Mikaa

Thanks for the response! If AUTO isn't capable of a correct ASL guidance with high drags because of lack of intended use, then this is totally understandable - goes beyond my expertise however, so someone more knowledgeable will have to chime in as to whether this is possible/intended steering cues. Just seems like strange behavior that slicks have the correct crosswind accounted for in the ASL allowing for a near perfect track to the release point, but high drags make you follow this dramatic curved path. TOF differences aside, it appears to be way overcompensating for something. Thanks again for bumping this to the team.

Any updates? Let me be clear, the issue is specifically with the ASL drifting and being un-trackable with High Drag munitions, while slicks work correctly, even with wind present. This has nothing to do with the CEP of the various weapons. I can upload new track files if needed.

Woo, looks like they fixed the ASL bug. Can’t wait to hop back in and do some low level carpet bombing! Thanks for testing this out.

Interesting! Sounds like I may have to revisit that. Did you try it with retarded munitions or slicks? I remember the wandering ASL being significantly exacerbated with the longer TOF of snake-eyes/ballutes.

Something is also still bugged about the ASL with crosswinds. Been marked “investigating” for a looooong time now, with no updates. So if you use little/no wind scenarios, then AUTO is your best bet for accuracy.

Any updates to this? Still present in current OB, where excessive maneuvering is required to follow the HUD ASL for RET munitions, whereas slicks correctly account for crosswinds. @BIGNEWY - Seems some other Auto Bombing/CCRP-CCIP bugs are currently being investigated. Any chance this could be re-evaluated at the same time?

Pretty sure this has been brought up before. There are lots of discrepancies for in-cockpit indications on the Radar as well as AWACS callouts. Needs some TLC to ensure correlation between cockpit, AWACS, and map to account for mag variation.

+1

God forbid I ever have to use that thing again haha.

Well unfortunately we don’t have the luxury of changing the units on the gauges. I’m just telling you what works for me. Is it easy working with decimal hours? No, I’d be lying if I said it was… but I’ve just learned to embrace it. Move the decimal for 6 min precision, divide by 6 for 1 min precision. And yes, nm/min is also super helpful to make the calcs a bit simpler. I’m genuinely all ears if you can think of a better way to do it.

Why not just think of the fuel burn in terms of pounds per hour and decimal hours? Then you can again divide by six if you need more precision than 0.1hr. (Not to mention, most times the gauges themselves aren’t accurate enough to truly be relied upon to that level of accuracy, but I digress) IRL it’s much easier for me to calculate remaining on-station time using this method of decimal hours, but ymmv. I agree, SI units would be easier in theory, but since I’m flying in a western country, I’ve just learned to embrace the minute/hour ratios to pph for fuel burn to the point where it’s just second nature.

Now that the DTC is seeing some love, I figured I'd ask if any of the more advanced waypoint functions such as the GPS Point Data Display, or Map Waypoint Slew for WP/OAP creation are going to be revisited as planned (or possible future) items? I know in the past there was some discussion of the GPS Page, but I can't seem to find the appropriate post. thx

Thanks for looking into this. My tracks were really meant to show the need to chase the ASL as you approach the target, rather than flying a consistent wind corrected track to the release point. I can try it again at lower altitude and higher speed to see if anything changes, but I don't believe it'll make a difference to the guidance. Of course I don't expect JDAM levels of precision with high drag munitions, they were just used to show the movement of the ASL. This movement seems to be present in slicks too, but is very slight, as the TOF is short, and thus crosswind correction needed is minimal. Edit: Just tested again at 0.96M and 1500 feet, same issue - Track linked below. It can be flown, but the question is whether those steering cues are correct or not. Additionally, I tested it with slick Mk82's, and it doesn't seem to be an issue with wind. I even increased the winds to 40 kts at the surface - slicks still hit bang on with the ASL behaving as expected, giving steering cues for an appropriate track to release. At those higher winds with the 82Y's, I can't even get a solution at .97M and 1200' MSL in afterburner. The ASL remains outside the HUD FOV at all times and I end up flying a circle around the target. Let me know if you need a track showing that. F-18C 82Y AUTO Crosswind_3.trk

