nomdeplume

I believe there's one each on the wing root pylons, and two can be carried on a dual rack on the centreline.

Well, I'd say the other way around - incorporate the functionality into the re-arm dialog and mission editor, and then remove the functionality from the DSMS. If all bombs seek the same code, then it becomes impossible for multiple aircraft to use LGBs in the same area without risking guiding each other's weapons. This then becomes a significant deficiency when it comes to the combat capabilities in terms of simulation; the DSMS being able to configure settings it shouldn't be able to is a much smaller sin IMHO. (Even better: only allow the DSMS to change these settings when on the ground.) Hopefully Razbam will be able to come up with a better solution than "all LGBs dropped by M2000C use seeker code XXXX", as that will create some limitations that shouldn't actually be there. I'd much prefer slightly unrealistic implementations than actual functional limitations because the game UI doesn't provide a means to do something.

The code needs to be physically dialed into the bomb while on the ground, there's no way for the pilot to set it within the aircraft. The code is shown in the DSMS inventory page, though I think that's just displaying whatever was read from the data cartridge and not actually read from the bomb. I think the Height Of Function of some of the CBUs is also selected on the ground and cannot be changed in-flight, but I'm not 100% sure. Anyway, since DCS doesn't have any way to configure these types of settings prior to "entering the cockpit", and they're displayed in the DSMS inventory page anyway, they decided to just make the settings entered into the DSMS also apply to the munitions. The Mirage provides a bit of a challenge here for Razbam, since not only is there no way to set the laser code for carried bombs (physically impossible), there also isn't any place where it's displayed that can be re-purposed. I'm hopeful that ED will one day implement some means of setting these kinds of parameters pre-mission, however the ability to rearm within a mission adds a lot of complications to that. Could still be done though - maybe be able to click on each hardpoint and have any relevant additional options appear.

The gun pipper is completely messed up - known bug, so don't worry about it. TAS mode for radar ranging doesn't work properly, use [edit:] RS mode instead which will use the radar altimeter - obviously this will have inaccuracies if you're not on completely level terrain. The weapons system is very simple, yes. You can adjust the weapon release quantity and impact spacing (latter not yet implemented) but that's about it. I don't think the release quantity affects the rockets [yet?] though. What do you mean by "HUD air to ground mode"? It doesn't have one - HUD has off, on, test settings. You can select rockets from the PCA panel, listed as RQ1 or something like that. All aiming modes seem a little/lot innaccurate at present though - so probably don't stress too much until the radar ranging is properly implemented.

And keep in mind Armat is not an opportunistic SEAD weapon, must be pre configured on the ground for the specific type of radar to engage, etc. That etc is pretty big, it isn't just symbology and switchology that is unknown, but how to employ the weapon in the more general sense. Even just adding the preflight configuration will be a chore since DCS has no ability innately for this sort of thing. RAZBAM may need to implement this anyway for LGB seeker codes, but maybe they will just a single hardcoded code there. While a limited anti radar missile sounds intriguing, there is definitely a lot of much higher priority things to get working first IMO, even if they do manage to find sufficient information to implement Armat.

Yet it exists in the game and ... doesn't hurt you at all! ;) You're probably thinking of the 'minimal' alignment time without a stored heading, which is about 4 minutes. (link to Azrayen's post)

I think the smoke is treated as if they're Magic missiles (or rather, everything on the outer pylons is treated as if they're Magic) so the weapons release quantity wouldn't have any effect on them - only for A/G munitions since releasing two missiles simultaneously is unlikely to ever be useful or intended.

Yeah, ground safety is missing from everything at the moment (landing gear, weapons release, countermeasures release, ...), so it's interesting and quite odd that it doesn't show the radar sweep on the ground!

What's stopping you from waiting 8 minutes before taxi even if the sim doesn't "require" you to do so? I'm sure any vsquadron that tries to fly "realistically" has a bajillion in-house rules they follow that aren't in any way enforced by the game... Also, the stored heading alignment is 1 minute 30 seconds, not minutes. Just FYI. Kinda highlights the absurdity of this thread when the aircraft itself provides options that basically satisfy everyone. Anyway, I think it's about time we started a 10-page thread petitioning ED to implement realistic rearming times. If I want to fly another sortie I should have to sit around for at least an hour while the ground attaches new weapons and reloads my cannons. Enough of this arcade nonsense! I thought this was meant to be a simulator! :music_whistling:

Noticed this, too. You can still select them and fire toggles them on/off, but no label shown on the PCA. Also, you hear the Magic seeker tone when they're selected.

It's not necessarily 'strength' of the emission that would be variable, but more the frequency (as in, how often it emits). Probably the 'low power' mode has the jammer pausing long enough between its emissions that the radar is able to distinguish returns from its own emissions vs spam from the jammer. On the 'high power' mode the jammer is continuously transmitting, or at least pausing for such a short time the radar can't reliably distinguish legit returns from those caused by the jammer. The overall effect would be pretty similar to a weaker/stronger signal though, in the sense that over any period of time (1 second, 10 seconds...) the amount of energy radiated would be higher in the jammer priority mode.

^ I don't think it's fully implemented, if it's meant to work like that. The steering indicator will always become a cross when you're within a certain range of the target point, so that's just normal behaviour. I played around with this briefly when the module first came out, and had to designate the target just like normal. I didn't have visibility on it due to clouds, so I just put the CCRP designation diamond on the steerpoint cross and engaged it that way.

