snipy

Depends on the size of the crisis. I kind of think of the emergency jettison button like the chaff/flare slap button.

In a crisis, the fewer things one needs to do the better. So I'm thinking, if I need to jettison the HARM, I'm probably going to want to do the fewest things possible to achieve the result, while minimizing additional damage or destruction, to me or something else. So to me, that would mean default to the thing that doesn't launch a missile and possibly strike something, or go somewhere. Dropping the HARM, like dropping the tanks, someone in flight could just mark it. But a launch... now I've got to bring a lot of variables in to actually figure out where it landed. So, to me, from a systems and repetition stand point, I'd want the same thing to happen like everything else, but if I couldn't make it like everything else, then I'd want to put a check somewhere in the middle of the process, to clue me in that what I'm doing is wrong. Such... if it's going to be a launch, requiring master arm on. Now you say that arms the weapon. Ok, then make the check WPN ON. Or does WPN ON also arm the missile? This whole process just seems to be missing a step, that could cause some things to go sideways in a high pressure situation, that don't need to be missing. But, if that is the way it is, that's the way it is. At least if I remember to hit it twice, I can at least just drop it and mark.

Thank you, this is a fantastic explanation, and track. There is a way to S-J the HARM without launching it, and I'm just not pushing enough buttons. I was working under the incorrect assumption that the only way to get it off the plane, using S-J was to launch it, and that felt wrong. I seem to remember that in an earlier version, soon after HARM release, that I just needed to press the OSB button once, and pickle, and the rack and missile came off. But now I need to press twice, make sure both are highlighted, and there we go. Is it a quirk of the F-16's systems design that the default S-J method for an A-G missile is unguided launch and not jettison rack and missile? Seems like the default should still be the same as the emergency jettison, which is rack and missile. It also doesn't make sense to me that someone could be out on the range on SIM, doing a dry run for some training, and, for whatever reason, launch an A-G missile into someone's back yard, but, I suppose that too is a quirk of the systems.

I am, yes. I can see "AUTO", but flying the steerpoints last night did not result in them auto moving to the next one, like it used to. I have a small ILS practice mission and I kick the auto pilot on so I can set up everything, and when I got everything set up I went to look for the localizer, and noticed I was circling steer point 1.

Emergency jettison doesn't ignite, it drops. It might drop pylon as well, but it does demonstrate that there is a way to jettison that doesn't involve an active launch.

When using the S-J page, selecting a HARM, and hitting the pickle button, the rocket engine on the HARM is ignited, sending the explosive weapon somewhere. This occurs even with the master arm not set to on. Master arm off, or simulate, meaning weapons safe, allows a HARM's engine to ignite. I'm told this is correct as is, but it strikes me as highly unlikely that the United States military would allow a rocket engine'd explosive to come off the rail at full blast, with the safety on. Does anyone else think it logical that both the weapon manufacturer, the airplane manufacturer and the DoD would allow weapons to launch with the safety on? I find it illogical, so much so, that I can't believe that is correct as is. Anyone have any comment on why S-J just wouldn't do exactly what emergency jettison button does, or why the US military believes it should fire off rockets when the safety is on?

Would this affect not automatically moving to new steer points? Because if so, it isn't fixed yet. I can't auto to the next steer point in Nevada.

I've already acquired the first piece needed for the sim pit.

I don't know if HARMs are supposed to be launched when using S-J (they just fall off using emergency jettison) but if the HARMs on 4 & 6 don't have cords, then I don't imagine they can be "launch jettisoned," either... First HARM is launch jettisoned. Second HARM is emergency jettisoned. Track attached. Jettison Launches 4 6 HARM.trk

Attached track where using the missile override button on hotas pauses the HARM count down. Override stops HARM countdown.trk

I believe it was $49.99, like all other maps, after EA. There was a question about price while in EA, and Fernie quoted the response, here: The base price on digitalcombatsimulator.com is $59.99. It is currently on sale for $41.99. All the other terrains have a base price between $49.99 and $44.99

When did the price increase to $59.99? After Cyprus?

STRG SEL and ALT HOLD both worked for me on Marianas after update. I threw them on, so I could enjoy the views.

I do dev for banking and finance. I stood a GAP refund website up a few years ago in our DMZ, to facility indirect auto dealers' refunding GAP to customers. The first IP that hit that website within minutes of it popping up DHS. I don't know if they "actively monitor" us, but I imagine everyone running port 80 (and now 443) on IP is scanned pretty frequently. Now, our GAP site doesn't have any ITAR stuff, but... you guys aren't an American company. Other than extreme harassment, what can DHS do? Do they... alert INTERPOL or something? DHS can kick my door down, but if you're international... it's department of homeland security, not department of worldwide security.

