Jump to content

LaFleur

Members
  • Posts

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by LaFleur

  1. I remember in the previous years we used to get updates for individual modules on the status of the developments and plans for the new year. Will we get an update on the Hornet's development for 2024, explaining us the plans for the Hornet, the features being worked on? Maybe some answers from frequently asked questions by the Hornet community like the implementation MSI functionality, updated flight and trap physics, updated external model, early access exit, etc?
  2. Exactly this. When ED removed "MSI" from the Hornet's roadmap due to "no evidence", there were many threads here and elsewhere detailing the public and unclassified info. After much discussion ED said they will add some MSI symbology after EA. It's been more than 2 years after that and we still know nothing about it. People wouldn't be as vocal on that issue, if this feature was not promised before EA release during preorders, and during many years into EA. Many people bought the module knowing that MSI will be developed eventually. And it isn't a minor feature. It's a system that the F-18 was built around, and it is what makes the Hornet, a Hornet. An F-18 without MSI is not a Hornet. It is a draggier navy-spec F-16.
  3. This is a big topic of discussion within the DCS Hornet community. Over the years, there were many people that analyzed how this system behaves. Others above have explained it good enough in the previous posts. What Marlan and Hulk describe is the Sensor Fusion of the F-18. Many look at the F-18 with F-16 lens, but the Hornet was innovative when it came to how it processes information. Datalink, TGP, IFF, Radar, RWR, HARM are all CONTRIBUTORS to trackfiles. In the real thing you can target any trackfile from the SA page even with RDR off. The Hornet's biggest advantage of any other aircraft we have in DCS is MSI (Multi-Sensor Integration), which is not modeled AT ALL currently. We basically have a Hornet with the L16 of an F-16. Before launch and 3 years into EA, ED silently deleted MSI implementation from the roadmap claiming "lack of evidence". After countless discussions in the forums and discord, they backtracked and alluded to the possibility that we will get some kind of MSI functionality but nothing more concrete. Many years have gone by and we still don't know anything new about this topic.
  4. This is a well-known issue for at least a year. Probably the server's you are playing on don't require "pure scripts". @Insonia provided many info. If you need more will be happy to provide. Here is a list of lua files that have to be edited to have the try_find_assigned_viewport("viewport name") commands. Essentially, in order to export the F-16 RWR in this example, you need to add this line to the RWR_ALR65_init.lua : dofile(LockOn_Options.common_script_path.."ViewportHandling.lua") try_find_assigned_viewport("F_16C_RWR", "RWR") The exact same happens with the following list. You need to just give a name to the viewport, but doing so triggers IC. If this line was added by Eagle Dynamics themselves, we wouldn't have to meddle with these lua files, IC wouldn't be triggered, multiplayer would still be protected by cheaters and exploits, while at the same time home cockpit builders would be able to enjoy their hardware in multiplayer. Problem solved. WIN - WIN - WIN. This list was compiled by Helios, which has a specific section (an interface named "DCS Additional Viewports) of exports that require lua editing that results in IC triggers:
  5. What is exactly the reason that it's ok to export mfd screens but not RWR, DED, IFEI, UFC and other viewports? Why should those viewports break Integrity Check? Why should homepit builders be punished with not being able to join 95% of online servers because of it, rendering their expensive equipment useless? I don't know if this is intentional or not, but if it's not, the solution is literally one line of code... You can copy paste this by yourselves, so your customers who have built home cockpits, don't need to mess around with lua files to make viewports exportable. Can we have a clear and concise reply on this, so people know if their hardware is semi-useless now, and other people who are looking at investing thousands of dollars/euros in hardware for their hobby, know that they are not going to be able to use them online?
  6. Tried to enter offset to a particular waypoint, all the info gets entered normally (distance and elevation) except bearing. I replicated this issue many times on missions and instant action free flight. I wasn't able to enter bearing to an OAP any time I tested it. It stays at 00 degrees. Switching from True to Magnetic only adds the magnetic deviation difference in degrees, but still doesn't change the bearing that is inputted through the UFC. Offset Bearing Bug.trk
  7. Thank God this is a bug, I thought my 4090 was dying...
  8. I get that there are some negative people, but they are a vocal minority. Most of us understand the straggle of developing an EA project. The only thing most of us need is progress updates, so we can know what to expect, and see how the development of the products we have pre-paid 4 years ago is going. That's really it. We don't need exact dates. When you see your favorite module, not having any updates for about 9 months and not knowing which features are being worked on, corrected, updated, cancelled, it is reasonable to be asking questions. And it is reasonable for customers to be increasingly suspicious and afraid of a potential abandonment of their module, in favor of newer and more profitable ones. All of these stuff are low priority, that even if they are not implemented nobody will really care. What makes the F-18 a beast is its MSI and D/L capabilities, which are not at all implemented.
