J20Stronk

Right, so wouldn't we at least be able to move the pod around, stabilized in INR with minor drift? This is how it works on the DCS F-15E - without commanding a track using the AUTO Acq. Depress action, you'll be in CMPT/"INR" track. It's stabilized to a point derived by the pod and other sensors on the aircraft, such as the AG radar and INS, and it's still relatively stable unless you're maneuvering. This is also how it works on other planes like the Hog and Hornet, but the "drift" isn't modeled on them Once you're in close, you can then enable the more precise AREA and POINT Track modes.

I belive they mentioned they are strictly following what the CAC told them it can carry, and further restricted the loadout to what the PAF officially runs on their frames. That is why, for instance, we cannot carry rockets or dual bombs on inner stations; the PAF doesn't do so for whatever reason.

So then why do other targeting pods not have such limitations? The LITENING, ATFLIR, and Shkval, which have similar resolution, but especially the LANTIRN, which has significantly worse resolution, are all able to self stabilize beyond 20nm - whether by Area, Point or INR tracking.

I've looked everywhere, I even sifted through a good bit of the included CN manual for further information and specs, but there doesn't seem to be an explanation for it. This is the only TGP with this limitation - the pod just refuses to enter a tracking mode beyond that 20nm distance and remains aircraft stabilized. I assume it uses image stabilization techniques when in Area track and Point track modes, and inertial correlation in INR or SPI Slaved modes like other TGPs. Some have theorized previously that it probably requires laser ranging to get an accurate designation, but that still doesn't explain why it can't just self stabilize onto a point or area without creating a SPI, again all track modes would use either image or inertial processing to keep the pod stabilized, ranging is irrelevant. Some input from the devs would be appreciated, thanks. Also, a sort of follow up question about Area and Point Track modes: is it supposed to be this gamey? Like, the pod only ever enters Point track when it's a "live", placed vehicle or static object. Trying to point track a static map object\building, vehicle, or even civilian traffic will snap the pod toward it, but it stays in Area track. It's like it knows what is a "real" player/AI target and only Point tracks them and ignores the rest.

Other module have working CCDisplays. Also, that black square bug appears to be fixed (Playing on MT) on all other planes. This is the only module that has a broken TGP with an IR CCD. Also, will the masking behavior and 3rd person animations ever be fixed?

Just tried LS-6-500s this morning in a training server, BLUEFOR coalition JF-17. I used the AG Radar to find and designate an APC and a radio tower as targets. I used different impact AZ for both bombs. Launched them at max range and at Mach 0.85. Both of them scored direct hits on their targets and flew their specified AZ flightpath. They work, but they need a bit of setup in order to do so properly. You must use GC alignment. You must enable HNS. You must wait for the weapons to fully align (~3 minutes after powering them on). You should fly pretty high and fast so the weapon has enough energy to reach its target (Mach 0.8 and 20,000ft minimum).

It's fixed internally, but didn't make it in the last patch.

More believable than the functional station 4/6 HARMs on the Viper, Spanish LITENING on an American Hornet and the entirety of BS3.

Guarantee the same people complaining would also do so if we got one that was, "bUiLt In LaRgE nUmBeRs", but had it's radar and other avionics be 100% fictional because access to that info isn't available. This variant - while not "pure" REDFOR or built in large numbers - at least exists, AND has easily accessible data.

The thing that scares me the most is the SPO10-looking RWR in those cockpit pictures .

Great! I'm looking foward to a finished Thunder and whatever project you're working on next!

It looks like the December OB update, and the last update of the year, is planned to be released tomorrow. Going back to the newsletter from July, is it safe to assume that the Thunder will have its features that were stated in that newsletter? - Chinese Manual - English Manual (Maybe not this, yet.) - Finished Sensors (TGP is still missing several things like View Masking and proper Area Track and Point Track simulation. AA Radar ACM modes are still buggy when trying to unlock a target. AA gunsight is still buggy, etc.) - Finished Systems (Engine Performance/FPAS Page. Working BIT Page and CHECKLIST Page etc.) - Finished weapons (C(M)-802AK(G) still use a simple FM, SD-10 INS implementation, AG-JSOW weapon CNTL page, etc) - More liveries and finished external textures Was there enough time to have these finished by now, or will we have to wait until 2023? Thanks.

Designate something, set it to Low cruise and Skim terminal phase. It'll land >10 meters around the designation - again it's quite imprecise without MITL steering.

Nope, that was fixed a while back.

You can, but it only has an INS with no GPS, so it's nowhere near as precise.

Nvidia DSR and DL-DSR (most likely AMD's alternative as well) do not appear to work with DCS. I'm trying to downscale 4K to 1440p for a better image with lower performance hit than the in-game SSAA with DL-DSR, but DCS doesn't seem to want to render at higher resolutions than what the display is set to, even in exclusive fullscreen. Other games, both new and old ones, downscale properly so this is purely a DCS thing. I did manage to workaround this by setting my desktop resolution to 4K through either Windows Display Settings or Nvidia's CP. DCS then properly rendered at 4K and downscaled to 1440p. Still, I'd like to keep my display resolution native 1440p and have downscaling work properly with DCS like with other games.

Would it be possible to have a setting that applies Flat Shadows to the ones cast by trees only? "Default" Terrain Shadows drastically reduce performance when flying low over dense forests with a high tree drawing distance (~40 fps around Novorosiysk forests with high preset @1440p, 13700KF and 3070ti). Framerate is more acceptable around urban environments where there are far less interactions between objects and shadow maps (~90-100fps in Krasnodar with some light combat around the city.). Having Flat Tree shadows and Default Scenery shadows offers a nice balance between quality and performance, and most wouldn't notice the lack of shadows drawn on trees due to sheer forest density anyways. Thanks.

It looks like it doesn't work in missions made before the patch.

There's your problem. IAMs require GC alignment.

I think this is an ED issue, since they're now responsible for weapon parameters. But yes, they (LD/SD-10) should both be ~0.075 RCS to account for the relative diameter and fin size between these missiles.

I find that coming overhead at 400kts and pulling 3Gs throughout without airbrakes will get you down to around 250 by the time you're upwind, 1nm-1.2nm away, at which point you prep for landing. You should land with less than 1500lbs of fuel, so if you have more, you may need to adjust your G-load in the break (no less than 2.5G).

FYI everyone: the WMD-7 is FAR from finished. The lock mechanics are glorified FC3/Su-25T-level basic. It doesn't track contrast like the LITENINGs or LANTIRN; it just tracks the origin point of a 3D model. Heck it doesn't even have masking or boresight gimbal restrictions implemented, it's so very obviously unfinished.

So, can Deka and RAZBAM beat ED to the punch already and implement this phenomenon into their radars? AFAIK not even the RDI has this modeled.

I did a brief test using the SD-10 we currently have (NEA = 0.0250) and the "new" one (NEA = 0.0122). At 36,000 ft., Mach 1.1, 0o pitch: the current missile caps at 2524kts True, while the new one capped at 2409kts True, a 4%-5% difference. I don't have graphs to compare as I do not own Tacview Advanced, but you can see for yourself by editing the missile entry and modding a payload on the F-15.

That is a very weird looking JF-17 radar screen