AvroLanc

Sorry, but we’ve got ED team members replying to/acknowledging other threads on here, but nothing on this? Is it possible to get a quick simple acknowledgement that this feature is still WIP, with errors reported and will be improved.

But CCIP requires you fly the bomb fall line accurately over the target and pickle at precisely the correct moment..... Both methods require good flying and roll in technique. There's a reason why AUTO is used most often in RL.

They are not preset to anything, they are completely manual control, purely set by the pilot as a reminder. Not linked to systems. The reason they move is that they both incorrectly respond to Mach number, when only one should.

Use the TGP to find and designate small targets such as Tanks. Use AUTO mode it works fine. AUTO is very much for dive deliveries as well as level.

+ 1 I confirm this as well. Only sets 2 Mach targets. Been like it since day 1. Bug unfortunately.

ahh...yeah..So much to fix with the RWR. Luckily you can override the Pullback function with a simple selection.

SP mode will make more sense when PULLBACK mode gets implemented. Pullback will recognise when the RWR detects a high threat emitter and automatically override your currently selected mode and weapon and select HARM in SP. Ready for quick defensive shot. Right now TOO mode is superior in every sense.

100% agree. Fail to see obsession for HUD LOS. JHMCS on the other hand will be game changing.

Just a question to those out there who might know.... How extensive are the air to ground datalink functions in the Hornet? Obviously Link 16 can have ground tracks pushed to the network. How ED might implement this is up for guess work. Presumably the SA page will display ground tracks with a unique symbol. Probably colour coded in the same way as air contacts. The question is...can the Hornet’s system interact with those tracks? Do you hook or select the tracks to be used as a designation? Can you create a permanent record of the track, possibly by creating a markpoints at its location? There’s a TXDSG, or transmit designation function on the SA page. This is apparently to share designation points within the flight. But same question, can you interact with the TXDSG (select/store) or is it just for general SA? Thirdly, can the Hornet share markpoints between flight members? This is very useful for certain tasks, such as CAS. The A10C can, through its TDL/SADL (not ours yet, but maybe A10C II? ED?) and the F-16 could do this well before Link 16 with its Improved Data Modem. Viper can share radar cursor position and markpoints with all 4 flight members. Super useful. I’m thinking ahead to the future, anyone?

So no official response to this? I'm not sure if it's BUG / WIP / WORKING AS INTENDED etc There's precious little guidance on AUTO mode (if you don't dive into the RW manual...) and how ED has modeled it.

Haha, the plot thickens... Just when we thought it was all over. :music_whistling:

Been there since JHMCS was added - so about August 2018 ish..... It'll be more useful when the other JHMCS features are added.

Thanks for the confirmation. It’s a shame in a way ATFLIR wasn’t implemented as option 1 from the start. I think we’d all agree that Litening wasn’t the quick and easy stopgap we’d thought it’d be. Anyone got any good Spanish themed missions?

But there’s nothing on Swifts mockup that isn’t accounted for already. All functionality is already done or can be added (north arrow). Nothing is a mystery function or label that can’t be modelled, indeed it probably is already. Criteria for masking circle might have to estimated.... All we want is a layout of symbology that looks more authentic.

and there’s one of the biggest inconsistencies we have.....open but secret to all...

Perfect solution. Should have been done a year ago. Possibly. Do they have a specific license for the Hornet? There goes any hope of an ATFLIR then. Would explain a lot.

Jeez....Realism, but with a pod picture that's not authentic to the year, country and service of the aircraft simulated. And a bunch of other systems with glaring ommisions. This is not about 'realism above all', it's about ED partly covering their own backs for legal reasons and partly a lack of flexibility.

Absolutely, and it took about 30 mins to knock up I'll bet. There's so much pride, stubbornness and inertia in ED sometimes.

Good Job dude. How long did that take?? Not very long in the scheme of things. Why can't a Litening such as this be implemented. It was all from open sources, and looks like vids and documentary evidence we have. Much better than the Spanish franken bird. ED - just because you have a particular document source, doesn't mean you have to use it 100%. Surely you're allowed creative license to adapt a source for a better fit. Every flight sim over the last 20 odd years has had to do that at some point. Hell, Jane's F/A-18 had a better, more authentic US NAVY looking TGP page. The fear is as the systems get more complex, we'll get an ever increasing mix of systems. Makes a mockery of the pure '2005 era USN/USMC Hornet'.

You mean the little tail on the target triangle? They're about 90 degrees offset from any value inputted. Or random. They were there before the patch, I don't think it changed their behaviour.

I think it's fair to say the AUTO mode actually adds almost zero functionality to the JDAM. Best case, a semi-functional albeit buggy flight timer. Worst case, bombs fail to release. A dud in every sense. Upload tracks and reports everyone.

Coordinates would be good, as would a North arrow, but I feel we may be waiting til ATFLIR. Unfortunately I'm considerably underwhelmed by the Pod we've got now. Combined by a very underwhelming and buggy JDAM AUTO mode...the Hornet's lost it's mojo for me. Not a great update for Hornet, despite the expectations. Why is it that the 10 year old A10C is still the most well fleshed out simulation in the game?

and since it's not a 2005 USN/USMC Hornet anymore - can I have ASRAAM, Aim-9x Blk II, GBU-54, and JDAM-ER please and landbased ILS. Only said in jest, but it's an odd experience.

Yup.

To be honest, why didn't we just get ATFLIR in the first place? It's not like it's anything special? For the amount of time it's taking to get Litening out the door, ATFLIR could have been done easily. The whole 'improved FLIR' thing is hokum. Slap a ATFLIR interface on a pod image and people would have been happy. If it's the NAVFLIR HUD image holding things up, then that could have been left till later. The whole thing is bizarre. I've now got a Spanish Hornet. When is the Gibraltar and Canary Islands map going into Early Access?