Leaderboard

The F/A-18C Kneeboard Suite is a three-part collection of checklists, data tables, CASE charts and other useful things for the Hornet. Subscribe to this topic for changelogs and announcements. Feedback is appreciated. 1. Checklists, Quickstart, Ordnance >> Download from User Files << 31 October 2024 - Ordnance page: GBU-32 carrying options updated. 15 July 2024 - Ordnance page: fuzing options updated for the latest patch. In short, mechanical fuzes have been removed from all laser-guided and smart bombs. These checklists are based on the real-world procedures and published data as closely as it is practicable for the DCS environment. Also included: the comprehensive ordnance table, the HAFU/BRA helper, and the quickstart page (30 steps, zero aircraft knowledge required). 2. CASE I/II/III, ACL, Overhead Break, LSO Grades >> Download from User Files << 16 August 2023 - Properly inverted night version added instead of the old "dimmed" variant. This part aims to go beyond NATOPS and CNATRA in explaining the CASE I/II/III and ACL procedures. Most of the data comes from the exceptional guide by Pieter Ras that he created with support and approval from the real-world Hornet pilots. Please also watch a great video on CASE I Cyclic Ops made by Pieter. 3. RWR Threats, HARM Radar Codes >> Download from User Files << 01 October 2024 (silent update) - The Phantom and the Viggen now have the proper RWR marks. 25 May 2024 - Tiny update: Heatblur's Phantom added. It's not in the database yet, so Hornet's RWR displays it as an unknown contact. This kneeboard offers the complete list of all airborne, ground, and naval emitters currently detectable by the Hornet's RWR. Their HARM codes, engagement ranges, and recommended countermeasures are also provided. Note that only the radar emitters (so, no SA-9) found in the vanilla DCS (so, no HDS) are currently included. PDF version (all parts combined) These links are permanent and always lead to the latest version, so you can bookmark them: Day variant - https://dimon.one/dimon/files/FA-18C_Kneeboard_Suite_Day_by_DimOn_latest.pdf Night variant - https://dimon.one/dimon/files/FA-18C_Kneeboard_Suite_Night_by_DimOn_latest.pdf

Aim-120b превышает. Индия поразилась помню, потом сказала что в Израиле сделают сейчас им чудо ракету. А через неделю на миллиард долларов купила в РФ вооружения, в том числе РВВ и Р-27. Ты новости читай полностью. Сколько МиГов в Югославии стреляли по атакующим целям и какими ракетами? Ну для оценки реальной статистики? Какова была тактическая обстановка? 3000 самолетов против 20 Мигов, нет? Вроде в подвалах НКВД ТТ давал 100% точность про врагам народа, это значит что это самый точный пистолет в мире? Был ли ближний бой в Эфиопо-Эритрийской войне? Или они стрельнули ракетами в друг-друга с максимальных дальностей и разошлись? Ты рисуешь картинку которая нравится тебе просто.

Oh, I've seen my share of people who are convinced that they know better because they can run a few procedures and find typos. More often than not, their tune changes once they actually have to write the whole thing... from scratch... on a product that is still in development... where not every system is fully completed yet... on data (or lack thereof) that might be subject to interpretation... within a tight deadline... and not necessarily in their mother tongue. Feel free to reach out to ED staff members if you want to "show them how it's done", by all means. However, I'm not quite sure how far this attitude will get you. Respectfully, I think you mean well, but dismissing the task of documenting a complex simulation product as something that's just "easy" appears to me as ill-informed at best.

It probably should also be noted that Pk isn't exactly something to take at face value, threats you are facing (in the case of the AIM-120, lots of those Galebs it killed lacked RWRs), Crew training (The USAF is the gold standard here though it has acknowledged in its own Vietnam reports that crew training influences Pk) and Shot context (Is this an e pole turn signaling shot? is this a defensive launch and leave spoiler shot? is this a supported NEZ shot? Here one could possibly make a case for IR missiles as they all are by their nature shot for maximum Pk) According to this USAF report the AIM-7E from 1965 to 1968 achieved a Pk of 38% compare that to the 3% of the AA-10 and it looks wonderful doesn't it? Now would one really say an Eagle with AIM-7Es facing off against a Flanker or even an Eagle with AA-10s say the former has a BVR advantage over the later? I don't think so. Would anyone say the R-73 and AIM-9L are evenly matched in terms of effectiveness because of them both achieved about an 80% Pk Or even that the AIM-9X is inferior to both since its Pk is only 50%? See how absurd taking Pk at face value is?