Hi There, Any updates for utilizing AUTO mode in crosswinds? It seems that the ASL is still not correctly calculating the offset required to track to the proper release point, and instead has the pilot fly a curved path (with seemingly unsafe bank angles) in order to meet the release criteria. This was reported back in 2021, but seems to still be present. Attached are two tracks made after today's most recent update. In both tracks, I attempt a level pass with 82Y in AUTO, to clearly demonstrate the present issues with the ASL calculations as TOF is increased in these conditions. Winds are 10kts at the surface, which aren't exactly 'gale-force' by any stretch of the imagination, and should be well within the capabilities of the jet to properly calculate the required steering. In the first pass, I attempt to follow the ASL as closely as possible (~500KIAS with ATC at 2000' MSL for both), and end up in a significant bank angle just to stay on the ASL by the release point. In the second pass, I attempt to 'Kentucky Windage' where the ASL should be steering (read tracking) me to, and can consistently get a better hit rate on the targets. F-18C 82Y AUTO Crosswind_1.trk F-18C 82Y AUTO Crosswind_2.trk

As far as I can tell, it's not so much better or worse, but tweaks under certain regimes. Incorrect banking tendencies PA mode, Lack of high AOA/pirouette capability (something that used to be slightly better but was never perfect at any point in dev), unstable pitch-up during bolter etc. Just minor things here and there that aren't quite right. All in all however, it's darn close until you really push the envelope.

I noticed something similar in the Hornet HUD as well, as the vv exceeded view limits, however I haven't tested it again recently. You're most likely right that there's a miscalculation in the core HUD code.

Hopefully the physics update will be coming with the teased updates to the Viking Tanker. It would be a welcome addition. *Fingers crossed*

+1, just tested this myself. Not sure if this is intended behavior, but I'd be surprised if a leading "0" would allow you to swap the integer signs in this submenu. I also replicated this by attempting other bearings. Oddly enough, trying '180' and '0180' swaps the resulting sign, but has on effect on the O/S point. Same with '360' and '0360.' Additionally, typing '045' into the offset menu actually gives you '-45' for an offset bearing (315 degrees). That to me, doesn't make sense, as every avionics package I've worked with utilizes standard digit formats for bearing/distance entries. IMHO, I'd expect an 'ERROR' callback if 3 digits wasn't used. Edit: I can upload a trackfile if needed, but hopefully the already submitted tracks are enough to have this revisited.

I'm not quite sure what more information needs to be given. As @TEOMOOSE wrote, the T.O. GR1F-16CJ-1 states that +/- 100 feet can be maintained up to FL400 PA utilizing pitch commands up to +2.0 Gz. Both the HDG SEL and STRG SEL roll modes command a maximum of 30 degrees bank, which is ~+1.15 G, which gives the AP an additional +0.85G to maintain altitude in turns (up to 15 degrees alpha mind you, at which point the AP should disengage). The only mention of inaccuracies in ALT HOLD mode are in the transonic region (due to shock errors in CADC input) as well as attempting engagement beyond +/-2000 fpm; and even then, the AP should attempt to maintain the given altitude within the -.5/+2.0 pitch command limits, it's just noted that the intended altitude may not be captured.

