Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by AvroLanc

  1. 19 minutes ago, Frederf said:

    I don't know what is the HAFU identity source apart from L16. If L16 is turned off what is the source for HAFU colorization if any?

    Well yeah, that’s exactly my point. Without LINK 16 there’s no additional source of ID in the F-16. And since RWS doesn’t correlate L16 with radar tracks, should the colourisation only happen in TWS?  Lots of unanswered questions. 

  2. I’m not quite sure I agree with the HAFU reference here. I was of the understanding that the F-16 doesn’t correlate IFF/ID status with system tracks, at least not in the same vein as the Hornet.  Link 16 input might apply here but surely that would only come into play with TWS. 

    Wait and see I guess, but the jury’s out…..

  3. 12 hours ago, FoxOne007 said:

    Why will the purple be removed? it's an accurate color. the MFD readability and brightness is what should be tweaked


    15 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

    Please bare in mind this is work in progress and the purple will be removed, FCR colours and symbols are currently being tweaked. 




    There seems to be a massive amount of confusion at ED at the moments with regards this FCR symbology. It's probably a good idea for ED to take a step back and reassess their source material before commenting further. The purple should be an accurate colour under certain conditions. 


    There's a bunch for other symbology related items that need looking at too, but that would be 'off-topic' so I won't post here.

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1
  4. Well, I posted it in the Bugs section and it got absolutely NO attention. Not even a [No Bug] tag or any attention, unlike most other issues posted there, it was purposely ignored. Maybe I was purposely ignored.


    Whatever.....Hornet's about as complete as it's going to get gents. So much for improvements suggestions. Even if they do come across as a little demanding, it's all in the course of a better product. I'm done with the Hornet for a while, coincidentally, much like ED.

  5. 48 minutes ago, Ramsay said:

    OP did but it was placed in the "wish list" section, if you read one of the last posts in the original thread, you'll see it was suggested that the "bug" section may be a better place to report the problem.


    Seems reasonable (after the OP has been bumping the original thread for +12 months), to ensure ED are aware and it gets placed on a bug tracker, etc.


  6. As per real life and actual documentation, JDAM should always have a 800ms delay from pickle consent to actual weapon release.


    Also, there should be a minimum of 300ms between JDAMs in quantity release.


    Please see attached track. Obviously, you can't see the moment I pressed pickle, but you can take over and try yourself. I can assure you the first release was instant the moment I pressed pickle. Also, the minimum 300ms delay between each quantity release was not respected. In my example a 4 JDAM release should have needed a pickle hold of approx 1.7 secs. It didn't require a hold of that long.


    It was even acknowledge by Wags in one of his first JDAM videos, but JDAM release is still instant. Could this be changed? 


    JDAM No Pickle Delay.trk

    • Like 3
  7. 8 minutes ago, Harker said:

    Ok, but how can it provide an accurate CCIP solution anywhere right now, regardless if it's near a waypoint or not? We're not talking about pre-planned targets.

    The limitation here would be that the elevation the system considers is the waypoint's elevation, so if it's not set to ground level or if the intended target's elevation is not the same as the WP's elevation, the solution should be wrong.

    Yeah I guess DCS uses it’s magic to fake a solution that wouldn’t be possible in the case when using BARO Ranging and wrong waypoint elevation. This is going be particularly obvious when using CCIP, as you say. I’ve not tested it recently, but Iremember CCIP being ‘magic’.


    Have you tried AUTO bombing with a WP DSG and completely wrong Elevation? I’ve not tested that for some time, can’t remember if this works or not. (It shouldn’t provide a valid solution…)


    I was describing how it works IRL, rather than excusing DCS. Cheers. 

  8. 10 minutes ago, Harker said:

    Would it be possible to get a solution based on the INS alone and doing ranging calculations based on your attitude (as determined by the INS) and barometric altitude? It'd probably be horribly inaccurate, I'm just wondering if it's feasible. Even like that though, the GPS would not be useful for attitude calculation, but merely for getting GPS altitude, which again, I don't know how accurate it is.

