Karon

Yep, and I also usually carry SE only and use them as standard by switching the fuze and the drum. The more flexible, the better! :)

No prob! I made a version for the kneeboard as well; it's in the Download area.

Sidenote: the fuze controls the L/H delivery of the retarded bombs.

What do you mean with "rule"? There are a number of reasons why you want to set the elevation correctly. For instance to change the AZM of TWS to be wider and default angle may cause you to lost track. The most common usage is finding a target shown via DL. Just calculate the angle as function of the distance and the altitude of the target. See if this stuff help: https://flyandwire.com/2019/05/18/f-14-rio-awg-9-antenna-elevation-study-part-ii/ https://flyandwire.com/2019/05/24/introduction-to-the-rio-seat-antenna-elevation-mlc-countering-notching-tws/

I'm sure I understand what you mean, especially about the tracks. Anyway, I try to asnwer some of your points: In primis the price discount was for the bundle, I don't think you can buy an additional license later. Same for the NTTR/PG/Normandy/aircraft and so on, you need two licenses. In secundis, to have the two DCS talk to each other, put them in the same network. If doens't matter if it's via a RJ45 to a switch, hub or router, a coaxial cable or wifi. Put them together and use ipconfig to get their IPs and Ping to verify that they can see each other.Then use the most powerful of the two as host and the other as client and set up a LAN server. To create a DCS server: MP→New server→select mission→Start. That's it. I suggest you to build your own test missions initially, it takes literally 10" with the mission editor. Finally, I don't like VR, I prefer my button boxes so I can't advise you about GPUs but remember that you can find used ones at a fairly cheap price (hopefully not chocked by crypto miners). If you plan to save and stay with a standard monitor, for reference my PC is 7y old and still manages to play, host, stream whistl record tacview, use SRS, Discord, Teamspeak and so on. It's a i7 3770k at 4.3GHz, 16GB 2133GHz, 1070 with avg FPS between 50 and 60.

As mentioned already, the counter is an estimation and is not updated if the counter is manoeuvring. A human RIO can eyeball that moment quite easily if he sees the missile on the TID.

In the middle of the sea there aren't many TCN stations anyway. I made it work anyway but it's not as precise as it would be. If this thing works, we could do a Vis Fix as well by using that WP as reference.

No rush mate, but thanks for checking :) EDIT: now that I think about it, during my tests, the datalink HB symbol jumped around for a second or two after pressing Fix Enable and sometimes changes position after each Fix. This doesn't happen has often with manually created WPs. Not sure if it's related of it's simply the system that is taking a bit of time to calculate the position of the DL-HB.

I don't get what's hard to understand, actually. LINK4A shows the CV on the TID as you know and you can hook that point as well. I'd like to use it as reference point for the TCN update since it's the source of the TCN signal as well. This would solve the issue of the moving WP since the CV's position is updated on the TID, making the TCN update both precise (mv factor aside) and fast to operate. If that works, it's two birds with one stone, although I'm afraid it's not meant for that.

I not messing up, I know what I'm doing: I'm trying to use something in-between two updates methods to both increase the precision and the speed of the update (so, I'm mixing up :D ). The real question is what I specified in my very first sentence: is this a bug or a misuse of a feature? If it's a bug, great, we have a powerful tool as soon as it is fixed. If it's not meant to be used that way, we can make it work by adding a step or two. Unfortunately we lose precision and speed but hey, TCN Update is quite unprecise anyway at range.

This may either be a bug or a mis-use of a feature. Simply put, I'm trying to update the aircraft position by means of the DL to the carrier. Everything seems to be working, I have the TCN Δ but when I press Fix Enable, the positions of CV and F-14 change almost randomly. This would be a great tool to update the INS at sea so I hope it's just a bug and not something that simply cannot be done. As usual, I can record a video to show the behaviour if you want.

