WobblyFlops

Considering that in the Hornet roadmap, Wags said that finished IAM settings (like the terminal parameters mentioned here) may eventually end up getting implemented but they require new core functionality, so I assume that the same applies to the Viper. If/when ED decides to implement more in depth weaponeering controls in the core game, the modules will very likely get all the implementation.

I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with it, and it's not the flight model per se but rather the dampened response in roll. To me it almost feels like the hardcoded curves (and/or deadzone) to the FLCS are too agressive. In the Viper, using positive curves is not recommended due to this fact at all and in fact many people either use a negative curve or a non linear one. If you fly it a lot you can get used to it pretty quickly but there's absolutely no harm in trying before buying. If it bothers you, there are ways around it with custom made curves which greatly alleviate the issue but it's definitely something to think about.

It's neither locked by the Navy nor is it destroyed. They are ITAR restricted items, which means they likely never be available to the public legally. ITAR is not something that makes sense, considering than ordinary civilians can purchase off the shelf items that have documentations that are restricted by ITAR in the same way and exporting those to non US persons (or uploading them to the Internet) would warrant the same legal response. Oh, and this is not something exclusive to the F-14D or anything like that. I'd be willing the bet the same problem will come up with the A-6E once that becomes the flagship project.

I can't even comprehend what level of nonsense it is to insinuate that an HMD with HOBS capabilities isn't a complete game changer in a WVR fight.

The current state of the module is pretty great and the updates are coming at a good pace, however flying the Viper in DCS is an acquired taste due to the dampening and many people use negative curves to make it feel responsive in roll, even in Cat 1. Make sure to thoroughly test this during the trial.

That was exactly the picture I was looking for, thanks guys. What? Why would an AI Hornet have such a detailed cockpit? Plus I remember the very early newletters from 2017 I think when Wags (or Nineline) teased a much older Hornet, without the current CMS suite and with the Nite Hawk pod.

Does anyone have access to the pictures that were uploaded to that site? I there was a screenshot of a very early Hornet build that was different than the Lot 20 we eventually ended up with. I found it very interesting because it indicated that an earlier Lot was initially planned and how this changed as development went on.

Did you fail to notice that OP flew an actual L-39, did you ignore that piece of information, or are you insinuating that they are lying or incompetent? This coincides with other SME statements ( ) and even Yo-Yo agrees ( ) that adverse yaw shouldn't be a factor. This is how it is in the vast majority of fast jets even without an FCS.

Not only that but they stated they already have it hidden in the files, it's just not activated until the PAF implements it.

Sorry, I missed your comment somehow. One thing to note, the forums have extremely heavy moderation so comparing DCS to other products is a pretty big no-no. But let's just say that making a commercial product and a completely free mod cannot be directly compared due to the difference in required cost and regulatory constrains. A 100% accurately simulated Hornet or any other military aircraft can be interpreted as a training aid and not an entertainment software and it would run foul of ITAR. Which has happened before (not for DCS but there was a perfect simulation of a trainer and the Air Force made the dev team pull it back because it was so accurate that it became and ITAR violation), so certain things are better left as they are. DCS products are entertainment products, artistic rendtions of existing aircraft. With that being said, in an ideal world, you'd be right. Ideally we'd have all relevant navigation features of the Hornet (after all, HB did simulate drift and all the update options), with a fully simulated INS, degraded modes, update options and many other features that are currently missing. But ED have to prioritize what to implement due to their lack of resources. They have at least 10 complex projects all together and they aren't a huge dev team with infinite money, so it makes sense. The vast majority of DCS players spawn in the air, fire their missiles randomly (mainly on friendlies), land, refuel and rearm and do it again. Very, very few people would be even interested in highly nuanced failure modes or a simulated AHRS or detailed BITs. The only exception to this is the INS only operation and the INS update functions, because it's relevant for people who play on time specific server (no GPS) and approximate an earlier Hornet. But I'd argue that as it stands now, the better approach is to turn off INS drift all together, because realistic update options are obviously incredibly complicated and would require an immense amount of work that really can't be justified if the vast majority of playerbase wouldn't even care. Plus as I've said, ED historically doesn't accurately simulate INS drift and update options. It's missing from the Ka-50 (originally it was in during the BS1 era but it got cut after the spherical Earth model was implemented), it's missing from the Viper and it's missing from the A-10. The Viper is slated to get ACAL and FIX and it's generally a much higher quality, much more polished and higher fidelity product than the Hornet, so hopefully that gets these features.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the Mig-29 is still something that they want to do eventually but haven't got the proper clearance to start, isn't it? Considering the issues with BS3 and the new Russian law, I wouldn't hold my breath that this Mig project ever materializes.