  9. Couldn't have said it better myself. All I will say is that I come from a family of fighter pilots. One of them retired very recently from flying. While telling him about DCS World I was asking him about BVR tactics etc, which he refused to answer, I told him about notching and he laughed. He told me "No one will even think to try to notch an AMRAAM". He also told me that Kinematics, Jamming, and Towed Decoys are the only reliable countermeasures you have. Nothing more. So yeah, ED has many sources that go into detail about stuff like this. That's why my personal belief is that it is a balancing decision, not a "where is the proof" one.
  10. Honestly, this is one of the main reasons of why I lost interest and quit DCS for over 6 months now. Being that I love flying, and I've spent over 2k in modules and equipment, the constant changes in BVR (for the worse) and the continuous game breaking bugs in the Hornets A/A radar, doesn't make me feel like flying anymore. For me, my favorite things to do was BVR and SEAD/DEAD. I could live with having to support the 120 until pitbull, but when the changes to the chaff success rate and notching were made, BVR was over. Notching shouldn't be a "thing", especially on modern weapons. As other people have said before me, "notching should be a fluke, not the rule". A/A missiles are meant to be defeated kinematically, not by turning your jet 90degrees from the missile (regardless of the range or altitude). When I started doing BVR the best pilot always survived the BVR fight. People had to respect the MAR. People had to figure out the best way to defeat a missile kinematically and reengage as soon as possible. People had to have good SA to not be flanked. People with the highest altitude had the upper hand in the BVR fight, now it's the opposite. After the changes on chaff and notching were made, after watching countless tacviews of multiplayer matches, I rarely saw people going cold. I saw too many 2.5 Mach 120s missing on even hot bandits. People not caring about merging with flaking jets and just reacting with a notch to an incoming 8mile 120 shot and surviving easily. I can't even remember how many times I've shot 3 mile FOX3s only for them to miss with plenty of energy, 2+ mach. Basically, there is no BVR anymore. And I don't even know how things are since April, but from what I see people talking about everywhere, it's way worse than what I experienced. The very forgiving nature of the current Air Combat meta, doesn't help/force people to improve and be more tactical. I'm not sure if this is a "balancing" decision for ED (which to me it looks like that), but this casual approach on BVR doesn't make DCS feel like a sim at all.
  11. @Wags @BIGNEWY Let's hope ED sees this thread and reconsiders the incorrect "no evidence" tag.
  12. What is this "no evidence" tag? There is in the NATOPS manual. Also, I've seen many credible people here talk about this particular functionality, and it seems strange to me that ED is unaware about it.
  13. Indeed the F-16 feels draggier in BFM but that's not a major issue. I don't really do BFM since there is rarely a merge, and also merges should be avoided if possible. So yeah, it doesn't bother me that much. I believe there are more serious issues that need to be addressed first. But that's just my opinion.
  14. I couldn't agree more. People keep bringing up a quote from Mover, but forget that the Block 30 and the Block 50 perform much differently. Also, the F/A-18A and the F/A-18C Lot 20 are different planes with different engines... ED has done a good job, I believe, with the F-16s FM (although pylon damage and G stressing stores is not modeled yet), but there is still room for improvement. Let's be patient and enjoy the F-16 - that does 9G at 1.2m with external tanks, takes no stress damage, and its radar detects contacts from 80 miles away, while having the weakest radar IRL compared to almost all other modules - and stop complaining for some minor details that are in the works to be fixed.
  15. I got the same issue. Instructed 2 different time Jester to set waypoint to home base and DCS crashed instantly. Those are the only 2 crashes I had in DCS 2.7.
  16. Yeah. I'm ignorant about the technical aspect of the radars and their specs. Thought this would give me an approximate estimate of each radars' performance. Let's hope ED has the info and the means to implement realistic radar detection ranges for other modules as well, not only the F/A-18C...
  17. I understand that the photos might be tampered, but from my experience with sea, of which I have a lot, the color looks like exactly like the GoPro footage.
  18. To be honest, I don't know what you are talking about. Yesterday, I was able to soft lock an enemy, high aspect, F-16 with TWS from about 70Nm away. The F-16 is overwhelmingly overperforming according to the real world specs.
  19. That's interesting.. How about the rest of the values?
  20. From the little I fiddled around with settings, I didn't see any difference with High, Medium or Low in the water settings. I believe I have calibrated the gamma good enough so every surface and reflection looks realistic. Messing around gamma settings to counter the oil-like water look, isn't a fix to the problem, for me at least. Don't get me wrong, I like the new "texture" of the water, even though it lacks waves, but I found it to be unrealistically dark. If it had a little more blue in it, it would be good awesome.
  21. Thanks for the info! I hope ED sees this and implements this feature. It's so simple but yet incredibly convenient.
  22. Wow! Are you sure about this?? This is the only thing I found frustrating during BVR in the F-18; having to go to SA, slew the cursor around to find this highest/fastest threat, then back to ATTK, slew again, fix the antenna elevation, soft lock, Press Auto in TWS. So many things to do, and buttons to press, when in the F-16, you just slew the FCRs cursor around while glancing at your HSD. If this is true, a simple feature like that (which exists in the F-16), will make things much easier for the pilot!
  23. I mean.... Guys... The problem is not just waves. After the update water looks like an oil spill...
×
×
  • Create New...