Ornithopter

You should be aware that there are extensions to the Warthog joystick that will increase the length of the control stick, and as a lever, they will increase the precision of your controls. In the meantime, you can add a 'curve' to your joystick in the 'tune axis' portion of the controls menu. The rest is beyond me to explain beyond an overly lengthy post, so I will ask if you already know about these methods?

Ok, but let's be fair. The OP has 38 posts and you have 15,800 posts, so not everyone spends as much time on this forum as you and is aware of every little development.

Let he who has never reported a previously reported bug cast the first stone....

Thank you for the correction, @Rudel_chw, and apologies for the misinformation, @Mizzy.

If you're putting it in the Saved Games folder, that would be C:\Users\yourmachinename\Saved Games\DCS\Liveries\F-5E\liveryname

Do you need two separate accounts, or can you run one account on two separate machines simultaneously?

This is really getting confusing to me. I think for a developer, or somebody who knows how it's actually supposed to be, this is your magic moment to explain it. p.s, I'm done with CCRP, just gonna use pre-desig CCIP to sink moving World War II aircraft carriers for now (FAB-500)

I would certainly approve of a Clear Visor option for those who don't want it. Absolutely. But I also like the new Visor, and do hope this feature gets expanded to other modules, including third party modules, with the option to not have it of course, including on the Ground Crew communications menu where you can swap out helmets or NVG.

I just re-watched the orginal Wags video for Ground Attack, he when he explains why he made a DTC target point, he says: "In level terrain like in this mission, it doesn't make that big a deal, but if you have very uneven terrain or even mountainous terrain where your radar altimeter could be very different than the target elevation, somthing like this can be very handy to increase your weapon accuracy." I believe in his video, the target altitude is a mere 12m above sea level. So yeah, If he says that, then it appears it is indeed supposed to use the radar altimeter...but I guess if we're too high for the radar altimetry, and we aren't within laser params, then it can only use the pre-set target altitude. Certainly makes sense. I haven't tried doing a low altitude level bombing run without laser ranging yet, so maybe if we're low enough and getting good radar altimeter data, (but no laser range) we might still actually get a good geometric slant-range solution even if we don't have pre-set target altitude???

Come to think of it, even if it is supposed to and actually does use radar alt when available, in the laydown delivery I flew, I may very well have been way too high at the time of target designation and it simply was not available. But if we have to pre-designate a target altitude for that particular form of delivery, I guess that's fine too.

So is it accurate to require a ground pre-set altitude, instead of radar altimeter, and that's actually how the real thing works? You're saying that it isn't a bug, right?

I attacked the same target in practice about 10 times and now I'm trying to remember the situations I ran??? In all that I've tried I've turned the laser on at the commencement of the run. In the screenshots above, I was doing what I understand to be Dive Toss, and flew roughly a very spread out U pattern on the bombing run (no more than 30-40 degree dive or climb) with the bomb coming off somewhere before the inflection point as I was pulling upwards towards the aiming cue. The target altitude was 560m and I thought my release altitude was between 2500m and 3000m asl. Maybe it was lower or higher, but I don't know, because I was just doing it by eye until the bombs dropped. Although I think the second cropped screenshot I provided might be a little of an optical illusion with the bomb going out in front of me, I'm not sure that it didn't. It was a good Toss. I repeated this a few times and was getting tossing good results almost always. Before that I tried to do just glide bombing in CCRP mode, which means I designated the target and then tried to keep it as steady as possible until the weapons release. that was pretty good accuracy if I recall. Then I tried to do something that was akin to the Phantom's "Laydown" mode. I'm sure F-4 nerds will correct me if I'm wrong, but you basically designate the target from afar, and then you fly about level to the drop point. In the case of the Phantom, yes, I'm pretty sure it does involve the person in back inputting the target altitude. But I thought the MiG-29 used some pythagorean means to deduce the slant range, and you're saying it doesn't perhaps because it can't factor in the radar altimeter in that calculation? In that profile, although I had the laser on, I don't think the laser was ever either in range or in elevation parameters to ever range the target. Each time I tried to do a level bombing profile, I missed wildly long.

