jojojung

@K-51 Anything new about a possibility to pay from germany to russia? Thx

Sorry bro, I really tried to point out the background of my critism of the TOO mode. Some others are arguing the same. Some Not. Thats OK, but I think you are not really interessted in a objektiv discussion, right? No problem just keep trolling around. But please dont be outrageous.

Please go to the specific thread and look for details. You can't throw arguments around if you don't know the system and the implementation in DCS. Do you have any engineering background? The HTS require a lot of time and a lot of triangulation to get more and more precise location data of the emitter. Thats not implemented complete the realistic but it comes close to it. The Hornet get a nearly exact position of the transmitter in milliseconds even if the emitter has just began to emit. MSI capability of the Hornet will be a fair argument if the emitter does emit for some time but not if you only was active for a second and for the first time. If you are really interested in the systems let me know and we can continue the discussion via PM. But then please do some research because it will be very technical. I'm not against realism and changing things while in early access. It's okay to get rid of the lightning pod. But you have to do it the same way with all the other thing and the third developer products too. But it is difficult to understand that there big things in the game which are really unrealistic since years now and nothing happens.

"Realism in mind"... Your right and I fully agree with you, but this has to be considered for all modules... what about the MAV aligment, bomb laser codes changable in flight, the accurate weapons for correct time frame (AGM62 in a F18 from 2005?) and many other things. All the things are implemented wrong in game, right? I did a couple postings about the much to high accuracy of the HARM TOO at first seconds of a sam which begins emitting. But there is no drive to deal with it. I dont want to be to strict but "realism in mind" proof it with all the modules and the hole game, please!

Its always the same with the Viper and ED. Always a downgrade for the viper. No other airplane gets any realistic update. But the Viper gets it all. The Frankenstein Hornet HARM TOO (find emitters which are emitting for the first time in a millisecond with exact range and location) or MAV Alignment was mentioned so often but no one cares. If there are no data for the Hornet, well thats OK. If there are some wrong data for the viper, go fix it back to the <profanity>ty 1980 pod. Well nothing new so far, got used to...

Do you have both Wings still in the Helicopter in the right place?

exactly the same for me. Also on the G2 with those two CPU Bound warnings. Only 5 FPS more maybe. Thats really sad! Was hoping for much more

Can I close this by myself? After the new ScriptMod version is loaded the window doesnt close itself. When I close it by myself its still the old version showing as installed. null While pushing Reset there comes this message. nullIts really sad that such a great product has so many problems

Ok got it. can you put me on our delivering list and when you found a way give me a call, OK?

@K-51 is there still a way to get one of the collectives? Would be great. Shipping would be to Germany. Thanks and keep up the good work!

You are mixing things up a bit. Are you firm to the HARM and its systems? I will try to explain: The HARM seeker itself does only get the bearing, no other data. If you rely on that alone you are gone. There is a very low probability of kill, maybe some selfprotecting stuff because the SAM will deactivate its radar because of the harm. The PB Mode is when you already know where the target is. If your intel is precise you dont need TOO or HTS at all. Because the only function of the HTS is to get the location of the emitter to know when you are in a good firing zone. You are wrong again about the handoff of the HTS to the HARM. There is no aspect why the HTS handoff should be less precise than a HAS or a magical Hornet TOO shoot, because like you prodicted both work same ways, which I - again- highly doubt. Only a PB shoot with exact intel data (because the SAM must be at the waypoint) is better. The problem with the TOO Mode in the Hornet is not the quicker search time and that there are no tables with codes needed, thats not the point of discussion. To explain it more easy: with MSI in the hornet the RWR and the HARM are connected: there are no search codes and not so long progressing times like the HAS Mode because the RWR says the HARM "ok only look for SA 6 Im nailed". If the ALR-67 and ASPJ only would helping the quick targeting handoff that would be fine from my understanding but as you pointed out the hornet TOO does not only the quicker handoff but also do an exact localization of the emitter in milliseconds when it comes online for the first time and thats the only point thats is problematic and by far unrealistically. But no one cares about. Hope I cleared some things up a bit! @BIGNEWY which data do you need exactly to make the implementation of the TOO HARM Mode better? From my understanding it is clear, that its impossible to get precise location data (the TD Box very much on target) for a emitter who is emitting for the first time in a single flight (no datalink between flights) in milliseconds. And thats the way it works in the hornet at the moment in DCS. No sensor or MSI in the world could do that, its physically not possible without further data to feed the system. But if my point is not acepted from ED I will look for declassified documents.

My scepticism was pointing out to your first point. So far: Fully agreed. Perfectly placed TD Box is simply wrong. Your second point is valid if the RWR/MSI suite is that strong in the hornet. Im a little sceptical but thats only based in my personal experiance. What is fact is that the TOO get a valid solution too fast, when the emitter starts emitting for the first time. There is nearly no processing and triangulation time needed. ED knows that since years, no need to change because of missing documentation. Sorry ED, thats simply physics. Third point fully agreed. There is a lot of work to so but I dont see much progress. Its wrong for years now. Btw the F16 can't change laser codes in flight only when fully shut down.

