SFJackBauer

IFF is not a magic wand, not even in the real world where you can have malfunctions. But unlike the Hornet in the Viper there is no automatic correlation between the radar contacts and the IFF returns. So, understanding this, you should build the mental picture of where are the friendlies and enemies over time. You shouldn't have any problem knowing who is who in the radar scope if you keep scanning and building that mental picture.

Then is not DCS fault, as the title of your thread may imply.

This. When I fly on some public MP servers, I only hear two things: - People calling their takeoffs / landings on ATC freq - People calling Fox 3 on tactical frequency, without saying at who or where. Which is almost completely useless.

Are you trying to use TGP to target it? Try first the Mav on VIS or BORE mode and see if it works for you. If that works, use the TGP to look at an area, then switch the Maverick to PRE, TMS down for it to look at the same area of the pod, then refine the lock in the Maverick page itself. If that also works, then you go back and try the auto-handoff. The handoff doesn't magically works. For example, you could lock in TGP a target outside the Maverick lock range, so you should not expect a Mav lock in that situation.

My post is more directed to people that want to be unofficial spokerspersons of ED, claiming "here is how their development process works" or "that's why they tagged this post as this" or "they didn't fixed this because <insert reasons>". Besides that, I agree with you that customers should have a voice, but whether the company listens or not to their customers is their decision, not ours. Are the customers that did not wanted that HARM change less customers than you? Ultimately they did because they wanted to do it. And even though there are polls, these are inputs, not agreements. Again, you are within their rights to express your concerns here or wherever else, but they are also within their rights to do whatever they want with that, as long as both sides are within the EULA.

It also uses gyros since it can keep track after being masked.

We as customers should not be involved with any internal process of the company. For those of you that are devs, these are "implementation details" that should be "hidden away inside the interface of the object", which is in this case ED. Otherwise what would be next, customers demanding to do code reviews? When you go to a bakery do you get to participate in the cooking of the making of the dough?

Looks eerily similar to a simulator I know... Now what would that one be....

My manual (and the one you linked on the website) mentions it on page 183, thats why I was confused at first. And yes this has been reported already. You can search for Bugs in the Bugs subforum here to see if they have been already reported / fixed. I am not sure, how can I tell? I am using the Steam version FYI. If you don't know in which version you are, you are probably on Stable. I don't have DCS on Steam but as any steam game you can probably right click it, Properties, Betas and select the latest beta version. Do I recommend you to do it? It depends... all your friends will have to be on the same version, and any server that you connect to. I can tell most of multiplayer servers run open beta because it has the latest stuff, even though it may be more prone to have bugs. But the stable version also have bugs... they just only take more time to get fixed. I say that because you may (I cannot say for certain) be seeing behaviors that were already changed / fixed on latest beta.

The files btd posted are clearly related to the engine noise (F404GE_Amb_in.sdef and F404GE_ThrustNoiseLoop_ln.sdef). I dont know the original version of those files but I would assume he adjusted the gain (these are text files you can open in notepad). I was hearing a low frequency rumble after the update which these files reduced drastically. I think you also can hear the difference right? Now with the change posted here, I can hear a fainter rumble that seems to be related to airflow / airspeed, but its not loud enough to bother me. Also Its too faint for me to remember if it was present on last update or not. Only ED would know which files were changed and what to do about it. btd job is not easy since people have multiple configurations and hearing capabilities, and I genuinely appreciate his effort.

Thanks, that did it. The difference is noticeable now, and it indeed removes the low frequency rumble of the engines.

Thanks for explaining. Its been so long since I left the "Hear in helmet" option that I did not remembered what was it like without it... I went back to the sim and yeah the difference is significant. Regarding the file you posted, which folder structure should we have once unzipping, because unzipping directly into Saved Games/DCS leaves a folder named FA18/Sounds. I did that and noticed zero changes. I then modified to be inline with the installation (Saved Games/Mods/aircraft/FA-18C/Sounds) and couldn't find any difference either. I am testing on Instant Action -> F/A-18C -> Ready on the Ramp. I suppose this should make a difference even while sitting on ramp at idle, right? EDIT: Just to be super clear: When I extract the file directly to Saved Games/DCS.Openbeta the end result is: C:\Users\[my username]\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\FA18\Sounds\sdef\Aircrafts\FA-18\Cockpit With two files inside it. Is that the correct folder structure?