There sort of is a notional idea of it; AI flights will not use an airbase which has a bombed runway. Ones that are taxiing to takeoff will stop in their tracks. I don't think it impacts humans though, other than ATC probably not giving takeoff clearance. Though I do vaguely recall craters affecting takeoff runs in the past. Might be imagining it...

Well, not really. This thread is entirely about the alignment time - which is not even superficially represented in the sim at the moment. The other details that people want to see is a) innacuracy if it's not fully aligned, and b) drift over time even if it is. Part (a) is obviously dependent on some kind of alignment time being implemented, and part (b) will probably benefit from the code written for (a). At the moment the INS is a magical always-perfect position keeper that allows any waypoints set in the mission editor to be precisely marked on the HUD (and navigated to). While being able to add/adjust them on the fly is important and will add a lot to the aircraft's capabilities, without the alignment/drift simulation it's still going to be more "magic" than "simulation". The A-10C module can kind of get away with being perfect because the INS is supported by a GPS that continually corrects for errors. The Mirage module can't do this and still call itself a simulation. The INS should be able to get close to the designated position, and that's an incredibly powerful tool, but it shouldn't be laser-accurate especially after an hour or two of flight. While this discussion is almost entirely about "how long should we have to sit around doing anything before the INS provides accurate positioning" it's really ancilliary to the value-add of having innacuracy and drift modeling. On that subject, I wonder what the different precision classes are defined as, i.e. what's the margin of error for 'classe 4' vs 'classe 1', or any in-between. Anyone come across any documentation on this?

I love that we have an 11 page thread on how long we want the game to force us to wait while it pretends to "align" the "INS". Personally, I think the timings Azrayen posted should be implemented as faithfully as possible, and ALCM should always be available for ramp-start. This still allows people who want to do a "full alignment" for the sake of "immersion" to do so if it pleases them - nothing lost, but minimises the dead time for the majority of players. For that really don't wait to wait at all, there's always the hot start option. I think adding an "alignment time" option would be ridiculous, but there might be some value in a more generic option along the lines of allowing mission designers to decide if a ramp-start aircraft has been "preflighted" or not. This could be a new startup type to complement "Start from parking" and "Start from parking hot", or maybe a "Pre-flighted" checkbox that appears if you select "Start from parking". The exact meaning of this could then be determined on an aircraft-by-aircraft basis, but for the M2000C could mean you have a ground power cart attached, INS is fully aligned and ready to be switched to NAV mode, and the radar is in standby and warm-up is complete. All you need to do is start the engine, d/c ground power, and off you go. This would give some useful and meaningful flexibility, but I'm not sure it's really sufficiently different from the "hot start" option already availble to make it worth implementing.

The camera shift is not the same as the seat height adjustment, although it has a similar effect. The seat adjustment actually raises/lowers the seat, and as a side-effect also adjusts the camera position. I can't think of any particularly good reason to prefer the seat adjustment over the camera view shift, other than that adjusting the seat height makes a cool sound.

I would try posting a (short, if possible) track of the problem, that way can people see if you're doing anything wrong, and even take control and see if they can figure out what's happening. Failing that maybe a screenshot or two clearly showing your HUD and the armament panel might help. Not sure if the HUD being in test mode would prevent the guns from working? But it does prevent some symbology from being displayed, so maybe worth double-checking that. The HUD power switch has three positions, off, on, and test. The "On" position is in the middle so it's somewhat easy to accidentally put it into test mode, and it's not especially obvious when it's in test mode. I also haven't tested within having selective jettison enabled will prevent the guns from firing (never tried to jettison my cannons...) but that might be a possibility, too? Probably worth noting that if you've enabled jettison and then close the safety cover, the jettison switch will remain armed.

Not at present, there's quite a few functions that are not bindable. However, it is a very early beta release and controls are nowhere near finalised; I would expect a lot more bindings to be added in future as more of the aircraft systems are completed and for everything 'important' to be able to be configured to your liking. I don't know if it'll ever get to 100% of switches being bindable, though. Not yet, it's only just been released in a very early 'beta' state. I'd be surprised if it was never released on Steam, but I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't happen for a few months. Could be sooner, of course; ED have put up betas on Steam before.

You'll also get the POL indicator on the HUD when you select fuel tanks (e.g. to jettison them), and also jettisoning a thing does not cause it to deselect. Selecting the same store button again will deselect it, or you can just select something else twice. The blinking indicator means you have something selected by master arm is off. So, it's easy to reproduce this condition by ditching the fuel tank(s) and then disabling the jettison and master arm switches. There may be other ways, of course.

Is your DC World 2 up to date? Try running the "Update DCS World Open Alpha" shortcut to force it to update. If you run updates manually for some reason, I think it's "DCS_updater.exe update".

A look at the Wikipedia page suggests it's realistic, they're separate systems even though marker beacons are usually used in conjunction with ILS.

^ you did see the solution/work around right, disable 'easy comms'?

Not yet, Zeus said they're hoping to release it in the first week of January, or so.

Much discussed here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=156439

Yes ripple release would be normal, but it's not working at the moment. Specifically, the impact distance setting has no effect, so if you set it to drop e.g. 6 bombs, it will try to drop all 6 bombs at once. As a side-effect, if you've got dual bombs on any pylons, it'll only be able to drop one of them. Presumably this is to avoid the bombs hitting each other after release, and once the impact interval setting works you'll be able to drop a string of 8 bombs with one (long) press of the trigger.