MBot

The 1L13 and 55G6 EWR units can detect target at ranges of up to 350 km but the scripting function getDetectedTargets() only returns targets within 120 km, which corresponds to the detection range ring as displayed in the mission editor. At first I suspected that getDetectedTargets() is bound to return targets only within the ME range ring distance and tests with some air defense radar initially confirmed this. But further tests with ships (Pyotr Velikiy) showed the function can return targets beyond the range ring. So the problem seems to be related to the EWR units. This issue with getDetectedTargets() causes mission scripts used for radar early warning to not working correctly. This is a continuation of a open alpha bug report from last year: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3117499 Demonstration mission attached. getDetectedTargets.miz

A lowest skill SA-3 SAM has a reaction time (time from target pop-up to weapon release) in DCS of just 15-17 seconds. That seems excessively fast for this generation of SAMs, especially when compared to other SAM systems in game which have very reasonable numbers: SA-6: 39-43 seconds SA-8: 30-34 seconds SA-10: 20-24 seconds SA-11: 43-46 seconds Hawk: 37-39 seconds ReactionTest_SA3.miz

Countermeasures programs started by the INT/KNOT switch release both chaff and flare. According to the manual, flares should only be released with the Fast Dispense button. Multiple right/left clicking on the OFF/INT/KONT switch will shift the state of the switch. After multiple clicks, the OFF position can be either in the aft, center or forward position of the switch. Pressing the Fast Dispense button when a CM program is active moves the OFF/INT/KONT switch.

While this may or may not be the actual logic that is applied, it is not what is written in the manual. The complete paragraph goes: That unambiguously says that after a target waypoint, economic airspeed is applied. So either the text or the graphic should be corrected.

When bombs are loaded only on the wing station, fälld last is illuminated but bombs are not dropped. Fuselage bombs or wing+fuselage bombs work ok.

There is still an old logic mistake in the graphic on ingress speed on page 171. According to the rules described, the leg between M5 and B6 in example B should be red and not green.

Can someone confirm whether the aircraft should really displaying true heading to the pilot? Because I think it is very weird considering navigation charts and runway headings in aviation are using magnetic headings.

I really love the Viggen and I think Heatblur has done a fantastic job with their module. As someone heavily invested in single play I remain quite disappointed though how badly DCS handles Swedish attack doctrine, which I consider the heart and soul of the Viggen. Unfortunately this bothers me so much that in the 1.5 years I own the module I heaven't really played it all that much. As an example, here is me flying a solo pop-up attack against a radar site defended by SA-8 and MANPADS. As you can see this works exceptionally well, especially since the new collideable vegetation in DCS 2.5 provides ample cover even on flat terrain for a low level approach. GdqUphDyYZQ Now for comparison, here are 3 AI wingman added to the attack: JGbZlzQZp70 Note how the AI is approaching in plain view and is therefore immediately engaged and shot down by air defense once in range. The inability of the AI to handle the Viggen's primary operational envelope unfortunately mostly limits the module to MP or SP one-against-the-world missions, at least if the aircraft is to be employed according to the Swedish doctrine (which is my main interest). If other Viggen are added, this results in very high aircraft losses. Which is especially bad with regards to dynamic campaigns, where losses matter. I feel this shortcoming really hurts an otherwise wonderful DCS module.

The time scale to a popup point is still not visible in LOWNAV HUD mode. Also is it correct that the time scale to pop-up is not displayed in ANF mode? It's kind of counter intuitive, its when you need it most!

Thank you for the update Nick, it's good to hear where we stand. The PG indeed is a great map and will be very fitting for the F-14. So we will have ample opportunities to properly employ our Tomcats. Still, it will be nice to eventually have a map at some point with enough sea-room for the classic fleet defense scenario. And of course to have the proper habitat for the Viggen.

1. When dropping bombs in AUTO mode, the first bomb of the salvo is on target. Shouldn't usually the salvo bracket the target? 2. When dropping bombs under G-load (dive-toss or toss bombing), the distance between bomb impact points gets bigger than the interval setting. Shouldn't this be easily compensated by the computer? Bomb_Stick_First_Bomb_On_Target.trk AUTO_3G_Drop.trk

The Hornet allows for some great tactics to be used for attacking ground targets. Here are some attack profiles against an ammo storage site defended by two SA-8, two Shilkas and three SA-18: s8hK4m7ltF4 Kd3637Ml3V4 SEtqeVRwUjM Unfortunately the AI is utterly incapable of attacking defended ground targets. Here is how my wingman tried to attack: Q2pJt-2Hp3Q As you can see, the AI wingman flies in formation at over 300ft AGL, in plain view of air defenses, while I was approach NOE and under cover. Upon getting the order to attack, the AI climbs to 1000 ft AGL and approaches the target in level flight. In the process it is blown out of the sky. I would love to play some single-player ground attack missions with the Hornet where I am not the only one within a strike package that has any hopes of surviving. It would be great if in support of this great strike aircraft, AI attack profiles would be updated. P.S. Please no suggestions to add SEAD support, that is not the topic.

