Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by AvroLanc

  1. 4 hours ago, IkarusC42B Pilot said:

    Yes,there are many things missing or wip from jdam. Auto loft isnt one of them. Its complete and properly modelled

    That’s probably being a bit pedantic. Yes, Auto Loft will show symbology and drop a bomb at the release cue. In that sense it’s modelled. 
    However if you take a wider view, then clearly Launch Points, Loft Initiation cues, Multiple Target points, working dynamic IZLAR etc all are designed to integrate closely with AUTO LOFT. Hence AUTO LOFT being somewhat simple at the moment. It’s not a full experience. 

  2. 3 hours ago, Jun said:

      B8 with fairing (B8M1) won't be available anymore upon release. It unintentionally ended up in the pre-order trailer. In real life B8M1 is not used on the Mi-24.



    OK thanks for that. Understandable, if a bit disappointing. The fairing version looks more elegant. 

  3. In the first image below, which is a grab from the Pre-order vid, are we looking at a UB-32 57mm Rocket Pod or a B8V20 80mm pod with a nose cone fairing. I think the later, which means we get the option to mount B8V20 with or without the nosecone fairing? Hopefully. More options = good.


    I don't think we've seen a shot of the 57mm UB-32 pod at all. See the 2nd image below. Personally I prefer the look of the 57mm pods, even if they were said to be ineffective in real use.


    The current 3D model of the UB-32 in game is looking dated, so maybe it's being updated before release and that's why we haven't seen it??




    • Like 1
  4. 8 minutes ago, IkarusC42B Pilot said:

    It is

    It is. But only in a very basic sense.


    JDAM can be released in AUTO LFT mode, but at the moment it offers no real advantage over MANUAL mode.


    The edge of envelope (Just inside Max Range / IZLAR) releases are very unreliable energy wise. This is especially true if you've set any terminal parameters. You basically have to construct (guess) your own IZLAR for anything but the most forgiving combination of impact HDG and ANG. You have to drive to well inside the LAR to get results.


    The 'LOFT' side of AUTO LOFT is useless since the IZLAR isn't reliable at all in any kind of dynamic maneuvering. The Loft Initiations Cues on HSI are not yet implemented.

    • Like 3
  5. 5 hours ago, IkarusC42B Pilot said:

    On what version of dcs? Because i have never seen it since the dawn of jdams



    Latest OB version. It's been in for at least a year though, so should be in stable as well. 

  6. 30 minutes ago, IkarusC42B Pilot said:



    Yeah, as I said, it’s working for JDAM but not for JSOW. You need to be in the IZLAR, i.e have a ‘IN ZONE’ on the HUD and on base stores page. 

  7. JDAM do have this already. The times are not shown until you're IN ZONE.


    JSOW doesn't yet have the flight times. It should, maybe 'later in EA, or 'later in product sustainment period', or just later.  Maybe. Subject to change. 

  8. 4 hours ago, CoBlue said:

    Rockets, bombs, CMs will be ineffective against light armor, if not a direct hit, coz of simplistic splash damage. They are basically dead-weight in DCS . Gun is 250 rounds, so the joy will be short lived. Try the gun in Su-25 & see. Then you have all seeing sniper AI...we all know how the helis thrive in the current DCS environment.

    It maybe will be good at anti-tank, I dunno, not counting on it, Mi-8pilot said the periscope sight will be challenging.


    In semi-realistic combat environment it will be very weak. If you like sighting in multi-crew & shooting at cows it will be a beast 🤣.


    Yeah my expectations are very low, better that way, so if it turns out better it will be a bonus!😁







    3 hours ago, Nealius said:

    That's basically it, really. If anyone wants a glimpse of what it will be like to fight in the Hind, take the Ka-50 or Su-25A/T in missions or campaigns with only S-5 or S-8 rockets, and see how effective it will be. 


    2 hours ago, Gierasimov said:

    This. Exactly what it did.

    Liked it very much too.



    100% true, although I have no doubt that flying the Hind will feel awesome and fun for the first few hours. I'm immensely looking forward to it.


    However, we do have to accept that game mechanics in DCS are currently biased towards dropping smart munitions from high flying fast jets, and its whole eco-system over the last few years has been geared towards that. Hornet, Viper, Tomcat, JF-17, Supercarrier and others. Without heavy scripting the SP experience won't feel as real or immersive, and the employment of a relatively low tech helo will have many frustrations. I'll still buy it though.....but that's a whole other issue.

    • Like 6
  9. 2 hours ago, Nealius said:


    This is the part that concerns me. Exception to the ATGMs, which I believe are only usable from the front seat, the main weapons are unguided rockets and the gun. As you said, suppression. The DCS ground AI has no "fear" logic, and has perfect LOS through smoke, making suppression rather nonexistent at the moment. 


