Notso

Yep. Hitting movers with a GBU-12 is as much art as science. It sounds like DCS doesn't model the PWII characteristics all that well. What were the TGT speeds out of curiosity? Edit to add: Attacking Movers were one of the primary reasons why the GBU-54 was developed because the GBU-12s were so difficult and limited.

It's not incorrect, but it's far more complex and nuanced than that.

That's a common understanding but it not exactly correct. There is a lot more to it that. ATRK is typically used for larger less defined targets like the roof of a building, or a runway or a bridge abutment. However, it can certainly be used very effectively on small discrete targets such as a vehicle. PTRK is usually only used on small targets that offer very good contrast with sharp edges so that the PTRK tracking gate can "grab on" and hold on to it. If the target is too large or too undefined, the PTRK gate will often move around - latching first onto the turret of a tank or the hot hood of a car or truck. But it can also easily lose the track altogether if the target aspect changes and the PTRK can't see that spot anymore or the contrast changes. PTRK IRL often has a mind of its own - moving around the target when you least want it to. As a general rule of thumb (ROT) for employing LGBs, For a static target it's usually best to always use an ATRK as its often more stable than PTRK. Even on non-moving vehicles. For movers, if you're simply tracking them and not bombing them yet - PTRK will allow you to do it mostly hands free as it will latch onto the vehicle and stay there (you hope). However, whether to use ATRK or PTRK is often personal preference and is driven by the target features itself. Moving targets are more complex than just building a PTRK and dropping the LGB. For PWII bombs (GBU-10 and 12), you need to lead them with the crosshair. IRL, if you have a PTRK on the vehicle, the bomb will miss unless it's barely crawling along. Anything over about 10mph and you need to lead the truck/car/tank whatever by some amount for the entire time of flight. So PTRK won't work at all. If its a GBU-24 or GBU-54 (future maybe), then PTRK is the way to go. I haven't played enough with the PWIIs in DCS to see how it replicates hitting movers. It could be that PTRK works fine, but is unrealistic. Finally, you need to understand that there is a huge difference between LGB and GPS weapon employment, and from your follow on questions - I'm not sure you get that difference. LGB weapons need the laser on the target for at least the last 8-10 sec before impact. Without the laser spot, they will likely miss. However for a GPS weapon (JDAM, JSOW, etc) the laser is not required at all. Hell, the TGP is not even required. You can type in coordinates only in the UFC and let 'er rip. The TGP w/ laser, as others have said, can quickly send those TGT coords to the bomb without you having to fat finger them in. The laser is not required, but using it during the designation gives you much more precise coordinates than without the laser. However, once you release the GPS bombs, they cannot see the laser or targeting pod AT ALL. So what you do with a track after release is totally irrelevant. You can boresight the pod and the bombs won't care.

That's fair enough. I hadn't thought of it from that perspective, thanks.

Out of curiosity, why? Do you move on to a new aircraft as soon as they come out? Do you ever master a single platform or is it more of a survey of different aircraft for you. This is not criticism in the slightest, I've just been curious how people treat the different modules.

I wasn't sure if this was a wishlist or a question for 2.5 world, so I put it here instead. My question is would ED possibly entertain the idea of an aircraft module evolving over time similar to how real aircraft evolve with upgrades of hardware, Software loads, added weapons capability, etc. First of all, I understand the ED model of picking an aircraft configuration and timeframe to model rather than trying to make it a Frankenstein of many different configurations. I have no issue with that mindset and it makes sense. However, let's take the example of the F-16 Block 50 from 2007. Ok fine, The Ed Dev team needs to drive a stake in the ground and work to a specific configuration and tape load. But let's say by the end of this year it's all complete and everyone is happy (fingers crossed). What I'm talking about is in say a few years, ED could upgrade the 2007 Block 50 F-16CM to a newer configuration with more current weapons such as GBU-39, JASSM, JSOW, etc. It seems like it would be a natural evolution to pick another time point in the past - for instance 2015 and remake the current F-16 module to be the newer one. Maybe it gets a new motor like the PW-229, or the V9 radar, etc. I would think this would not only be a natural evolution of an airframe that mirrors reality, but would be a great pay model for ED to introduce new upgrades without having to offer an entirely new aircraft. People could pay to have the new upgraded F-16 with newer capabilities or stay with the original as they choose. I would bet most would pay to get new capabilities. But those that don't can still fly - not unlike real life ANG or Reserve units who sometimes fly older models. It just seems like people will get bored with a module that stays stagnant once completed. I'm not suggesting upgrading it constantly, or we would be in EA and OB forever. But maybe every 2-3 years (even every 5 years) a module could evolve IF (and that's a big IF) data becomes available on open source in order to correctly simulate it. Thoughts? To the Mods, any feedback on this business model?

