Rissala

Bug is reproduced as follows: 1. Takeoff with A/A stores 2. Enter A/A mode with the A/A mode button before the gear retraction sequence has stopped. 3. Stay in A/A mode until the gears have retracted and locked. Results: All air-to-air stores are stuck on the pylons. (cannot be fired, yes MARM was on) The HUD is stuck on NAV/approach symbology. On the stores page, the selected weapon has the "sel" on it but the HUD is frozen the above mentioned way. The state seems to be unrecoverable after takeoff. (full GEN on/off won't help) Edit: Seems like cycling A/A workarounds the issue. Realizing that you need to do that in a fight is another matter. Picture of the state and track below. AA takeoff WP select bug.trk

I thought these were supposed to be edited :(((. Why on earth would you not allow these. It is just 3 programs I wan't to edit....

Finland never had AIM-9L Correct one would be AIM-9M or X Small but easy fix :)

I tested this a while back for 2 hours. Didn't manage to replicate. Landed 10+ times with a speed of 250-350 and AoA of LESS than the critical 15 degrees. It was mostly about 10 degrees. This made me think that it could be a birdstrike as the engine covers are not engaged until a slow enough speed. The odd thing is however that other modules (exept SU-25) do not get birdstrikes at all and that the fire happens right at touchdown. The track of the video was broken since it was a MP mission with Gs exceeding 7 and it was too long. I will also test a dual landing possibility since the bug happened here after the second landing. It could be related to the bug.

Nope, those are just some gear noises. If the engines hit the ground, there is a scraping noise. I am aware of the nozzle thing. 2 things disprove this: The nozzles are still off the ground at 10 degree AoA. The engine collision model actually ignores the nozzles when they are expanded. The cans clip through the ground until the collision model of the closed position touches the ground and scrapes the engine. Bonus fact: There isn't an engine fire when there is a tailstrike. The engine only gets damaged and thrust and RPM is decreased.

Track and a screenshot: The lights just look bad which should be obvious. Bug came with latest patch. F15 cockpit lights.trk

This bug looks something like this. It always happens right at touchdown. EDIT: Is this a birdstrike ED? It seems unlikely since everytime this happens it is right at touchdown and never on takeoff. EDIT2: It would help if there was a sound effect for the birdstrike. MIG-29_engine_fire(1)(1).mp4

My experience with this. weird_ai(1).mp4

Hornet rudder movement is seriously overcorrecting and flapping hard when there is light wind and turbulence. This starts when the FCS is in landing mode -> when flying on speed AoA. The shaky movement is unrealistic for any actuator, and sometimes it can actually make your landing worse by moving the plane sideways. In the track there is a "realistic" turbulence and weather setting but the rudders move unneccessarily fast which makes the approach and landing shaky. In the video you can see how smooth the movement should really be. There are plenty of landing videos on Youtube for reference material. I also want to emphasise that I do know that there needs to be large and quick corrections when there is wind and turbulence but currently the rudder is overcorrecting and shaking a lot. The movement just needs to be dampened quite a lot. rudder movement.trk

Yep, the plane is missing the bounce after you slam it on the deck/field. It definitely is not just you.

The Hornet was designed to be a ground attack/strike aircraft from the design table. It does not use armour to defend itself but rather redundancy of different systems. This extends to the engines as well. With the Hornet soon to be out of EA, I'd expect to at least get an engine failure, or damage of some sort to a single engine on our twin engine jet. This is not currently possible. The damage model treats the engines as a simple block that can only get visual damage. The engines can only be shut down with fuel starvation, or the complete destruction of the jet. (according to my testing and gameplay) Systems such as the avionics already have a simple damage and destruction modelled, which is fun and exciting when trying to RTB with a stricken jet. The bare minimum what I'd love to see done to the engine damage models: -Possibility of seperate engine damage/destruction from external threats -Visual damage seperation (right now the visual damage treats the engines as a single block from the bottom) -Engine fire from exteral threats -Reduced thrust from damage -The ability to create failures to a specific engine from the mission maker Other nice-to-have but not neccessary things: -Vibrations from damage -Fire spreading to the other engine (a real threat with the engines near each other) -Generator failure -Fuel control system failure -Oil leak with a black trail All of the bare minimum things are already in the game with FC3 planes and some FF modules such as F14 and A-10C.

This does not touch on the reciever end of the radar. Yes, every object has an RCS against all radars. But the main point both noted in the study and what I tried to say is that the radar might not get any useful data since the wavelength is too short when compared against the width of the missile. "The RCS considers the absolute power received with the co and cross polarizations included. It means that the absolute power involves both vertical and horizontal polarizations – actually the square root of both squared components. A real world measurement will have to count on antennas able to receive both polarizations." That will be almost impossible IRL since the wavelenth and amplitude will most likely not line up well with the missile shape since it is so small. That is not an issue with stealth aircraft and normal aircraft because of the relatively large size the waves have to bounce off. This means that all of the planes of oscillation will have a good chance of getting a return ticket to the reciever. The reciever will most likely only see one plane of the signal and categorize it as noise. Also the study assumed that the missile is a superconductor... Edit: This bug is already reported so I think arguing here does not fit the point of the thread.

