gekoiq

Remember: the public sources probably list the maximum theoretical range of the weapon itself (and even then is not likely a truly accurate number, it could be significantly shorter or longer in actual use) not the maximum range when employed from our air frame specifically (legacy Hornet in this case). It depends largely on altitude and speed of release. There are air frames that can fly higher and faster than our Hornet and would therefor be able to launch it from further out.

I also thought about that, I very much hope we can select different fuze types on individual bombs and mix fuze types on pylons!

heh Wags has already explicitly stated that we won't get LJDAM. If the F18's mission computers can't handle more than 1 type of ordnance per station, I would believe it though. Wonder if it's a lot/OFP version thing?

With the new patch we've received the BRU-55/A which allows the mounting of 2 smart weapons requiring data connections to the aircraft. I'm curious about and wondering if we'll get the ability to mix the ordnance on the BRU-55/A? Not sure if this is done IRL or not, but it seems like a useful feature ie: being able to carry an LMAV on one wing and 1x GBU-38 and 1x GBU-12 on BRU-55 on the other, with 2 wing bags and centerline LPOD Hard to find info on this, but I can't think of a logical reason it would not work (as long as the ordnance in question has provisions for the mechanical attachment), and I've found vague references to the BRU-57/A (essentially the same rack with USAF specific configuration from what I understand) being able to carry mixed ordnance. This would offer us even more mission flexibility than BRU-55 already offers when operating with realistic fuel loads and configurations.

Well I tested using the exact same parameters before and after the last patch (not today's), because I saw reports of FPS improvements before I got home from work, so I knew I could test it using the same conditions before/after. Same system, specs, drivers, same mission in DCS, flying over the same location at the same altitude, same speed, looking in the same direction. In VR I went from an average of 33-35fps to about 42-44fps in that specific mission, so gained 25-30% frame rate after last thursday's patch. It was quite noticeable to me. I also ran the mission in those conditions 5x before and 5x again after to confirm that the FPS stayed consistent. You can believe what you want but *I* and many others *did* get an increased frame rate, not the advertised 50% that Wags previously mentioned, so I doubt we got the full VR optimization, but we definitely got *something* that improved our FPS noticeably.

First you need to go to the A/C page on the HSI and change the coord type to Lat Long Sec, then go to WYPT page and box PRECISE and then enter your degrees, minutes and seconds, enter, then your hundredths of seconds, enter again.

It's just the nomenclature used in the jet's software. Don't make assumptions based on that.

ATFLIR is a single pod system with targeting FLIR, LST, and (at least at one point) NAVFLIR built into the cheek pylon. To answer OP: ATFLIR has an A2A mode, but my understanding is it has no IRST functionality, not like the Flanker/Fulcrum. You can slave it to radar contacts to visual ID them though.

Because the Navy never procured them and while it could probably be hung from the pylons, the Hornet's software wouldn't have any idea what it was or what to do with it or how to drop it. There's more to whether a fighter is able to employ a weapon, even an unguided one, than simply "does it fit?". Systems, software and sensors need to know what to do with a bomb once it's hanging from the wings.

Still very early access. Only the EA manual is released as well. HOTAS advice, define of your HOTAS buttons as a "shift" button, so that when you hold it down all your other buttons have a second function, effectively doubling the number of buttons on your hotas. Also go into you controls page, axis settings and clear every single thing in there. Then re-assign all your axis. Sometimes the default axis assignments are down right crazy and you get weird behavior. Other than that, TAKE IT SLOW, learn the basics of flight and navigation first. Then pick a system at a time and learn it well before moving on.

Hornet features are on a monthly schedule, the last scheduled hornet feature patch (although light on features...) was May 8th, next one will be June 5, 4 weeks after the last one. This week will be just DCS beta bug fixing patch.

There is no baseline, that just isn't done IRL. You attack only one target per pass with LGBs.

The LIGHTENING pod is not carried operationally by the USMC on anything but the centerline station.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3285514&postcount=13 It's already on the list of things we're getting for our hornet...

JDAM (pre-LJDAM) cant track a moving target, that's where LGBs are useful.

It's not a DCS problem, it's a TM Warthog hardware problem. The TDC stick on the warthog is straight garbage, this is not ED's fault and there's not really anything they can do to get it working better than it already does. Sucks, I know, I also have a warthog that I wish I could use the TDC on, but it's not ever going to happen because there's nothing that can be done. Check out this product, huge improvement to the Warthog: https://deltasimelectronics.com/products/thumbstick-slew-sensor-adapter

Some guys prefer the old school approach instead of discord so here is our website/forums, feel free to make a post and introduce yourself here if you prefer. It's not pretty but it get's the job done: https://www.vvmfa251.com/index.php We're hoping to get 2-3 people to take in as recruits, the basic requirements of the syllabus generally takes someone 2-3 weeks of flying ~2x per week with us, it's not too bad, and there's no hard timeline to finish, we're all working adults with other responsibilities so we definitely understand what it's like having time constraints. Sidenote: NTTR and PG are required maps, we fly a lot on NTTR for training scenarios and the PG is a frequent deployment.

Supposedly it's stealthy-ish, low-observable due to it's shape and size, which should help reduce the reaction time point defense SAM sites would have to engage it. You're still going to have to rely on overwhelming the site with HARM and JSOW in order to ensure some ordnance get's through I expect.

Per the FAQ we are getting the A and C, which are the only 2 ever in service on the legacy Hornet.

Glide bomb* Same way (more or less) you would employ a JDAM, but from further away. It's a GPS/INS standoff weapon and would generally be used against pre-planed targets with coordinates known and entered in advance. In theory I'm sure you could use a pod to designate a target for it, but your bomb is going to out-range your ability to ID a target, even with the pod so you'd be better served with a regular JDAM for that type of thing I'd expect.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3303114/

LAlt+Y

mk83s or 84s with a texture mod that replicates the green with the grey ablative coating that the navy uses on its bombs.

EFUZ to Inst MFUZ to VT HT to 1500 (HT Has to be 1500, you can't change height of burst in the air, what you're doing is telling the jet what the bombs are set to, which is hard coded to 1500 currently)

There is so much wrong in this that I literally don't have time to reply to all of it. We get it, you prefer the Tomcat, nothing wrong with that, but you need to stop making up random falsehoods about the Hornet just because you don't like it. No chance against an F16 in BFM? Ridiculous. Every pilot that has ever flown both and given a public opinion on the matter of F18 vs F16 has said that in the hands of 2 capable pilots they are very evenly matched, the Viper is more powerful and has a better turn rate, but the Hornet has much better low speed handling and nose authority. It's a tossup when you compare the jets when piloted by equivalent skilled pilots. Harrier carries more ordnance? Only in DCS where people overload the crap out of their jets, IRL the Hornet can carry a bigger usable load and can carry it farther than the Harrier. In actual service, as in real wars where CAS happened (OIF, OEF, etc), Harriers were carrying 1-2 bombs each, total, 2 bombs per jet, that's it. The A10 can't land on a carrier so that's a bad comparison, but of course the A10 is the ideal CAS machine. and so on... Good grief.