Jump to content

AvroLanc

Members
  • Posts

    1322
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AvroLanc

  1. I was under the impression that the weapon release button had to be held for at least 1s to allow JDAM to drop. This was stated by Wags in one of the initial JDAM vids. It's also how the A-10 and other A/C behave. Can we have the pickle hold/delay for JDAM drops? More realistic, more immersion.
  2. No, it's a bug. Referencing the screenshots, the radar displays are correct in both cases. But when the 'FRIEND' option is set to 'NO ID', the triangles should show empty circles on the SA page.
  3. Ok thanks. Hopefully they'll be on the case soon. It does present a significant usability problem.
  4. There's been a bug with the SA page since it was first introduced. The 'Friend' RWR option doesn't properly change the yellow RWR triangles. 'NO ID' still shows the friendly A/C ID in the triangle, it behaves exactly like the 'RWR ID' option - it shouldn't. The new MSI RWR indications on the radar display do actually follow the correct logic. Please see screen shots below and attached track. SA RWR bug .trk
  5. The old symbols were wrong. LB now shows correctly as '3'. FS as '2' etc. The jury's still out as to whether the ring/band behavior is correct or not, or whether ED plans to change.
  6. Ok, so now we've all worked out how to drop JSOW at multiple PP's, there's a few further questions to answer... With the AGM-154A, are the burst altitudes actually modeled correctly yet? As always it seems a bit vague. The default HT seems to be 1500ft. I changed this in a test to 500ft, but the JSOW seems to burst a lot higher than this. It's hard to actually test precisely. Can ED confirm the coding is actually in there? Also, is the dispense point actually wind corrected IRL? I appreciate this isn't a CBU-103/105 WCMD but you would think a smart munition would correct it's dispense point to correct for the winds effect on the sub-munitions. Currently the sub-munitions drift appreciably even with a 10 knot surface wind. Is ED overdoing the effect of wind here? If not, does JSOW IRL correct for this effect? If the coding for burst height is actually in, do we think we might get correct radar fuze options for CBU-99/Mk-20 now please. Thanks
  7. The latest patch has broken the green back lighting of the RIO's push buttons. E.g the buttons for the TID display options and others. . See the shot below..you can bearly make out the green glow. Yes, all options are selected apart from Launch Zone. (Why?,)
  8. No it isn't. HB, is this an issue with the F-14 or a more global issue that you need ED to assist on? Can we expect a fix?
  9. AvroLanc

    Update

    MSI not working for me either. Looks like the branch Wags was using isn't what we got today. On the plus side, LTWS TD box works a treat and JSOW seems to work as intended.
  10. AvroLanc

    Update

    Wags were you referring to today's update? Because AIM-7 still lofts when it shouldn't......
  11. We’re talking about specifically coded and wired databuses and associated avionics. This is not USB plug and play.
  12. Ok yeah. I would imagine that everything from wiring to databus, avionics programming, computing power etc would prevent it. Don’t know any details though, just guessing.
  13. Highly doubt this is at all possible. Why would you want to anyway? If you’ve got ATFLIR doesn’t it have a separate sensor to display NAVFLIR imagery to the HUD and normal TGT FLIR to an MFD....
  14. I pretty sure that PB mode will use up to 6 pre-planned threat points that are configured in the ME. They can’t be changed or created in the airplane. I think the type of threat the seeker will look for is even hard coded at this point. You can’t use PB on a TGT in a ‘JDAM TOO’ esque mode....I think.... It does make the hornets HARM implementation a bit inflexible, if you’re familiar with HARM in the F-16 it has a difffernt (better) mechanic. You use it’s ‘Position’ mode to select any pre loaded WP and match it to any threat you want, all in the cockpit. Also has the HTS, but that’s altogether more capable.
  15. Ok, that makes sense now that I think about it. Thanks. Maybe someone needs to put together a HARM employment guide or something, with rules of thumb for TOO shot approx ranges versus launch altitude etc. Would be interested to know RL guidance on this.....wishful thinking I know. Did I spot a new 3D model for HARM? Looking good.
  16. Thanks Wags. So you're confirming that by design HARM won’t self loft in either TOO or SP? I’m familiar with the HARM PU and A/C PU options in PB mode. I assumed that, since it was modelled with a loft in TOO from the beginning you had some info that the missile would pull some loft by default. Maybe not though.
  17. HARM loft was removed in a recent OB update. I'm curious as to whether the recent change to HARM loft profile is a permanent thing now? HARM doesn't loft at all and it seems to seriously reduce its effective range. With a TOO launch and a 20nm range (circa 20000ft alt shot), my shots fly an incredibly flat trajectory and are almost out of energy by the time of impact. Shouldn't HARM have a range approaching 60nm if launched high and fast? Anyone's else experiences since the change? Hopefully the flight profile will be adjusted back to include a loft??
  18. AvroLanc

    Update

    +1 Want these too... Wags mentioned that different fuzes options were being worked on for JDAM in the last mini-update. Hopefully he's referring to the changes in that vid. The M904E mech nose fuze isn't realistic for JDAM. Would love to see an option for FMU-152 JPF as well as the various older tail fuzes. The DSU-33 airburst fuze looks awesome.
  19. Agreed. Very interesting interview. Kinda wanting a PTID / D model now. Female jester would be great too.
  20. Netline there’s no need get agitated and snarky. Matt did a mini update yesterday/this morning that was closely tied to his previous mini update and announcement of OB update this week. Clearly people are going to be upset that yet again a new feature has been delayed, with no new hornet content now for almost 2 months. ED community communication at the moment is frustrating.
  21. If you launch it high and fast enough it has something like a 70nm range. It can accept up to 8 waypoints to fly through en-route to it's pre-planned target. I'd imagine with that sort of range, you can reasonably plan a route around known defenses. JSOW also has impact options such as 'side by side' and 'tandem' (but not in MPRE mode), rather like the Viggen's BK90. Again, will ED support these options? Is this even implemented IRL Hornet software? We don't know....yet.
  22. JSOW does have a capability to follow a pre-planned flight path. In the F-16 it's called MPRE mode, with a limited number of waypoints and a launch point defined during mission planning. Not sure if the Hornet integration has the same functions. Would assume so IRL. It would be great to see additional JDAM/JSOW functions like the TERM profiles, IZLAR and launch points etc, before any new weapons are added.
  23. It’ll be interesting to see what features the TGP has on initial release. My guess is that AA Modes and the LST function will be prime candidates for the dreaded ‘later in early access’.
  24. There’s so much still to come regarding HSI functions. Hopefully. Wags has mentioned a deep dive into those systems, and I can’t wait. Maybe not as exciting as TGPs and new weapons but adding stuff to the Nav functions and HSI will make the Hornet feel so much more complete.
  25. Nope, think that was the PG map.
×
×
  • Create New...