OK, lets say then, the hole HTS system eqivalent is build in the (super)Hornet. I think thats not the case, but just to do some thinking... You are flying alone and the emitter gets online for the first time... The sophisticated HTS need time to get a good solution. You need to change your position for triangulation etc. The ED Frankenstein Hornet TOO get the nearly exact position in just a millisecond. MSI can be excluded here because it gets online for the first time. Do you find this realistic? A lot of things or systems are canceled by ED because of "Frankenstein" ist not wanted. But if it comes to the Hornet everything ist possibile even beyond the logic of engineering, because we all have no available data. Instead of doing conservative steps to get close to the real Hornet, ED just implement arcady style systems. That doesnt correspond to the rest of DCS which is by far the best sim we have!

Thaks for this! Appriciate it a lot!

And thats the problem! How do you come to this point? Any real pilot says its a lot simplyfied in the Hornet but also the HARM implementation in DCS at all. There a interviews out there in which the pilots are doubting the harm IRL in general because it is very unprecise together with some other problems. And then the DCS hobbypilots saying that all the things are correct here with the HARM in the Hornet by throwing some technical systems around, but again no prove at all. I have to say I stick to those who know what there are talking about. Only one little thing to think of: The HTS is one of the most advanced systems for SEAD, right? There are a lot of F16 wings is didicated to this role. The hole system has this main goal it was developed only for this purpose. By understanding how the HTS works, which is quite well known (compaired to all the other stuff) you can see, how difficult it is for the system to build up more and more data to get a more precise location of the emitter (PGM 5... PGM1, elipse data etc). You can get an imagination how complicated it is to get rid of the deviation. It depends on the direction of the emitter to do triangulation and so on. In contrast here it is said then, "yeah the hornet does all this in a build in process doesnt need anything and put out nearly exact location data in milliseconds. Proof? Sorry classified but ARGD/6685 and THDJ/5435 are connected". Sorry if I'm doing some parody its not to do any HARM That RWR and HARM are coupled does not magicaly solve all the other problems with deviation etc. which needs more and more minutes to get a solution. I found this argumentation from ED and from many Hornet fanatics very questionable. Thats my point! I'm flying the hornet too, its one of my favorite airplanes in DCS but I want a sim and not a sim for some planes (cold war fighters and to some point the F16 which are well documented) and for some planes its more a kind of guessing (same for MAV alignement and a lot of other things). Thats not how it sould work! ED has said itself that there would be a workaround for the F18 TOO. But there was no big change at all. Too precise, too fast, too arcady. The longer an arcady system implementation stays in the game the more difficult it will be for ED to do the update to a not so magical system when the finally get some documents.

Thanks @bignewy for your passion! we know that HAS mode in the Viper and TOO mode in the Hornet both use the same harm sensor itself. But you already know how the seeker of the harm missle works because from the available data from the Viper. My question is, why the same senor system should work complitly different in the Hornet. And when ED has nearly no data for the Hornet Harm TOO why ED then doesnt rely on the available data of the missle Sensor on the other planes to build the Hornet system based on the available data rather then doing things that are highly wrong and based more in fantasy. Instead it seems that ED overpowered the Hornet because no data in some ways (like MAV alignment, laser codes or FM).

Doing research on the mi24 in Ukraine i found two Videos. https://youtube.com/shorts/eOGm0X2yu8I?feature=share First one: the second ukrainian mi24 suspend a lot of flaires at once in a burst mode. Is this possibile in the DCS Mi24? https://youtube.com/shorts/dCnDvHqg29c?feature=share Second Video a ukrainian Mi24 using the flare program which is implemented in DCS with no burst an very slow flare dispence.

The HTS is much more sophisticated then the TOO Harm Mode in the F18. Because you get range and deviation data with the HTS pod and thats very significant IRL. The simplyfied and magic HARM TOO Mode in the F18 is known for many years now, but ED didnt fix anything.

Thanks got it solved. The Mission Scripting Mod was placed via ovgme in the save Games instead of the root

nullnullfirst message apears when clicking on "update". Then there is no Script Mod...

After testing another campaign it failed to generate the first mission (Hind Cyprus Campaign), while that was no problem with the other campaign. I guess this is a total different problem then above, right? nullnull

got it... Here is the first mission file Crisis in PG-Fulcrum IRIAF_first.miz

Yes I installed it with DCE Manager. And enabled the DCE_Missionscript_mod via OVGME. Where can I find the miz file itself? I have all the files in the saved games...Mods/tech/DCE folder but cant find the miz itself.

Hey there, I cant get the mission results after ending a mission. There is no pop up dos window or anything else. In DCS I can go to the next mission of the generated DCE Campaign and it is not the same as the first mission but I will not be able to generate my own new mission via dos like it was done in the first mission. Is there any tutorial about this? Saidly its not explained very well...

I think its connected to my bug report a few months ago. There was the situation that the heading AP was not able to move the padles and was not able to hold the heading under big torque. Since the last OB patch it can hold the heading again.