Thanks. Are you running 2.5.5 then? As I said, I'm very tempted to roll back until the VR issues in .6 get addressed. I was pretty happy with it before I jumped into OB, but that was before I got the Reverb so not able to say definitively that 2.5.5 was fine with the new HMD. I'll post up my full settings with some screenshots either tonight or tomorrow and let you all look and see if I've got something going on. I've also followed the tutorial on Thud's VR4DCS to optimize windows and that did seem to help run stuff better. But that was a while ago. Not sure if I need to do any other optimization. The whole setup is new, only about 4 months old now and 2 of those months were in transit. The hardware should easily be able to handle this at the settings I'm running, I would have thought. Maybe it caught a virus while the container was sitting in port in China on the way to the US :lol: Anyway, in the meantime two quick questions.... 1) what does the Anisotropic Filter (AF) setting do? I understand MSAA but don't understand what AF does in DCS. And 2) In Steam VR settings, what does the "Legacy Reprojection mode" do? Should it be ON or OFF if I'm using motion smoothing Forced On?

I have that on and I see the same very high Hz flickering and start screen jumping around during loading. I just have to close my eyes to get through it until it loads, or I would be curled up in a ball on the floor with white foam coming out of my mouth in an epileptic seizure. J/k but it IS very uncomfortable. And it is unique to the Reverb, my HTC Vive Pro did not do this at all. <shrug>

OK, so question regarding the reverb settings....... I tried using your 150% today on the global setting and 100% in the DCS application setting and HOLY cow was the visual crisper and more defined. It was almost like looking at a 4K monitor. However, my FPS and CPU framerates were dogshite. I was testing in the NTTR instant action free flight. Over the desert, it was fine, but as soon as I got near the Vegas strip, it started getting choppy and FPS went from a solid 45 down to 30. I did some experimenting and turned shadows off on both terrain objects and just shadows. It helped a bit but not enough to overcome the stuttering. BTW the stuttering was only really noticeable when looking at 3 or 9 o'clock and was accentuated when rolling while looking out at either wingline. I also experimented with turning "Legacy Reprojection Mode" both on and off. WHich is the prefered setting for this? BTW, I'm running MSAA Off and AF on 8x. My rig should be able to easily handle these setting with smooth framerates, so I'm a bit stumped as to why everything is so slow. VrFPS was showing FPS in the 30-36 FPS and GPU frametimes in the 12-17ms range. The CPU frametimes were showing lots of Red. I'm currently on 2.5.6 OB and am very tempted to roll back to 2.5.5 stable. Any suggestions?

This is one of the more amusing threads I've read here in a while :music_whistling:

My suggestion to model an Over-G situation in the Sim would be to have a code that then causes a random effect to be generated such that the following things could happen depending on the configuration: 1. Nothing, everything works normal (because sometimes an over-g isn't that severe) 2. Hung stores 3. External tank doesn't feed correctly 4. Weapon failures in flight resulting in a miss (seeker failure / fin failure, etc) 5. Stores that impact the jet during separation I don't know enough about the viper to know how it's over-G logic works. I would assume Betty would yell "Over-G, Over-G" if you exceeded the limits. If so, that warning could trigger the random effect(s) above and as well the pilot would know that something bad could happen, and that employing weapons or jettisoning tanks/bombs might have a bad effect. Aside from the G-effects, it would be interesting to have just random failures like Hung bombs or misses due to just general weapon failures. Sometimes shit happens and you have to be able to deal with whatever fate throws you.

I've seen both happen (pull the motor and pilots turning wrenches) on another platform. In the later case it was a young wingman 1Lt who was being stupid. The Sq/CC sent him out to the hanger and told him to help pull panels as penance for his buffoonery. I think he got 2 or 3 screws out before the crew chief said thanks but please go away.

I recall when I first got into DCS last year that people were saying the usual cycle for updates to hit stable was about 2 weeks after they were first introduced to OB. Is this still true, or does it vary? Also, if you are playing through steam and are on OB, do the patches/updates hit Steam at the same time as they do via DCS direct, ir is there a lag for updates being introduced to steam?

Sadly, that is exactly what it is like today. All air traffic into and out of the UAE has been stopped. McCarron in Las Vegas as well. The LAS Airport has been totally closed for almost a week now.

Yeah, I'm well aware of TACAN approaches, which are non-precision. But you're not going to be able to shoot an approach down to 200-1/2 on a TACAN approach. I guess it was a calculated risk the USN took that they would just need to divert if unable to land if WX was below non-precision mins. And then I guess there is always a PAR if needed.

Cool, I'll try 150%. I was under the impression from previous threads that the Reverb needed to run at native resolution.

It does happen occasionally but not often. QuiGon's example with the F-4G/F-16 is a good example. Another is also out of Incirlik, the F-15Es during one deployment would fly as 3 ships and all three had mixed loadouts. One would carry GBU-12 with AGM-130, another would carry GBU-12 with GBU-15s and the 3rd would carry a mix of GBU-12s and -10s. It was a unique situation and the mixed loadouts gave them flexibility depending on what targets they found that day. This was during the "Northern Watch" days of patrol rather than ATO fragged strikes.

