What is missing from the JF-17 to be complete?

Title basically. I don't know the ins and outs of this plane. I curious to hear how far away from completion it is given that almost everything these days is 1-2 years away from completion.

i would be happy to know what we will expect to see in JF-17 next

* Ground RADAR (new API on the way)

* Some systems features (they just added DTOS data entry).

* Bug fixes

Jeff is 99% complete as it is now.

I think it is feature complete. I maybe wrong, just bug fixes here and there. Just syncing everything with changes ED made (like lighting, Ground radar etc.)

Sent from my Redmi K20 Pro using Tapatalk

Excited to see where the air to air radar goes, I believe it still has a few things it needs

Excited to see where the air to air radar goes, I believe it still has a few things it needs

Really? What's missing?

Is it possible to unselect the target without going out of ACM mode?

We are still missing a more complete Manual, instead of just a Guide.

any word on the cockpit textures?

INS modeling is not complete, INS fix modes beyond overfly don't work and FP-B doesn't work either. I think there are some elements in navigation subsystem that needs some additional work

Is it possible to unselect the target without going out of ACM mode?

S2 press to unlock?

* Ground RADAR (new API on the way)

The new API was implemented in JF-17 same update when Hornet received first A-G radar MAP mode.

Problem is that JF-17 A-G radar is just a external camera view with fancy edge detection image filter when in extended modes. Likely because it doesn't yet work even in ED implemented version.

But I am personally little worried about the whole A-G radar functionality as it seems ED went little too easy way around this time instead working out a real beam checking. Like A-G radar currently doesn't see any trees, only special terrain shape used for checking LOS and then something for object ID's for reflections.

I don't think any ED systems are designed to interact with trees. Probably because you can hide them by lowering terrain settings.

1) Missing a manual and oficial tutorial missions. 2) I would love to see an option to have the proper ins coordinates, heading and altitude pre-entered. If aircraft is departing home base that would seem more realistic, or an unrealistic auto align to skip it instead. 3) better key binding for countermeasure programming and direct hud functionalities (cmbt, rdr, sms directly). Otherwise fun little plane.

1) Missing a manual and oficial tutorial missions. 2) I would love to see an option to have the proper ins coordinates, heading and altitude pre-entered. If aircraft is departing home base that would seem more realistic, or an unrealistic auto align to skip it instead. 3) better key binding for countermeasure programming and direct hud functionalities (cmbt, rdr, sms directly). Otherwise fun little plane.

1) True, they're working on it, you have to keep in mind that is a complete plane, so it has to be at least a 300 pages of manual, as it has literally everything in DCS in an innmense Level of Detail.

2) I don't know what you're talking about.

3) I'm not giving an opinion on this, I will only say that you're asking for a Shortcut, so you cannot say that that's "Not finished".

You can use auto start to align INS if you want

I think he means having the INS coordinates already being input like how the F-16 already has the correct coordinates entered and you just have to start the alignment by turning the switch.

I think he means having the INS coordinates already being input like how the F-16 already has the correct coordinates entered and you just have to start the alignment by turning the switch.

Introducing coordinates is part of the fun.

Especially now that we have the real button sounds:megalol:

You can ask the Ground Crew to input the coords. for you before you start up .

Comms Menu > F8 Ground Crew > F6 Update INS Coordinates > F1 Get Coordinates

I always do that if I need to get up quickly.

Really? What's missing?

Realism?

Its more or less a FC3 level radar currently when compared to the F16/18. Or maybe an AESA...

The biggest peeve I have is that you have instant information on target aspect, nope not on real radars, you get updates, and maybe some interpolation from track files. Same for range data. Even more appropriate for accurate altitude data.

Just do some comparisons between the F-teen radars and the Jeff radar and see whats different. It probably shouldn't be that much different. The Jeff radar should be in the ballpark of the Viper radar.

Also, almost no fighter pilots use "Track while Lie" (TWS) to prosecute attacks, why you ask? Update times suck, therefore actual targeting sucks. How far is that target moving and what is it doing in the time you watch that line scan from left to right, and up/down. What volume of space could that fighter be in that time?

Realism?

 

Its more or less a FC3 level radar currently when compared to the F16/18. Or maybe an AESA...

 

The biggest peeve I have is that you have instant information on target aspect, nope not on real radars, you get updates, and maybe some interpolation from track files. Same for range data. Even more appropriate for accurate altitude data.

 

Just do some comparisons between the F-teen radars and the Jeff radar and see whats different. It probably shouldn't be that much different. The Jeff radar should be in the ballpark of the Viper radar.

 

Also, almost no fighter pilots use "Track while Lie" (TWS) to prosecute attacks, why you ask? Update times suck, therefore actual targeting sucks. How far is that target moving and what is it doing in the time you watch that line scan from left to right, and up/down. What volume of space could that fighter be in that time?

I thought I read that TWS built tracks even in RWS, for the first contacts it sees? Switching to TWS then uses the known target track data immediately.

It would be interesting to test the TWS update functionality/prediction by shooting at a target TWS that turns immediately 180 degrees and seeing what the missile does.

Unless a target is maneuvering, TWS should be reasonably accurate (not perfect, granted).

I wouldn't use it to track anything I needed good data on. In fact, it's a mode I don't use very often at all.

I thought I read that TWS built tracks even in RWS, for the first contacts it sees? Switching to TWS then uses the known target track data immediately.

 

 

It would be interesting to test the TWS update functionality/prediction by shooting at a target TWS that turns immediately 180 degrees and seeing what the missile does.

 

 

Unless a target is maneuvering, TWS should be reasonably accurate (not perfect, granted).

 

 

I wouldn't use it to track anything I needed good data on. In fact, it's a mode I don't use very often at all.

I think Harliquinn has it mostly right, I’ve seen what looks like the SD-10 having perfect mid course updates even though the modern teen fighters have limited mid course updates implemented it seems. I have never lost lock that wasn’t in a notch for a couple seconds or gimbal limit, it really does seem to read target position immediately with no updates. I’m sure it will be just as realistic as the F-18 once it’s done, I know the transition to 2.5.6 and having elevation measured differently probably helped push those radar plans a bit farther back

Like I saw the recent F-16 thread about TWS and ACM, and people confirming that TWS is just as unreliable as pilots have always said:megalol:

I don't think any ED systems are designed to interact with trees. Probably because you can hide them by lowering terrain settings.

What will render the A-G radar unrealistic when in future you can find the units in forests and positions where you shouldn't. And there is no such ground clutter as there should be.

I thought I read that TWS built tracks even in RWS, for the first contacts it sees? Switching to TWS then uses the known target track data immediately.

 

I'd like to see where you read that. Specifically for the KLJ-7

Also it has nothing to do with the magical update rates we see for targets.

It would be interesting to test the TWS update functionality/prediction by shooting at a target TWS that turns immediately 180 degrees and seeing what the missile does.

 

 

Unless a target is maneuvering, TWS should be reasonably accurate (not perfect, granted).

Like a fighter? You just shot at?