First off, I'm sure alot of this is WIP, and may already be reported internally, but I've noticed that when utilizing Mode 1, the Hornet consistently seems to be landing short. I tested both a no-wind scenario where the carrier is making wind at 27 kts, as well as with a carrier speed of 20 kts, with 10 kts of headwind along the final bearing (total ~30 kts down the angled deck). At first, I thought it was user error, or I disconnected something, but then I noticed that it only seems to deviate in-close when the burble comes into effect. It's looking like the ATC can't keep up, chops the power for the slight updraft, and then can't catch up in time to recover from the sink. Meanwhile the coupled A/P attempts to compensate by pitching for the glidepath. With no-wind, it consistently hits the 1 wire, and over the limited testing I've done, any amount of wind beyond 1-2 kts results in landing short of the wires and subsequent hook-skip bolter. This wasn't apparent during Wags' showcase videos (burble may not have been implemented yet), and although not a perfect system, I don't think it should have this quite large deviation, especially towards striking the back of the deck. This issue aside, I'm really digging the ACLS system as well as all the other SC updates! Edit: I forgot to mention that I also tried a slow repair, without success. F-18C ACLS Mode 1 Burble - 10 kts Wind Final Bearing.trk F-18C ACLS Mode 1 Burble - No Wind.trk F-18 ACLS Test.miz

Push D/L again. It's just a nested menu now.

Only FM bugs I can think of are a few little tweaks like the AOA shift when crossing the deck (3PTS EGIW), the lack of FBW assisted lateral stability with gear down and flaps full, and some high alpha tendencies, like the pirouette maneuver that ED is currently investigating. AFAIK the rest of the envelope is dang close to the RL charts for the 402's.

I’m guessing this also means that none of the Hornet ACLS functionality will be possible with the Forrestal either? Seems like a shame considering the amount of work that went into it. I do appreciate passing on the feedback to the team. I can also understand if they initially release its full functionality for the SC, while considering the best way to add the basics to the other carriers down the road.

This may also be waiting on the mission planner/DTC implementation. For now there’s some workarounds to assist in employing certain laser based weapons.

Apologies if this is already reported. I couldn't find anything specific to this when searching the forums. While spending time looking at another TACAN-ism (the TOD discussion) I came across this bug when utilizing the CPL function of the Autopilot in conjunction with a TACAN station. While in Mag HDG Mode (under the Data, A/C submenu), the aircraft does not properly track to the waypoint, despite the HUD and HSI heading information as well as the HUD Great Circle Steering Cue indicating correctly. This however, does not appear to be an issue when the HSI is switched to True Heading Mode. When in TRUE HDG, the autopilot correctly tracks toward the station (seemingly within a degree or so of the HUD indication). Additionally, the HSI bearing information changes for Waypoints when swapping between Mag and True HDG modes, but it does not change for the TACAN information - I believe this should reflect the current units (Mag or True, whichever is selected under the Data, A/C submenu). Next, I attempted to see if a manually selected course would track TO/FROM the station along a selected radial using the CRS rocker and CSEL. Both the HSI and HUD CDI cues are incorrect in True HDG, even if the course is manually slewed to center over the a/c's current radial (which should prompt it to capture and track to the station). This also doesn't match the HSI indications of the course line. The True Heading mode seems to have conflicting information as it eventually will violently roll towards the full scale CDI needle (TAC BLIM) but then rolls in the opposite direction, as if to track an incorrect radial. This cyclical error pattern is endless while in True HDG mode, regardless of the radial chosen. Mag HDG as far as I can tell, seems to be operating somewhat correctly, however it often will develop a significant bank angle while attempting to track the selected radial, or will begin to oscillate laterally in an attempt to correct for drift. Something may be amiss, but it is difficult to tell without further investigation. As a sanity check, I conducted this same test utilizing Waypoints instead of TACAN with the same Freeflight Instant Action in Nevada. I just boxed the waypoint for Nellis (WP 5) and conducted the same checks. This seems to be working as intended from my cursory run through. True/Mag swap works correctly, with correct indications on HUD and HSI, as does the selection and tracking of a manually selected course in both True and Mag. At present I feel this is only a TACAN issue. Reproduceable on other maps, however the errors are most apparent on NTTR due to the high degree of Mag Variation. Please let me know if you need more tracks. F-18C TACAN CPL Bug.trk