MARLAN_

If ED is able to ask any F-18 SME they will find out RWS Scan Centering is most certainly a thing, and it's not some super secret, it's a very basic functionality of the radar. The FRM vaguely explains this, but sadly is not very clear. There are other documents that I would not be surprised that ED has (but who knows) that is extremely clear regarding this, maybe they can't source it, but with SME input and the FRM I would think that is enough to implement something so simple as centering the scan volume, which already exists in DCS if you use the AZ/EL page.

Try to get on-speed during your downwind, immediately following gears/flaps down. Should only need to struggle with getting on speed in the turn/groove if you're doing a SHB or breaking at the stern because you're taking in a division.

Ah, yes, F18 is 0-7 and 0-3 as well, I wasn't thinking when I wrote 00-73.

Are you sure it's up to 23? I don't know the intricacies of that but we use 33 (based on F18 pilot input) and the NFM example figure shows 32 being used and seems to indicate that 00-73 is valid. Did you mean specifically that LotATC only accepts up to 23?

On the UFC, press IFF, then select the mode you want to input, and type it in. e.g. UFC -> IFF -> MODE 1 -> 33 -> ENT

I tagged this as "fixed" as it seems their performance is back to expected (at least what it was previously, not that it's perfect or anything) since 2.7.15.25026 -- but I did not use any defenses during that test except for a crank and was highly reproducible at the time.

Are you familiar with and using Degrees Minutes & Degrees Seconds where applicable? The jet (incl FLIR) by default (you can change this) uses Degrees Minutes (DDMM.mmmm) and the JDAM only accepts Degrees Seconds (DDMMSS.ss) This is what my guess would be might be your issue.

While investigating TWS Rankings (which appear to be correct as is, as far as the ranking logic goes) it noticed that probably the culprit causing TWS Rankings to be incorrect is that Vc is not considered, or not correctly considered as part of the TTG calculation which is then used for TWS rankings, and if not that, something weird is definitely going on. A Mach 2.1 contact and a Mach 0.6 contact should not have the same expected time to active. The MC shows the same time to active when the actual splash is 29 seconds apart. I am guessing this is part of why TWS rankings are incorrect. (Approx. Same Location) Trail (Mach 2.1) Contact -- 46 ACT Pre-launch/passing 04:30:22 Lead (Mach 0.6) Contact -- 46 ACT Pre-launch/passing 04:30:22 (Approx. Same Location) Trail (Mach 2.1) Contact -- 39 ACT Launch 04:30:23 Lead (Mach 0.6) Contact -- 39 ACT Launch 04:30:24 Trail (Mach 1.8) Contact -- 11 TTG 04:31:05 +3s from MC prediction, 8% error Lead (Mach 0.6) Contact -- 11 TTG 04:31:22 +19s from MC prediction, 48% error Trail (Mach 1.8) Contact -- Actual Splash 04:31:17 -> +1s from MC prediction, 9% error, 8% error from launch. Lead (Mach 0.6) Contact -- Actual Splash 04:31:46 -> +13s from MC prediction, 118% error from TTG, 64% error from launch. TTGNoCalcVc.trk

Hi, @BIGNEWY looks like ranking is correct as is, assuming that your quote is correct. The ranks do change based on TTG currently. However, it looks like TTG in the first place is not calculated correctly, it appears it is not taking into account velocity at all. A contact traveling at Mach 2.2 vs a contact traveling at Mach 0.5 is assigned the same TTG despite all other factors being equal (hot aspect, altitude, etc.) I will make a different thread regarding that, thanks.

I think that's getting a bit off topic. The issue with TWS Ranking has nothing to do with the computing power of the F/A-18C. Also, this thread is meant to be about TWS Ranking, not whether or not missiles should be visible on the radar. I only meant to note that part of why when friendly missiles are present on the F-18 radar they can be more of a nuisance because they are sometimes designated a high priority rank despite being dragging away at very high speeds resulting in what would be a very high TTG if not infinite depending how it is calculated.

Great mission! Was really cool to fly a simulated LFE TOT strike like that in a singleplayer environment, well done! Little feedback - The WP2 marshal blocks were a little dangerous. Ravens were assigned the 11K block, but since your AI aren't formed up with you, you have 4 fighters flying essentially freely in the block. I nearly had a midair. I'd suggest either your AI join on you, or the Ravens AI are assigned a separate block. - The mission briefs 360 GS from waypoints 2-4 then accelerating to 400 GS. You can't change speed like this with a hard TOT unless the route has you "late" at 360 GS, and then you get back on time with the 400 GS leg. Currently you are on time with 360 GS from the very beginning. Changing to 400 GS would make you either early, or you'd need to extend/snake around on the final leg to get back on speed. I'd suggest just changing the brief to match 360 GS as the easiest fix. - Attack - There is a continue call made (briefed as "free kick"), that's realistic and awesome, but there is no "attack" call made, which is the point where you will switch from A/A master mode to A/G master mode and run your A/G checklist. Particularly in this training exercise with red fighters all around nearby (despite the Spartan sweep, you'd still be in A/A until attack) Suggest an attack comm is added, about 2-5 miles prior to the pop would be a good spot. "Ravens, attack" - You are scored based on selecting HUD/AUTO for your tapes, however there is no comm reminder. Real world would have a reminder, for example "Ravens, check tapes on HUD." "Raven 22, tapes." "Raven 23, tapes." "Raven 24, tapes".

