Katj

I have tried BK90 with wind again. This time I started the mission from runway (instead of airborne) and wind correction worked flawlessly. No manual input needed. There's something fishy about this still, but apparently my ordinary use case is covered.

Well, I am by no means an expert but my understanding is that normally you shouldn't have to manually input wind. BUT right now there is a bug that will cause BK90 to miss if there's wind. As a workaround you can manually input the wind in m/s. At some point in the future I'd expect this to get fixed, though. Soonish, I hope. I don't know whether the wind bug affects other weapons than BK90, I haven't tested it, but BK90 is probably the most susceptible weapon to wind. I suppose rockets, guns, and bombs should compensate for wind as well, so you are welcome to test those as well. Don't forget to report back if you do.

Have you found a situation in which it doesn't happen? I thought it was 100 % certain to fail.

Using your method, what QFE do you tune? The kneeboard says 1010.6 at target waypoint. I have tried veenees method of adding 2 hPa to this, making it 1012.6, and then the bombs seem to land correctly. Maybe it's just that mission, I will try another if I can find the time.

I'm sorry for being off-topic, but I'm just going to ask anyway. Is high drag bombing working for you guys? I just tried the offensive anti air instant action mission a few times. Plan and nav, 100 m altitude, Mach .9. The aiming point on the HUD is very far away, and the bombs thus land very short. I always found this to be a very reliable delivery method, albeit a bit vulnerable to certain types of AA, and very dependent on target being on the waypoint. Thank you for your comment! I will try the BK90 again in the near future, then.

The viggen displays the direction the wind is blowing FROM, and DCS briefing page reports the direction the wind is blowing TO. So the direction will be offset 180 degrees. So far so good. The viggen displays the wind in km/h, and DCS uses m/s (perhaps there's a setting for this but that's beside the point I'm making). So far we're still good. HOWEVER! For the BK90 to strike its intended target you must enter the wind in m/s into the CK37. I would guess doing so will F up your navigation unless that too is broken in the same way. I just tested this a gazillion times, but you guys are most welcome to try it yourselves. So if DCS reports wind 90 Deg 5 m/s, you should go to vind and input, then push 27005 and enter. Your bomblets will drop on your waypoint. If you don't do the above the aircraft will do its doppler thing and automatically select something in the vicinity of 270180, which is in accordance with the manual, but your bomblets will drop way upwind.

Great, I really appreciate it! And wind compensation for BK90 too! Can't wait to try it out tonight.

Awesome! I hope this means toss-bombing will work properly as well. Can't wait to try it.

It was, as you recognized, a Walter statement, and thus, a joke. I probably took it too far with the "combinatorics", though. On topic OP should buy the cat at full price regardless of potential Christmas sale, because there's still time to get more than a month's worth of flying before then, and that's worth 2 beers at a bar, or whatever the discount would be.

Such frequentist reasoning is nothing but poison. You should learn some Bayesian probability which along with a carefully chosen prior will get you a lot further in life. Now, a good prior can be hard to calculate, but in this case it's easy. We have outcome 1 and outcome 2. The best prior is thus (2-1)! / 2! = 1 / (2*1) = 1/2. And 1/2 is 50 %. Q.E.D. (The probability that this is as good an answer as the question is going to get is 100 %.) Bear in mind that probabilities change. In retrospect they are always 1, 0, or somewhere in between.

Either they do or they don't, two possible outcomes, so the probability is 50 %.

There have been lots of military flight sims for decades, and how many of those have ever been complete by modern DCS standards? ED with DCS world is aiming higher than what has ever been done before. On the other hand EA is a slippery slope. I get that a company like ED has lots people with different skillets. As an example, the people working on models and textures might finish with their part of a project before all the systems are done. So it's natural that they move on to the next project before the first is done (think hornet/viper) situation. This might be wise if you foresee that there is overlap in the systems between the aircraft. (E.g. tws) But you risk that the people doing the visuals finish before the systems people once again, and that you end up in a loop with more and more early access, and that of course isn't sustainable. The nightmare scenario would be that they run out of money to develop one module so they have to release a new module to fund the former. I don't know the details about how ED does their work. But I'm sure they think about this stuff quite a lot. I can only hope that they find the right balance between work on new modules, core engine, etc.