    The Su-25A is in rather the same situation, with the majority of its weaponry being unguided rockets with a similar doctrine of area suppression for CAS and interdiction roles. I've tried to employ it in missions/campaigns multiple times only to be frustrated because the AI units don't react to suppression, and mobility kills are not modeled.


    From a game perspective, the Hind is going to be hard to employ without significant scripting in the missions. 



    Exactly. This is kinda what I meant. Unfortunately DCS AI, particularly infantry and other soft target AI isn't good enough at the moment to support many attack helicopter roles, other than pure anti-armour.

    This will be an issue for Apache as well, although not as pronounced, as the pure precision of an incoming Hellfire doesn't rely on a suppression or splash damage effect. And they are lots of authentic scenarios where an anti-armour mission is a classic use case of that Helo. Unlike Hind.

    Perhaps when the damage model of modern ground units is looked at things will improve....I honestly think that will enhance the gameplay a-hundred fold in the future. That and wingman AI.


    I've just taken the Mi-8 up for a spin and re-learnt what I feared - using rockets and gunpods in the current helicopters is a lesson in frustration, they need a direct hit to be effective.

    • Like 5
  10. Thanks for the input guys, and the book recommendations. Don't get me wrong, I'm excited for flying the Hind for the first time as much as anyone. I'm sure it'll be awesome. Maybe it's my lack of insight into the tactics and employment of Mi-24 that's tempering my long term excitement. I find it easier to imagine the mission and 'day-in-the-life' of a western fast jet pilot, than a Soviet era gunship guy.


    I guess after 3 years of pretty much constant Hornet / Tomcat / Viper / Supercarrier Hype the new focus on helos will see DCS turn down another fork for a while.

    • Like 2
  11. Now that the Mi-24 is looking both pretty close to release and pretty itself to look at, I'm wondering exactly how I'm going to use it. At least from a SP perspective?


    Obviously DCS has it's genesis in Black Shark, so there's something to say for Russian attack helo gamplay, but the Hind is unlike any release in the last few years. Creating missions/scenarios for the multi-role fast jets is easy. They have a wide range of mission roles and creating reasonably authentic standalone SP missions is going to be more straight forward than for the HIND.


    For the jets, you can visualize and fly a simple SEAD / CAS / STRIKE / BARCAP etc and the result will be a close representation of the exact role the jet was designed for (DCS AI being a limiting factor). None of those missions rely on the combined arms nature of the Soviet doctrine the HIND was envisioned for. Currently the DCS AI and mission editor isn't capable of showcasing the HINDs role to the maximum extent. Add that to the fact passenger/air assault capability isn't coming till later in EA and it'll be a struggle to create realistic missions to fly the HIND that way it was supposed to be flown. 


    The whole combined arms air assault doctrine is fundamental to the Mi-24 i.e. the idea that they would hover behind ridgelines and use ATGMs in the pure anti-tank role, ala Apache/Lynx etc is not really how they would be been deployed I believe. The idea of wide area suppression and shock tactics being more it's thing. I.e. difficult to coordinate in DCS.


    After Hornet, Supercarrier, Raven One etc, how are we going to become immersed in this new role? Anyone else same concerns?

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 3
  12. +1 again.


    Has this been considered by the ED team? Last push for Hornet might see the remaining JDAM functions getting looked at.


    Surely the pickle delay (800-900 milliseconds) and quantity release interval (300ms), would be an easy addition. A10 and AV-8B have this pickle behaviour already.

    • Like 3
  13. 21 minutes ago, Santi871 said:



    On the HSI with an OAP selected, pressing WPDSG first will designate the OAP, then pressing O/S will designate the offset (or add the offset data to the existing designation, however you want to look at it).



    'Adding the offset to the existing designation' is actually a cool feature. It enables the use of radar offset bombing; i.e identifying and designation an obvious radar target and applying a pre-measured pre-planned offset to hit a radar invisible target nearby. 


    The utility of this in DCS is not really relevant since the INS/GPS system doesn't generate any drift in a GPS era, but the procedure can be followed all the same. It works well from the little testing I've done.

  14. I’ve been using the ALT function on the STP options with great success. It seems to work well. 

    It’s a height rather than altitude, so just input 1000ft etc and the missile should terrain follow at that height. The lowest I’ve tried is 500ft and it worked well. 

    I’m not sure how the ALT setting interacts with the global FLT setting of LOW, MED, HIGH. It seems to override it, but more testing needed. 

    It’s quite reasonable that a Sa-15 should engage and take out the SLAM-ER. But that’s why SEAD support and mission planning is a thing. 

