Rissala

This is just incorrect

Hornet is STILL missing all engine damage models. You CANNOT have an engine failure/fire/damage/flameout of any kind. No decrease in performance, no nothing.

@NineLine Hi, This bug was reported over 2 years ago. Any updates on this? This is an asset that greatly affects the gameplay especially in multiplayer. I would hope to see a fix some day. Thanks.

Could this be implemented some day along with other L16 capable assets such as NASAMS and Patriot? Currently there is no ground based L16 surv contributors available.

There is a years old report on the L16 missing on the FPS-117. Could this be added some day along with other L16 capable systems such as NASAMS.

Okay this +-45 degree limit in EXP3 is something which I have not heard about until this thread. If it is based on a real life limitation, then it should of course be in the game. The reason we have discussed this topic for multiple years is because none of the manuals, videos or devs have stated this limitation is in the game. The reason why everyone wants to use as much off axis angle as possible is to avoid overflying hostile territory as well as the effects of doppler shift. Even the Hornet manual uses a 51 degree off axis scan in EXP3 as an example. In my view this is a critical limitation in the A-G radar that is not communicated to the player in any way. Not in the manuals nor the A/C itself. (unsure if the aircraft even would allow to exceed these angle limits if it really is a real life limitation but I have no evidence for that) But now I know This should be communicated to the players in some way .

It is a coinflip if I can join a server with a lot of people. DCS just freezes and stops responding when trying to join a slot. Performance is absolutely terrible with the map spawn UI.

Since its impossible to add a burst height option for the VT2 setting with the MFD, the bombing computer is not told what the release HT is. This leads to bombs overshooting the target by miles. I suspect FMU-140 fuze settings were meant to be: VT1: -user set height of burst -HT option to tell the computer what is the height of burst VT2: -instant burst -no need for HT option as the canister releases immediately But they got mixed up in the code? The bombing accuracy is also very bad especially with lofting, but I cannot really make a bug report on that without the issue above fixed first.

The Hornet module for DCS is absolutely foundational! This is easily the best DCS has to offer right now. As I already said in a previous comment, can we expect a "release from EA video" for this module since its out now?

I'm curious. What does Bas 100 stand for? Never heard of "Bas 100" used to describe any Finnish roadbases. That entire Bas roadbase system is a Swedish thing.

With the release of a map with areas of Finland, I hope the FiAF liveries would get some corrections. A thread I created 3 years ago marked as reported:

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.