Stearmandriver

And the designation in SEA mode is performed by SCS towards the radar, not via TDC designation.

However, I did learn tonight that chaff/flares can now be dispensed with the master arm off. I don't know if this is a latest update change, but it's welcome!

The standard recovery angle on the boat is 3.5 degrees. Factoring in boat motion, this works out to an effective 3.0 degree glideslope. This is what the FLOLS and ICLS are both set to. 5 - 8 degrees is far too steep and wouldn't jibe with any guidance.

There are two ways. It can be done in the ME, via an extra button that only exists for playable aircraft, to the right of the buttons to select waypoint mode, armament mode, etc. Or on the ground (fully running is fine), via comms menu - ground crew - equip HMD (or something like that).

At least in recent versions, it's been the other way around. JHMCS is default; if you want goggles you've specifically got to equip them. I forget all the time in the ME; luckily the supercarrier marshallers don't have wands (/s), so I'm reminded to ask for goggles before I launch.

Thanks for looking into this... but as many others on this thread have also mentioned, please don't take away the idea that this is only a problem in VR. It is ABSOLUTELY a problem in 2D as well. The first time I broke out on a night case 3 to the boat, I couldn't even figure out what was in front of me. I mean it was a mess of multicolored glow that half obscured the boat. It took like 15 seconds for me to understand it was a preceding Hornet. Nav lights from more than about 10 feet away should be a point source of light, like a star in a clear sky. Definitely not a fuzzy glowing orb like a full moon through a cirrus layer!

I don't know if this is a bug or proper behavior, but I didn't see it mentioned on the patch notes so thought I'd check. On the latest (today's) open beta, the chaff/flares indication on the SA page is visible with the dispenser switch in "On", but when the dispenser switch is moved to "Bypass", this indication disappears. Now, if you're flying with the dispenser in bypass, you have to switch it back to on to check chaff/flares remaining. Is this correct behavior? Thanks...

This is also not quite what I was referring to . But yes, it is easy to float over the wires with just a LITTLE too much power. I wouldn't try half flaps; flaps are drag and less drag would, if anything, make this tendency worse... plus I assume the correct trap AoA and attitude are based on full flaps? I wonder now; is it approved (and would you ever choose to) trap at half flaps, say on a really nautical, gusty day? Interesting question. Really though, you've just got to be gentle on the throttles. I know that we've all seen the videos of fleet pilots enthusiastically ramming the throttles from stop to stop but... I'm not sure that makes it ideal technique. I've seen videos of (typically younger) pilots landing 737s that way too, and being very proud of it, and I can say that in reality it's poor airmanship. Three violent control deflections accomplish the same as one measured one, and are more destabilizing. We take pains to discourage the new guys from over-controlling jets. I've never flown tactical jets so I can't say whether there really is a reason to fly them this way... but the DCS Hornet sure doesn't need it. Just settle down; light grip on the controls and prompt but small corrections when necessary. You'll see once you get stable, it does not take much work to stay stable. And to clarify, what I'm referring to specifically is the balloon tendency DURING flap extension.

Well you can flare if desired, plenty of video of flared landings in real Hornets... but that's not quite what I meant. I was referring to the severe balloon experienced when extending the flaps for landing. It's been widely discussed that the real plane doesn't do that... which makes sense, it's fly by wire, so you'd expect the FCS to compensate for that kind of thing. ED stated at one point that they'd be fixing that, along with some other behaviors.

Balloon during landing configuration, for one.

Man I would absolutely LOVE this map! Question: I've done a little scenery-building for FSX / P3d... is there any way for users to create freeware sceneries / maps for DCS? Would be a fun community project to divide up the archipelago... most of the map would be water or jungle, as noted. I'm certain it wouldn't be payware (or ED-created freeware) quality, but might be interesting...

Nevertheless... you CAN do it. None of us are training to fly a real hornet.

You can, you just need to re-select CCIP mode after the target designation. I do it to help with SA when circling for more than one pass. The other problems still exist though.