All right, disable switching or switch earlier as a work around, copy that. Thank you for the tips. It's frustrating losing lock when the bandit is "right there!", and the TCS keeps tracking like it ain't no thing.

Sure, but I'm not talking about a very steep dive, perhaps 20 degrees, so there's not much of a notch. The point was that the target is straight ahead. There IS ground clutter, so maybe lock should be lost, but in that case I'd wish Jester didn't switch to pulse mode in look-down situations.

This is a bit embarrassing, but I might have had a couple of beers before I tried the "Clearing the way". Anyway, I tried it again late last night after I've had another drink or two. That's when I found that I had the autopilot engaged (I had just paused the game earlier). After disengaging the AP, I could refuel with auto sweep and maneuvering flaps without too much trouble. I even gave bomb mode a go, but the buffeting was very severe and I eventually ended up in a flat spin. This was with the starting loadout and 15000 lbs fuel. It's still much harder than a normal refueling, but I don't know if it's really worth practicing much, as it isn't a normal refueling.

I feel like this happens all the time. Whenever I hear Jester say "switching to P-STT" I think "oh, no". I don't think this happens only when cranking. I think I've had it plenty of times when diving straight towards a target. I'm going to start paying more attention to the parameters whenever I get this. On the other hand, now that I know you can disable the switching, I might do that instead, but that isn't quite right.

I just had a go at this myself. I've no idea why it's going so slow and high (26,000') but it really makes it difficult. I think it's a very bad idea to sweep the wings under those conditions. I actually deployed landing flaps under my attempt, but even then the aircraft handles very sluggishly, to the point that it's very hard to trim it right. The key seems to be to not waiting for something to happen when you make adjustments with the stick. Just trust that something will happen in a second or two. When I finally caught the basket I was constantly moving the stick, making minute adjustments. Like, if I was going high, I would push the stick ever so little forward for a fraction of a second, and then release, then make the next adjustment. I think you always do it like that, but in this particular case the lag is so extreme you really have to think about it. But even then, I don't believe thinking about it will get you all the way, you need practice as well, 'cause the neurons in your brain needs rewiring. So practice, sleep on it, repeat, and eventually it'll be easy.

Oops, oh well, I guess some search engine will guide others towards this thread, so the answers are not really wasted.

I bought it on the same premise and I don't fly it. It's not that its not enjoyable in its current state, it certainly is. It's just that I can fly other more finished modules, that are even more enjoyable. That said; if you want it, buy it. I don't regret getting it, even though I find it too unfinished to compete with other modules at present. I expect that will change going forward, and I'm a patient guy, well, sort of.

If you're struggling you can try to place the little cross on the hud on the refueling pod and just keep it there. The size of the cross compared to the pod tells you if you need to go forward or back. I don't really use the above technique anymore though, I just wing it.

And again, that doesn't do you much good when the same axis controls two things (radar and maverick) and they go in opposite directions.

Ok, sorry I didn't read carefully enough. I've tested this myself now and I see what you're saying. I have the t16k too, but I have the radar stick bound to the upper four way hat on the throttle. The ministick I use for the 05 (of course, duh ;)). Anyway, the reason I didn't understand what you were saying is that the behaviour is not the same on the hat as on the stick. When I push hat forward the radar marker goes down, and so does the maverick. Whereas they go in opposite directions if I use the stick, as you describe. Looks like a bug, imo.

Why can't you just invert the axis? It's in the same options page as you set axis curves.

I thought as much. Thanks for the input. I'll stop using radar then, at least when there is tacan. It's not much of a problem to join up without radar, but it takes a bit more time, as you have to be more careful.

I know that all the world (more or less) is flying imperial and that the trend is more feet, not less. But it's a little known fact, even in aviation circles, that ICAO has already decided to go metric. So it's worth mentioning. The U.S., Myanmar and Liberia use the imperial system. All the rest of the world uses metric. I predict that when the U.S. in general finally caves in and goes metric, aviation will follow. That might not happen for a while, but it will happen. P.s. Lately I've been listening to some emergency radio communications on YouTube, and it's painful to hear when the ATC asks for fuel and souls on board and the pilots answer X souls and Y kilograms of fuel. And the U.S. ATC keeps pestering the pilots to give them the fuel in pounds. The pilots might be flying half an aircraft and the ATC can't do the conversion. It's so stupid. You'd think you could just double the kilograms to get pounds and call that close enough, but no.