jojojung

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.

Great THX. Do you know if the bricks in the hornet are there in real life or is it a simplification?

Hallo Guys, I have a few questions about the sea radar in the viper. 1) In the viper it is just like a GM radar with maybe some filtering of waves etc but I dont know if this is implemented yet. The radar screen shows the picture and the user has to interpret it. Thats correspond to real life, right? In the hornet the sea radar has the ability to show all sea vessels as "contact bricks". This mean it can interpret the radar picture itself. Does this also correspond to real live or is it just one of ED gamerism like changing lasercodes in flight etc.? 2) What should happen if i press TMS up on the sea radar screen in the viper with the TGP? I would think the tgp should slew it the SPI of the radar but it doesnt at the moment. Its a bug, right? When you press TMS up again it cycles through OA1 and OA2. Is this right? Thanks!

+1

That clear. But doesnt solve the question. The question is when I don't have a waypoint on the target location and I get bullseye calls via Radio. This seems a little bit unhandy but i will try. Nice Idea.

Hallo everyone, is there any possibility to dial in Bullseye coordinates in the Viper? I dont no about the irl procedure but to need to search around with the courser on the HSD which will move further while moving the plane is very unhandy when you got a bullseye from an ground target. Thanks and bye

No I did not, so far.

Hey for me it worked perfect without trimming at all. This link is for a another F16 Sim but its a very good PDF Doc. While approch just lay the FPM just above the braket and only at touchdown pull it in the middle of the braket. Just try it and you will never ever have troubles again. The trim method is written there to but i dont prefer it as said. http://www.185th.co.uk/files/Training/Assessment/F-16_Landing_Tutorial.pdf

Yes i checked it twice. So Im sure its labeled wrong in the german DCS Version.

Sorry, it was posted in the wrong channel. Can some admin please change it to bugs? Thx and sorry again.

Hallo, dont know if its already reported and if it was a bug in dcs versions before but while trying to trim the f16 on speed like the hornet (was only for testing) i have noticed that the keymapping in the german version of the game in any case is switched in a mistaken way. Nose down is nose up and nose up is nose down. You can simply check on the trim panel too. Byebye

Thanks for the quick response but I think the full aft cyclic bug was something completely other bug then this one I discribed above, right? I dont get the connection between the two bugs. In the linked thread there is no connection too. Seems like one bug is fixed and now another bug is in there. The Problem now is that there is no paddle movement done by the yaw AP at all to hold the heading and this should work IRL like @AeriaGloria stated above with a reference to the MI24 manual.

@BIGNEWY anything from the dev team so far about that issue? Thanks a lot!

Seems like the yaw AP heading hold authority was weakend very much. Prior to the last beta patch you can take off without touching the padals strait up only by adding collective when you had turned on the yaw AP. When there was much torque to compensate the padels were moved automaticaly to compansate the torque. Now with the last patch with yaw AP on the heli stays in line only a few seconds and when you add more and more collective it gets spinning although the yaw AP is set on. It was tested in the same quickmission in beta and stable. The new Microswitch settings is in the default (pre patch) setting. Enable/Disable by deflection and the paddle trimmer is set to off. The yaw AP doesnt change the paddles movement at all they will stay in the neutral position the hole time. Doesnt matter if the yaw AP is engaged or not in the beta. Unlike in the sable or the mi8 where the yaw AP will change paddle movment when torque required that to stay at the heading. Hoverstarts and Hoverlandings are more complicated now in the hind because you have to add paddle on your own. So the yaw AP lost its use quite a bit now. Of course with yaw AP off the tendancies are stronger. I do not know if this is now realistic or before patch was realistic behavior for the yaw AP but there is a significant change in the authority of the yaw AP and that is not cleared though the patch notes. Thats why here is the bug report.