Laser guided Missiles
-
I think you got it wrong there…
Not modelled, yet, yes.
Not possible? It is absolutely possible, in 3-4 weeks.
Hello, Raptor.
Even if I’m a newbie in that - ask Nikos about - but this boy of good will would like to learn more about the “how to” procedure… also a hint to start from could be useful.
Would you help me?Thanks a lot, anyway it goes, and best regards,
-
AGM-65E need also correct WPN MFD page to make it realistic.
Here is a secret video from DCS with this MFD page (its secret because ED illegally modelled it in civilian DCS:A-10C version, then they removed it in later updates).
AGM-65E should be able to be fired using buddy’s laser even without TGP.
So there is a lot of work to implement it in BMS.You know if that page is common just to the AGM-65E or other laser weapons as well for seeker lock?
-
AGM-114 has different stuff. So I dont think an MFD page is the big issue. The main thing for the 114 is that it shows wether it locked on to the laser, shows the time of flight and from which wing it will fire.
Nothing fancy which we do not have.Basically all the coders need to do is make a missile that follows the laser marker of the tgp. That will be close enough.
Fireing the AGM114 is verymuch like dropping an LGB. Point….lase…pickle…boom -
From a quick search I did, both net & manuals, it appears that no; world-wide Viper user uses the -65E version on the bird. So modelling all these for a weapon that is actually not available for F-16; reduces the chances to minimal.
I am not sure my though is right, but I guess the E version plus the whole targeting operation maybe is suitable for lower speed aircrafts, like USMC’s Harriers and A-10. In a fast jet like the Viper, I thing (based only on that “secret” video feedback) that the targeting process (E seeker acquiring the laser beam) is taking longer than a G with the Handsoff help of TGP, thus limiting the plane’s actions and exposing it more time to enemy reactions. If this is a valid scenario, it might explains why no WW user purchased the E for the F-16;
-
My thread was started for that reason……
For other (upcomming) aircraft available in Falcon. Like UAVs, Harriers, etc.I dont really care about the F16 in this case.
coughfirst postcough
-
Sorry! Missed that!
I know the AGM114 is no F16 weapon but I was wondering because of the upcomming UAV that pops up here and there.
But realistically, we should expect this to be on the far end of the dev’s priorities. Approx 6-8 falcon weeks.
-
Then I can rest in peace knowing my grandchildren will have that feature.
-
This post is deleted! -
@TGW:
So it is safe to say that AGM-65E will not be modeled for the Hornets?
AGM-65E does “work” doesn’t it? I mean you can fire it and hit.
However, long time passed since I posted on this thread, unfortunately for the Maverick-E, my priorities had changed and they are to a very different area than avionics. Maybe someday, who knows… -
You know if that page is common just to the AGM-65E or other laser weapons as well for seeker lock?
No, it’s not. It’s specific to the AGM-65E because the AGM-65E itself is what generates the display.
-
@TGW:
So it is safe to say that AGM-65E will not be modeled for the Hornets?
…it needs to be modeled for the Hornet…because that is the ONLY AGM-65 variant in current inventory for the Hornet.
-
Accprding to the manual the AGM-123 Skipper is simulated in BMS 4.34. This is a rocket powered version of the GBU-16. If it works properly (I haven’t tested it) it should work for any other AGM. Should not even be difficult at all, dependent on whether you simply want to add a weapon duplicate with a different seeker/guidance system. I have done this with the GBU-12/16 which I have turned into the GBU-48/49 EPW II with dual mode guidance. To create a laser guided offspring of the AGM-65G for example should be no problem, given that the skipper works.
-
This post is deleted! -
You have a display diagram for the LMAV you could post? Inquiring minds want to know!
-
This post is deleted! -
…Fang?
-
This post is deleted! -
…I hope it looks like this -
although this one isn’t quite right either…the circle is a little on the small side. Ok…noticeably on the small side.
-
This post is deleted! -
That’s a little undersized too. The circle on the real display is actually a bit bigger than that.
…and I’m also pretty sure MAV shouldn’t be X’d out.