Notso

I was not able to get the 26R ILS to work at McCarran (LAS) either - I was using the info from the kneeboard approach plate. It works fine at Nellis (LVS) though.

[MISSING TRACKS] STT & ACM Boresight and Vertical Scan acting strange So I was playing with some of the Radar modes last night and ran across a few weird things. Not sure if they are bugs or user error. See attached track. 1. I was doing a stern conversion intercept on an IL-76 from below. I got a radar lock on him in the beam at about 10nm lookup. The radar was having trouble keeping lock and kept drifting off in the stern and sometimes losing the lock or going back and forth behind. The radar shouldn't have had any trouble keeping lock in the beam or in a stern chase from a lookup at close range. 2. I was experimenting with the ACM modes using both Boresight and Vertical scan. The boresight mode initially seemed to work OK, but the vertical scan would not lock the target hardly ever and I should have been well within parameters. I was at 6 oclock to the target at about 2-3nm. It was intermittent at best. And at other times it would lock in Vert scan when the lift vector was NOT on the target -which is the opposite of what should happen. 3. I then switched the HMCS on and tried the same test. Vert scan was still very intermittent still. But occasionally even Bore would not lock when the nose was pointed at the aircraft -i.e. I was not looking off boresight. When I would use the HMCS Bore to lock the target when it was off the nose, it worked fine. I was also still seeing the vert scan and boresight mode lock the target when I was not in what I would consider the correct parameters such as the lift vector was not on the target in vert scan or I was not looking at the target with the HMCS circle and sometimes it would lock anyway. 4. Another final thing I wondered about the mechanization of the ACM modes...... If I had a lock and then TMS'd aft to break lock.... shouldn't the radar lock the target again if it sees it, or do I have to always go TMS forward to relock each time? Also when using the HMCS, If I was looking off to the side of the nose at the target in ACM boresight and put the oval over the target, the radar would lock. If I TMS'd aft to break lock, it would relock if I was still looking at it. However, if I broke lock, looked away and then put the oval back over it, it would not automatically lock the target again unless I TMS'd fwd to command the lock. Is this all normal behavior?? Thanks. Edit: Doh, the track file is too big. I'll have to rerun it and shorted the time down. Sorry, standby for that track file..

Yep. I could never go backwards after having flown with VR. I can live with the slightly degraded graphics quality for the HUGE leap forward in immersive quality. And VR is just going to keep getting better. I have the Vive Pro and Warthog stick and throttle and it's an awesome setup. I'm thinking about adding MPDs as well now.

100% concur! There's far too many variables to staying on the boom (or in the basket) for a single speed to be set. And all of that is even assuming the tanker itself is able to maintain an absolute precise airspeed. Maybe in DCS it can and does because its an AI entity. But IRL, that's rarely the case. If formation flying was a strictly 1-dimensional event (i.e. Fwd/aft), then ATC might work. But the up/down - L/R thing also usually involves small speed changes when one of the other parameters needs adjusting. Especially if the tanker enters a turn while hooked up.

True, but the Nav pod did have its uses when the Low Light vis or other factors made the NODs less effective. The NODs were far superior in most cases, but there were a few scenarios where the NAV/FLIR pod good to have.

The brakes and stopping distance seem fine to me.

Interesting..... I recall watching this video of a PACAF demo recently and noticed the stab bouncing a bit on rollout. Skip to 13:45 for short final and rollout. Unless he is relaxing the stick during the rollout and then pulling full-aft again, they do appear to move a fair amount on rollout. Also here at 5:48, the stabs seem to be bouncing quite a bit during taxi: Of course the last video is not full aft stick.

