will hit the BMP. My only thought is that this must be the wind, otherwise why wouldn't the cannon rounds go where I'm aiming? But it seems odd the computer doesn't take wind into account, if this is true. Anyone know more?

I would honestly be disappointed if the deck crew can't actually direct you around. Isn't that their whole job?

To your first question, no due date has been given for Mavericks or HARMs. To your second question, I would never attack a SAM site with the Viper in its current state. All it has are bombs, so you’d get shot out of the sky. Best chance you’d have would be an extreme low level attack with any sort of weapon, but it would sure be dangerous.

Unfortunately that doesn’t really work well in DCS. Flight lead AI is very lacking.

I just discovered this video on youtube and was pleased to find it here as well. Great video that shows a lot of neat tricks like manual weapons modes, cannon use with the helmet sight, and of course skillful flying. Would love to see more KA-50 content from you!

If you want to see more info before purchasing, don't purchase until they release more info/videos. I'm sure they will soon.

Confirm I also get crash if I use IR select with no missile loaded.

Jf-17 may be more to your liking at this point.

I agree with others that you should not need to touch pitch trim in the Hornet at all other than landing. The Hornet does not change its pitch trim away from 1G no matter what changes about its speed or weight, so if you put the FPM on the horizon it should roughly stay there, barring turbulence. Formation flying should not require any pitch trim. Don't expect to fly hands-off when formation flying, you need to be actively flying based on cues and changes from your sight picture of your wingman.

While both planes are awesome (F-16 and F/A-18) I would have agreed that instead of the F-16, I would have preferred a different aircraft be developed that was a little more unique to DCS, since Viper and Hornet have such overlapping capabilities and similarities. I have no doubt many people love the A-7, more power to them. I'm asking for those of us without any connection to this airframe already, what can you tell me about it that would get me excited about trying it out?

I find the F-111 really ugly to be honest but I'm very impressed by its service record and capabilities. I would definitely consider getting it if it ever came out.

A-7 certainly is a prolific airframe that has proven very capable. But it's honestly a really ugly plane to me, and we already have lots of aircraft that can drop bombs, and one (F-14) with the same era of avionics. Can somebody "sell" me on why the A-7 is going to be worth getting into? What makes it cool?