maxTRX

I was trying to make the missiles follow STPs (wpt) and stay at very low altitude. No problem following STPs but the altitudes were always around 5k ft. regardless of how I set them. The only way I could make them hug terrain was by programming them to fly direct tgt., setting 'low' alt. and launching them from around 3k ft. agl. Has anyone been successful with this? Edit: 3000 ft not 3 ft

Has anyone seen this? ST or MT DCS

How about the second part of my question: any self destruct features? I was just imagining some major borkup with the swarm of HARMs raining down on friendly assets or some civies, just because the emitters cut out...

There's some improvement. Currently the jump starts on the HUD frame. There is no blind band around the frame. If you already have a lock on the target outside of the HUD (HACQ) and maneuver with the HUD FOV passing across the target, there is no jump. Same goes for the Aim9 seeker. For me, the blanking part is and always was most annoying. Overlapping symbology. The blanking starts after the center of HMD display hits the HUD's frame. It would make a huge difference if any part of the JHMCS display was not allowed to cross HUD FOV, except the target and reticle symbology (radar/missile seeker). With JHMCS enabled, I would plaster all targeting and target symbology on it, transitioning smoothly through the HUD FOV, without any duplicate on HUD. Press the 'pinky' and all this stuff goes to HUD. HACQ again, it goes back to HMD. That's for radar, heat seeker would follow the HMD aim and function as Mo410 described. Well, let me dream...

Cool, thanks. Got my timeframes mixed up.

Anyone knows if the Harms are capable to target a WPTDSG point on the ground, emitting or not? I would think so. Either go to the point or self destruct? Currently, they'll drift off a mile or so from the PB point and smack the ground if no programmed emitters are active.

Nah, I'm good... was just curious

Silly question here: Do these EWR's have any functionality in DCS? Any equipment in any module (CA perhaps) getting updates from these radars? Normally their position would be well known ahead of mission start so, a low flying cruise missile with bunch of Harms above to protect and distract could probably do it.

Not yet. When I have my test pilot hat on I'm brave enough to try anything to get results. During 'real DCS' combat ops, I'm jittery enough to spend more the few secs flying in a steady straight line. No autopilot of any kind for me...

It was nice to be able to see the target designation on the ground when using CCIP. As we all know Auto mode was consistently causing short hits. With CCIP we could time the release just right to compensate for this. Well, forget the target designation box. What would make a hell of a difference is the ability to see multiple marked points (at least 2 or 3 ) on our JHMCS displays, sort of like A/A contacts. In situations requiring constant turning and rolling in/out, having marked points (designated or not) saves time and makes it a lot easier to acquire targets visually.

I've just finished a few test runs, releasing from level, dive and loft. So far level wins . Previously the loft method was the winner . Fine with me, level it is from now on! Actually, one of my diving releases was spot on (490kts, 20deg dive, head wind 6kts)... fluke? who knows. Here are 2 level drops from different altitudes and tgt. elevations:

ACLS all the way down with CLARA

I finally had a chance to run a test on Mav F slaved to ATFLIR (in ST DCS) and was nicely surprised to see the Mavs snapping to correct targets after handoff from the pod. There was no need for 'cage/uncage' insanity anymore. The vid also shows a heat sig test on moving and stationary vehicles. The movers started rolling from 0 mph and the recording starts about 2 min. after. Nothing new here, some vehicles show a vivid sig., mostly from engines and tires, some nothing at all. Same goes for parked vehicles.

Not a fix, just a workaround (in case there's someone out there that doesn't know ) In case I need to play with gain during daylight, on any DDI or MPCD, I switch each of them to 'night' mode, crank the brightness/contrast enough to see the image/map, etc., then play with gain. Most of the time it won't make that much of a difference but I've seen some improvement on occasion.

The highlight from one of my 'old and crazy' (like me) missions...

I agree. I couldn't see any advantage of using PP LAR over any other mode... the way they are modelled, especially when launching from low altitudes. On top that there is another LAR calculation bug related to high elevation targets. Say you target is at 10k ft. and your release alt. is 15 or 16k. The only way for the bomb to reach the target is by using MAN mode and releasing at min LAR. It's been reported a while back.

Since I've made a video clip on YT showing the 'IR jamming' by lit up area of street lights and car headlights quite a while back... I'm happy to be the first one to report that the problem has been fixed . in ST version of DCS (which I currently use), not sure about MT. Ref. PG map.

Coud be. I had to 'downgrade' to ST version because of some annoying glitches in MT.

TBH, I'm not so sure anymore, after switching back to ST DCS. Initially, when I flew the Hornet using MT.exe, the onset of G/AOA did seem faster. I don't think the FM is different in MT version . Well, next time before I decide to run my mouth, it'll be after setting up more rigorous testing scheme. Perhaps it's time to play a test pilot for a change.

@ChatGPT, not you 'unltd' I'm sure you're aware that OpenAI (v4.0) just passed a bar exam. Top 10%. What do you say to that?

Thanks for catching this and possibly finding the cause. I noticed the same behavior with Aim9x... it's not my favorite tool anymore :/

Yep, Well, I got sort of spoiled with these IrMavs, using them on any type of targets including small and closely spaced unarmored vehicles (one missile should take care of all 4) but it's a game and I love to watch things blowing up... on a FLIR of course

At least ED named it correctly, a 'preview'. I get good performance, then again, I was also getting good performance in previous OBs, using my carbon unfriendly rig. The MT is currently too glitchy and buggy for my taste, especially 'zoom-ins', grayouts and frequent re-center in VR. In critical moments I'd find myself sitting on my Hornet's left wing or having my nose plastered on the canopy. Also, I'm not able to record video clips live... even if it worked, the VR repeater in 2D is stretched (the in-game setting 'Use DCS res./ crop to rectangle is not working for me). Recording works fine in ST. Well... I only use Win11 built in capture (xbox bar). Perhaps it's time to install some fancy 3rd party program.

I didn't see any positive changes with moving target acquisition in this version of OB. If anything, the IR imaging took a step back... oh well. The main issue for me is the pod's inability to define acquisition boundary around the target. For instance, say you have vehicles on the road (cluttered with light poles, dividers, barriers, etc.) At certain distance, the vehicles can be picked up and locked (point track) easily. Their image 'fits' inside the pod's acq. area, around the crosshair. As you get closer, especially when zoomed in, this acquisition area remains the same but the vehicle image is bigger now and the pod has a tendency to lock any small object that fits the acq. area, instead of the vehicle. It locks on barriers, light poles and so forth. I've seen the pod switch the PT lock on its own when getting real close or changing zoom. The IR Mav has the same problem, although the way it should work is a bit different... where are you SMEs ?