This^

To the red bolded statement above: That's not entirely true. There are approach end BAK-12 and other systems as well that would be used for certain emergencies such as unsafe gear indications, known brake failure, Hydraulic failure, etc where engaging the cable early immediately after touchdown is preferable to rolling down a 12,000 ft runway before getting into the cable. In fact MOST emergencies where an arrested landing is called for will use the approach end cable - not the departure end at the far end of the runway. Usually the only time a jet would take the departure end cable is if they discovered they had brake failure on landing rollout or they over-cooked the approach and they couldn't stop in time so put the hook down rather than going off the end of the runway. A BAK-12/14, etc is meant to be able to stop a high-speed aircraft - it just does it gradually with a really LOOOOONG runout of cable. To the others who say a non-carrier jet with a hook (such as an F-16 or F-15) could land on a carrier once with some airframe damage - I'm very doubtful even of that. IF the gear didn't immediately collapse on touchdown AND the hook didn't skip over the wires..... I'm betting that as soon as the wire got to the end of its short runout - it would rip the hook right out of the back of the jet and the F-16 would keep going right into the water. I watched a video of an F-15 do an attempted approach-end arrested landing as a precaution because they had unsafe gear indications. The wingman was flying chase (at night) and had the TGP in IR tracking the jet to touchdown. You see the jet go over the cable and keep going. The pilot thought he had just missed the cable or the hook skipped over it (which sometimes happens). Turns out his gear was fine and it was just a bad indicator. But he stopped on the runway after a normal rollout anyway and had it towed back in. The MX guys came out and and they and the pilot discovered there was no hook attached. Everyone went "HOLY SH%T" and then they went back and watched the tape of the IR TGP. The first pass through the tape looked uneventful. When they played it back in Slow-Mo - you could see the hook cartwheeling and bouncing across the runway into the grass. What happened was the Bak-12 had failed and it never budged when the hook grabbed it and it just ripped it right out of the aircraft. The crew flying it never even felt it. Non-carrier tail hooks are relatively flimsy compared to a purpose built carrier A/C tailhook.

Haha, I thought everyone comes to DCS for the realism. I doubt there is such a thing as a "showroom new" Hornet in the fleet. Maybe the day it rolled off the factory line in St Louis, but I'd bet even a new delivery to the Navy on day 1 is not showroom new or clean. You'd probably have better luck finding a Unicorn.

I don't know how the Viper TGP is mechanized IRL, but I agree that ^^ seems counter-intuitive. In other jets, you can have the TGP area or point tracked in CCIP and not be tied to the pipper. You would undesignate or do a HOTAS command to get the TGP to latch to the pipper, but once the Pod had been manually slewed it would stay there until you commanded (HOTAS'd) it back to the CCIP pipper again.

My suggestion would be to start simple and continuous lase on a level straight through attack and then gradually add in the check away or lean away maneuver while still using CONT LASE. Once you get good at that and once you get a sense for the TOF from various altitudes- then practice some delay lase. On a related note, one thing that bugs me about the Viper is that you have to hold the trigger down the entire time you want to fire the laser. I would prefer an ON/OFF button. Plus it feels very unnatural to pull the trigger for anything other than firing the gun. I assume its really mechanized that way on the Viper, but I still don't like it.

I just built a mission to test out GBU drops on the PG map (near Al Dhafra AB). Dropped 4xGBU-12 and 2xGBU-10 with mixed delivery profiles from 8K to 25K HAT and some with delay lase and some with continuous lase. 50% were fly straight ahead after release and let the pod spin and the other 50% were 40-50 deg check aways. All hits. Nothing seemed unusual.

Does the jet not already correct for wind in both CCIP and CCRP modes? If not, it should. Both the CCIP pipper and the CCRP ASL line should already be wind-corrected.

Yep. And It's annoying you can't turn the volume off without turning the ILS itself off like you can the TACAN knob.

I just had a similar issue tonight on the stable release with NTTR tacans. I tried a published approach (ILS 25R) to McCarron and the TACAN worked but the ILS would not come up - no needle movement. I also dialed in Nellis Tacan and the bearing needle and DME were initially correct and then it froze and would not update. I changed TACAN Freqs to Creech and then back again to Nellis and it started showing correct readings again. This happened again the next time I flew with the Nellis tacan and again had to change to something else and then back again before it would work. Weird.

