Kula66

I swapped eyes and this time you can see it.

Unfortunately in VR, the JHMCS display appears in the right eye and screen caps seem to be from the left, so they don't show! I've attached a short track which showed the issue when I replayed it. jJHMCS.trk

Please fix ASAP ... this is a major pain in the tail! Was there a change made to the way CCIP was calcuated? The bomb cue, seems 'different' - I'm sure it never went vertically upwards as much as it does now, even with slight back pressure on the stick :0

... me too!

My only observation is that the JHMCS cross hairs don't always match the VR cross hairs, which feels odd ... outside the cockpit it seems to work ok, inside, the 2 are offset a short distance.

2 options ... there is a button on the stick to increment the way point and you can increment/decrement the way point from the map MFCD page - right hand side, at the top - an up and down arrow button.

Still fairly tough. Hit with at least on 300lb Mav (not sure if teh second hit or not), plus a couple of sidearms and a snakeye ...

Thanks unknown, the Molniya looks a bit softer, I'll give it a go. I've been struggle to self-lase with the tpod and 65Ls whilst avoiding those SAN-4s!

There is an cutaway diagram in Chuck's excellent guide and has things like dispenser control unit. I would imagine that, given the very limited space elsewhere, in what is a very small airframe, its one of the few places available for all the black boxes!

Certainly seems to be a problem with damage modelling on this ship ... I've been hitting one with a couple of big Mavs (300lb warhead each) and it just steams on - no drop in capability with guns/missiles still firing and radar operating. Given that's a similar class of warhead to an Exocet (364lbs) and the Grisha is a fairly small ship, I'd expect even one to silence it even if it didn't sink it. I guess its down to only having basic damage modelling on ships. It would be nice to have to have some lower capability escort type warships in DCS ... many of the top end units modelled, but you realistically aren't going after a Kirov with a Harrier! Or have a Kirov guarding a small convoy. HARMs on the F-18 will hopefully change things, but again, you aren't going after a Red battlegroup in your lone FA-18! PS> Any chance of a dedicated missile and navy section of the forum?

Great update guys, lots of stuff I'll be buying, thanks! PS> I love the way ED & Razbam keep updating old code, essentially for free ... I bought into LOMAC years ago and the sim has come soooooo far, amazing. Much appreciated.

In Ward's book on the Falklands he talks about telling the squadron to aim to land with never more than 800lbs of fuel after CAP missions and once landing with only 200lbs of fuel remaining after a CAP and long transit back to Invincible - scary stuff. (I know this is in a SHAR1 not an AV-8B)

Indeed ... hence the SAMs in that scenario are SA-2/3 in limited numbers. Either you go low and fast or dodge a few SAMs first and then us LGBs while they're reloading. As you said earlier, you can CCRP lob an LGB from quite a few miles away and turn away while still marking the target - provided the clouds don't get in the way ;)

You can't ... you have to dump them, which in the Yugoslavian conflict was a major issue with the SHAR2s - expensive LGBs being dumped in the the sea :( Its why the RN is currently testing the rolling landing on the new carriers with the F-35s, still an issue.

Works a treat with the big GBUs ... I just think that in a high threat environment, a low fast lay down pass is more realistic. Here is the scenario if anyone fancies a go :) Very basic, you just have to take out as many bridges as possible - marked as WP2 -WP8 - they get harder and you will need multiple trips. jHarrier-BridgeStrike.miz

Yes, indeed ... but higher I get hit by SAMs etc. Just wondering there was a retard version that would help, but if not, then its either a toss or try higher, 500' seems to be better. I assume that DCS uses some damage point system for structures like bridges ... and a pair of Mk82s just isn't enough.

Given the latest craze of bombing bridges, I've noticed that Mk 82s don't seem to drop the span as reliably. The Mk 83s however seem to drop them every time; however, there doesn't seem to be a Mk 83 with a retard kit so I end up getting fragged fairly regularly - does one exist in RL??

Note that's the maximum armour thickness, not what's on the top which which is probably less that the 16mm sides.

Agreed, I'm sure nobody wants this out the door more than you! Update much appreciated. Thanks.

AMRAAMs seem to fail to reacquire targets coming out of the notch, headon with loads of energy available ... I would have thought that if the target is still in the seeker's FOV, it would re-acquire fairly reliably. Any know funnies with the seeker modelling?? PS> Tried uploading a track, but too big (8.7MB) and won't let me upload TrackView. PS> I know its beta/early acess/WIP Disclaimer: I've never fired a real AMRAAM or flown a real F-15!

'Not a pound for air-to-gound' :)

Hmmm ... in our 70s Eagle? Also taking in to consideration speed, with no GPS and all this based on only a baro-alt - I doubt it.

Interesting that they have terrain avoidance, but no radalt ... so how does that work? Forward looking radalt?

I've seen similar recently - can't get off DMT page and menu button has no effect.

Could you ship very similar 2 maps ... one 82, one later??