gekoiq

"Slammer" is 100% a colloquialism in common use for the AIM120 AMRAAM, there are tons of references to the nickname: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/america-close-maxing-out-its-deadly-aim-120-amraam-missile-16223 https://olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_aircraft_weapons_air-to-air_aim120.php https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/aim-120.htm https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6628575 https://books.google.com/books?id=JYWlgoykuxwC&pg=PA133&lpg=PA133&dq=aim-120+slammer&source=bl&ots=h8D3YPZ5c5&sig=LzpcrHa3DhCKwIuM8vRh1TisVZk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiIj8T7ncDeAhXIxYMKHYIsAlA4FBDoATAGegQIBRAB#v=onepage&q=aim-120%20slammer&f=false https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM https://books.google.com/books?id=trJ8ThEEZuwC&pg=PA114&lpg=PA114&dq=aim-120+slammer&source=bl&ots=rV_tHkLQ_i&sig=zgnlLopw42sGOVYHlZ4TSNRXhwk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwig8uK_ncDeAhUR3YMKHeCNAuQ4ChDoATAFegQIAxAB#v=onepage&q=aim-120%20slammer&f=false https://www.upi.com/Raytheon-receives-contract-for-AIM-9X-training-missiles/9981536933757/ it's even on urban dictionary: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=slammer&page=2 http://www.mastercraftmodels.com/toy-airplanes/MM10103.htm http://www.ewarbirds.org/missiles/aim120slammer.shtml and on and on...

Not from my crystal ball but from ED themselves, per the newsletter: It is only one week, I have no problem with waiting one week. I have a problem with a developer mis-leading us, teasing a feature, giving us a date and not delivering on that. Every other Wednesday is in ED's own words their published open-beta schedule, yes there are exceptions, but per the newsletter (which I've pasted above for you) that IS their schedule.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3666859&postcount=102 LMavs by end of October. Not a game stopper, but the first new A2G in the Hornet, the first PGM. Not a promise, but a date that was given multiple times and reassured by Wags multiple times.

They aren't delivering next Wednesday, that's the problem, we wont get the promised features until November now. Most of us dissenters (the more mature ones at least) don't have a problem with things being delayed. I'm 100% OK with the Hornet being in early access and not being complete for the next two years. The problem, which several people have tried to make clear just to get side-stepped, is that we were told we'd be getting Mavericks by end of October, this is a big deal because (as the poll showed) a vast majority of Hornet players are primarily interested in A2G and this would be the first new A2G capability and the first PGM to be added to the Hornet, so we're all pretty excited. Now, when we didn't get them this past Wednesday, which is the last scheduled Beta release of the month, people got a bit agitated because we were told and reassured we'd get them in October by Wags. So people get agitated and start a thread, then Wags comes into the thread and reassures us AGAIN that we'd still be getting LMAVs in October, Not to worry comrades! So whew, crisis averted right? Nope, 1 day after that and we're told in the newsletter that release of these things is delayed until the next scheduled beta release (Nov 7), to quote ED "They're ready but they want to stick to the published beta schedule" So now all those people who were annoyed that we didn't get them last Wednesday, and were reassured by Wags himself that we would still get them, only to get rug pulled out from under us today, are rightfully feeling a bit slighted. Now, if Wags had never said we'd get these things by end of October and instead just said "These are our priorities and we're working on them, we'll release as soon as they're done" and left it at that, problem solved, no dates were given and we'd have no reason to complain, and again the more mature of us *wouldn't* complain about that. But we *were* given dates, and we *were* mis-lead by ED about it. That's why we're upset.

Very frustrated with the lack of a Hornet patch and the lack of some communication (Did things hit a snag? Will it come out Friday instead? 31st instead? Never? Tomorrow? If it wasn't a likely release then why tease us with it?). I've been pretty patient and a vocal supporter of ED, early access in general and the pace of development since the Hornet was released, pre-purchased it ONLY because I have/had a lot of faith in ED as a developer to introduce updates to the Hornet at a steady pace, I've been a fan and supporter since A10C Beta days. They came out of the gates strong after Hornet release with the first handful of patches for the Hornet, but things have really slowed down to almost a standstill and it's starting to get frustrating. I'm aware that there are some very complex tasks to tackle to move forward with the bigger systems (ATFLIR, A2G radar, etc) and I'll remain patient on that stuff, but there's plenty of softball stuff they could give us in the meantime (like buddy lased LGBs...) to keep the players entertained and feeling that we aren't getting burned on the $80 module we purchased. From an outsiders perspective, priorities at ED just don't seem to be on the Hornet anymore and that is frustrating. I'm not one to pick up a pitch fork, I'm not one of the "I want it all right now" people, I'm still a big fan of early access, so maybe someone in the right position will read this and take note that some of the people who are/were strong supporters of ED are starting to feel alienated by the seemingly strange priorities. I'm losing faith in ED. Might seem over-dramatic, but we can only form our opinions based on ED's interaction with the community and with the pace of released updates.