Couple of things wrong with this technique if I'm reading it correctly. First of all (of course depending on your release altitude) "waiting 8 to 10 seconds before lasing" - is really the same thing as continuous lasing. From 20K HAT, time of fall (TOF) is around 30 sec. If you're waiting 10 sec and then turning the laser on, that means you are still lasing for about 20 sec of the rest of the TOF. Which to the bomb is still essentially the same as having the laser on at pickle. If you are going to delay lase, figure out how long the total TOF is and then turn the laser on in the LAST 10 sec. Of course without a TTI counter in the HUD or TGP, its guesswork. The other thing is if you are waiting to turn when the aircraft is OVER the target, you are maneuvering pretty much at the worst possible time for the Pod. The key is to "lean away" as Federf described earlier and either maintain the bank through impact or roll out and be wings level well before impact. But the point is you want the aircraft as stable as possible in the last 10-15 sec of the TOF as that is the critical point where any movement of the laser spot is going to really deplete the bombs energy. You want to make the jet the most stable platform possible in those last few critical secs before impact. I don't know how well DCS models all this, but that's the main technique. To add onto Federf's discussion about "podium effect", i.e. the situation where you are trying to lase a vertical wall of a building or something similar - it is imperative that you check away/lean away to keep the crosshairs on the same vertical face that you want to hit and in the direction the bomb is flying. If it goes to the side wall or the back of the building because you flew directly over the target, the bomb will lose the laser spot and stop guiding at that point. Wherever the fin deflection happened to be at that point during its "bang-bang" guidance will stop and the fins will go to neutral while the seeker will continue looking for the spot. And it will most certainly miss if it doesn't ever re-acquire the laser spot. However, all that being said, if the target is a horizontal feature like a vehicle, tank, bunker, runway, flat roof of a building, etc - then you can just fly straight thru and overfly the target and the bomb will still see the laser spot with no problem as long as the crosshairs are on the top of whatever it is you're trying to hit. I just did a bunch of these on the NTTR on Dogbone lake and went 6 for 6 with both GBU-12 and 10s plinking T-72 tanks using both Continuous and delay lase from 10K to 22K HAT. Also did some as a Lean away and some as a straight through. All shacks. I'll try the PG module next to see if there is any difference.

Not entirely true. For Paveway II weapons, there is always a constant debate about Continuous vs Delayed Lasing. Both work fine, as long as you are in the correct parameters. The absolute min lase time is 8 sec before impact, but most will pad that to 10-12 sec to impact to account for some slop in the timing countdown and to account for the eye to brain to finger delay of seeing the time on the screen and then commanding the finger to push the laser fire button. The debate centers solely around weapon energy. The conventional wisdom is ALWAYS delay lase if releasing from low altitude such as a dive toss or loft. Because if the laser is on at release and the seeker sees the laser energy, the weapon will immediately maneuver to attain a direct flight path to the target. If already at a low energy state, this will bleed energy even more and most likely cause a miss short. However, if dropping from Medium altitude and above (usually defined as around 15K HAT to about 25K HAT, IIRC) - the the PWII can be continuous lased as the weapon ballistic profile is usually energy gaining anyway. On top of that, the PWII seeker is not usually able to see the laser spot from that distance (~ 4.5-5.5nm slant range) until it gets within its acquisition range anyway, depending on atmospheric conditions, so its a moot point if the laser is on at release or not. Another factor to consider is winds. The jet's computer will account for winds at release altitude and then do a standard algorithm to "model" the winds from release down to the surface, but unless there is a wind model that can be manually programmed or captured - if there is any kind of windsheer, the bomb might be pushed out of the ballistic "basket" to the point where it might not see the laser spot when its turned on by the pilot because it's no longer looking at the correct area. Bottom line is from higher altitudes (15K HAT and up) - delay or continuous should both work fine. But most will use 10-12 sec delay lase to stick with one habit pattern for all cases and then adjust for special circumstances like strong wind sheers and such. Especially with GBU-10s as they are MUCH more energy sensitive than GBU-12s, delay lase is usually always recommended. GBU-24s are an entirely different animal. Speaking of which, is there going to be a TTI counter added to the F-16 module?