OK so back to the Motion Reprojection discussion... So I finally found all the settings as per Imacken and Stuartaston. Thanks for the help on that BTW. I started experimenting with settings to get the smoothest feel possible. Previous to going to 2.5.6 OB and the Reverb, I was running 2.5.5 stable on an HTC Vive Pro. I was able to have High on all the settings, MSAA x2, PD on 1.5, etc etc with buttery smooth frame rates. Now with 2.5.6, I have MSAA off now and PD set to 1.0. I followed the advice to run the Steam VR settings at 100% (native I assume), and enable Motion Reprojection / Motion Smoothing through Steam VR settings. I even deleted the fxo and metashader2 folders as suggested. It was still a tiny bit juddery when I would roll 90 while looking left or right at a large city (abu Dhabi in PG module / Free flight / instant action). I was about to give up when I went back to Steam VR one more time. On the in game application settings for Motion smoothing -I changed "enabled" to "FORCE ALWAYS ON". I went back and tried the same setup and it made a huge difference with no other changes. I'm getting a fairly constant 45fps and the objects and terrain out the window are now flowing by very smoothly. And yes, I did // comment out the motion reprojection line in the vr default text file. My frame rates definitely went down after I switched over to 2.5.6 although it might partially be the Reverb is a graphics hog more than the Vive was. I hope ED fixes that soon. However, I've got it to the point where I'm happy and performance seems fine to fly. I haven't done any MP stuff, so it may be complete;y different if I was on a complex mission with jets flying everywhere.

Oh wow, that looks sweet! I think I'll try it. Thanks.

Thanks all for the info. Now I just need to figure out how to mount them to my Playseat.

As long as they do the shirtless beach volleyball scene, I'm OK with that. :music_whistling:

What Klarsnow said is 100% spot on. To add to that, USAF fighter squadrons during peacetime (at least in CONUS) not only have callsigns assigned to each Sq - but then usually every flight lead has one of those callsigns assigned to him or her each time they lead a flight. For instance, Capt Jane Blow might be assigned the ATC callsign "Husky". Each time she leads a flight or is an IP for a flight lead upgrade flight, that flight would always use the callsign Husky. It might be Husky 11, 21, 31, 41, etc depending on where she was in the schedule. But everyone at the base would know that the Husky c/s belongs to Jane whenever they heard it on the radio. And an individual SQ might have 6-9 or more callsigns assigned to it to dole out to their flight leads. In addition, the SQ commander would usually always fly with the c/s of the SQ nickname if he/she were leading that flight that day. For instance, the SQ/CC callsign for the 336th Rocketeers or the 335th Chiefs at Seymour Johnson AFB would be "Rocket xx" or "Chief xx". I assume for the 77th FS (F-16s at Shaw AFB), the commander's c/s would be Gambler xx whenever he lead a flight. In wartime ops, the callsigns are assigned via the ATO and typically (not always), each unit would have a discrete callsign or two. So for instance, if you heard "Snowbird" on the radio, you knew it was the Canadian F-18s. To make it even more confusing, larger aircraft like AWACS might have a callsign for the up front flight crew in the cockpit would communicate on with ATC and a "backend" callsign where the mission crew would control the airspace i.e. "Darkstar". In the USAF, tail numbers are never used on the radio except when talking to MX or the Ops desk. The maintenance guys only care about tail numbers, as that is how they track their jets status. So a pilot having a maintenance issue during startup would call on the maintenance net something like "Tail 69, redball flight controls". In my limited experience flying with the Navy, they also use normal FAA approved callsigns when talking to both military and civilian shore based airfields. As Klar said, they use side numbers only when flying around the boat. And when they are in combat ops, they are also assigned tactical callsigns via the ATO just like everyone else on that ATO that they would use when they were not talking to the boat.

Hi all, I apologize in advance for the dumb questions and if its been already addressed before, please share a link.... I recently bought the Cougar MFD pack to add to my VR setup so I can use the buttons rather than having to use a mouse to manipulate them. My question is how easy are they to set up and configure? Do I need to map all the buttons manually or will they auto map to DCS once plugged in. Also, if I switch back and forth between a Hornet (3 MFD) and the F-16 (2x MFD), will each module need to be reset each time, or can I save it to the Module profile like I do the HOTAS mapping? Any other setup tips would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

I have the exact same problem as well. Not sure if there are aftermarket thicker facepads for the reverb yet. I don't think so. But I mostly got it fixed by using some thin 3/8" weather stripping from Home Depot (DIY store for those not in the US). Experiment with the thickness. Not elegant, but it works. Pics here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4247718&postcount=68

Ah, gotcha. That makes sense now. Thanks.