Karon

Odd, have you done the usual, post-patch, stuff (delete fxo, metashaders and repairing)? Perhaps something went wrong, causing conflicts.

Zoom in? I use a 34" as well, I don't see such a great difference: compared to any image here:

Because imo implementing the Navigator / RIO (depending on the country it was flown by) is a tough job. Look at the F-14: it's extremely simple to operate but putting together an AI able to do it is not that immediate. Also, there aren't that many RIOs around compared to pilots. For the F-4, I'm afraid it will be even worse: I love b-scopes, but driving even a simple intercept with that requires a good understanding and study of angles, drift and so on, something the usual casual DCS player probably won't do (just google an F-4 syllabus, it's a very interesting and gives you a good idea). Moreover, an AIC or GCI is a must-have to get the information the scope does not give you (god bless the TID in the '14), but the current AWACS is the worst single element of the game, along the ATC (but at least you can pretend that an AF is unmanned). This is a huge problem if you are looking even for a slightly more in-depth experience, rather than a *pew pew* airquake experience. About the version, something similar to what HB is doing (different versions of the F-14, happy to pay more for that) would be great to cover a period as wide as possible. Late 70s to mid 80s is my favourite period and a late F-4 is, with a good RIO, can still defend itself quite well. Remember that F-14, F-15, F-4, they would be all limited to AIM-7s anyway.

Yes, I am well aware of that, I wrote a short study about the effects of the MagVar (included VC) over the INS, especially when re-aligning. In this case I used the second entry of the table you posted, I switched to AHRS and updated VM. I think we are missing the point: I never said the magvar or the headings were incorrect, instead, that it seems to be a discrepancy between True and Magnetic in readings. It is either a bug or working as intended (although it sounds different from the NATOPS - if I'm not misunderstanding it) and I need to clarify that.

Ah sorry, I see what you mean, I thought you were talking about the closure, and I was a bit confused Yes, that's correct, yet in theory incorrect (although again it may depend on the implementation HB used for the TID) as the TID in SPD should read 287 whereas it still reads 277. The part that really buggers me though, is the MC of the hooked target.

I thought about it, I'm not sure why it would affect only one reading, but it's worth checking. VC = 9 - 9.3 VM = 6.7 I forced the VM over VC, the MC switched to 108°. The F-14's HDG was unchanged.

VC is 650kts in this case, why +9? I just spawned so INS should be fine. Moreover, Tacview and the F-10 map confirm the readings. Own MC technically has a problem as well, but I guess it depends on which version of the avionics they implemented, just look at the quotes from the NATOPS.

Thanks for your reply but, I'm sorry, I fail to get how the ATA should help me to understand why the Magnetic Course shows the True value rather than, well, the Magnetic (unless it's intended, of course).

I'm putting together some stuff about the geometry. I noticed a while ago that the MC reading seemed a bit odd, but I did not bother much. I spent 5-6 hours trying to understand this problem, but I'm giving up. Plz help. Issue: Magnetic Course displays True value rather than Magnetic. I checked the NAVAIR 01−F14AAA−1, page 20-20. Two cases: 1- Own Aircraft; 2- Hooked Aircraft (other). 1- Own Aircraft. According to NATOPS: - if Own Aircraft is selected via TID, then the readings are magnetic; - if Own AC is selected via CAP, then True values can be accessed by using the CAP functions: SPD → GS and Magnetic Course; HDG → TAS and True. (Note: If quotes are not allowed feel free to remove them) [..] Example: Since in HDG the reading is "MH" I'd assume it's the Magnetic Heading so the value does not sound wrong (there is no wind in this scenario). It differs from the NATOPS, but it is not a big deal (You/HB said the TID we have is quite old). 2- Hooked Aircraft (other) In this scenario I have a tanker flying dead ahead. My intention was practising a rejoin. MC reads 107, so BR would be 287. The problem is, I placed the aircraft to have its flight path fairly overlapping the F-14's, so it should have been the reciprocal of the F-14 itself, therefore 277→ 97 (close to 100), not 107. Example: I also added the TacView's pilot point of view to display the Mag HDG, and it matches what I expected. After putting together these images I tested via LINK4A as well and the readings are the same. The problem here is that if 107 is used, the reciprocal is ~285 and the resulting Target Aspect is 5L. If the correct (?) value of 100° is used, the reciprocal is 280, so Target Aspect is zero and the geometry is computed differently. If this works as intended it's not a problem, I just have to take into account the magvar manually every time, but it sounds to me a bit convoluted, having everything in Mag and then Magnetic Course as True. What am I missing? Notes: - DCS is fully repaired and updated; - Mission: https://www.dropbox.com/s/avnkj03rouh3ar3/test_intercept3.miz?dl=0 - Tacview: https://www.dropbox.com/s/m6n2gnahjx7bi25/bugreport_Tacview-20210124-212440-DCS.zip.acmi?dl=0