I understand, I didn't mean share something that resources were used to obtain. I meant, more like, just the name of the document. Then, those who have the means to procure, can compare. I just meant more, cite the source, not give it away. But, we're going around in circles. It is absolutely y'all's right to operate as you see best. Ultimately, four HARM, two... zero it doesn't really impact me. If I need four, I can bring 2. He runs out of gas anyway, since he spends the entire time in afterburner, so might as well use him quickly. And if I need more 2s, I can just put a trigger in the mission editor to give me unlimited 2s. You see, SAMs have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I send wave after wave of my own men at them until they reach their limit and shut down. And, in multiplayer, I actually do enjoy flying around this game, so it isn't a terrible chore to RTB as many times as it takes to get at my unlimited store of HARMs. At any rate, thanks for the conversation, and the hard work you guys put in.

I get it. But if y'all don't want to share the stuff you have... then there will always be contention. Because sharing is a two way, trust building, exercise. That's what this is about, man. Not whether something is EA or not. But can people trust ED. Am I going to put my time into a product (that's the company, not a module), if there isn't any trust? Obviously, yea, you guys are free to run however you want. It's your company. Most video game/simulation companies don't even have this level of interaction with customers. So I'll say this, these conversations, right here, do go a long way toward building trust.

Being new here, only a year and some change, I'd say y'all aren't doing great in demonstrating that you've learned from things. From just a more outsider observation, you could though. Create rules, and follow those rules. As you point out with moderation, and forums guidelines, do the same for game mechanics and weapons. The HARM on the F-16 is a perfect example of how not having a set of standards creates unrealistic expectations by the customer: I've read here and on hoggit "public document" requirements regarding the HARM. But there exists a public document, on a .MIL website, saying the block 50 can carry four HARMs. I've seen no public document that says it can only carry two. I've seen no public document that says the umbilical cord has been removed. I've seen SMEs saying that. And that's fine. So set a rule that the burden of information is: 1. SMEs 2. Public document And then, all you have to do is say, we have more SMEs saying that the HARM cannot be deployed on these two stations, and SMEs are the highest expertise. Create a rule, and then cite it. But if you state that public document's are the highest source, then the requirement to produce them should go both ways, which means... there is a public document that says four HARMs, and no public document saying no umbilical cords. Public document rule wins, and four HARMs now exist and can be deployed. But, just from being here just a brief amount of time, create a rule. Tell us the rule. Cite the rule consistently. Everyone wins, even if not everyone is happy.

Ahhh, ok, thanks. I'm watching videos on YouTube doing ILS landings into Nellis by Tricker and Mover, and then the It's not You it's ME... and all these folks have rain and bad visibility, and just about nothing I do can create anything but a clear sky over Nellis. It turns out there was just a window of time between 2.7 and 2.7.now, and I missed it.

I can't see rain. I can hear it. If I enable the rain droplets, I can see the rain droplets on the canopy. If I disable rain droplets, it's like I'm just looking out at an overcast gray day. Is there a specific video setting I need to set to see the rain? The only mods I have installed are the T-45 and the Flyer1.

Although, maybe that should be re-thought. Because seeing those two side by side... there ain't no comparison between the two graphically. At all. The other is comically bad, by comparison, graphically speaking.

Not sure if useful, or n of 1 example, but I have noticed if I fast forward a track, there is just no telling what I will get out of it. But if I never alter the playback speed, it seems to play back what happened. That can be tedious, when what I want is at the end of the track, but it's an option if trying to use a track.

Something for me to play around with then, by creating some different missions and advancing time, and looking at the time on the DED, and sunrise on that particular date, etc. Thanks for the help.

Ahhh, yes. I did misunderstand. I already knew DCS considered it night, because the logbook logged the hours as night. What I'm interested in knowing is... why. FAA rules? Bug due to UTC?

I very much doubt there is a bit of code running that is determining night based on brightness settings. That seems like a life hack someone came up with to justify why their log book shows night and not. Which means, not ED... but, us. I'd bet the code uses time. And it's just got a bug in which time is sent over to determine if day or night.

I can't say otherwise, but that seems very arbitrary, and a "rule of thumb" concept someone came up with to explain log book timing. Imagine if you were tasked to write a method that returns a boolean value as to whether the logbook should record time as night (true) or not (false). Doing so based on a "brightness setting" would be rather finicky and difficult, but instead, suppose you wrote it like this: bool Logbook::IsNight(time_t currentTime, time_t sunrise, time_t sunset) { if (currentTime >= sunRise && curentTime < sunset) return false; return true; } Now, if you passed in currentTime as UTC, then you could mistakenly classify it as night, even though it is day. Writing a function based on time seems a lot simpler design, but one that could be easily messed up, than doing so based on whether NWS needs an adjustment to brightness.