Karon

Possibly a decision that is better left to the mission designer, but I'd love to see templates dedicated to this purpose (although the combinations would be too many).

Quella British é piú o meno simile e, imo, la piú bella. Anche la "grigio-bluastra" RN merita.

Shtap hiding in the mountains, you are not a Tornado (yet)! Jokes aside, if I find the will (because for once I have time), I can make a bunch of tests and measure the performance difference in a non-sterile scenario.

That's assuming the other target flies straight into the Sparrow, though. If it manoeuvres, the loft allows it to cash-in more energy from the dive and chase the target. Same for cranking targets. If I really wanted to min-max, then I would use the ACM cover + a bit of manual loft. It's more gentle than the loft of MH/P climb-wise, but it provides similar advantages with little to no losses. Btw, the correct answer to the solution you described is "not being there". Unless it is a threat call, you should have positioned yourself better.

I mean.. on paper yeah, but air combat isn't in a vacuum scenario. Isn't it easier to fly faster, faster or launch earlier? If you look here: https://flyandwire.com/2023/07/27/missiles-kinematics-part-ii-cold-war-era/ you see that the average difference is what, 1000 m at impact? I wouldn't bet my skin on those metres tbh.

It prevents the RIO from launching AIM-7/54 (which is awful as only the mature and responsible member of the crew should be allowed to do that! ), but besides that, I don't recall other differences. The difference in distance and speed over time is minimal, though. I have some charts laying somewhere.

Uh, I didn't see this post. The ACM cover changes the LTE as others have mentioned. Plus, it fires off a non-lofting, "dumb", AIM-54 even if you are in PDSTT, for example. The AIM-7 does not loft either. I have never used the ACM cover. I never felt the neet, there are, imo, better ways to employ.

Yeah, a lot has changed, and you are right, resources should be updated, although it is probably not worth the invested time at the moment, as we are still waiting for the renowned "new API", which surely will change a lot of things. Testing, imo, is always the best way to figure out what's going on. Grab TacView, however, or you won't understand what is going on. Anyway, if you drop the lock when you are still far away, the logic of the game will cause all sorts of weird things. Don't do it, the missile may even do a loop and fly backwards towards you - and I'm not even joking. The reason why you can't really expect "realistic" behaviours from this situation is that missile seekers are not really a thing: you can have a missile fly in front of the target when maddog, but it will ignore it if its original target is another one. I have a bunch of videos showing this. Therefore, use only PSTT or equivalent, it's the most reliable way to employ besides PD. Example of PSTT employment: The procedure to use your AIM-54 should be straightforward and adhere to your Timeline. Use TWS or PDSTT as per SOP and sorting, and that's it. Just keep in mind the AN/ASN-92 limitations when manoeuvring and using TWS. I have never used the ACM cover with the Phoenix, nor felt the need to do it.

The manual may be outdated. The first change occurred in October 2019 or 2020 IIRC: LTE, modes and guidance were adjusted. More recently, the AIM-54C has become a sort-of AIM-120, with different guidance, ability to go active on its own and so on. That being said, I'm in a hurry and most other questions can be answered by spending 5 minutes with the mission editor and testing. Ergo, I did not go too much into the details, if you test it yourself they will "stuck" better and you will remember them better. Section TWS/SARH/ARH: A only, anything that can impede the WCS. Exempli gratia, destruction or damage to the Tomcat: id est, WCS gone and or track completely lost. This prevents the WCS to send the activation signal at all. In a less dramatic fashion, change radar mode and this causes the drop of the tracks. Section PD STT: SARH all the way for the A, de facto an AIM-7; same for the C, with the self-activation caveat in case the track is lost. Section Active-Radar Homing (ARH): I never used the PH ACT switch. I prefer PSTT if I want to fire and forget. IIRC, last time I tried, 2019 perhaps, it was making PDSTT identical to PSTT, but PSTT could guide the Phoenix back then. The WCS automatically sets the activation whenever the range in SR < 10 nm TA hot; SR < 6 nm TA cold. Section ACM Active: de facto PSTT. Monthy Python would describe it as *farting [the missile] in that general direction*. PSTT does not guide, just tells the missile to go in a certain direction then, at 10nm, it starts guiding onto the target. The latter is due to DCS limitations, with some hilarious results sometimes. With manual loft, PSTT > TWS (in certain conditions). Section ECM Mode: Advice: don't use EW in this game, it's just.. no. Disable it everywhere. If you really, really, really want to use it, basically take advantage of the transition between JAT and PDSTT through burnthrough range to bang targets 60+ nm away. No, this should *not* be possible. There is ad hoc symbology; check the manual or the post in this forum IM or Cobra wrote when the feature was introduced. PS: fly from the backseat. It's much better than from the front whilst engaging targets. Section Missile Operation: No clue, have you tried? I guess the symbology would be meaningful to your new radar mode. Also, stop worrying about the TID. Focus on the DDD. That's your best friend. Section AIM-54 in DCS: What are you referring to in particular? Assuming it is updated, that would be the behaviour of the missile in DCS, which has tons of corners cut compared to real life. For instance, the A cannot revert to SARH if its seeker cannot find its target.

Np! The extrapolated track is.. well.. watch the video in this comment: Unfortunately, I doubt this will be fixed until the new API is fully completed and deployed by ED.

No worries. I'd suggest commenting on the video to correct the author. It can help other viewers.