    • Like 1
  15. Yep F/C is Force Correlate but how does it's behaviour differ from the standard CENT mode? I'm assuming CENT stands for CENTROID and that the logic is similar to a maverick seeker. I.e.... In 'Centroid' the seeker will attempt to perform a contrast lock on the object within the crosshairs and attempt to maintain that lock (even if it moves??) on the object itself. Whereas in F/C the seeker is looking at the whole scene and merely attempts to stabilize on the crosshair point itself?


    That was badly explained. Maybe someone else can help.


    On a different note, it's not been emphasized, but you can use the STP option to actually set the ingress altitude at each STP. I.e set up a 1000ft height initially and then step the height down to 500ft at the next STP etc. The missile will terrain follow wonderfully and it opens up some nice mission options. 


    I'm not sure what the VEL (velocity) option does, I'm not sure why you'd want to restrict the missile speed. Does it set a minimum energy level or something? 


    Overall pretty impressed with the SLAM-ER. It's certainly the most advanced playable weapon in DCS.

    • Like 2
  16. 22 minutes ago, FIVE-one said:

    The fact is, if I follow the video above step by step, this can't be performed anymore.

    I don't want to be misunderstood : the issue is about TOO finaly not being saved on each store station. Perhaps the source is NWS/undesignate to stop feeding coordinates from the TPOD to the MSN page as in the video.

    Maybe it's a feature : you can't ripple in TOO, only through PP. But that sounds weird as it would mean real life F/A-18 can drop one bomb at a time (next rinse and repeat) with JDAM in CAS/GAAI


    It’s always been a dodgy mechanic in DCS. In real life I guess you can program multiple PP’s or simply use TOO and slew after each release.

  17. The settings are on the SA page ‘Sensor’ sub level along the top, with options for Hostile and Friendly symbols. Although the friendly symbols are currently bugged, they never show. Used to work though. 

    There’s also an option on the radar ‘data’ sub level. Top left - push button 5. RWR ATTK, I think it’s called. This applies to the symbols displaying on radar page only. 

    • Like 1
  18. So when did the placeholder for the UFC BU (Up Front Controller Back Up) page get taken away?


    Just noticed in sim today, but not sure when it changed? See shot below and compare to manual. The 'placeholder' page has been there since release, until recently.


    Does this mean the UFC BU isn't planned anymore? Although not a page that would be used alot, it's not nice to see features/systems getting removed in order to slim down the 'to-do' list. It's still on the published roadmap....



    No UFC.png

    UFC BU.png

    • Like 1
  19. 1 hour ago, Bunny Clark said:

    Wags mentions several times in the SLAM-ER video that it can function in a "fire and forget" mode which to me suggests ATA capability. 


    No I don't think so, he's just referring to guiding to an accurate static GPS location like JDAM.


    ATA is the ability to perform scene image matching and target recognition to guide to a specific point on a target, without MITL intervention, including moving targets (ships most likely). 

  20. 4 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:



    if you think there is a bug, or you have proof there is a problem make a report. 


    Blanket statements saying its "buggy" dont help. 




    The problem is that we're not sure how it's intended to be implemented. This feature hasn't been documented or showcased in any way by ED. Are we looking for and expecting a nice full rich simulation of the INS and it's associated update methods? If so, then sure bug reports could be made. If not, then we don't know what's 'buggy' and what's merely wishlist....



    • Like 1
  21. 15 hours ago, Harker said:

    You can experience both positional drift and attitude drift, without AINS. It's overmodeled though. The drift is way too much and the attitude accuracy loss is insane, at times, which makes no sense (GPS isn't used for attitude). It's like the source is the standby attitude indicator or something and it's nothing like what other, non-GPS aircraft experience.


    18 minutes ago, dorianR666 said:

    it is implemented but its quite buggy.

    causes lots of trouble in pre-gps missions.

    OK, I didn’t realise that a buggy drift feature was in. But that’s kinda my point, in my mind it’s not implemented if it’s that badly done. 
    There’s not much point in having an INS drift model simulated if it’s done badly. Otherwise what’s the point of interacting with it?
    Either you’ve got a GPS quality, no drift situation - which is perfectly authentic 99% of the time for a 2005 Hornet - or you’ve got a reasonable INS simulation that requires authentic update procedures, possible NAV uncertainty and maybe radar offset bombing etc. I’d like the option of the latter, but have no wish for a poor halfway house. 

    • Like 1
  22. 2 hours ago, Tholozor said:

    It's partially modeled. You can use the UPDT function to fix nav drift in a non-AINS mode via a TACAN or waypoint fix (like in the Tomcat). You can even change the position-keeping mode; so instead of POS/AINS or POS/INS, you can change it to POS/TCN (assuming the tuned station position is present in the MC). It won't be as accurate, but it's a decent backup.



    Yeah but none of this actually does anything, does it? It's just button pressing, there's no underlying simulation of INS drift or of all the different position keeping modes. If there is, it's certainly never been showcased or documented anywhere. 

  • Create New...