MBot

See attached track. Two identical frigates are bombed, the first with one Mk-83 the second with two Mk-83. Despite being attacked by two bombs, the second frigate gets the same amount of damage. The log only registers one hit for each frigate. It seems as if the first bomb exploding in the salvo is destroying the second bomb, without the second bomb causing any damage whatsoever. BombDamage.trk

I don't have the exact numbers at hand, but almost certainly: Mirage IIIC, IAI Nesher, F-4E

I have recently played my Goblin on the Doorstep mission and it sill works fine. I have contemplated to update the script from the virtual target subs to the actual sub units we have now. But in the end it won't actually change anything for the player's point of view, so isn't really worth the effort.

Sure, here is a track taken directly from the sample mission provided in the first post of the topic. The issue remains as initially reported. The aircraft will not attack an armed ship with bombs unless "Reaction to Threat = No Reaction". Change the target to an unarmed ship and the bombing attack is conducted. BombShip.trk

Now that the Falklands has become a thing in DCS and bombing warships is kind of a big deal there, you might want to fix that bug.

I have recently tested an AI MiG-21 engaging a look-down target at 60 km and a co-alt target at well beyond 100 km. So while I have not re-checked all AI aircraft, the basic issue is still present. Just by the way, I have reported the issue 6 years ago for first time.

Any news on this issue?

The bomb interval setting on the Armament Control Panel is only accurate at 1G. Under loaded releases, the interval between bombs gets stretched out beyond the setting. Not sure if this is accurate for the Harrier, but it seems as if this should be easy to compensate by a computer.

Multiple-bomb salvos are aiming the first bomb on target. This seems incorrect. In every other aircraft it is usual that bomb salvos are aimed center on the aim point (center bomb on target).

Rockeyes are landing short when delivered on a flat trajectory. It seems as if the high drag sub-trajectory of the submunition is not being taken into account for the overall ballistics calculations. Flat trajectory: Landing short. Steeper trajectory: on target

It seems that AUTO bomb calculations are not wind corrected. This is a Snakeye attack in a 20 kts crosswind, comparing RAUT and RCIP symbology. After release under RAUT, targeting the tip of the island, the bombs actually land where predicted by RCIP. It seems that under (any) AUTO release modes, do not consider wind. CCIP does on the other hand. Harrier_AUTO_Crosswind.trk

Revisiting the Harrier again after some years. I am still puzzled that bomb ripples land the first bomb on target instead of the center of the stick (also the case with AUTO releases). Is this really how the real Harrier works?

It is an old issue, but Jester keeps calling out o'clock positions on killed bandits. Jester is aware when a bandit gets killed as apparent by giving out splash calls. When Jester logs such a splashed bandit, it should be excluded from any further position calls.

This is still an issue. AI is ripple firing guided bombs with a too big interval. Thus, AI is unable to hit targets with multiple guided bombs. LGB_Ripple.miz

This continues to be an issue. -CAS Task, Dive Attack: first bomb in salvo on target (incorrect) -Ground Attack Task, Level Attack: middle bomb in salvo on target (correct) -Ground Attack Task, Dive Attack: last bomb in salvo on target (incorrect) All salvos should be aimed to center on the target point. Sample mission attached. SalvoPlacement.miz

No, I develop this in private.

Thanks, this is very interesting. This sounds very much as you would want to dive or dive-toss at the target, to get the left/right part done. A medium altitude level release doesn't seem practical withouth steering cues. That is what I meant. I.e. the aircraft knows where it is and Pave Tack provides an azimuth angle, elevation angle and distance to the target, so the position of the target can be calcualted by the aircraft (and steering cues for weapon release be generated).

Does anyone know if Pave Spike produced any weapon release aids (on the ADI perhaps) or if LGB deliveries were aimed just like regular dumb bombs. What was the usual delivery profile for LGBs? Level or dive? Since Pave Tack could generate target coordinates IIRC, I assume that it would feed into some kind of AUTO/CCRP delivery. Correct?

The 401 TFW out of Torrejon Air Base, Spain, were assigned wartime deployments to Aviano Air Base, Italy and Incirlik Air Base, Turkey (which is the primary allied base on our Syria map). "Unfortunately" they flew the F-4E only from 1970 to 1973, then switched first to F-4C in 1973, F-4D in 1979 and F-16 in 1983.

This is so cool. I am working right now to implement AI low level toss bombing for my Air-Ground Attack Script. Using Walleye as a GBU-15 substitute in the following video. So my AI wingmen will be ready for the F-4E

Sorry I miswrote, I wanted to say all-aspect. I am not sure if the USAF ever adopted the P4/5. At least all the USAF F-4E photos with P Sidewinders I have seen so far show P-3 (non-metallic guidance section).

You are right, but I am not aware of any air-air related changes with ARN-101. Shouldn't air-air be identical with and without ARN-101 (both version served concurrently)? Also I wonder if the USAF every acquired any all-aspect AIM-9P4/5 at all. I know Switzerland got their AIM-9P4 in 1990 and P5 in 1991. I have doubts that the USAF still got new AIM-9P at this point. From the pictures I have found, AIM-9L/M actually seemed to arrive at the few F-4E remaining by that time.

Yeah I have been keeping away from posting much here because most interactions have been about technical support, installation questions and such, which frankly I do not have much interest in. But in fact I have been quietly working on DCE almost continuously for my own enjoyment. Major areas of improvement have concentrated on Cold War style low level penetration tactics. I have created a system for low level route generation, an IADS, improved AI attack tactics (which I have already released separately) and an ATO generator that can do more complex coordinated multi-target strikes (like time coordinated support sweeps, CAPs, tankers, striking targets from multiple axis simultaneously, striking adjacent defenses etc.). I am just now experimenting with TOSS bombing a target, which distracts AAA sufficiently that another flight can level-bomb for example a runway without getting hit (Tornado anyone?). Everything is written to work 100% AI only, with the player just dropping in. Another major item has been cyclic carrier ops, which took almost 6 months to develop. This includes carriers turning into the wind for launch/recovery cycles, completely new custom written AI marshal ops for CASE I/II/III (returning aircraft have to wait in the air for the next recovery cycle), fuel checks in the marshal and sending AI to recovery tankers to take just enough fuel required for recovery, and a major rewrite of the ATO generator (every Time on Target must be additionally coordinated with launch cycles). That has been a pretty big project and frankly it isn't working flawless yet due to some DCS AI-isms and bugs. I wanted to release a new version of DCE for a while now, but I think this needs to come with a new reference campaign that serves to test and validate all changes and demo the new capabilities. I have worked on and played a number of different campaigns over the years but after a while I am usually more interested in working on new ideas instead of doing public releases. I enjoy having a codebase that I am free to make radical changes to and try new stuff without having to care about backwards compatibility for things in the public. Though for about a year I have been working towards a Tomcat campaign which I want to release once both the Forrestal and the AI A-6 are available. The Mirage F1, A-7E and F-4E occupying a lot of my thoughts as well. No problem.

Wrong campaign mate, it seems that you are playing Liberation.

Yes, you are right, the technical capability exists. I found this excellent post on the subject: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/175680-aim-7-question/&tab=comments#comment-1636945 Summary: Author photographed AIM-9P-3, AIM-7E-2 and AIM-7F at Ramstein Air Base in the 80s but photographed AIM-7F actually loaded to F-4E only once. On the subject on of AIM-9L I found these pictures: Judging by the Hill camo, these pictures have probably been taken around 1990.