This thread inspired me to put a little vid together:

On the topic of AIM-120, here is a video from a guy who actually used them in combat and got one kill (and failed to kill the second MiG-29). First time stamp: 21:57, AIM-120 and AIM-7 at 14-15miles miss from high altitude on a beaming target. Second time stamp: 27:19, AIM-120 fired at 5 miles head on from 20.000 feet misses. The pilot says that he should have shot more missiles and prepared to merge with the target in case the missile fails (gets jammed/chaffed as he states earlier) And these are all MiG-29A. They carry absolutely no jammer. Only 30-60 chaff. If a 5 mile shot in perfect conditions (and fully supported in STT!) will miss there, one can only wonder how the missiles do against equally modern jammers and chaff.

Мы не будем больше давать комментариев по Су-27. Сорри.

I created a little guide on how I use the HMCS while flying online if anyone wants to check it out. -Tricker

Yea, I've heard the same as Lurker. We sim heads tend to think that modules are made in studios the same way the next blockbuster Call of Duty, Formula1 2028, or Disney Lego and Ster Werz games are made. I think the complexity of what is being made at simulation companies fools us a little bit, but really it's just a small loose team investing lots of hours. Now, ED itself, is I believe, a sizeable number of employees, and who work full time. And they make their own modules, do net code, server code, core graphics updates... they have a lot on their plates. The independent module makers, some might be so small, some might even not be drawing any pay at all when developing a module, they might be just investing their time and labor in the hopes of a modest return/profit and recognition, making an aircraft they love to actually use in-game. Thing is, the trend in flight simulations is for things to have more detail, more complexity offered to us, and that takes more development time. Today's free DCS mods are more complex than what we used to call a "full fidelity sim" back in 1998. And the paid modules are absolutely stunning today compared to the "uh... it kinda looks like a plane?? maybe? Is that a bird or a plane?" of the 1990's. This is why, if you can afford to buy a module at full price, then please do instead of waiting for a sale. Sure, you won't get the cheap pricing, but in this way you help support the creators that make the content we love, and those who have trouble justifying full price can wait for a sale!!

I don't know how many 600-page technical manuals you have written in your life, but please, do realize that it's not a difficult job to do... it's an INSANELY difficult job to do, even for professionals. Most of the information in the A-10 manual is correct, but there could be a few mistakes here and there. Flagging them is the best we can do.

Perhaps your tone, using expressions like " just another example of ED's failure ", can explain the animosity ... you just didnt seem intrerested on genuinely helping to correct a bug on a manual, just wanted to rant about how bad is the quality of ED's work. I'm not interested on that kind of attitude, so I will just add you to the ignore list in order to save myself the grief of reading your critics.

Ты ведь и сам знаешь, что у НАТО были все преимущества перед малочисленными МиГ-29Б с непонятно на сколько работоспособным БРЭО. И я сейчас не только о УРВВ или самолетах, но и о самолетах ДРЛО, которых Сербы были лишены. В равных условиях 2 Ф-15 были побеждены (т.е один из них поврежден, по данным США) парой МиГ-25 ракетами Р-40. Воздушный бой Самурра тому примером.

Мне незачем опровергать не доказанные вещи. бОльшее возмущение вызывает нераскрытие темы. Мол, 120-ками покрошили пачку МиГарей. А с чем летали МиГи-то? Дайте пищу для анализа вместо пустословия.

Делаю треки.

Один Мигарик красавчик ушел аж от ДВУХ стодвадцаток прежде чем его достала третья вот это скилап пилота или даунскил ракеты ?!

Ваш компьютер цифровой. Можно поставить на него один набор софта и получить одну производительность, и другую производительность с другим набором софта, на том же железе. Другой пример - СУВ МиГ-23МЛ(МиГ-25ПД) и СУВ МиГ-29 9-12 - казалось бы переход с аналога в цифру, но результаты не драматические. Вы можете посоветовать техническую литературу по голове 120 которую считаете хорошей? Не "там ЭВМ", а "ЭВМ там используется вот так". Спасибо.

There is an old saying when nice folks like you share great stuff like this and for free you never look at a horses teeth when is a gift the skin is looking good take care and stay safe.

С чего это исключительно про МиГ-29? Что за фантазии? Кстати, раз уж ты о них заговорил, у тех МиГов 9.12А были только Р-27Р. Сравнивай их с Ф-16 блок 10/15, у которых вообще не было УРВВ средней дальности) Это тупой троллинг. Но объясни все же, как же тогда вышло, что Р-77 проходила все испытания параллельно с Aim-120, а не на 20 лет позже? Смотри видео про учебные полеты натовцев против немецких МиГ-29

Причем тут Галебы, если речь исключительно о МиГ-29? Именно так, что достигнуто в США, СССР/РФ достигает через 20+ лет, касается всех отраслей куда не перераспределяются ресурсы с других(в СССР развитие шло экстрактивным путем, а не инклюзивным как в США. More: Daron Acemoglu, James Robinson "Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty"). О каких крутых советских истребителях можно говорить, когда совок не смог в аэродинамику формулы 1? Хороший автомобиль это основа для хорошего самолета, через ветки технологического дерева не перепрыгнешь. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_base_effect А теперь с новыми знаниями приведите насколько Р-73 лучше 9L и 9X на примере догфайта в реальных войнах.