If the question is simply whether I would like to fly a Skymaster or not, then the answer is yes. If the question is whether I would like to fly an aircraft like the Skymaster, I would strongly suggest to consider the OV-10A Bronco instead. Just the plain, steam-gauges and Mk1 eyeball A version (no FLIR and stuff). In terms of system and weapon complexity it should be similar to the O-2A, while offering more variety, being more widely used and generally being much more recognizable. Also consider that the OV-10A has worked together with your own AV-8B and could operate off your own Tarawa LHA, so it should fit in quite well with your product line.

Is there a definite answer whether this RPM oscillation at ground idle is a bug or not? The engine sound is very apparent. -IAtUmYjzVo Outside air temperate is 30°C.

Thanks Cobra, that is good to hear. I fly in VR.

Now it seems that in VR the EP-13 is simply a regular, fixed display (just like any other MFD or CRT in game). Will this still be adjusted?

Any chances that 2-stage trigger support for the radar trigger will make it into the game?

I still think the Intruder is the most likely candidate. Heatblur has repeatedly emphasized how they want to flesh out the surroundings for their modules. In the F-14 May Development Updated they said: Just like they are developing an AI Draken for the Viggen, an AI Intruder is most likely as an addition to the Tomcat. The Intruder is simply needed as a strike aircraft to complement the air wing in the targeted time span. More so as the USS Ranger, one of the Forrestal-class carriers which HB invests much resources to develop, is featured in their planned Persian Gulf campaign. Ranger had the so called "All Grumman Air Wing", which featured two Intruder squadrons and no other strike aircraft. That campaign will simply not work without Intruder. In addition an AI A-6E could be easily modified as KA-6D tanker and with some more effort into a EA-6B Prowler (both important assets to the Tomcat). I think this makes an AI Intruder very likely to happen. Going from an AI A-6E and taking into account that the planned aircraft will have ground radar and multi crew, a full A-6E module just sounds most logical. As it seems, Heatblur wants to build some sort of ecosystem (assets, maps) around the Viggen and the Tomcat. A Tornado would require them to create a 3rd ecosystem, which I find unlikely. I think it can be expected that future HB modules fit into the Sweden and US Navy environments that they are currently building up.

If you are ready to use scripting, this can be achieved with the detection function: http://en.wiki.eagle.ru/wiki/Simulator_Scripting_Engine/DCS:_World/Part_2#Detection For example: local unit = Unit.getByName("Unit #001") if unit then local ctr = unit:getGroup():getController() local targets = ctr:getDetectedTargets() for t = 1, #targets do if targets[t].object then local objCat = targets[t].object:getCategory() if objCat == 1 then --object is a unit local desc = targets[t].object:getDesc() if desc.category == 0 or desc.category == 1 then --unit is an airplane or helicopter local target_point = targets[t].object:getPoint() --and so on... end end end end end

I feel a little bad for neglecting DCE for such a long time. For a couple of months I was away from DCS due to hardware issues and for the past weeks I simply enjoyed playing it again. There is a bunch of stuff that requires attention I think. First I should give DCE a good review on how it tolerated the 2.5 transition. I saw some mentions of problems with AI not attacking their targets. Then there are some areas for which it is now time for improvements: -DCE needs to become a single entity as a base for the ever growing number of different campaigns (right now each campaign has "its own DCE". This should make updates on the base less of a hassle. -Obviously support for carrier operations got relevant now. We still have to wait and see though how carrier operations will ultimately be handled in DCS (static objects, spawning, AI, uncontrolled aircraft). -Moving ships. This has been long planned. Now is the time that this finally should be implemented. -Support for multiple radios. -Various small improvements. Then of course there is the Persian Gulf map, which offers a lot of exciting new opportunities for campaigns. I have several planned in my head, but the theater needs to consolidate first. The object lists for Iran/UAE/Oman needs to be put together and filled out with relevant new units. Some we have already seen are in development (Rapier, SA-2), others I hope will be added too (various AAA, EWR for all sides, Silkworm ASM etc.). Things for the summer though, for the moment I just want to enjoy the Hornet :)

What is your experience with being able to see the deck markings of the carrier on approach? For me they become visible only as I am about to cross the deck, which makes lining up correctly at 3/4 NM very difficult. I need to play around with different graphic settings, but upping another setting is not something I can really afford.

Here is a post I made about "Volume Fire" in 2006 :) How time flies... https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=14819&highlight=volume+fire

Glad both of you could sort things out :)

Well it sounds as if multiple loadouts for a given aircraft type/task are not iterated. I just checked the Screaming Eagle campaign, which has multiple loadouts for the MiG-23 with different weapons but otherwise identical. Both loadouts are processed and one is chosen randomly. Generating a mission multiple times, both loadouts are used randomly. So everything seems to work in order as far as I can tell. Perhaps there is a problem with the formatting of your db_loadouts table that interrupts iteration of the individual entries? Do all your loadouts have unique names?

The warhead of the RB75T is probably the same as the regular Maverick heavy blast-fragmentation warhead (WDU-24/B) though, right? Do you know the amount of explosive of the Rb 05 warhead? I assume it is also a blast-fragmentation warhead because of its air-air role. So of the 160 kg total weight, probably around 50 kg of explosives.