No you haven't. If you lose the lock the WCS stops guiding the '54. It simply flies straight and then turns active. If it was lofting, it stops, hence it won't have enough energy to hit the target. At shorter ranges (<25nm) you can drop the lock if the target is not manoeuvring but why get bad habits? :)

Out of 2000+ tests so far, the AWG-9 is in no case the reason why an AIM-54 has been defeated. The vast majority is due to the seeker then, depending on the conditions, the energy of the missile becomes a factor. For instance, this is the result of 720 AIM-54A Mk60 and AIM-54C Mk47 fired at 1,000ft and 15nm, 20nm, 25nm. This is from a total of 960 tests, 480 for each missile. This time I took altitude into consideration: 25nm and 1000ft, 7000ft, 15000ft, 25000ft. I'm releasing the article about the latter today (as soon I find the will to check grammar and syntax). Each article has tables inside with all the numbers and tacview screenshots to clarify how the missiles are defeated. For instance, this is very typical: I'm also preparing an istogram with the cumulative results of what I found so far (that's the only type of charts that works with so few results - 1440.

Here a pic, if you haven't seen it yet: https://karonshome.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/rio10-cap-tid-readings-range-eta.jpeg

Your RIO can toggle your DLC between Chaff/Flare by means of a switch in the AN/ALE-39. Random pic from one of my articles: https://karonshome.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/rio10-cap-tid-readings-range-eta.jpeg Use the TID repeater, look at the V-shape lines (you see only the top part here), each dashed line is 20nm, even the missing one. You can have a better reading by asking your RIO to hook up a specific target or WP. In the pic's case, I hooked the WP1, the TID readings are range and ETA to WP. I'll look for a better pic, stand by :) EDIT: got it: https://karonshome.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/rio9-ins-fix-tacan-practical-test-1.jpeg here you can see the full cone. Each line of its boudaries (even the missing part) is 20nm. Therefore WP1 is ~20nm. The "72" on the left (antenna limits) sits close to 60nm. It's very easy to understand as soon as you get the idea.

No prob Sir. Happy to help!

The phoenix is quite easy to defeat if you know what you are doing: at low level kinetically, at higher altitude by notching+CM. The seeker is not brilliant, even the AIM-54C Mk47 follows the rabbit quite often. Also, do not play following the F-14's rules. Use the strenghts of your aircraft (I cannot give you any tips without going into the details of specific scenarios). End of the day, who has better knowledge of his frame and superior SA, wins. ATM the guidance is controlled by HB until the missile goes active, later is ED's job. In that process the AIM-54 wastes also a lot of energy, it would be a better missile otherwise. AFAIK the difference between the current implementation and the real life is that WCS commands the '54's activation whereas at the moment it does it by itself. It sounds like a big deal but it's not: any decent RIO can pick you up STT (unless we are talking about extreme scenarios) so, again AFAIK, the WCS can resume its control. This is a problem only in multiple TWS salvo. About the mountains, never noticed that. Although we greater the range, the more arcuite the loft trajectory is, to the point that it comes down almost vertically so the mountains won't help you. Do you have any tacview track, mate?

As long as you use ordnance with similar characteristics, it sort of works. I did some tests with some dumb bombs and they were quite successful (granted, not as successful as dropping them in CPTR PLT or CPTR TGT). It can be improved by adding a diving angle but at that point just go full manual and follow NATOPS delivery parameters.

That's indeed an interesting question. Personally I switch fwd no matter the AIM-54 version and didn't have any issue even after 90+ minutes flying.

You (RIO) should fire in BVR engagements since you have a better SA and understanding of the situation than the pilot. Try by firing yourself. Instead of asking us what he may have misses, it's easier if you ask him how he did FENCE IN and report the steps. If it's working in STT there's no reason why it should not work in TWS Manual. It has been working since day-one so sounds really odd.

Never happened (I haven't tried last patch though), double check your checklists. Seems more as a pilot issue rather than RIO.

May not be a bug, maybe I just misunderstood. From the manual: I used the Stab off to lock a few times and it worked with every radar mode. According to that line, and if I understand it correctly, it should not work though. I streamed a brief test to show what I mean:

Yeah, definitely the same. But I guess there are more pressing bugs or missing features atm :)

Quick tip: use the flashlight. Not the best solution but it helps a lot while HB fix the issue.

I see what you mean, a guy on reddit asked that this morning. Is that you? A mod would be your best shot, maybe try to write it yourself. In a no-mod situation, if I were you, I'd use Iceman and AP to explain the basic ops using their own screen; later monitor their work via the TID repeater in the front seat. You won't see the DDD but it's better than nothing I guess. Btw, the RIO part is much more complex than piloting for someone not into flight sims imo.