Есть цифры пусков Р-27 по МиГ-29 в эфиопо-эритрейском конфликте. 27 пусков и только 1 фраг. Точность Р-27 по МиГ-29 менее 4%. Цифры пусков AIM-120 по МиГ-29 в Югославии легко находятся в гугле, даже Чиж давно приводил. Точность AIM-120, всех тамошних модификаций, по МиГ-29 >0,7. В 17.5 раз AIM-120 точнее Р-27, в ДКС эта разница существенно меньше, опять совков для электората переапали.

Вот только везде говорят об поврежденом Ф-15. То что пишешь ты - это что-то новенькое. Расскажи заодно, как Аим-7 повредила МиГ-25, который катился по земле

Really? I tought we are currently at 3/4 of the month?

It literally says the 31st - Subject to change. Today is the 24th

Thanks .. but I've learned a lot more about the A-29B on this last few days, thanks to Lucas Orsi videos and PM's ... so I for sure will be updating my Procedures soon, right after the new build of the A-29B gets released. I will send them your way as soon as they are ready. In the meantime I'm enjoying this new bird while editing a few Training missions for her, the first is finished: And the 2nd, about Waypoint Navigation, should get finished today the next would be about break circuit and visual landing, and after that I expect to attempt some Weapons training Best regards, Eduardo

Релевантно не с чем были "мигари", а уходили ли они от обстрела.

We are trying very hard to make it as real as it can get. We are receiving lots of pilots feedback. There are several new features coming soon. You can check them at https://github.com/luizrenault/a-29b-community/tree/devel. We (@PaKo) were able to make a few changes on @SKYPORK FSX 3d model (I hope he doesn't mind) and corrected the propeller animation, added external lights, speedbrake, removable pylons, canopy size and shape, gear shock absorption and compression, and we are now preparing it to receive damage textures and animations. If @SKYPORK gives his blessing, it can be the definitive 3d model. One of the main advantages would be to use all liveries that were already made.

Ты делаешь то же самое что и я. Если бы я занимался этим профессионально, я мог бы не менее железобенню логическую цепочку изобразить. В современном мире, информационном 50/50 - может быть так, а может быть по другому. Не вижу смысла продолжать спорить и доказывать, то что никому достоверно не известно. Можно сделать заключение проще - твоя медийная информация значительно красивей, моя хуже. Про aim-120b утверждать не буду, замерять надо. Сами писали что возросла эффективность ~20%. ЕМНИП дальность +3-5км. Или это не превосходит номограммы, которым соответсвует р-27? Может поправили чего, тогда извиняйте.

Сколько из этих 29 таскало Р-27ЭР? Хреновый пример, индусы постоянно воют, мол, это не у нас руки из сфинктера - это все они плохие. Я еще раз спрошу. Кто еще ноет на РФское вооружение?

I’d never be rude with a skinner’s work .. I’ve tried several times to learn skinning and so I know how truly complex it can be, and this FACH scheme is very difficult, having serials in camouflage color and a non-roundel or square stylized national markings that are in camouflage color as well, plus most available photos don’t show the wing markings at all. Looking forward to use your skin once it is available thanks a lot for making this skin

Second intent, work in progress -adobe still dont want to join the dark side of the force-. First Tucano of the FACH (dont be rude on me) second, argentinian Tucano trainer with the epic paint scheme used by EAM,

Fri13 has the inside scoop, no doubt. As a lightweight semi-serious flyer, I enjoy the plane a lot. It's a ton of fun and a solid ground pounder. Maybe I don't know enough to be disappointed with it, but the Harrier is my favorite plane. VTOL off a carrier, some funky night action with the laser guided goodies, and back for a night carrier landing. That's some good fun. Get this plane on sale and it's worth every dollar and more.

Thanks a bunch for the feedback, much appreciated! We are in the progress of creating and publishing a public roadmap that will include all of our aircraft. This will help a lot with this issue - even though it will focus on major components and features for the most part. We will try to do better to acknowledge bugs and feedback; but we rarely miss adding anything to our internal trackers.

You are being unnecessarily pedantic. Yep, there's a big difference and these things you can read about and speculate about their exact meaning. No one here is going to know the exact differences, and if they do they won't be talking about them - and you know this. The simplest level of simulation in DCS here is simply the chaff rejection value for all of this. And yes, INU is not magical but your response isn't reasonable either. INU should steer the missile where it needs to go, not leave it flying into space. Yep, the target might not be there any longer, but that's not the problem - the missile should still be flying towards search coordinates, not into orbit.