    This is exactly how it does it without AGR and Laser ranging. It uses either your BARO altitude combined with known Target elevation (or current waypoint elevation, in CCIP) to calculate height above target. Your dive angle / attitude completes the triangle to determine slant range. 
    Obviously it can use rad alt without a known target elevation over flat terrain. 

    It’s not rocket science or magic at all, and has been the basis of most advanced attack aircraft since the 1960’s. There’s no need for a DTED if using a planned target, or one near a waypoint with known elevation. 

    Notice the A, R and B under the altitude box on HUD? AGR, Rad alt, and BARO respectively. They tell you the ranging source. Real Hornet can have G and L as well I think. GPS or Laser. 

  9. 2 hours ago, WobblyFlops said:

    I also think that the currently not functional DDI pages should also be included eventually, otherwise it would have been a complete waste to implement them at all to begin with, such as the MIDS page, the BIT page and the TGT DATA page. There are also a lot of smaller miscellaneous items that would greatly increase the fidelity and immersion of the Hornet, and quite a few smaller but very useful features. (All of these have been posted on the wishlist  section on their own, so I think it's fair to collect them) I'll list all the features that I can think of for a consumer level product, but obviously I don't expect ED to model these and which ones they should prioritize out of these is up for heavy debates. 



    -The missing HSI functions. We know that they won't fix the incorrect HSI layout nor will the implement the proper TAMMAC functionality, but having the HSI slew mode and slew mode waypoint creation, as well as the GPS page with GPS waypoints would be very useful.

    -The missing UFC options for the A/C data subpage on the HSI that shows wind data and magvar, which would be fairly useful.

    -The M4 OK advisory with the associated Betty voice alert would serve a practical purpose. Speaking of which, obviously they need to finish the IFF functions that are kind of implemented but they don't really do anything. Hopefully with the realistic ATC, they can also do a game wide IFF overhaul where the settings you can adjust in the Hornet would have tangible consequences. (With the ability to zeroize the keys and stop responding to M4 for example) Same goes for the emergency transponder switch.


    -The ability to colonize the CPHR option on the UFC and change between CPHR and CPDP. Easy to implement visual change that could provide practical functionality with SRS.

    -The weapon release tone function.

    -Winds data on the stores page.


    -EMCON and Quick Look functionality and the associated HOTAS functions.

    -The missing HOTAS functions should be added.

    -TBST option for the Maverick, which would allow us to reslew after slaving to a designation. (This one is kind of up in the air, may not apply to our specific Lot, but I'll list it anyway.)


    -Link 4 support and the ability to share data with the Tomcats on the datalink.

    -Environmental effects on the airframe and the associated ECS features, such as canopy/windshield icing and freezing, fog and smoke in the cockpit, the effect of improper temperature on the pilot. (Would tie in well with the upcoming weather system)

    -Fully simulated degraded control modes such as DEL and mech.


    -The missing radar modes. (TA, PVU may get implemented one day, VS is unfortunately confirmed not to come)

    -Properly working INS update options.

    -Properly functioning fuzing options and all the associated weaponeering controls, such as JPF for JDAM, delayed fuze, the ability to adjust burst height for cluster bombs, terminal parameters for all the IAMs, etc.


    -FD bombing mode.

    -The imcomplete and missing functions on the ATFLIR setup page mainly and the ability to slave the seeker to the HMD LOS.

    -MUMI page interaction with the DTC.


    -UFC backup.

    -The missing cautions and advisories.

    -HMD alignment.


    -Proper simulation of the sidewinder coolant and its quantity.

    -Maverick alignment.

    -MDATA subpage.


    Excellent post and +1 to everything mentioned. 


    I'll add in a request for a much needed clean up of the BIT main page. INS cautions that don't clear on a hot start, MIDs that never clears even when fully operational, likewise IFF etc. Needs a good debug.


    AIM-7P was mentioned as coming at one point.... White thermal coatings for Navy munitions?


    Some of those smaller items would be, I imagine, relatively easy to add for little extra overall manhours to the project. The Hornet deserves it.


