Andartu

Sorry if already mentioned. Oxygen, all fuel boost pump and radar altimeter switches are all in the on position on cold start.

I fly in OB only.

Yes and Yes.. let everyone decide for himself :thumbup: Problem solved.

What should I say, it worked on my side though...:huh: Angle manipulation definitely.

Right. The Scorpion is actually just a lens in front of one eye. Is has a lot of cool features and is cheaper to implement. In the Hog the sensor to track head movement is simply glued to the canopy. So no need for integrated sensors like in the Hornet. Also you can wear NVG´s with it and it´s weight is much less than a JHMCS. Especially when pulling G´s. https://theaviationist.com/2018/12/13/up-close-and-personal-with-the-a-10-warthogs-scorpion-helmet-mounted-cueing-system/ So it is not correctly modeled on the pilot model.

As Swiftwin9s said IN RNG is the theoretical maximum range. I usually wait another five seconds till release then and have always good results. Also terminal programming isn´t implemented? Never changed velocity yet, but heading and angle (up to 90°) I changed very often and it also worked very well. Actually tried it once with a T-55 in between two higher buildings. Did not want to hit the buildings (or that the bomb hit them and not the tank) and changed bearing. Was very satisfying. Change the angle, release, hit F6 and you´ll see it works.

+1

The main difference is that the Navy, other than the Air Force, does FAC-A only in two seaters.

I see no reason to run stable. Stable is just an older OB. New stuff is in OB. The bugs are really not worse and there were times when both were the exact same. I still have stable installed, but havn´t updated it for over a year. Still only have it cause I always forget to remove it :D

Yeah sure, I use the Blackhawk with the Navy skin cause the SH-60 is ugly as hell.. but on the other hand it is a bit weird that the Rescue Helo has guns.. Yes I think the ones who care about these models know what ED said, but the point is that we would like too have some more communication from them what the state of this is.. Actually the Seahawk, you don´t look at it very often from close. But the Viking is even more a mess and this one you see often on the deck and from behind while refueling. Holy smokes those crappy textures especially when the wings are folded.. Also the S-3B retracts its gear without any animation.. it just disappears :doh:

Oh look at that :thumbup:

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: Thank you very much for saving me from answering all of this :v:

Stabs never moved to negative after engine shutdown, even if the should of course :/ I actually "simulate" it by trimming them to -11 right before engine shutdown so that it looks right.. :joystick:

After a quick google search I found those two mentions: Royal Malaysian Air Force F/A-18D: https://www.nst.com.my/news/exclusive/2017/07/260429/more-lethal-sting-rmafs-hornets Yes ok it is a "D" Hornet.. but still.. And this one: http://www.seapower-digital.com/seapower/january_2018/MobilePagedArticle.action?articleId=1297133#articleId1297133 ↑↑↑↑: "JDAM and Laser JDAM are integrated with B-1B, B-2A, B-52H, AV-8B, A-10, F-15E, F/A18A+/C/C+/D/E/F, F-16C/D and F-22A aircraft. Follow-on integration efforts are under way to evaluate compatibility with the F-35A/B/C and MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle. Additionally, the Navy is on track to deliver a GBU-56, 2,000-pound JDAM penetrator with PLGS, to the fleet in 2020." Correct me if I totally understand this wrong..

Yes when the weapon could be carried by an airframe it should be available to that certain airframe. And as we know the Hornet is not yet in the state of maintaining the code, by far. Also.. really, there is not an endless list of weapons per airframe, it is limited (so no Phoenix for the Hornet!). But again yes, what belongs to a thing, has to be on the thing, and that is it. And when it takes development time then yeah of course, it takes development time. Heck we all here are very well trained in the discipline of waiting. Even when it´s really not fun though :book: But to fully refuse something with something like "Not Correct For Year" is simply the wrong turn if you want to satisfy your costumers. Especially when a good amount of the user base likes to have a certain (and even not unrealistic) toy for a product they could have bought nearly two AAA titles for. When they show us the candy on frames like the A-10C II and the Harrier that also realistically could be used by the Hornet, they cannot expect us to hold back and say "well ok". And sorry, just me personally, I am not interested to buy those just to use certain toys that I could have on "My" frame. Those are completely different aircraft that I don´t want to fly.. I have the Hog (really great module, was my first), but nowadays I can´t stand it´s low speed anymore, no matter what i´ts other qualities are. So I fly exclusively the Hornet. But this is of course just me and my special quirk :D Hell I just want the GBU-54 for the Hornet and not Ace Combat or a Death Star :joystick::D They do not deny me in the editor to set up missions in 2015 with a legacy Hornet and a Navy paintjob in PG or Syria. And that is good.. so please don´t argue with "Not Correct For Year". It´s all mixed up anyways, in the end it´s all about imagination (Holy moly I hope i don´t set the idea to limit the year for the Hornet to 2005 now :doh: Sorry but that would be a lame way for ending the thread :helpsmilie:). As Fri13 said.. bound to mission year or even better have and just don´t use/ban it if you think it is not correct for you. Everyone could be happy and have some cake and these discussions would be very much needless :chef: edit: typos

Not all of the weapons. Just the ones that are correct for the airframe. Just dependent on mission year. Nobody talks about getting a Pheonix on the Hornet. No talk down by generalizing please :smilewink:

Yep me too.. ED it´s about time to catch up the timeline in the Hornets roadmap and especially communicate it. Exactly. As you also said in the GBU-54 Wish List thread. This should be the thing for everything. As well and especially for the ... GBU-54! Bound it to mission year and thats it. Us costumers, Dev´s, "meh meh wrong year people" (sorry).. everyone would be happy. :thumbup::pilotfly:

so much +1 for this

+1 Nice find :thumbup:

Well,many of us fly Marine skins though. And the USMC does not fly "new" legacy Hornets, the fly the old one we have, the old Navy jets. The last new produced C models were delivered in 2000 (iirc). The last 18C+ model otherwise was delivered in 2015 (iirc). In the end, the DCS model is a bit of a mix of several years, even when they always say it is a 2005 model. Thats why I see no reason to not have things like APKWS or the GBU-54 for the Hornet in the sim. Also they will never model certain systems that are still classified and/or could harm real pilots on active duty by being released, even if the know about them. And that is actually very good! So it will never be 100% realistic. Just give us stuff to play with, nobody would get harmed and it still would be realistic "enough".

+1

Not within the campaign, but for me AI sometimes despawns even when there is nothing else. Quite annoying and as awful to watch like when they don´t do that and ram stuff..

+1

Nope Laser Arm and AG mode on. Master Arm does not need to be set to ARM.

The radio volume knobs should be in the OFF position on cold start.