Just to add a quick note about collision, it means that, if co-altitude, you theoretically will end up impacting the other aircraft mid-air. Collision has the advantage of maintaining the target aspect and, if you are co-speed, target aspect is equal to the antenna train angle (but opposite in sign), so the RIO can get it at a glance via the TID. In this scenario, collision bearing is also equal to Cut (Heading F-14 to Heading target) divided by 2. This makes calculating the lateral separation very simple, which then goes to influence displacement turn and counterturn. Collision is also easy to recognize from the DDD because there is no intercept drift (so the target's indicator does not move anywhere but towards the bottom of the b-scope - in Pulse) and on the TID in Aircraft Stabilized mode because the target's vector points towards the F-14. Collision is definitely a good way to improve the odds of the missile hitting something when the alternative is Pure pursuit and TA > Hot. On the other hand, for a Sparrow attack for example, better use the Lead Collision: you can use the dot in the ASE to determine that but approximating it to TA / 2, it kind of works usually. Since I'm here, hats off to Victory, I'm in awe every time he writes

Only initially, later the doctrine changed and the AIM-54 was cleared for usage vs fighters. There was a video posted either here or reddit showing a '54 hitting a drone and its manoeuvrability was impressive. There are docs reporting max G pulled by the '54 and the target and it was really surprising.

This. @eatthis simple trick that used to helped me to remind what did what when the module was released: CPRT PILOT → CCIP; CPTR TARGET → CCRP; CPTR IP → Line 1/2/3 of the 9-line CAS brief: IP, HDG, DST. It is not an accurate description, but it helped me to remember what they did when the module was launched. If you think it's awkward, look at the bright side, we are not using stop-watches and printed maps any more :)

I did just a couple of tests yesterday. 20nm, 0TA, 20000ft. TTI still at 6" at the moment of impact. Test two, switch to RWS right after launch, the missile was still supported until impact. As before, no TTI blinking.

Cheers, I'll set up something else. Meanwhile, I have a friend (=TIA= Yaze) doing some tests. He fired at 40, 30 and 10 nm vs an F-16, TA 0° and 180° in TWS and in no cases the 16's RWR shown the '54 active. I'll try myself tonight.

@IronMike is the new API affecting the AI as well? The plain is being the target, for instance marking when the RWR yells and when the missile hits and check other details via TacView). It would speed up the tests immensely (e.g. faster scenario restarts, tests are more consistent, etc).

Oh, is it Christmas already? :) It looks like I found something to do tonight (testing). Amazing job folks, as usual.

If you mean in game (as the missile is retired) no not really. The resistance to chaffs coefficient was tweaked a couple of times a few weeks ago (dig into the patch notes and forums to find the details), but in-game, the A Mk60 performs much better due to the simple yet massive advantage given by its much more powerful rocket motor. Finer tweaks, new API, new terminal guidance, new WCS may change this overnight, of course. Again, if you mean RL yes (or better, "I guess so", as I am ignorant on the matter), in-game no. Just look at the details provided by HB: the C performs better vs chaff on paper, yes, but DCS does not simulate ECM and EECM with the necessary depth for this to be a game changer. Not at the moment. One year later (1y 10d to be precise) after the announcement of HB finally getting the missile API, we still do not have the new implementation WCS and corollary stuff. Don't get me wrong, I am not complaining, I don't care about waiting many months more, as long as the final product is on par with the rest of this great module. I admit I'm curious to see how different it will be from the AIM-54 we currently have though.