I noted your bug report on CCRP being short in MP, but my observations only concern SP. I was practicing today on the Afghanistan map, target at about 600m ASL. What I noted is that CCRP is very accurate when used like 'Dive Toss', meaning constant pull up through the aiming cue, laser manually turned on before target designation. In my practice scenario, there is no wind,and I never touched the DTC. These are the results I'm getting with a drop altitude about 3000m above the target...The vehicle in the lower part of the screenshot is the actual aiming point...thats some good accuracy! But it seems completely useless when the airplane is trying to do traditional level bombing. If I designate the target further out, before laser range, and then go back to level flight all the way until the bombs drop, it is very innacurate. In this case, even if I manually turn the laser on, I guess the target is always too far beneath the nose for the laser to ever see the target. The geometric method of ranging (what I think you're calling Elevation Method) doesn't seem to work very well, even on completely flat terrain all the way to the target. By contrast, in the Mi-24, it gives me a very accurate pipper. So is it fair to say that this non-laser geometric ranging method is not working correctly?

There are lots of posts and threads on this subject, so apologies if I'm not up to speed. I thought that the airplane either gets the slant range from the laser, or else, computes it trigonometrically with radar altitude and body angle. Now we're back to having to input some target altitude in the DTC, but only in MP? I thought that was previously fixed.

You used too many acronyms, so I don't quite understand all the things you said. However, you do mention the Mirage F1BE. The OP probably should have added the Mirage F1BE to his original poll! I can see how that would be an awesome training plane (what it's supposed to be), but only if you have a human teacher (because there is no back seat automation otherwise.) The back seat of the BE, with it's television repeater sight, and duplicate instruments is a sight to behold and a joy to fly in. And frontline combat capable too! It's a wonderful airplane, and I'm surprised nobody mentioned it before, including me.

This is just my late night opinion, after having a few drinks, but the F-5E and the C-101 aircraft couldn't be more opposite in flying character. The C-101 is like you're floating in the air, and couldn't be more docile. The F-5E, by contrast is "oh F***, I'm behind the power curve!". So I think if you want to become an F-14 or MiG-29 pilot, and fly a very capable pussycat of a fighter, then the C-101 would be the closest trainer in handling. If you want to fly a brick like the Phantom II, and don't mind dying a lot during final approach, on your way to getting good, emphasize the F-5!

Imagine how weird it would be to fly a Bf-109 in knots, and feet, and inches of manifold pressure. Its just WRONG. As long as they have a Metric cockpit with English labels, I'm happy, but I don't see why in the heck they decided to go down that path to provide an Imperial option.

Seems like the C-101 is the community favorite according to the poll. I agree. It's a great plane whether one uses it as an actual trainer or as a light attack plane. But in practice, I would think a lot of people learn the basics of DCS offline, before they even consider taking it into multiplayer, and before they even have a passing aquaintance with anyone else playing the game. To that end, a second seat only matters if you have another human being to crew up with. Otherwise it's just an empty seat.

But in a game though, what is the "final combat aircraft?". Unless somebody is in some really rigid Milsim squad, I think most people who have already attained generic skills desire to fly a lot of different aircraft in DCS. Obviously they are going to be especially good in some planes, but if you have attained the generic skills, you really ought to be able to pick up any FF module and learn it. If I were trying to go down a simulated Western training pipeline, I'd probably do something like: C-101--->F-5--->and then whatever front line FF aircraft one chooses to fly after learning their initial skills. If you have the basic flying and navigational skills, and are ready to be a carrier pilot, there is no problem at all with something like the Tomcat/Hornet being the first time you land on a carrier, and I don't really see the need to get some free mod to do the T-45 or A-4 versus one of the official DCS trainers.

I haven't taken the opportunity to try it out, but is the weapon computer capable of doing a "Loft"* or Dive Toss bombing (in the F-4 sense), meaning that I set up in CCRP but either fling the bomb forward by pulling up, or else release the weapon in a climb? *Not to be confused with the MiG's TOSS mode, which is more like the LABS, over the shoulder delivery.

Too bad he deleted the previous 6 page thread, or you would see his recommendations were discredited as impractical. Not only that, the modifications to the Snapviews.lua don't even create a too-narrow 56°, they actually specify an even more narrow 41° FOV as the default. He has cut and pasted "Give it a Try" about 50 times, across three threads, lol, so do it if you want and see what you get! The only way I can see this being "good" advice, is if you were driving a Tiger tank and trying to recreate looking out of a view slit.

The Corsair thread wasn't even the now-deleted thread I was talking about! That means it is at least the THIRD time he posted the same bad advice before!

Let me get this straight...Yesterday, the OP didn't like the feedback on the previous 6 page thread, so he just deleted the entire topic, and reposted it almost verbatim? Wow.

Wow, I didn't know they had actually converted the instruments in real life. Thanks!

In fairness, Eye Candy is important for realism and immersion. I mean, that's kind of the point of a simulator. Imagine flying 100s of miles across the Iraqi desert on a moonless night, and what the sky would look like.