There are intermittent problems with the CCIP symbology. ED refuses to acknowledge this. That said, there may be something else going on for you. Are you certain you were in CCIP mode? When you designate a target - by any means - CCIP mode will automatically change to Auto / CCRP. If you want to make a CCIP drop, you then have to change it back.

This has probably been the single most entertaining thread I've found in the 9 months-ish I've been on these forums. The real Christian Eagle is a blast to fly, and this DCS rendition is very good. Well done, guys. VERY much looking forward to the Corsair now!

The P-51 does have a steerable tailwheel, I *think* all versions of it. I'm unsure about the versions of the others as modeled in DCS. That could account for the difference in pedal authority on the ground. With a castering tailwheel, rudder alone has very little effect at taxi speed, but if the aircraft has tailwheel steering, you're directly deflecting the tailwheel when you push the pedals.

ICLS glideslope is not coincident with the ball when you're in close, and that's not necessarily unrealistic. Gotta fly the ball in close. But yeah, there are other comms problems / delays with the LSO. And problems with grading.

Nice! It's funny, the naval aviation aspect is really what brought me to DCS. All I really wanted to do was fly jets on and off of carriers as realistically as possible. Flying missions initially was more of an excuse to leave the boat and come back. But naturally I had to learn to use some weapons. Then I got sick of getting shot down so I had to learn some tactics. And then it all became a fun puzzle, and so here I am. It's a rabbit hole, for sure .

The wheel base difference between a Spit and Stearman is 10"; not incredibly significant. When you factor in the fact that the Stearman is shorter-coupled and has a higher CG given the existence of a top wing holding 46 gallons of fuel, the Stearman may actually be the more unstable of the two. It certainly has a well-earned reputation; it was intentionally designed to be more unstable than necessary, after all. But I wasn't exactly talking about degree of instability, so much as how that instability manifests and interacts with forces generated by the flight controls. The DCS Spit rendition doesn't feel... real. It lacks inertia at the beginning of a departure, and then seems to suddenly have too much when corrections are introduced. Brakes wouldn't be the issue as I just didn't use them during rollout when I was trying the Spit. Just my perceptions, but I have been doing this for a little while.

There is an approach mode of the autothrottle system on the F/A-18, at least on the E / F models, but I think on the legacy as well. It will attempt to maintain on AoA with power while the pilot controls glideslope with stick. Autothrottles enter this mode if engaged while configured for landing. I do not know if DCS models this at all. I've never tried it simply because it sounds less fun.

It's Marshall handing you off to the approach controller. At that point, open the comms menu and you'll see a "check in" option. Use it. In order, for a case II / case III approach, you need to make all these calls. If you skipv any or get them out of order, you will break the sequence and have no proper comms (use the manual to know when to make each of these calls) : 1. Inbound 2. Established 3. Commencing 4. Check in 5. Platform If you do them in order, you'll hear additional automated calls to fly bullseye, say your needles, approaching glide slope etc., culminating in being told to call the ball at 3/4 mile.

My question was in regards to differences in guidance between JDAMs and JSOWs, because I believe in reality they use the same guidance package? I'm not sure why you think Walleyes would be useful in this scenario? SAM sites in DCS will shoot down anything they consider a missile instead of a bomb. That includes Walleyes as well as JSOWs. I agree that JDAMs seem somewhat unreliable right now.

Check your wings too. After you spread them, you have to push the handle forward (forward mouse scroll wheel) to lock them. But really, take a look at the message on the left DDI and then we won't have to guess ;).

I'm launching at the first indication of In Zone. Sometimes I see In Range flicker before it changes to In Zone, and sometimes it seems to go immediately from the TMR countdown to In Zone. Are you saying if I wait, the indication might change from In Zone to In Range and then BACK to In Zone?

I did some more testing last night, against 6 targets. I found that PP mode is more accurate than TOO, and if released above 20,000ft neither method is reliably accurate. So, the answer for now seems to be to use PP mode and keep the release under 20k, which is tactically limiting but seems to be the most reliable combination. To be clear, when I talk about accuracy I'm not griping about the expected difference in accuracy between GPS and laser guided bombs. These aren't near misses, they're off by hundreds or thousands of feet.