  10. 8 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:


    Sorry no, this is not how it works, the most important thing we are trying to prevent is a mishmash of system and avionics from other F-16's 




    10 hours ago, llOPPOTATOll said:

    Do you guys have evidence saying that the current implementation is correct? If you dont, than an MLU manual is better evidence than guessing.


    If you have evidence that US F-16CM HSD threat circles absolutely positively remain yellow when inside the lethal range, then OK we'll deal with it. Where did you get the source for yellow circles in the first place?


    If you indeed do not have this in writing, then surely the MLU manuals represent a better/additional source that make perfect sense to apply. What am I missing here?

    • Like 6
    • Thanks 1
  11. The inter tank valve light should be illuminated when the valve is open. The normal position of the switch should UP i.e open, with the light illuminated. I think the English translation on that light is wrong, it should say ‘Isolating valve open’. 

    The valve is closed manually when a fuel leak in one of the lower fuel cells is suspected.


    ....at least that’s what I can gather from one reference I have. How does it work now? 

  12. Loft mode will provide a dotted arc on the HSI that is linked to the 15 / 30 / 45 options you select when selecting Auto Loft mode. Obviously the arc will present the optimum position at which to pitch up, at one of those angles, at 4g to provide maximum loft to the JDAM. 
    There’s some debate whether it actually improves range in all scenarios, since the JDAM itself has an autopilot that decides how to fly, unlike a purely ballistic dumb bomb. 

    We should also get Launch Points, hopefully, which are another thing. JPF has sort of been confirmed as coming later, to be used with many aircraft. 

    • Like 2
  13. 3 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:


    I've sent the link to BIGNEWY for him to have a look at, though this document took me 5 seconds to find after a quick google for "F-16 HSD threat rings".


    In the document there is a table for all of the symbols displayed on the HSD, and there are 2 for the threat rings - one is the yellow circle and yellow identifiers, the other is a red circle with red identifiers and is marked "Pre-Planned Threat Rings w/ ownship inside lethal range"

    Yep, those manuals have been going around for years. 

    There’s lots of stuff in there, easy to reference, that’s currently incorrect in our Viper. 

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1
  14. 8 hours ago, Ignition said:

    Yes, its useless.

    The only good weapon now will be the CBU-103.




    You mean the CBU-105, the -103 is just the WCMD version of CBU-87.


    I've found JSOW A (same dumb bomblets as CBU-87) to be moderately effective against soft targets like SAM sites. Although you need to play with the function height, and accurately target them. Against any kind of armour....not so much. ED needs to look at the splash and fragmentation damage aspect ASAP.

  15. 5 hours ago, 26-J39 said:


    You are right, the pilot weapon panel Short/Med/Long switch is for the 30mm.


    The rocket burst switch Short/Med/Long is in the front seat.

    The pilot short/med/long switch definitely 100% works for rockets. Please go try it. 

    It also effects the 30mm and the gun pods. It’s a universal salvo controller.


    You can’t just fire a pair of rockets in the Hind, except the S-13’s. 

    Short button presses and firing from only one side are good tips.  

  16. 24 minutes ago, Furiz said:

    Yes but in the planned systems that Air-to-Ground Mode is missing now, noticed that when Wags updated the post with removed AGM-154C.

    Was the AG mode specially mentioned in that post? I don’t think it was. 

    It’ll be a strange decision to emit it now, it’s not particularly complicated. It functions similar to the Hornets AG mode, with the added ability to slave/point Maverick seeker and designate for Dive Toss mode. 

  17. It's not implemented with JSOW (yet?).


    It is with JDAM, but you have to be careful and only input headings that make sense given your approach/flightpath heading, +- 30 degrees...ish....works OK. There's still not a dynamic IZLAR that displays a correct LAR area for respecting the TERM parameters, even for JDAM.


    Will TERM ever be implemented for JSOW? Nobody knows.

  18. In the operators cockpit there is a bombing delay timer. It’s used to apply a delay to the bomb release pickle, to effectively bring the depressed sight line up into the gunsight, where the impact point is normally way below the gunsight/aircraft. Obviously you’d use fixed preplanned reticle depression and times. 

    It’ll be super useful for bombing- is it planned to be implemented later in EA?  

    • Like 1
  • Create New...