Vakarian

Yes it does, but there is another solution for that. For the alignment on carrier, you need SINS cable (ask for ground power, that will connect it) to complete alignment. After the cable is connected, you choose SEA INS alignment and wait for it to finish. Like others have mentioned before, aircraft shouldn't move AT ALL during the alignment. Even loading weapons on should throw off the INS alignment process, so when you start the alignment DO NOT move the aircraft at all. Load weapons before aligning or after.

I have some praising to do here. My brother ordered me this upgrade last year and it worked wonderfully. Couple of months ago, the X axis started to be jittery a lot, and not centering right. I contacted @Deltaalphalima1 to see if there is something to do to fix it. After some quick troubleshooting we got to a solution that fixed the issue and I though it's all good. I believe that even in the first reply, I was told if the issue couldn't be fixed that I'd get a replacement unit, but I wanted to see if we can fix it somehow. Unfortunately, after couple of days, it started misbehaving again. As I flew rarely during the summer, I didn't contact him further to try and fix the issue again. This week, I referred back to the issue, and all he instructed me to do was to confirm my address and a replacement unit was sent. No hassle, no trying to shift the blame like some other customer support services could do, ... The unit arrived today, installed it and I'm back with fully functional TDC for the Warthog. All I can say is that there should be no doubt about this upgrade or its creator. Both are very solid and will see you through . If something starts to misbehave, contact him and try to find a solution. I can assure you it was very pleasant interaction which really surprised me. 10/10 for the customer support and the product itself

Tarawa is not SC compatible

It's unrealistic to be able to hover with Hoggit loadout. Get it light (how light depends on weather conditions) and you will be able to hover

You know, us customers would also like to know that timeframe. We would also love that that timeframe doesn't change whenever wind blows

Hmm, that's interesting. Could you elaborate what exactly is wrong? I'm genuinely curious as couple of people in the thread I linked did some testing, read the charts and told that it's now supposedly correct. If you can show some evidence what is wrong, maybe we can push it to RB to get it fixed?

When a company announces they are going to stick to a certain version AFTER it gets release from EA, where were we supposed to read that info?

In all this wall of text in which you try to sound smart, you are basically saying people that operate the aircraft or have first hand experience have no idea because you have some manual which is DECADES old that says something that contradicts what that person said. Really open minded from you. With that in mind, I withdraw from this argument. I don't have time to sit for hours and analyze every single sentence you said. You are a good person and you try to do something good, but in most cases you tend only support your arguments with out giving 1% chance that you might be wrong.

@Fri13 Has it ever occured to you that you might not be allowed to see the evidence you are so hard trying to see? Also, maybe there are people more knowledgeable than you with actual experience on the aircraft and they are under no circumstances obliged to provide you the evidence they have and do not want to do it for their own reasons ? That alone doesn't make their input worthless as you try to paint it, but it should make you think that there is maybe someone else with the access to the data that we cannot get to by simple google search, and that they might be right. Also, I think you mentioned that every document must be publicly available to be used in DCS. That's simply not true. If it is, then it would mean that ED can simply show us the excerpts from the documentation to show us the reasoning why they did something in certain way. The fact they cannot do it should show you that ED can use non-publicly available or non-publicly accessible documentation. I fully appreciate your constant effort in bug reports and trying to get the Harrier in a better shape, but man, you have to understand that maybe you aren't the smartest person here. Have some understanding for the other side too.

@ddwg72 You are fighting the windmill here

How would it create confusion? Isn't it exactly what most of people wanted? To make it realistic? Well, you got it. Nothing prevents you from mounting HARM on those pylons, but lack of certain things prevent you from firing. It's as real as it gets

I think MAVs are not currently available on 4&6, only on 3&7 so it's all good

Jesus, the amount of whining is absurd. If you are getting F-16 just for the JSOWs, then something's wrong with your perception of the aircraft. Even more, considering in DCS they are mostly useless if any decent AD network is set. On the other hand, if you are happy to spam JSOWs to kill couple of trucks then.... have fun I guess. Take off, launch it and RTB. Sounds like a lot of fun.

