norman99

Apologies for being off topic, but how did you get the A-6 to work as a static in 2.9? When I try, the model doesn't appear, either in the ME or in game.

@Hulkbust44 I didnt know the exact details, thanks for that .

Lost of SuperCarrier footage in preparation for some big updates. Just like last year which had, (runs and checks)....... 1 second of carrier time..... Oh well.... Maybe not....

So a level delivery is the only accurate delivery method for unguided bombs in the Hornet at the moment? I guess most people primarily use guided munitions in DCS, so maybe this isn't a concern to many, but it's kind of frustrating that a fundamental part of the Hornet still isn't preforming as required. For anyone with the Viper, does it suffer from similar inaccuracies with unguided bombs, across differing delivery profiles?

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I'm consistently long by 200ft-300ft, not meters.

I've just been practicing lofting Mk82s and found mine all went long, so . I plan on doing some more drops tomorrow, so I'll see what I get.

@Bounti30 Think of it this way. If the core DCS engine was a paid product, released every few years (which I actually advocate, but that's another can of worms...), than with every new 'release', new features and updated technologies would be not just included, but expected. Instead, DCS has a very frequent update cycle, with small continuous improvements the ultimate goal. Over the course of time, both methods ultimately lead to a requirement to provide increased computing power, if one wishes to continue enjoying DCS to the fullest (i.e. maxed out). This is absolutely the same as any other long running series of software. I certainly don't expect MSFS to run maxed out on the same system I ran FSX or early versions of Prepar3D. At the end off the day it's the price of progress, and it's unavoidable.

I've been practicing lofting Mk82s, but only sort of successfully. I have a precise waypoint with accurate elevation designated, run in at 100' agl at 550kts, at exactly 5nm I start a 3.5-4g pullup, releasing between 30°-35°. Releasing in auto, all my bombs land long by 200'-300'. This error is very repeatable. Does anyone have a more accurate procedure for lofting dumb bombs from low level? Secondly, is the hornet supposed to have a dedicated loft delivery mode which calculates the pull up point? I know the Viper does. If so, is it anywhere on ED's to do list?

I find it hard to believe you can't find anything suitable. For context, I play on a 4 year old laptop (i7-8750H @4.0Ghz & RTX 2070 max-q), with a 2K monitor and 3 MFDs exported. All settings on High, DLSS, and rarely ever see lower than 40fps. It's usually much higher. PC parts from the same vintage, say an i7 9700k and RTX2080 would be even better, and being ~4 years old, are probably quite cheap now. Obviously if you're thinking of going VR, that's a different kettle of fish.

Not yet. If (big if), we get improved MSI, you should be able to designate a L&S target from a donor on the SA page. My understanding is that even with this function, to release a missile on said target, you'll still need to ensure this target is also an on-board radar trackfile first. Releasing missiles purely from off-board datalink targets is F35 (maybe SuperHornet?) level stuff.

Honestly, this kind of seems like ED is missing the forest for the trees. Great attention to detail, but I’m sure the vast majority would like the important stuff working first. For example, fixing the spawn/cat issues, or adding actual useful features such as automatic stear-into-wind without 3rd party scripts, or bolter support, especially during case iii procedures.

The 2023 & Beyond literally had 1 second of carrier footage included. It was very indicative of what we’ve subsequently received in the last year. If the 2024 & Beyond video is remotely similar, I wouldn’t be holding your breath for anything new coming to the SuperCarrier, even the deck directors, which is the only thing ED has remotely mentioned recently.

I’m just curious, in what case dose sending an aircraft to fire a SLAM make more sense than just launching a Tomahawk from the safety of a ship? I understand that earlier block Tomahawks required significant on-shore computing power for planning. With the completed data being transferred to the firing unit. This process could take days, depending on the situation. However by the mid 2000s limited on-board planning had been introduced, as well as the ability to change targets mid-flight. These features have been enhanced further since then, basically removing the initial limitations of the system, providing almost the same level of flexibility as a SLAM equipped aircraft. So why does the US navy still insist on using SLAMS, when in practice most to all of their cruise missile attacks have been completed using Tomahawks? (Eg. Syria in 2017 & 2018.) Mostly thinking real life here, as we can do as we choose in DCS.

