gekoiq

I don't think NCTR by itself would mark a target as friend/foe, NCTR attempts to identify what type of aircraft it is, since there are aircraft that are flown by both sides in some conflicts you would not be able to positively ID a contact as enemy based on what type of aircraft. However the pilot using his judgement could manually mark a contact based on what type of aircraft NCTR showed.

Seconded. -54 would be awesome.

I did, I went this route: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=218874 Bought the panels this guy designed and made available on shapeways, then bought all the switches and Leobodnar board, lots of soldering later I had a UFC. Its great but ended up being a lot more expensive than I anticipated.

You must enter in the coordinates as Degrees Minutes Seconds, but it converts and displays them as Decimal Minutes.

Sweet setup Jar, I wish I could combine your setup with mine. Surprised me that you don't use a lot of the physical switches. I also fly VR with TM MFDs and a replica UFC, and I've found that I built up the muscle memory of where the MFDs and UFC are very quickly, within a few hours of flight time, and can use them in VR quite naturally at this point even without being able to see them. They are roughly in the realistic position so reaching out for things feels like I'm reaching for what I'm seeing in VR. I also put some 'sticky dots' little rubber bumper stickers for drawers and furniture and such, on key buttons for me to index on when I cant see (middle button of each side of the mfds, 5 key, 0 key, etc) Not nearly as pretty, but this is my VR pit:

USMC Hornets don't have ILS either. Only foreign Hornets have it.

Any source on that? Don't mean that in a confrontational way, just curious to read more about it if possible.

I guess the fact that current modern front line fighters *don't* auto trim the roll axis tells me there must be a good reason for it (even if my guess in my previous post is wrong). I'd be interested in hearing from a real pilot/engineer regarding the reason behind it.

In our squadron we don't have any hard requirements or standard mapping, we just expect that you have all the IRL Hornet HOTAS commands mapped in such a way that you can easily use them on your personal HOTAS. Humans are all different and have different ergonomics and hardware issues so it's important for the individual to find a setup that works well for themselves. It's too hard to come up with something standard when so many people have varied setups (for instance we have a couple people with the warthog combo, some with warthog throttle+vkb stick, x56 hotas, CH fightersticks, etc) A good way to do it is take a diagram of the real Hornet HOTAS functions: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=206468 and get those mapped to your HOTAS first, then with any unused buttons you can map other useful functions (master modes are a good one, refuel probe, etc)

Wasn't trying to be a dick, what is your question then? Why do the aircraft in reality behave that way? I'm not 100% sure but I suspect it has something to do with the fact that auto trimming to 1g in the pitch axis still allows the aircraft to maneuver normally. How would you implement auto trimming in the roll axis? If the trim laws tell the aircraft to auto trim the wings level with the horizon then you wouldn't be able to bank the aircraft and keep it banked without constantly pushing the stick farther to the side, basically it would work fine as long as you want to fly straight and level but you'd be fighting the trim constantly while banking and turning, which is pretty important in a fighter. ie: you'd bank the aircraft, let off pressure on the stick to maintain a specific bank angle and then the FCS would start to trim it out so that it returns to wings level. To auto trim roll you'd need something like a 'roll-rate' or angular motion sensor so that the system could trim to 0*/s roll, and there is no roll-rate sensor in the hornet or other fighter aircraft that I''m aware of currently. I'm sure it could be done, but given how easy it is to manually trim the roll axis, and how real life pilots don't seem to complain about it at all, means it's apparently not much of an issue for real pilots therefor isn't a priority for the engineers to implement.

Because that's how these aircraft behave in reality.

Its more or less equivalent in most practical ways, they are same generation pods and have similar capabilities.

There are plenty of pics of Legacy Hornets with 2x GBU-12s on a pylon IRL. But its in loadouts something like this: 2x GBU-12s on one pylon, 1x GBU32 and 1x Mav + 2 bags in double ugly. But yeah It's not like they would ever carry 8-10x GBU-12s IRL that would be hilariously draggy and you'd probably not even have enough gas to employ them all properly.

You can 'ignore' Trev, I finally had to, his posts add nothing of value and stand only to aggressively put others down. If you go to his profile and in the top left under his name there is 'User lists' then 'Add to ignore list'

He said double racks would come, he did not specifically say bru55 was coming, I asked him to clarify and he said he'd check. Until we hear differently: Wags says the bru55 will *not* come to our hornet, that's about as authoritative as you can possibly get.

We should be able to put 2x GBU12s on each station, plenty of pictures out there of C hornets with 2x GBU12s on a pylon, GBU10/16/24 will all be single I'm sure.

So to sum things up: the C HARM will miss if the emitter turns off (or should, not sure how this is modeled in DCS currently). INS is used to guide the missile to the rough vicinity of the emitter only and the missile will self destruct if the source turns off and the missile can't find an emitter to home on.

Thanks for checking, I'm more interested in carrying dual JDAMs personally.

No the hornet does not have the apache's FLIR system.

Is the BRU-55 specifically coming in the future?

*shrug* I was highly entertained by these videos. I find it amusing watching a real pilot have some good old fashion fun in a game. I wish Mover was closer to MN I'd offer up my VR 'pit setup for him to try (or any Hornet pilots). Mover mentions the unnatural head tracking with trackIR, which really resonated with me, I HATE trackIR for that reason, I used it like everyone else when it was the best option we had, but I never liked it, it always felt awkward and unnatural to me. Once I got VR, the natural 1:1 head tracking completely changed the game for me, he also mentioned depth perception, and this was also a huge improvement for me.

I believe the F will have the "ship" option and has a seeker better tuned for attacking ships (thought I read that it hits closer to the water line perhaps?)

.... You can't possibly be serious.

We will not get the bru-55. It was never used operationally on the legacy hornets of the time frame modeled by ED (that of a ~2005 Legacy Hornet). We'll be limited to 4x '65s total, if you need a bunch of guided munitions, you'll still be able to load up 8x GBU-12s as they don't need the data interface provided by the BRU-55 for JDAM/Mavs. The hornet would fly like a pig with a ton of big draggy mavs anyway, it's better this way ;)

Because the community voted and as it turns out, TWS and A2A in general is *not* the priority of the community as a whole.