The DDD tells you everything you need to prevent this problem: you see MLC, ZDF, potential deconfliction issues for the WCS, et cetera. So, assuming there are no issues with new fancy bugs / connection problems, you need to pick "better shots" by changing tactics, manipulating geometry, and reacting MLC/ZDF. Remember that the DDD tells you right away if a target is changing aspect, long before TWS shows the extrapolated track. Shout if you need more details

They were similar and neither was activating on its own. More recently, 54A and 54C follow different behaviours and the 54C can indeed go active without the WCS.

No, why would it? On the other hand, it can prevent the hot trigger if the only valid target is outside the displayed range. This helps to declutter the situation a bit.

Tacview? Also, if this happens, 9 out of 10 is on you: avoiding these situations (ref the extrapolated track) is quite easy. The DDD is all you need.

Imagine they could see through the terrain It's a bit of a shame ED is prioritising ATC over AWACS. I mean, you can always pretend that the airfield is unmanned, but a poor controller is problematic for any scenario, especially in SP, where you can't count on humans. Any way, let's close the OT, I'm happy to carry via PM/Discord if necessary @MAXsenna Glad to ear that! Shout if you have questions

Not really much to share. The cons are plenty, from the black-and-white classification to the lack of depth in the comms, no way to tell it Commit/Target, so information is not focused on what you want to know, no way to have the additional information from it and much more. For example, in this video, I have three recordings from real-life events (two Gulf of Sidra, and one modern exercise). In another video, I have the recording from the "double-kill" of an F-15 vs 2xMiG-29, the first time two missiles were supported at the same time and splashed two. By far, the worst aspect is the precision. It is something similar to the RWR of the F/A-18C that can be used to conduct a full intercept: it is too precise, with no values uncertainty, and instantaneous refresh rate. On the other hand, in real life, we have plenty of cases where controllers lack the capability of providing control accurately enough. In the example above, the one about the F-15, the AWACS did not see the targets initially. I also recall (hopefully correctly) a case in ZA vs Cuba, where the GCI, for one reason or another, caused the loss of one or two Mirage F1. No one expects this level of interactivity or errors, of course, but a good AIC/GCI implementation is a must for 3rd gen operations, and DCS still uses the same stuff since LOMAC. Hopefully, after MT is polished and finalised, ED can focus on this aspect. Any way, we are OT here, but this should answer your question.

Happy to help, shout if you have more questions

Ok, let's take a step back. Imagine the pod as a fancy tool sticked with some tape on the Tomcat: the integration is minimal and one-way. What you can do is slewing the pod to a steerponint you have created and that's pretty much it. There is not CCRP in the Tomcat, there is a Computer Target. It is somewhat similar, but it is much older than the CCRP you are probably thinking about. Put it this way: the INS is good but not as precise as modern devices, ergo you can't drop on a waypoint with a solution provided by WCS. This is where the pod comes in: since you can slew it on a steerpoint, you can create one provided by another asset, correct the imprecisions, and drop using *the pod's cue*. What I think the glorious Chuck means, is that you can do the process I just mentioned but in reverse: you move the point where you want it (QDes), copy latlongs and elevation on a piece of paper from the pod, then create any steerpoint there in the WCS. This may help if you have numerous targets, or working with an Echo point, or you just need to "save" that position. I think you have mixed up the two things: you cannot enter the target's coordinates directly. Rather, you create a steerpoint and slew the pod there. As mentioned, the position will not be precise. I suggest reading the manual to better understand how the pod and the WCS works. Ask if still have issues!

I'm not sure I'm following. You want to create a steerpoint over the target's location? If that's the case, just create one using latlong and elevation collected from the pod. The position will differ a bit though.

Have you fiddled with the TCS?

No worries! I always recommend starting by something as simple as a target orbiting or race-tracking, with your Tomcat in active pause. This allows you to observe how the avionics presents targets entering and leaving ZDF, MLC and presenting different TA.

How many hundred pages do you want? /jk use the manual, it gives you everything you need to start. The AWG-9 has *a lot* of finer details implemented; "normal" short guides summarise way too much and leave out too many important aspects. @MAXsenna AWACS are LINK4 are overrated, I purposely don't use the AI AWACS and often forget to tune LINK4. The AI AWACS is flat-out terrible and cheats, LINK4 is easily saturated, and the AI does not provide the targets you may actually want, resulting in poor awareness. Granted, it is better than nothing, but if you do not use it whilst you are learning, it is better. You have the AWG-9, it sees everything up to 130/150nm with a RIO worth its weight, and it DCS you can afford to open it up to to 130/8b and leave it there, checking the DDD AGC and PDSRCH. So, when you are simply going from point A to point B, switch to the backseat, adjust the DDD and relax. From that display, you can approximate range, elevation, speed, aspect, and you get Vc and azimuth. Not bad, right? When you get through the range where RWS starts to see things, you can switch to the TID, find a target matching your mission objective, commit, perhaps switch to PSRCH or TWS to sort out the angles and, post launch, one eye should be glued on the DDD to determine variations in Vc, which in turn indicate a target changing its aspect. I hope this makes sense to you, I tried to keep it short. Ask if you anything is not clear!

That's the most important thing. Consider Jester as an interface: *you* are the RIO, Jester provides a bunch of shortcuts to get what you need but that's it. Later, as you get more familiar with the avionics, you can start to rely more on Jester, as you will know what it is doing. Btw, I wouldn't fly without a human RIO, and it is vastly more efficient to fly from the backseat or switch between the two seats. The DDD is simply too important for SA and BVR.

Era notevole, ma solo fintanto che non é arrivato MT. Post MT, la GPU tende a diventare il bottleneck.