Why does everyone try to fly as one-man army these days? If you load your aircraft to the brim with weapons, you are going to have fun time against someone that actually uses brain when making the loadout he's going to fly or against cleverly organized AD network

@myHelljumper Yes, you are correct. @LeonXD123 There is no "error", you need to learn how the aircraft operates. Here, if you see on my track, I deliberately put some targets on Kobuleti X runway, and couple on the nearby hill. I took out 2 trucks on the Kobuleti runway without undesignating target and as the targets are on the same elevation, gun pipper was providing accurate solution so I managed to hit both targets. Then, without undesignating, I tried to hit the targets on the hill. That resulted in a miss, as the aircraft calculated gun impact point thinking the target is ~1000ft lower than it actually is. After that I undesignated TD, reengaged the same trucks on the hill and managed to score a hit as the aircraft "calculated" (this part is still magically happening, it shouldn't be able to make this calculation so fast IIRC) correct impact point for the gun. Then, I returned to the Konuleti X runway to demonstrate that while the aircraft had the TD (target designation) still up on the hill, it couldn't calculate the proper aiming point for the targets back on the runway as they are on lower elevation than the hill. HarrierTargetDesignationImpactsGunPipper.trk

Either move it with a TDC or I believe pressing NWS button will undesignate the target

I watched the track. To me, it all seems as expected. You have to understand that the gunsight is "calibrated" to the elevation it has set in the system. In your case, that was the designation you made on your first attack run which is denoted by the diamond. Also, the shots you fired there landed bang on. Next, you did a series of really shallow attacks while still having previous elevation setting stored so gun pipper was off. I do believe that Chicken did explain in some of the previous posts why shallow attacks are not a thing in which Harrier will create valid CCIP point for the gun, and in addition to that, there is that wrong elevation I mentioned before So, reset your attack position, get a new target elevation and your CCIP pipper should be accurate

I don't know if my eyes are failing me, but on the first pic, you are not lined up with the steerpoint, that's why tadpole is not aligned with your FPW

Have fun when your SSD dies suddenly because of thinking like this

Then buy more storage space. It's not cool asking for features to be dumped because few people lack storage

Could you use tact switches with longer stems to bridge the gap you are experiencing?

I am sorry in a first place to mention this as I know it's against the rules but it's neccessary to prove a point. Let's say if they need terrain data which is "so hard to obtain", what stops them from firing up certain GA flight sim and study the terrain? That makes no sense. If a military relies on commercial software to base its military strategies on, I'd say it's doomed from the beginning.

Check parking brake

This idea came to mind couple of moments ago, but it might be an elegant solution for a problem I'm sure I'm not the only one having. Simple example. You are flying F-16 (can be any plane in DCS) and you have bound Radio1 to key "XY". You are also flying in MP and you have bound in SRS to use Radio1 on same key "XY" with idea to use same key for both ingame radio options and SRS in order to not have to use separate SRS and ingame radio buttons. This is one thing I really like and would really like to keep it that way. I don't want to use different keybinds for SRS and ingame radio and I don't want to have to use modifiers for that. Problem: When using same key for ingame radio and SRS, when you actuate that button you start transmitting in SRS but you also get that radio menu in top right corner. Possible solution: Implement mechanism that works on short/long press of radio buttons. If you just short-press that button "XY" radio menu pops up regularly, and on SRS you just get that momentary TX (not much harm there). On the next short-press of button "XY" radio menu closes, and on SRS you just another momentary TX. However, if you press and hold button "XY" (for example longer than 0.5 seconds) radio menu doesn't show up and on SRS you do your normal transmission and talk on a radio while using actual radio button that was meant for it. In that way, we get to keep current ingame radio menu functionality on simple keypresses, but when that key is pressed continuously you don't get the radio menu in top right corner as the button is used for voice transmission instead of ingame radio menu Reasoning behind idea: - Main reason behind this is to be use actual radio switches from the aircraft to work for ingame radio menus and SRS without much interference. It is slightly annoying to use button to transmit something on SRS and you get left with that radio menu in top right corner. - Another reason is that this might be useful mechanism to have when ED finishes up its own VoIP that is supposed to work on actual tuned frequencies/channels. With that, you could only use single button on your keyboard/HOTAS/button box/whatever for ingame radio menu and for voice transmission.