IRememberJeep

Exactly! Ok, so it isn’t just me. I appreciate you taking the time. I wanted to be sure it wasn’t something on my end. Well if you do plan on using it on your HOTAS it it’s definitely worth mapping the OSB buttons instead as a workaround for the time being. In any case, I suppose I should try reporting this as a bug. I can’t see the current functionality being what was intended.

What I had mapped to both my scroll and two arrow keys was “TPOD Video Zoom In” & “TPOD Video Zoom Out”. This controls the zoom and not the FOV. It’s nearly impossible to use in terms of what I described in the above post. I came up with a slight workaround in that I mapped my scroll and backup keys to the right MFD OSB buttons that control the zoom for the pod. This works a lot better than the actual controls for the TPOD zoom function. Not perfect but I can at least zoom in and out without scrolling or tapping keys for 60-120 seconds straight. It leads me to believe the actual “TPOD Video Zoom” binding is bugged in some way. The “TPOD Video Zoom” functions are actually listed under Category: Keyboard Macros and not HOTAS. I just bought the AV-8B so I am unsure if this is new or old bindings. I will record a video as soon as I can if necessary. Although I’m thinking if you try this binding you may see what I mean. Yes I was referring to other aircraft’s TPODs. edit: let me correct myself. The axis isn’t an axis really. It’s a scroll-type wheel that I can use as either a button or axis-assign. In this case it’s assigned under the button configuration and not the axis window in DCS. The “TPOD Zoom” is only available as a button and not in the axis window. Sorry for any confusion regarding that.

This isn’t exactly the same issue with the TPOD and I’m sure this has been asked before so I figured I’d try tagging onto this thread. Bear with me as I’m new to the AV-8B. The zoom function on the TPOD is extremely wonky. Is this normal? By wonky I mean I have to scroll my axis for extremely long to zoom all the way in. That’s only if it zooms in the entire time because at points it likes to zoom back out a bit and then start to go back in. Also vice versa. This is both on my set axis and also using keyboard keys that I have set as a backup. Even with the keyboard keys I have to keep pressing the keys, I can’t just hold it down to zoom. I mean it’s a real fight to zoom this sob in or out. I find it hard to believe the Harrier TPOD is this hard to zoom in irl. But then again what do I know. I don’t have an issue zooming on any other TPOD but I wanted to see if others have this issue on the Harrier or if it’s somehow control related on my end. Any input would be appreciated.

Just went to use bombs after purchasing the F-14, horrified, immediately found this thread. Yikes. Won’t even bother asking for word on an ETA from someone in the know as this thread was started back in March. A bit surprising the A was rolled out before something so obvious that’s wrong with the B. One would think at the least the fix would have come at the same time. Granted it’s not game breaking but I think it’s reasonable to expect a fix for bomb racks within 9 months. Then again...perhaps not.

I would love to see the F-14D. Take my money now. I could be wrong but I believe I heard in an interview that the D used the HUD from the Hornet. I wonder if ED would allow HB to utilize the work they already completed? If hypothetically HB were committed to giving us the D model at some point. In any case it’s nice to hear that HB is setting out to make the Typhoon a reality. About time the Brits got an aircraft.

Personally I don’t see the issue. If the weapon system is rated to work with the C model, was in service while the C was still in active service with the fleet, it’s already in game, and our Hornets are clearly used from an at least 90s to 2011+ timeframe. Regardless if it’s a 2005 Hornet, it’s not used in game in only 2005. I see plenty of missions/servers with era weapon restrictions, so there really is no good argument against adding this weapon for those who want the most modern equivalent of the aircraft available. It’s the same as those who want a weapon restricted version of the Hornet to maybe simulate an A model? To say it’s just a 2005 version of the Hornet is a bit ridiculous in a game where people make missions and scenarios spanning decades in both directions. Both historical and fictional. Heck, the war in Syria didn’t start until 2010-11? Yet we have that map added and 2005 version Hornets flying over it that are apparently stuck in 2005. Doesn’t make sense, what are they doing there in 2005? By the same logic we shouldn’t be able to use the Hornet over Georgia, Syria, Russia or Iran. Sure they could have been deployed there but they weren’t, especially in 2005. Same goes for the carriers...etc. You see, you can take it to the extreme. In the end this is a game, you should be able to utilize things based off of “what-ifs” but held together by real world info. An example: you wouldn’t have an F5 using an AIM-54. It was never designed to use it, doesn’t have the proper equipment to use it...etc. but with a GBU-54 we’re talking about a weapon that was put into service to replace older weapons while the C was still flying. Where the C has the ability to carry and employ it, and what’s more was apparently rated to use it based off of documents I could find. Full scale production of the LJDAM for the Navy started in 2012, well before the C was retired. Logic would dictate that the USN would order 2300 units of something their strike aircraft could actually utilize. We’re a long way away from “just maintaining the code” by the way. While the Hornet has made a lot of gains there are still many things to do. While I get this is a sim, it’s also a video game where people create missions or battles and wars that never happened. So if the 54 is rated to be used with the C and the C was still flying when the weapon was rolled out then it should be implemented. Whether any C model actually got the chance to drop it is irrelevant. This is based off of whether people can get over not thinking it’s always 2005 in game when flying their Hornet. They don’t seem to have an issue thinking the Hornet is pre-2005 when weapon restricting. All that being said, I don’t know for sure. I never worked for the Navy in any capacity. I’m basing this off of the little documentation I could find. I just think “not the correct year” is a bit bogus based off how the game is actually utilized and played. Also there seems to be extreme selection in what is deemed to be accurate enough. if you’re going for this 100% accuracy, especially in year, then by all means pull the maps, weapons and everything else and only add areas where these 2005 hornets operated in 2005. Same goes for all other aircraft needing to be limited to what year they were built and what weapons were available and used in only that year, and where they operated in that year. You’d also need to make it so certain aircraft cannot fly together or cannot fly on certain maps...etc. Also the mission editor can be set well past 2007, so that too should be adjusted. How can we use a 2005 F\A-18C in a mission with the date 2032? It’s not realistic!!! My game should crash automatically when I hit Fly. I think in reality yes this Hornet is modeled after a 2005 variant but the fact is people use the Hornet in many ways. From a weapon restricted earlier model, to whatever can be used give me the latest munitions that were flying on the C up until it was retired. It just so happens those who want to simulate an earlier model are catered to in the sense they can weapon restrict. Meanwhile those who would like the most up to date are told this Hornet stops at 2005 even though the C wasn’t retired until well after. In all honesty people aren’t asking for all the upgrades past 2005, only some weapons, such as the GBU-54 which is already implemented in game on two aircraft and if implemented on the Hornet wouldn’t require anything we don’t already have. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to add a few post-2005 weapons. It would be unreasonable asking for multiple versions of the Hornet with various stages of upgrades to the systems. That’s not what’s being asked for though. I would assume that the F-16 also won’t be getting the 54 seeing as how it’s a 2007 model and the first combat use of a 54 was 2008 iirc. Smh. These decisions just don’t make sense to me. If anything, weapon restrictions shouldn’t be allowed. If those wanting this Uber-realism are serious then this is a 2005 Hornet and we must use what was used in 2005. The rest must be removed. Example: if there were no combat sorties flown with a sparrow, walleye, or aim-9p then pull it from weapon selection. Remember, just because the 2005 C could have used these weapons means nothing when it’s a 2005 model.