You cannot just counter his arument by saying: "I have bad news for you ... yes they are. They are very, very detectable." You look stupid saying that. He is right here. RCS is very much linked to the frequency of the emitting radar and countering that with "I'm right, you're wrong" mentality makes you seem like a fool. X-band radars are not accurate enough to create a track from the miniscule area painted by a missile coming at them. The wavelength of an X-band radar used on all fighters is about 1/3rd of the diameter of an AMRAAM, while the very same wavelength is about 1/300th of an F-16... A 100 times more than the missile. You need radars in the 100 GHz range to reliably detect missiles, which do not exist on aircraft. In other words, the missile is just way too small physically for an X-band radar, not only in respect to the RCS value which is also very small. The reflections come from a point source unlike from a stealth aircraft where they come from the full length of the aircraft which makes this argument kinda dumb. It is the same thing as trying to spot and track a fighter with a C-band weather radar. Good luck trying. This linked with all of the great points from other users such as noise reduction logically proves that this is an impossibility irl and should be so in the sim. This is also called a bug. Do you have any evidence that states otherwise? (irl reports, capabilities stated etc?)

To reproduce: Set failure to the (left/right/both) engine fuel control system. Fly the plane at low speeds to increase temp in the engine while at max mil power. When the value reaches 1067 (could be different for other systems) DCS halts without crash report. Cannot make a track since the game crashes. Also related to this: Why isn't there an engine fire option in the failure settings?? It would be kinda cool to have some realistic failures that require the use of the fire extinguishing system that is taught in the start up/cockpit training mission... EGT bug.mp4

I find that whenever I'm doing longer missions, the autothrottle will not engage with a single press. Instead I always have to "wake up" the bind so when I press it again it works. After It has been engaged once, it should work again for 10s of minutes.

And to my defense, sometimes you hear it more and sometimes you hear it less...

Yeah the yellow means more db and blue is less db. So in a nutshell the thing became quieter which is good. What I hear is this other engine loop sound that changes freq from a medium low to medium every 5 seconds. That sound seems to still be in there. I get that this is a really small thing and maybe I'm the only one who hears it but here it is: I have not been able to un-hear it ever since it got added so listen with caution... Annoying loop.mp4

On the left there is the previous version and on the right the fixed version. I see why people had serious headaches from this. Well done ED.

Yes it was exactly as shown. I had the same file structure. For steam there isn't a file called DCS.openbeta in the path but rather just DCS. The issue was in my head. I did some testing and I found out that yes, ED did some changes, but not to the sound I was focusing on the whole time. Now when I compare these I can see the (quite noticeable) difference and I can also say this change was for the better. I was just so focused on this other sound that annoys me that my brain refused to listen to other sounds. (dramatization :D) What is this other sound then I hear you say? Well it is a different loop than the canopy one. I'll try to show it on a spectrum analyzer here. I'll also post the audio clips from the comparison now. The differences between the original and hotfix. Taken from Caucasus freeflight with same volume and no A/C inputs. (100% mil) Without Fix.mp3 With fix.mp3

Not a typo. I'm on 2.7.4 latest open beta on Steam and the file structure is copied straight from file explorer (name removed tho). I tried to rename the DCS folder to match yours but DCS just ignored that folder and created a new one called "DCS" so I don't think that is the right way to do it. Maybe It is broken on steam?

I know that this sounds frustrating but I tried the hotfix and the looping sound with the frequency change is still there. I can show it with a freq analysis tool too. Maybe the hotfix didn't work with Steam??? The sound is still there and it seems to be the engines. I don't want to waste ED's time so I just want to confirm that some of you noticed a difference? Describe the difference you noticed? Edit: It seems like some people got it working?? Maybe it is my fault? Does this hotfix work on steam? My folder structure (on steam) C:\Users\[username]\Saved Games\DCS\Sounds\sdef\Aircrafts\FA-18\Cockpit and the 2 files in "Cockpit" folder Basically I have the same issue as @SFJackBauer above

I believe this is the anti-fog sound so it is a different thing. I'll test this soon.

There is a new looping engine sound that loops around every ~3 seconds. It is a medium volume and low frequency "airflow" sound, a bit similar to a vortex but in all flight stages. It isn't tied to the anti-fog handle but seems to come from the engines or pressurised air system. The problems with this: I have to reduce in game sounds since the sound gets annoying fast. The "loopy" nature of the sound is in my opinion low quality. You can reliably hear when the loop starts again. This does not belong in the Hornet in my opinion. And for other suggestions, I'd like to hear more low volume sounds from the fuselage and wings when the pilot is making jerk (rate of change of g) and/or when there is turbulence. This comes from the fuselage tensioning up during external stresses. IRL whenever there is turbulence on any plane, you will hear and obviously feel it. With the feeling part gone on a sim, I think the sound part should be in there.

I was about to report the same issue Here is my track. The seeker is uncaged after activation like it has always been (is this correct btw?) but now it is pointing at a random side with maximum deflection. Workaround is to cage the seeker once and then uncage for correct behaviour. SLAM seeker.trk

Well I will abandon this thread for now. I can't really think of any new evidence to prove this bug than what has already been told here. Still kinda sucks that 0 visibility designation is still kind of useless but I hope this gets some attention some day.