In the next update for the Hornet, we will introduce two new AGM-88C HARM modes: Pre-Briefed (PB) and the Pull Back sub-mode for the Self Protect (SP) mode. The Pre-Briefed mode allows you attack ground-based radars at long range based on a coordinate and target-radar type using either. Thank you The ED team

How about ED make all of these features mandatory for all of the other high fidelity modules. As far as I can tell the JF is the only module that has its DTC actually modeled.

None of those are contact fuses, the fuse for a JDAM is actually in the tail kit, not the nose. The bottom picture is just a nose cap to help it penetrate “slightly” hardened structures, the middle one I’m not sure, other than it just looks again like a simple nose cap, the top one is a completely different fuse, probably a DSU-33 (proximity fuse). In all of these cases, its only graphical in DCS, right now none of these fuses or nose caps really matter.

that's right, the external and internal model will change, I'm working as fast as I can in my spare time to finish the internal model.

Patch today? Any news?

Что и требовалось доказать

Счет не изменился? Не аргумент. Так то и интересно: Р-27 с буковкой Э или без нее? М? Разница-то огромная. Поговорка есть про Божью росу.

Плохая аналогия. В футболе у обеих сторон одинаковые руки и ноги. В том конфликте, если провести аналогию с футболом, получится, что играли 100 в бутсах против 11 в валенках. Ни слова про ракеты 29-х. А по ссылкам найти браузеру ни одну страницу не удается.

Как же непрофессионально выдавать не весть какую картинку за реальную статистику, а также при этом не приведя условий боёв (кто что таскал, кто как пускал). Развести нас хотите?

Ты ясновидящий походу)

Большая разница т.к амраамоносцы могли безнаказанно подойти к цели на дальность пуска существенно меньшую, чем максимальная дальность полета ракеты. Су-27 же с МиГ-29 бились в равных условиях. Ссылка? И? Они ее использовали против самолетов с Аим-120А или нет? Нет? Тогда о чем речь? РВВ-АЕ - это экспортная версия ракеты 80-х годов

You can disable them by unchecking this option

Наверное потому что самой совершенной ракетой, которая противостояла Аим-120 была Р-27Р1, ни одного носителя Р-27ЭР аим-120 не сбивали. При этом основная цель амраама - это что-то вроде МиГ-21/23, у которых не только ракеты куда древнее Р-27, так еще и системы на поколение-два примитивнее. Кроме того, сейчас в игре Аим-120 воюют с другими носителями амраамов, что еще больше бьет по вероятности поражения.

Конечно, Р-27ЭР вполне себе сравнима с Аим-120А, в плане дальности выглядит даже получше

It would be beyond awesome if modules like the Huey and Mi-8 would be slightly more useful in battle... Please ED, consider implementing the ability to sling load light ground units like a mortar unit and the ZU-23. In addition, as @159th_Falcon listed in this thread a few years ago, there are more vehicles "light" enough to be sling loaded: By now, that list can probably be expanded This promises to become a wonderful year for us chopperheads. With a bit of luck, more and more people will start flying choppers and MP servers will focus more on helo OPS. With the Hind and the Apache on the horizon, I'm afraid though that the Huey and maybe the Mi-8 (I hardy ever fly the latter) will become even less useful than they are now. Which would be a shame as that nimble UH-1 is just so much fun to fly once you master it. I know lots of missions these days have the CTLD script implemented. Obviously this is better than nothing, but apart from it being unrealistic (it's not really sling load, but just some extra weight), it also is limited in its capabilities. For instance, once you've travelled 15nm to unload a mortar team, if that team happens to be slightly placed wrong (out of line of sight) it won't do anything and the player has to go through another 30nm to try again... Would be great if we could just pick that unit up again and relocate it. Also, it would be a great sight on the battlefield to actually see transport choppers sling load cannons and other weaponry, in-between all those AH-64's and OH-58's

We badly need the new S-3 and SH-60. I think they are coming this year

True, but I think they still would model it functional, as the hardware technically is still present and wokring. I would just not want anything newer than ASSTA 1, as the GMR picture is pretty shit to look at on the new NHDD. I would love to know how the GMR picture looks on the GR.4s TARDIS and if its at least of the same qaulity as the CRPMD. The TARDIS probably good for MIDS stuff. Other than that a ASSTA 1 is still able to do the same job as a earlier ASST IDS (ASST were the standards before ASSTA). Up to that point capabilities got only added. Effectively MW-1 was out of use by then, but the function was still part of the SMS in ASSTA 1. I still think a TIALD/Desert Storm GR.1 would be the best blast, as you could still fly it the same way as a 80s GR.1, with the "drawback" of having the slightly newer ERWR II radar warning receiver.