Ok so it's because LTWS is enabled. This is strange correct behavior in my opinion considering LTWS cannot supply L+S data, so why have that same feature in RWS/LTWS mode. Ya know? Why supply L+S if you cannot supply L+S? Why not just track and surveil? Ah well, it's the system in the Hornet apparently. Is there a way to actually maintain a track in LTWS for surveillance without it losing it seconds later? Or is this somehow user error on my part? Otherewse I find it even more useless that it it would step between L+S & DT2 in LTWS. For example when you single press designate it will track and box the target but then 2-3 seconds later drop it yet the target is still within radar parameters and being seen on the DDI. Edit: I ask because it would be a cool feature to keep a DT2 on HUD while approaching two targets in RWS/LTWS. Any info would be appreciated., especially if I'm understanding the system wrong.

I was expecting a very different topic with that thread title. :-D I’m looking forward to stores/aircraft damage when performing an over G. This leads me to ask: is the Cat I/Cat II switch functional at this point? Isn’t it supposed to limit Gs based off what setting it’s on?

The F-16 at Novorossik. You need to be pretty spot on or you run out of runway quick.

I like this explanation better than mine. :megalol:

Ok so I figured out that hitting undesignate while in RWS the radar tries to, and sometimes successfully does mark targets as L+S / DT2. This is regardless of having been in TWS first or not. Shouldn’t undesignate in RWS just undesignate one’s Target? Edit: Could someone explain to me what the Auto / Manual setting does for the AIM-120? This is on the Weapon screen to the left of the RCS / Size setting. Along the left side of the DDI.

Ok, so TWS is scanning all targets in front of you within the parameters of the radar. Azimuth & Elevation. So think of L+S (the target with star) as the primary target which the radar is currently providing “Launch + Steering” info to the missile for. The DT2 is the secondary target, the radar is merely designating that contact on the screen so you know what contact will be considered the next target to engage. If you were to try and fire on the DT2 target the missile wouldn’t be getting any tracking data. So you would be able to shoot at the L+S target, then hit undesignate which will switch L+S to your DT2 target. Then you would be able to fire on that second target. Maybe a simpler way to say it is that every target is a DT (Designated Target). The contact on the screen with the star on it is being tracked by the radar and the radar is providing L+S (Launch + Steering) data to the missile for that target so the missile will hit that target. When you hit the undesignate the radar will then switch from that first designated target to the DT2 or “Designated Target 2”. That will then allow the radar to provide L+S for that second target, in effect turning the DT2 into the L+S target. I hope that makes sense.

That’s what I thought. Now to determine if this was caused by a latency issue or if I can reproduce it in SP. I appreciate the insight. Thank you.

This track isn’t the same L+S. For example I had switched from TWS to RWS and did a 180 which effectively breaks any track/lock. Now that I am in RWS and going in another direction RWS will automatically provide an L+S track on the closest target. This is a completely different aircraft, I’m now in RWS/LTWS. Now is this normal behavior because LTWS is enabled in RWS? Does it still apply that I need to hit Reset when switching back to RWS if LTWS is enabled to prevent the RWS/LTWS system from providing an L+S like it does in TWS? What’s throwing me off is that I switched back to RWS and this system is now acting like TWS still even on new tracks/targets in a totally different direction. I’m getting the feeling this may be wrong I do remember reading that LTWS cannot provide L+S data.

@Top This may help you out. Grim Reapers: Two seperate videos that have been updated to reflect the addition of TWS.