I would be very surprised if the Air Force allowed ED to realistically model the TAD, especially functions that pertain to threats or countermeasures.

But ED modelled certain functions that would require TAMMAC. If certain TAMMAC features aren't implemented in the game for whatever reason but our aircraft 'should' have TAMMAC then it makes sense to have certain features partially implemented. Currently we have a functioning TAWS and the designating logic shows that the jet either has DTED or it magically knows the elevation around it in certain situations. (Like designating behind you with JHMCS) So 3 situations are possible: 1.) Our Hornet should have TAMMAC and it will get more in depth implementation later. 2.) It doesn't have TAMMAC because it's not accurate to the specific aircraft ED are modelling. In this case, the currently implemented features and capabilities that rely on TAMMAC should be removed. 3.) It should have TAMMAC but certain functions are not going to get implemented for various reasons.

The A-7 and the A-6 will likely be 80s, post Vietnam variants. For the A-7 this is confirmed and for the A-6, it's heavily implied that HB are looking into making a TRAM model if there's sufficient data for it. The only situation where we may end up with a VIetnam variant of any kind is if there's not enough data to model the TRAM.

Different aircraft, different branches could mean drastically different regulations. There's a ton of info out there for the Apache which they may not be able to legally utilize for the game. When it comes to datalink capabilities the A-10 is also greatly simplified, and the Hornet also has some issues with this, the MIDS setup isn't simulated and the whole interface to interact with ground forces (like VMF or the CAS page) is also missing due to alleged sensitivity.

What extra information would you like to have added to the manual? I've skimmed through this part multiple times and I've found everything that is relevant to everyday operations in the DCS Hornet. The INS modelling is quite a bit simplified in DCS, the update functions don't really work and based on my testing, the system logic and failure states of the degraded modes don't really follow the logic described in the NATOPS. As a sidenote, I'd add that this level of simulation is in line with other DCS products, people can't reasonably expect advanced failure states and greatly detailed system logic for this low of a price. Other product that offer this level of depth in the simulation often cost twice or three times as much as a DCS module. So TEST, GB and Gyro aren't detailed, which means that those aren't properly implemented (at the moment, or maybe they never will be, we don't know), therefore the user isn't supposed to use those features and if they do, either some WIP or simplified interaction will take place or nothing will happen at all. So if someone is interested in what these settings do in the real jet, the NATOPS describes all these perfectly. But that information is only relevant if someone wants to learn about the real life Hornet, not the DCS product. The DCS manual is intended to help you use the features that are included in the simulator, it isn't intended to teach you about the functions or working of the real aircraft. If you reference the manual, every function that is simulated in the DCS Hornet will be described to you.

It has all the details that are relevant for the game. If you want more details about the real life implementation, reference the real life manual.

The problems with the current implementation have nothing to do with that issue though. There's more than enough data on the Hornet's radar and more than enough SME input. Radar/jammer priority switch as mentioned by the user above you is a well documented function and the interference blanking unit's effect on the radar while the ASPJ is transmitting is also accurate to available data. We just need the priority switch function. From the top of my head, aside from specific tactics and very exact performance data, the only thing that would be 'behind closed doors' and is relevant to use in any way when it comes to the radar is the ECCM function, as it's detailed in a classified supplemental manual. Considering the simplified implementation of EW in the core game anyway, that's not a big issue in my opinion.