Not quite. The way it works now is fully implemented systems wise in the hornet. What is missing is the ability to change the bombs burst height in the ME. Burst height is hard set on the ground by the ordies. The pilot has no ability to change the height of burst on mk20s/cbu99s, the pilot changes the burst height for the bomb on the stores page to match what the setting on the bomb is so that the computer can accurately calculate an impact point. If the burst height set on the bomb is different than what the computer expects it to be the bomblet pattern will go long/short. This is why we need to set the bombs to 1500' in the stores page to get accurate drops, the CBUs are currently hard set to 1500' burst height.

Super Hornets use ATFLIR because the Navy uses ATFLIR. The Navy does not have any LITENINGs in it's inventory, it never purchased them. Doesn't mean the ATFLIR is inherently better, it's just been deemed by the Navy to be good enough for the job intended and that moving to LITENING or Sniper currently would not grant any significantly enhanced capabilities. TLDR; the Navy/USAF/etc does not always choose the single "best" pod, they have to take into account cost, availability, reliability, supply line, etc etc when they make these decisions. All the pods, ATFLIR, LITENING, Sniper are roughly of the same generation and very comparable in their capabilities, they are all very good pods that represent generational leaps over older pods like LANTIRN and the Nighthawk.

They are roughly comparable. ATFLIR is not measurably better than the LITENING, if anything it's the other way around.

edit: wags clarified further down.

Maybe the best use for the mavericks is being able to kill short range SAMs from standoff (SA9/SA13/SA19/SA8/SA15) the19 and 15 are good at shooting them down, but a two ship can easily take down these dangerous and hard to kill units once we get the Mavs, and the E is a CAS dream, bring on the buddy lasing.

What you wrote is a bit confusing I think, to clarify for people: Max range for a missile is almost always advertised under high altitude, high speed, nose hot conditions. So you have two aircraft closing directly at each other at or near mach1, this is the ideal perfect shoot conditions. That means, yes an AIM120D might have a 100mile (for example only) max range, as in you can fox that missile when you are 100 miles away from your target. Now, after the missile is fired, while the missile is in the air the enemy aircraft is still closing that distance quite rapidly. The target aircraft might travel 30 miles closer while the missile is in the air, resulting in the missile only traveling 70 miles from it's launch point (just an example) Also for OP: ^ that would be considered RMAX, not RNEZ, because if the target immediately turns cold or maneuvers when he gets launched on, the missile isn't going to have enough energy to kill the target. Your RNEZ in this example might only be 40miles, meaning that the launch happens at 40 miles separation and the target immediately maneuvers. The missile, launched at less than half of it's max advertised range (100miles in this example) now has enough energy to reach the target even if he turns away and tries to outrun the missile. The take away, is you can't always launch a missile at it's max advertised range, because the missile usually can't travel that far and retain enough energy to be dangerous, BUT if your target is closing nose hot at high speed, he's going to shorten the range the missile has to actually travel by flying toward you (and toward the missile), meaning you can fire it from further away. Most of the info you can find on modern missiles is not in any way accurate or even based in reality, those are very tightly guarded numbers, Wikipedia is not a valid source.

No. That's how it works in real life and this is a simulation. I'm not sure you really understand the relationship between power, flaps, trim, etc. Let me try to clarify, might help- Basically when you go full flaps you turn off the auto-trim-to-1g feature, causing a massive pitch up moment. So in your break, 350kts, 3g pull, put the speed break out immediately (and leave it out) you should drop speed VERY fast, and have your gear down and flaps to full before you finish your break turn, give it gentile stick forward as you roll out to keep your altitude in check, as you speed drops through 170-160-150 you should be trimming it up as you release forward pressure on the stick ending with a centered vv in the E bracket, close the speed break. You NEED, absolutely NEED, to trim the plane out to 'on-speed' with the velocity vector centered on the E bracket requiring no pitch inputs from the stick. Practice trimming it to on-speed just flying straight and level and slow. Once you get it trimmed out to on-speed, using the throttle to manage altitude isn't so hard, takes some practice but isn't hard. Trying to do it without trimming the plane to on-speed is like trying to wrestle snakes while herding cats at the same time.

Seeing as how the Tomcat, an interceptor/fleet defense fighter is being released in a couple months with LANTIRN and LGBs, would be really nice for the Hornet to be able to at least match the turkey's A2G capabilities with our *strike fighter* ...

It's more expensive to replace a fighter pilot than it is any of the fighters it operates. A pilot cost the government well over 100 million dollars to train up. A Hornet cost a good bit less than 100mil. Pilots are encouraged to do everything possible to make it back home alive, at the expense of the jet, as long as it's warranted by situation.