Final Bearing is 204 if I recall correctly. The real value can be confirmed by going to the LSO platform for BRC and converting to FB. By the way, I don't know if effort wants to be put in to fix the voice line or not, but as I recall ACLS was briefed inop, and during the recovery we are talking about needles (ACLS) being up and on. We should have replied negative needles fly bullseye (ICLS)

Sorry, I can't see the code so I can only guess how it is implemented on the back end. Although if time to target is considered, shouldn't the trail contact flying mach 1.7 be rank #1? It doesn't switch until the moment where they pass each other.

Hi, in this track it shows if the TDC Priority is not assigned to the FLIR page the designation does not update anymore. You can see the FLIR tracking the vehicle but the diamond indication for designation stops moving until the TDC Priority is returned to the FLIR page. This of course causes big issues when you are forced to remove TDC Priority from the FLIR page and move to the maverick page as the maverick keeps attempting to return to the FLIR designation which has suddenly stopped updating. The maverick is capable of tracking the moving vehicle if there is no FLIR designation, but is unable when the FLIR is tracking because the designation is lagged behind as soon as TDC priority is moved. There will be trouble finding specific evidence that explains that this isn't programmed into the F18 software, does ED possess evidence that it does exist? It makes no sense for the FLIR to stop updating its designation when TDC priority is removed from an active designation. If this existed as is would cause major issues in practical use as seen in the track. I think it is extremely unfair to say changes cannot be made if there is not evidence that specifically states in the negative that anti-user software design is not implemented for the F18. Sometimes interpretation is needed unless it is explicitly stated that this design is actually implemented. NTRP 3-22.4-FA18A-D 4.3.5.1.2.2.1 and NTRP 3-22.4-FA18A-D E.11.2.3.2 briefly talk about this in the positive form. FLIRDesignation.trk

I made a separate post since I think it's a slightly different issue but is likely contributing to missiles being ranked #1.

It appears in DCS that TWS ranking is being decided based on range only. - TWS ranking should be based on a combination of range and range rate (shortest TTG) In TWSRanking.trk you can see two contacts in a ~5nm trail. They are ranked with the lead #1 and the trail #2 despite the lead contact flying Mach 0.6 and the trail contact flying Mach 1.7 The missing consideration of range rate/shortest time-to-go is likely a contributing factor to why outbound missiles are being ranked #1 as they would have negative range rate and a longer time-to-go. [A1-F18AC-FRM-000 008-00 Page 9 Index 2, A1-F18AC-FRM-000 008-00 Page 16 Index 39, A1-F18AC-FRM-000 008-00 Page 17 Index 45] TWSRanking.trk

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/295031-atflir-in-point-track-doesnt-update-target-designation/#comment-4952178

Just checked, it's definitely 82P for the ADM-141A/B TALD

They do drag, yes.

In my experience the DCS AI certainly do drag. As for the other things: notching, diving, "holding the MAR", I would say these aren't good tactical decisions (very much a "it depends" though of course) but it doesn't bother me if the AI do it, I can just assume the opposing faction doesn't have the best tactics which is certainly a realistic scenario. Not really any point trying to get into tactics on the forums though, as long as the AI do something realistic that's fine with me. I'm quite happy they now drag fairly frequently in my experience.

That makes sense. So A/A "includes" T/R? Yea, I've heard the same thing a from both F18 pilots I asked, totally checks out and makes sense.

Did some more digging this morning and asked a different F18 pilot in more depth (though this guy has only flown Rhinos, but I suspect the TCN functionality is mostly similar) - You can't select A/A and T/R at the same time, it's one of the three (T/R, REC, A/A) (This correlates when I asked the first F18 pilot [who has flown the F18C] who also said T/R or A/A separately, I was a little confused because in DCS you can choose more than one at a time, but this new info helps clear that up) - He has only worked with KC-135's so he can't speak to KC-10's and if T/R would be used when you get bearing information. - He was very clear that you only receive range to a KC-135 and that you are in A/A mode only. Still don't have a clear answer to what was previously mentioned regarding the KC-10 source, but that isn't in DCS anyway so I wouldn't worry about that right now anyways.

To add: while it may be obvious, the colour red typically refers to the bandit. Blue is typically the flight lead or the -1/-2 section where green is typically the wingman or the -3/-4 section. A horizontal line across an arrow depending on context can mean either a stack or a section A circle with an X refers to "bullseye nose low" as in a pure nose down either dive or vertical circle. I forget what pure high is, might be a circle with a dot in the middle, would have to double check that one.

"correct as is" is probably better understood as "intended" and in this case ED intended to not follow real world. Maybe they have some conflicting source, such as how we have a reduced lock range for our radars which seems like it was based on possibly a MiG-23 radar and not a F-16/F-18 radar. Perhaps Russian tanker TACAN systems work differently than in the US. Would still be nice to have this match the real world for US tanker TACAN's though. Edit: I looked into this a bit and asked some of the SME's I know (F18 pilot and a KC10 flight engineer) -- if the tanker is broadcasting both bearing & range we would use T/R (no A/A) but if it was just broadcasting range then we would use A/A. The KC-135 should be range only while something like the KC-10 can transmit bearing & range. So in our DCS case it should be A/A mode since we don't have a vanilla tanker that is capable of both bearing & range. Edit 2: they also say real world they would typically use link/radio/and pre-briefed locations much more likely than using yardstick.

Agree 100%