Thanks Grimes, that confirms my initial thoughts. It would be great if in the future, we could make use of the "Attack Map Object" task, maybe in conjunction with selecting a unit or radar type, to allow AI to make unguided suppression/pre-briefed shots. This would greatly enhance strike missions in single player, especially when using advanced IADS features such as SkyNet.

I'm trying to make the AI provide a protective shield of HARMs, by launching in PB mode in the general threat direction, even though the SAMs are off and not illuminating (using SkyNet for the IADS). Is this possible, or will AI only shoot HARMs at sites that have their radars on? Just to add, the most accurate ME option seems to be pinpoint strike. It allows a target on the map to be selected, and ARMs are available as a weapon. Unfortunately, when using these settings, nothing happens, the Ai don't release any weapons. The only way I can get the AI to release HARMs is using the enroute task search then engage, which requires the SAM radars to be active.

Sorry, just to clarify, these we shots taken from AI F18s. If I see it again, I’ll try and grab a track file.

Hopefully, with realistic INS drift/updates already being implemented in the F-15E, it’ll help highlight what’s missing in the current Hornet module, and motivate ED to implement these features in the near future.

All the cables you need should come with the MIP. As stated above, 7 USB-A ports are required. 4 low powered ports, 3x for the MFD bezels & 1 for the UFC, and 3 High powered ports for the MFD displays.

If you don't mind, could you quickly describe how to add the above texture as a livery, so I don't have to swap the file when changing between forested & desert maps. Thank you.

I was building some SAM sites today and it made me remember the SA-2 missile transporter. Is there any chance the 3D model is still floating around ED internally? If so, could it be released simply as a static model to add immersion to our SAM sites?

This really is an important point people often overlook. I’ve spent some time researching both fixed SAM sites, and army air defence units, in an attempt to better replicate realistic scenarios in DCS. The conclusion I’ve come to, when building pre ‘92 missions in the Caucasus, is beyond the fixed SA-2/3/5/10 sites, all mobile and short range defences, including AAA, are army units and we have no idea how they’d be deployed in this area, other that what units were garrisoned in the Transcaucasian & North Caucasus Military Districts at the time. This is especially true if the scenario is a major air operation with minimal ground forces, such as Allied Force, as the wouldn’t be a traditional ‘front line’ with which to position the army air defence units around. Because of this, I guess most people understandably look to the Middle East for examples/inspiration of IADS with a mix of fixed long range, mobile short range, and AAA units. Places like Syria and Iraq definitely have a more “understandable” IADS implementation, with sites such as airfields visibly defended by a mix of units including permanent fixed site SAMs, mobile SAMs and AAA (both often protected by revetments/berms).

As per the title, should HARMs be able to target SA-6 launchers? I thought the Straight Flush was the only radiating unit in an SA-6 battery?

I'm sure this is a great app once you get your head around it, but wow, it's by far the most confusing piece of software I've ever seen. To make matters even worse, it seems there has been a major terminology change, yet almost all the discussions here, and the user manuals, still use the old terminology. I consider myself generally quite PC literate, yet all this literally leaves me lost. All I want is OvGME like functionality, yet with the ability to create multiple "libraries" for a single mod location. This way I can organise my mods into categories, instead of having one list with 100s of mods. Unfortunately, this is something OvGME can't do, hence I was hoping OOM would offer a solution. Is there a dummies guide to OOM, or something similar, that literally walks through every step of setting up OOM with DCS?

But there's more than one reason to designate a L&S beyond shooting them. What about rejoining a tanker? There's already a safety system that helps to prevent accidental weapons releases. It's called the Master Arm switch. Unfortunately, I'd say the vast majority of DCS users don't come close to using this switch in the correct manner.