Eh, ce ne sono almeno un buon 40-50, a seconda di quanto vuoi andare indietro. Giusto per dirne qualcuno, dall'A-6 fino al Tornado, diversi tra russi e russi-made-in-china. Poi ci sono elicotteri a non finire. Se poi vai indietro per tutta la guerra fredda e 'nam c'é la century series, A4, altri MiG e Su, altri elicotteri. Ci sono i vari Mirage I - III e Super Etendard, Jaguar, F-111. Detto questo, ho backed Shevchenko oltre 7 anni fa e il Dora é fenomenale, molto meglio che in il2. ED peó ha fatto qualche scelta discutibile durante il cammino, come l'asset pack separato (andrebbe in bundle con ogni mappa a tema, cosí prendi una qualunque mappa e ti trovi le unitá, altrimenti zero scenari) e manca ancora il gioco dietro al sim. Se ció si sente un po' in settings moderni, in DCS WW2 grava ancora di piú perché c'é la concorrenza di Il2. Vedremo cosa riserverá il futuro.

There is no "best", AIM-54A Mk60 and AIM-54C have pros and cons which should be probably more evident when the new WCS is released. See if this helps: AIM-54 Probability of Kill model. NOTE: just be aware of the fact that the model is 14 months old (23/08/19) and HB has tweaked a couple of things since then. The big change will come with ED completes the new missile API.

Sounds good. But what if the weather conditions do now allow your RW buddies to operate at all? There's a mod a while ago (probably it's still around) but we had to disable it after our RW squadrons were grounded due to unexpected crazy winds. Real-time weather is a cool idea on paper but it comes with heavy drawbacks. Of course the mission can be changed, but when you are already expecting a mission 2-3 hours long, not counting the briefing, having to change the weather right before you start is just something you don't want. On the other hand, an accurately simulated dynamic weather should allow you to simulate any weather, so just get the details from the areas you are interested into and feed it to the game.

I think you both mean something similar: it depends if they are actually marked as friendlies on the AWG-9. The WCS does not correlate DL and radar tracks (and it won't be able to do that I guess, due to the intrinsic INS imprecision) so the WCS tries to include every radar contact it finds, unless contacts are manually declared or priorities are set via CAP.

Visto Leo immagino tu voglia stare su HID. Nel caso ci sono diversi sketches in giro e ci sono librerie ad hoc. Non ci vuol niente, devi giusto inserire che pin vuoi usare in funzione di dove li hai saldati. L'unico problema che vedo é trovare un rotary encoder con doppio asse (stile questo da un TACAN jaguar: https://flyandwire.com/2020/04/30/expanding-my-setup-real-tacan-day-i/#jp-carousel-2899 ). Personalmente me ne sarei fregato e avrei usato 4 knobs separati, ci stanno in orizzontale. In seguito potresti avere il problema della ipersensibilitá dei knobs in-game. Ci sono diversi lua mods per sistemare il problema, non ricordo se passano IC, nel caso usa OvGME. EDIT: non punto a ripassare di qui anytime soon. Se non risolvi e ti serve una mano mandami un pm (li guardo un po' di rado peró). Discord é meglio; se non mi trovi diretto guarda via ED o 132nd Virtual Wing.

Avremmo portato piú gente, ma gli interessati oltre al ragazzo che dovrebbe essere venuto erano solo F-14. Se li supportate potremmo arrivare con 6-7 crews complete (12-14 clients).

You shouldn't have to edit anything manually if you use DCS-BIOS Hub. In your sketch simply include the header file and define for the serial: #define DCSBIOS_IRQ_SERIAL //#define DCSBIOS_DEFAULT_SERIAL #include "DcsBios.h" In setup: DcsBios::setup(); and in Loop: DcsBios::loop(); and that's pretty much it. Then start adding some DCS-BIOS calls from DCS-BIOS Hub library (follow the guides to install the modules first). For instance, I use DCS-BIOS to display info on a TFT. This call retrieves the total fuel displayed in the RIO seat: void onRioFuelTotalDispChange(unsigned int newValue) { drawFuelTotal(newValue); }DcsBios::IntegerBuffer rioFuelTotalDispBuffer(0x144c, 0xffff, 0, onRioFuelTotalDispChange);

This question pops up now and then, as others said, it is implemented and it works (or at least it used to) but its usage is rather limited. I used it online to pick up helicopters through valleys for fun, for instance: the TCS would find a target and "drag" the radar there.