AGM-65 this month?

maybe he realizes his time is better spend code/fixing bugs than making a video (which takes time most professional YTers will tell you)

It is my understanding his job description does not include a whole lot of coding.

https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/podcast/028-air-combat-simulation-gaming/

It's really not puzzeling at all, if you check out the voting thread which weapons people want, ATFLIR/HARM both have 400+ votes while GBU's have 115-ish votes. It's not a matter of 'this requires very little effort so they should add it first' because a project of this size has about a billion of 'little things they could add first'.

 

It's about prioritising and they've actually made the effort of asking the community, this is the result.

That would be great logic, except Mavericks weren't even in the poll. Anyway, my point is that the only thing stopping them putting GBUs on is implementing some way to change the laser code, but with laser Mavs they have to do that AND make a whole other DDI page. It's not that it's little effort, it's that it's the *same* effort. Anyway I'm sure there's some other reason it's complicated or maybe they'll just surprise us with them at the same time - it was just a throwaway comment.

But you do need to be able to program them in the stores pages, which requires some additional coding work on the part of ED.

For regular Paveway-IIs (GBU-10/12/16) the only change would be a different ballistics table. No other parameters are programmable form the cockpit (there is no data connection between the pylon and the bomb).

GBUs don't need a dedicated TGP - you can drop them from the Mirage or F-5 for example and neither of those have one. It just uses a buddy lase. You don't even need a LST - just aim at the coordinates and drop and the bomb tracks the laser.

neither do FLIR based Mavericks ( such as AGm65F). YOu acquire targets via Mavericks seeker head, and its fire and forget after launch. So in essense its going to be displayed via MFD and be something along the lines of Shooting off a AGM65D in the A10C without a TGP.

Dont get me wrong i am still looking forward to it. GBU's will be nice, but until ATFLIR TGP is added will only be able only be used via buddy lasing, but something that still requires a ability to Change laser code.

Maybe they can borrow Heratblurs Pod LOL

they wouldnt since the F18 never used the Lantirn, and they cant just copy paste the coding for it, as the symobolgy would be different within the TGP page, and most importantly the ATFLIR would have much better resolution than 1980s vintage TGP that is the Lantirn

Looking forward to it, but what about the recent poll? ATFLIR and HARM, Mavericks were not on the list.

Looking forward to it, but what about the recent poll? ATFLIR and HARM, Mavericks were not on the list.

More work to Implement, probably why thier coming later no sooner.

Also to point out Neither was JHMCS reviving the most votes, yet given the hornet mini updates, its clear its going to be the next feature implemented to the Hornet.

Looking forward to it, but what about the recent poll? ATFLIR and HARM, Mavericks were not on the list.

Ah typical. They never said whichever feature 'won' the poll would be the one implemented first, did they?

Ah typical. They never said whichever feature 'won' the poll would be the one implemented first, did they?

What is the point of the poll then? Can customers get what the want? Don't wanna derail this topic.

Consumer feedback; they probably already had a development pipeline in place for the short-term, the poll may have shifted a few things around for longer-term.

Mavericks are easy since all the weapon control information is already known by the team, the real trick is hooking it up to the Hornet's systems so that it does what it's supposed to do (OSBs and whatnot).

As far as the HARM goes, this will be the first time the AGM-88 has ever been introduced to DCS as a payload option for a player-controlled aircraft. They've got to create all-new systems to recreate the proper functionality, symbology and performance.

What have they delivered, in terms of actual combat functionality? It's been 4.5 months since EA release... and you may be happy with the progress, but I'm not.... but, hey, at least the drag on the training pod was fixed last patch.

IIRC the last actual addition of any feature was in the end of July, but well, I'm patient. There's been a bunch of fixes at least meanwhile. Aren't those training pods just for the looks anyway? If I understood that right, they basically record flight data IRL, just like the track system or Tacview do, but it's not modelled technically in the module itself in any way. I rather would have had a look at the Vulcan dispersion, but I guess for them it's more than just changing two digits in a lua file which looks right to us, but might not be the real thing either. With the upcoming Tomcat module though this really starts to get an issue that needs some work

Hope they fix the bloody laser in DCS itself, too.

That's really overdue IMHO, but I hope they'll improve it with the ATFLIR

For those who don't know what it's about yet:

maybe he realizes his time is better spend code/fixing bugs than making a video (which takes time most professional YTers will tell you)

Wags isn't coding anyway... he's doing community and business relationship stuff, so creating those videos is just the right thing for him

Besides the AGM-65, when will the honet be able to do the accurate bomb dropping? Does it have the TGP to lase at targets?

If ATFLIR comes with new IR rendering, then i doubt that we'll see ATFLIR before they've completed the move to Vulkan.

Looking forward to it, but what about the recent poll? ATFLIR and HARM, Mavericks were not on the list.

maybe the code for all those missles is about the same

Maybe we will have Maverick with this week update?

Maybe we will have Maverick with this week update?

There isn't an update due this week (other than Stable being updated to the same level as the Open Beta patch we got last week) - the next new Open Beta patch is due on the 24th. You can expect to see a video from Wags showing us how to use the JHMCS and Mavericks before we get them.

There isn't an update due this week (other than Stable being updated to the same level as the Open Beta patch we got last week) - the next new Open Beta patch is due on the 24th. You can expect to see a video from Wags showing us how to use the JHMCS and Mavericks before we get them.

That will be great! I hope to see that kind of video soon.

GBU bombs promised in September! So I wouldn't hope for Mavericks this month.:megalol:

GBU bombs promised in September! So I wouldn't hope for Mavericks this month.:megalol:

Promised? When?

Promised? When?

They weren't promised, but they were mentioned as being specifically a focus for July/August in this newsletter: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3579278&postcount=152

Of the stuff on that list, we're missing the extra bits of RWS (LTWS, NCTR & color) and the GBUs. I'm guessing both have turned out to be a lot harder than they expected as they've gone a bit quiet on them both in recent newsletters.

Looking forward to them surprised they didn't come earlier to be honest because there's nothing special about them seeing as 3 aircraft in game already use them a maverick is a maverick, interesting to see if they link into the JHMCS in any way i.e designate a target point by looking then slaving the seeker to the marked ground point.

Looking forward to them surprised they didn't come earlier to be honest because there's nothing special about them seeing as 3 aircraft in game already use them a maverick is a maverick, interesting to see if they link into the JHMCS in any way i.e designate a target point by looking then slaving the seeker to the marked ground point.

Although 3 planes already use them , the HMI for the hornet DDIs is different. Also there is HOTAS specific functions. Altogether I agree is not a huge task but its not as easy as allowing them in the weapons loadout either.

Does anyone know if the F model can force corelate?

Does anyone know if the F model can force corelate?

I don't know, but I'd expect it to be able to do so after finding this post since it's also one of the big warhead versions:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1024146&postcount=14

Does anyone know if the F model can force corelate?

I don't know, but I'd expect it to be able to do so after finding this post since it's also one of the big warhead versions:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1024146&postcount=14

Given that the F models use modified D seekers, I'd expect that they can't force correlate.