Rissala

Same thoughts from me as well. I am not to judge when the plane is ready for release. It isn't my product nor my company BUT, This sort of "quiet" release implies low confidence in the product. Actually no, this absolutely screams low confindence and a lack of passion for this product. Its just the way it is. No way of getting around it. People in this community will always find out anyways. And in my personal opinion, this type of release is more harmful for this product as opposed to releasing it with full confidence even with its flaws. ED gave a full trailer with newsletters when a map was released from EA. I would not even be annoyed that it still has some issues. Nothing is perfect, ever. I believe a lot of people still like the Hornet as a module as much as I do. But if I worked as a dev for something as defining as the Hornet is for DCS, for more than half a decade, I would find it massively insulting that the result isn't even worth a mention from the company. Seriously ED, why do it this way? Every 3rd party developer is actually proud of what they do. And you are not?

System damage modelling is surprisingly good (with a few inaccuracies to the real thing). The subject of this topic is the enignes, which cannot be damaged at all due to a missing damage model. They just need to implement it, hopefully to a standard comparable to FC3. Also I hope we might some day get a physical damage model that does not turn the Hornet in to a flying candle when hit with even small warheads at proximity fuze distances...

It is possible that the conditions for this bug are as stated by @Lekaa. It makes sense that this bug only occurs with "old" F/A-18C and F-16C slots since there has been a datalink rework lately. All of the servers I fly on, are dynamic campaigns which means that its likely that all slots are from older .miz files (1 year <). This would also explain why it cannot be replicated on SP. (new slots) I think the solution is to somehow force all F/A-18 and F-16C client slots to use the new version in older .miz files.

Thanks for the comment. I have seen this happen even without AWACS but only when friendly sensors are picking me up.

null @Lord Vader can I DM you this trackfile on Discord? Tried making a new MP track but its too large to post here. The issue is very much replicable on all servers. Just make sure you have L16 on and you are seen by friendly donors.

Hi, Actually it looks like you are not seen by any sensors. This is issue happens on every flight, every time so I doubt that its random. Also, I don't think its replicable on tracks since its a MP only bug. seems like its not random, but not consistent either. see solution

To reproduce the bug: -Join any MP server with DL donors available. -Turn on L16 -Takeoff so a donor sensor (surv or/and F/F donor) can see you. -Observe that ownship is displayed as a seperate track cocentrically with your ownship location on the SA page and on other DL enabled pages such as the radar page. The datalink should automatically filter out your own DL track and not display it to yourself. This issue only affects multiplayer. (the SA page is displaying myself to me) No track, as this is easier replicated with steps above.

This. With the monumental amount of effort put in to this module over several years, it seems odd that there isn't an announcement for official release...

In DCS there are modules with much better damage models than the Hornet (FC3, A-10, F-14, Viggen etc.). It is only the Hornet (and to an extent the F16) which have very bad physical damage models (stabs are made of cardboard, both wings snap off with all missile hits etc.) The Hornet does not even have engine damage modelled at all. It isnt even on/off modelling, there literally isnt a damage model there. When the engines flame out in the Hornet, the only possibility is the failure of both feed tanks and thus fuel exhaustion (and a few checks to prevent bugs). This subject just needs dev time, no way around it.

Ah, seems like an old limitation. If that is the case in the manual, so be it in game. Thanks for the lookup

Is this a 2004 era Hornet thing I'm not aware of? It is possible to place pretty much anything you want on the map layers, and it is not limited by scale. I won't get in to how that is done but this limitation makes little sense.

Additionally, MAP functionality is STILL broken outside of 40nm scale. This is extremely annoying since 80nm is IMO the most useful display scale for most situations.

To reproduce: -switch to guns -go BST -then go vertical scan -then switch to AIM7/AIM-9/AIM-120 -observe that the GACQ scan pattern is on the HUD even with missiles selected and that the radar is doing a weird scan pattern with almost +-90 deg scans ACMpattern.trk

Engine damage model has not been implemented for hostile fire. The engines can only die due to fuel starvation or the complete destruction of the jet (and some special cases). I was told that this is a W.I.P item in my wishlist post on this topic.

Hi, The transition to STT in these modes should be pretty much instant when the scan sees the target (this is a subjective statement, but read this as comparable to F16 etc). Many updates ago, the ACM was very snappy and comparable to other modules in DCS, and I did not see this "track box" drifting off target at all before STT. Some of the examples I posted here are a bit extreme, but in the first video, the second to last example (at 0:15) has me dragging the boresight circle at just under 2g over the target and failing to lock it since the track box moves away with the aircraft. I'd like to see some ACM lock-on tuning, but I can't (obviously) give you anything else than videos and tracks to support this issue. It is pretty much your call to where you want to go from here. Thanks.