Thanks BigNewey. However, I'm not sure I've ever seen that page in Steam before. I'll go look for it now.

These display updates you guys are talking about? Is it only in the OB version or in the stable release as well?

Hi all, I am running DCS on Steam (with Steam VR). I believe I am on the Stable version but would like to try the OB version so I can play with some of the new toys earlier? First of all, how do I tell which version of Steam I'm running (stable vs OB) and how do I transition over to Open Beta? Also, is it possible to be able to use either Stable or OB at any given time? IOW, go back and forth at will? Or do I have to make a decision on one of them and stick to it? TIA.

So one of my profiles I created got killed the other day. I was doing one of the BFM training missions in the F-16 module where a 2nd AI bandit shows up at some unknown position once you splash the first bandit. Anyway, in one of the scenarios, I got whacked because I didn't get tally until he had an archer already on the way. And I lost the profile that had a bunch of hours in the Viper, Hornet and A-10. How do you get around this? In training as you learn new techniques and practice the ones you know, its simulated and you can learn from "getting killed". But in DCS, at least in SP, you can only practice against a bandit that shoots real missiles. How do you get around having to create a new profile each time and losing all your logbook data from the previous flights? Do you just have to make them invulnerable? That seems like cheating as you wouldn't want to crash on landing or doing a weapon delivery and splatting the ground because you up your safe escape maneuver. But I would think in an A/A training fight, you would want the ability to not get actually get killed if made a mistake doing BFM. Its expected you're going to "die" a reasonable amount of times as you learn.

Dunno about that. From reading many of the previous posts, there was still a lot of confusion about basic definitions.

See the attached graphic Terms & Concepts. Range. The distance between two aircraft. Aspect angle. The relative position of the attacker to the target without regard to the attacker’s heading. It is defined as the angle measured from the tail of the target to the position of the attacker. HCA. HCA is primarily concerned with the relative headings of two aircraft. It is defined as the angular distance between the longitudinal axes of the attacker and the defender. Whenever the attacker is pointing at the defender, the AA and angle off will be the same. Antenna train angle. The number of degrees the defender is off the boresight of the attacker.

The best tactic / maneuver after release is to check away about 45-60 deg and then roll out and stay wings-level until weapon impact. It doesn't have to be an aggressive 7G turn, but at the same time you don't want to lazily roll away. Usually 3-4Gs should be sufficient. The intent is to get the jet straight and level as soon as possible so you have a stable platform for the majority of the TOF. This also gives you some standoff distance from the target so you don't get shot down by AAA or short range SAMs in the tgt area. If a target is worth bombing, its also worth defending. As to which direction to turn, it depends on where the TGP is loaded and what other stores are present and where. If the TGP is on the centerline pylon you should be able to turn in either direction. If however, it is on one of the cheek stations - turn away from that side. For instance, if the TGP is loaded on the Left cheek, then check to the right. That way you will never be looking "through" the aircraft, especially if you have stores/tanks on the CL pylon. Of course this is all dependant on the threats and your tactics. You obviously would not want to turn right and fly into a SAM ring. In that case, it will usually work even if you go the other way - you would just need to manage the masking issues by being ready to add a bit of roll away from the target to unmask the pod. Remember, the TOF of most LGBs from Medium altitudes are only 30-40 sec or so - so its not like you have to deal with this issue for a really long time. In theory, in a low to no-threat environment - you can also fly straight through directly over the target. The pod will spin when directly overhead at the 90 deg up point and (in theory) it should handle it without breaking track. But this is not a common tactic for the fact that the pod IRL can sometimes have issues during that violent spin and lose track of the target or move the laser spot around a lot in the final stages of the weapon TOF which most likely will result in a miss. I don't know how well DCS models this. Practice, practice practice....