Have experienced the same thing. Sometimes I get multiple kills in a tight cluster of vehicles, sometimes none of the vehicles take any damage at all, with the bomblet pattern (at least visually) lands directly on and completely envelops the formation of vehicles. I'm not convinced that the bomblets themselves are the issue as much as the pattern they drop in. It's hard to judge the damage they do when you don't get hits period with them. Either way, it would be *really* nice if ED could dedicate a little time to getting them working somewhat effectively, it would be really nice to have a reason to load something other than mk83s right now.

set their skill level to "High" or "Excellent"

No labels and Samsung Odyssey VR with sub-optimal graphics settings and ~1.5PD, and less than great vision AND a bit color blind here... I have no issues spotting ground or air targets. It's hard, as it is in real life, but doable. In the air I can spot fighters from 10NM+ and tankers from 20NM+ away as long as I'm looking in roughly the right area and focusing on it, again, as it is in real life. Planes don't magically appear and draw your eyesight to them when in visual range, you have to be looking for them and looking in the right place, you won't pick up a distant fighter in your periphery. We wouldn't have developed such advanced sensors if spotting things with our eyesight alone was as effective as some here claim it should be. I'm a big proponent of: Play the way you want, and whatever way allows you to have the most fun. So I'm glad we have the option for people who want it. And certainly DCS could use some improvements in the visual spotting area. But I think some people saying the current spotting is completely unrealistic and that turning labels on makes it *more* realistic (!?) are a bit out of touch with how hard it is to spot things in real life from a moving airplane when not visually cued onto it in some way. To me the labels are an immersion breaker, but options are good, everyone has a different level of what they want/expect out of a sim and not everyone craves the deepest levels of immersion.

As of the first hotfix this past week, the mouse is no longer working to click on certain items in the UI typically toward the bottom of the screen. The Wednesday patch worked OK, but the first hotfix broke it, tested with the latest hotfix patch as well, .21153, and the issue persists. For example: In the mission editor nothing along the bottom of the screen is clickable (like the map view setting, the red back button in the bottom left, etc) Unable to click the green button in the role select screen when joining a server either If you middle click to get distance or bearing along the very bottom of the map the distance/bearing line appears higher up as if the cursor position is higher than it actually is Also can't click on the aircraft tiles in the main menu (but can click on the arrow to scroll through them) DCS.log attached, not sure what else would be useful dcslog.zip

ATFLIR HARM JDAM/JSOW/LGBs

They are functionally identical, both anti-armor weapons. They use the same bomblets, the only difference, as the guy above said, is different dispensers and fuzing. In game they are interchangeable.

In very limited testing (1v1 head on, excellent MiG29 @25k' and .9 Mach) I'm getting solid "SHOOT" at ~22-23NM with the 120b and I've had good success launching at 15-16nm with about a 60-70% hit rate. Significantly higher success than I had with the sparrow even when launching at much shorter range (only felt reasonably good about a sparrow shot at 7-8nm) So I'm quite happy for now, I still hope ED does an overhaul on the missile drag model, and it looks like they are already working on proportional navigation, so I'm optimistic. Happy to have the 120b as it is for now, still a big step up.

Interesting, and good to know, I was a little overzealous apparently :) Are those real-world numbers or DCS numbers? Just curious as I have read that DCS is suspected of having draggier missiles than real world (...the guy who did all the CFD stuff on DCS missiles)

It actually is unrealistic to shoot an AIM120b at an AWAC from only 5000'. Launching from such low altitude means the missile is starting off handicapped, it has to immediately climb, which eats up a ton of energy, then it has to maneuver to intercept the target, which eats up more energy. The only way you're going to get a 30+mile shot is from 30000'+ at or near mach1 against a *non-maneuvering* target coming straight at you. Firing from high altitude is important to range, the air is less dense at high altitude, which means less drag and more speed. In addition if you are high and firing on a target below you, the missile can exchange altitude for speed, further enabling it to continue maneuvering.

The reason is that you had unrealistic expectations from the start.

Your assumption of it's max range (30+ NM) is roughly about the RMax (max kinematic range) for a high altitude (30k+), high speed, nose hot, non-maneuvering target. AS SOON as you encounter a maneuvering target, that range drops dramatically, if you aren't high and fast when you launch it, range drops dramatically, combine those two things and you have a RNez (no escape zone, meaning there's no way for the bandit to kinematically defeat the missile, ie: he can't run the missile out of energy) that is probably 1/4 or less of the RMax All these variables have huge impacts on missile range. Missile range is not a single static number listed in wikipedia. You can't launch an aim120 at 5000' at a maneuvering target and get ANYWHERE CLOSE to 30+nm range out of it. It's not physically possible, IRL or in game.