That makes perfect sense however I'm afraid that HB will only make a Juliet or a Sierra and they wouldn't make an Echo. I'm far from being a Phantom expert, I'm familiar with the basic differences between the S and the E when it comes to avionics and ordnance but what about flight characteristics and other general changes? Would it be feasible for HB to offer both variant?

I wholeheartedly agree. In DCS, the 80s is probably the only era where there's reasonable chance at achieveing a set of historical modules and somewhat balanced, full fidelity lineup on both sides, especially in a setting where a near peer war would have been absolutely in the realm of possibility. If we consider all the upcoming aircraft, there are two things we'll need to truly cover all our bases; a capable full fidelity redfor strike aircraft and a land based USAF fighter. An 80s Phantom was for all intents and purposes one of the first examples of a multi role strike fighter, which is the only thing that Nato really needs for that time frame. We'll have Naval bombers with PGM capability but the E Phantom would allow the USAF to have parity in this regard. Pave Tack capability would make it possible to perform similar missions as the upcoming A-6 with TRAM and the Maverick capability would make it suitable for engaging targets of opportunity. For air to air, it would be a gun and it would rely on a fairly quirky pulse only radar system, which would definitely keep the GIB busy for air to air engagements. A naval Phantom would be fun but only if we have the E first.

RWS cannot support missiles. You either fire from STT or TWS. Every radar mode shows up on every RWR in DCS. To get around that, you'd need LPI radars, which are classified and way too new to be modelled. So TWS, RWS, VS or any other search mode will show up on the RWR regardless. But it's not going to show neither a radar lock nor a missile warning, unless you transition to STT. As far as I'm aware, in DCS there is no RWR contribution to trackfiles. You can have the detected radars show up on your MSI displays, the RWR scope, the HUD or the JHMCS. Chuck's guide also notes on page 198 that you cannot launch missiles from RWS.

To the best of my knowledge this isn't the case and this is also explained in the thread you linked. Designating someone as L&S is not any kind of lock, it doesn't directly do anything to the radar by itself, it's just telling the mission computer that 'hey, this track is important'. The result will be that the designated track will have higher priority, the jet will give steering cues against that target, if you launch a missile it will guide towards that target and so on. The interaction with the radar is that in TWS AUTO and BIAS modes, the radar will work as hard as it can to keep the L&S as long as possible while also maximizing the other trackfiles it can keep. (once it gets implemented fully it will be even more effective) But you're not changing the radar emissions, the amplitude of the beam will still be varying and not constant. There isn't any shift in frequency or anything that's detectable. Once you go STT, sure, the target will pick up that your radar is gimballed directly to his aircraft and the amplitude of the beam will remain constant and won't vary, which is a telltale sign of a 'hard lock'. The Viper is a bit more complicated. If you designate from RWS you'll enter SAM mode. In DCS this won't result in a spike but some people argue that it should. Since the exact capabilities of specific RWRs is a very closely guarded secret, we can't really decide either way, both sides have reasonably good arguments but as it stands now in DCS, SAM mode in the Viper won't result in a spike either.

All of this is detailed in the official manual, starting from page 142. IFA, acceptable alignment quality, stored heading alignment and so on.

I'm not sure what your problem is. The only comments I've seen from you are always snarky, sarcastic nonsense whenever someone posts something that would objectively make the game better. It may not be the issue with the highest priority but why are you trying to prevent progress with this little campaign? Even ED themselves are interested in expanding this area, as evidenced by the Supercarrier module and the upcoming ATC rework.

Good, I'm sure that a little bit of studying will be very beneficial to you. MAC really can't come soon enough.