But pilots wear helmets and earplugs right? Which is why the sim have option for "Hear like in helmet". Personally I find it strange to have a strong airflow noise with that option selected.

Which manual? Also, are you on the latest beta or are you on stable? You dont have to start from parking in order to test CCRP. You are actually confusing yourself and confusing us by trying to mix too many things into a single test. Make a mission where you spawn alone in the air, no wind, put a waypoint 10 miles away and drop bombs. Check if they hit to the left of the target. If that works, then you change one thing at a time (start from parking hot, then after that cold startup, then add wind etc)

But you are comparing Hornet's TOO to Viper PB / POS. The equivalent on Viper is indeed HAS. Autopilot does not precludes lofting in PB as the missile itself lofts, but if you want, you can even pitch up to say 30 degrees and activate AP ATT HOLD.

Autopilot, heading select or steerpoint As the HAS in the Viper. I assume you mean hands-off = HOTAS. I'd say even better in the Viper, because you can pre-select only one or two specific emitters to scan, allowing faster re-attack / ripple fire than the Hornet coarse class-based emitter selection.

Rick50, have you seen this analysis by Binkov's Battlegrounds? It sounds like you would be interested in this. Back-of-the-napking calculations, but give some perspective.

Wait what? There is no way time-to-impact should be calculated using anything even close to the screen, in terms of rasterized pixels nor in terms of raytracing. That belongs to the realm of arcade games It has to be from an equation that takes into consideration the target position/orientation/velocity at the moment of launch, the launching aircraft position/orientation/velocity at the moment of launch and the estimated missile performance between those two points, and then integrate it over time.

I feel your pains but thats also the price of having a full fidelity simulator. In real life also navigation and coordinates are not easy stuff. Some games in the past abstracted this by presenting you always with 100% accurate information, but that is simply not realistic.

I use autopilot constantly in the Viper (its great for orbiting), and have zero issues.

Well, guess what... I went back to the mission and found that even though I put the truck in the crossing, the steerpoint itself was not over it, but right at the spot between bomb groups 3 and 4. When flying the mission itself it was hard to see on the HUD because of the alignment. Somehow due to luck it hit the truck on release 4. So it looks dead accurate to me!

Complementing what Xavven said, Look at your HUD - you have a bugged target (bugged = selected for weapon employment in TWS mode) due to the box on the HUD. You were expecting a white box, but that is only on RWS mode or TWS for contacts not yet turned into a trackfile. Once a hit becomes a trackfile, it changes into the triangle you are seeing on the left MFD. Also, while you have the radar as the selected sensor, you can use TMS right short to cycle through the targets that are solid triangles. Once there is a bugged target in TWS, the radar will keep its azimuth and elevation centered on it.

I'm assuming you are on the latest open beta, right? What I did was: - New mission, weather default - In mission planning, position the waypoint 2 where I wanted to hit and set my a/c to 5000 feet / 450 knots - Jump to the mission - Select A2G, set to pair, set pulses to 6, spacing to 500ft, mode to CCRP - Fly straight and level - Pickle and hold the button on crossing the line on the HUD until all bombs are out. It is weird that you are having differerent results with a different mission, it shouldn't matter in principle. I'll do some more runs today and report if I see anything out of ordinary.

The thread got merged so the OP I was referring to its now a different OP. I don't think the tutorials should be removed. I used it as a counter-argument for "realism over people's confusion". In the case of tutorials, realism was sacrificed to help reduce people's confusion. So why should the topic at hand (have HARMS at stations 4/6) go the opposite way? Either have them fireable (if they can be) or remove them from these stations. Because then, you would have to check ALL OTHER AIRCRAFT that have potential carriable ordnance that cannot be fired, and add them to the game.

Nobody tries to fire a travel pod. Its not a weapon. Realism that adds nothing to gameplay? I agree with the OP. DCS has start-up tutorials that highlight the in-cockpit element. Does that should be removed because its not realistic to have a switch glowing out of nowhere? They are named differently than their live counterparts and they ARE training rounds. The HARMs on st4/6 are not. So it looks like a hack. Either remove them or keep them.