Durnt

I've been having this issue too. The way I deal with it is to have another program open, and then alt+tab to get to DCS. I'm on Windows 11, non-steam version.

Would it be possible to create an audio option to turn off sonic booms? They sound great, so much so that everyone in MP servers wants you to hear them, as often as possible. I suppose it's a wake up call when flying late at night, the neighbors certainly agree.

So they did change it, ok. Guess I'll figure out how to babysit petrovich.

I have the Weapon Safety Switch Bar mapped to a button on my joystick, but It doesn't work if I'm in the pilot seat. When I switch to the copilot seat it works. It worked fine a while ago, but now the Hind is completely useless in MP because I can't change seats or fire weapons because I can't activate the safety bar. Did ED change something or is this a bug?

I know others have mentioned these areas; I'm just adding my vote. 1. Baltic Sea 2. Korea 3. Vietnam

Wow. The people in the Tomcat defense force are on another level. Having an unrealistic Tomcat: "nah it's cool, Tomcats are cool. RIO's slewing the tpod with no controller stick or PTID is not a problem. Tomcats are cool. Top Gun bro." Having an unrealistic Hornet: "That's not like real life, you can't do that, ED must fix this it's not perfect." Also, I'm kind of over the amraam thing. I'm surprised this thread hasn't been nuked yet.

Because in DCS all the modules can interact together in a combat environment. ED prides themselves on making the most realistic combat sim ever made. Therefor, if one module is allowed to be unrealistic, they all can be, and at that point it's no longer a sim, it's a fancy video game. If the tomcat in DCS didn't have a targeting pod, I would have never mentioned it. I was only using it as an example of something not realistically possible, but used anyway. Since every excuse for the hornet was that the navy never used single amraams, so it's unrealistic. And there we have it. It's okay to have a bonkers way of using a tpod without the PTID to make the module more fun. Then by that logic, the hornet should have single mounted amrrams to make it more fun.

That's a 4D chess move I never even thought about. However, I think ED has made up their mind. No amount of kicking and screaming will give us our sweet AA amraam pylon.

I think the real question is; why are okay with the tomcat being unrealistic, but so committed the hornet being absolutely USN correct? ED's website also never says it's a US Navy only sim, it say's it's a Hornet simulator. quote from their description. "Operated by several nations, this multi-role fighter has been instrumental in conflicts from 1986 to today. " From 1986 to today, well today, the hornet is carrying single mount amraams, so it would not be any less like it's real life counter part to do so.

After digging around for pics, I found an F-14A with a targeting pod, but it has the PTID upgrade (visible by the large green square seen in the RIO's area), that is NOT present in the current module for DCS. NO PTID = no targeting pod. It's unrealistic.

So using "test" aircraft means it's okay put whatever people want in DCS? Cool, so give me a single amraam mount.

That Bosnian mission the F-14 did drop laser guided bombs, but they were buddy lased by an A-6, the targeting wasn't done by the tomcat.

Because a single amraam on a C model Hornet is a REAL LIFE payload that's CURRENTLY being used, the pod on the Tomcat NEVER happened until the D model. If ED prides themselves on making the most accurate sim ever made, they should not allow the targeting pod on the Tomcat, not only because it's unrealistic, but it was NEVER used on A or B models. ED allowing something so blatantly unreal, but refuse to allow a single amraam because of "realism" is mind boggling. ED cherry picking what level of realism they allow means they can't use it as an excuse when they deny something.

The targeting pod used in DCS for the Tomcat IS unrealistic. The current A/B module doesn't have the PTID or right side controller for the pod. 30 seconds of googling I fount this. The LANTIRN pod did not require changes to the F-14's own system software, but the pod was designed to operate on a MIL-STD-1553B bus not present on the F-14A or B. Consequently, Martin Marietta specially developed an interface card for LANTIRN. The Radar Intercept Officer (RIO) would receive pod imagery on a 10-inch Programmable Tactical Information Display (PTID) or another Multi-Function Display in the F-14[31][32] rear cockpit and guided LGBs using a new hand controller installed on the right side console. Initially, the hand controller replaced the RIO's TARPS control panel, meaning a Tomcat configured for LANTIRN could not carry TARPS and the reverse, but eventually a workaround was later developed to allow a Tomcat to carry LANTIRN or TARPS as needed.[30]

It doesn't matter it's Swiss. It's a C model with an AA pylon. And no, The Swiss don't have a super duper upgraded 9G Hornet, It's the same one the US has. Why have a Swiss livery if we can't have a Swiss payload? The Tomcat has a targeting pod, that's not realistic, but ED still allows it. Saying it's unrealistic because the US never did it isn't an argument.

Now I just feel stupid. So, the hornet uses 2 lau-127 attached to a lau-115 for amraams, but the sparrow is mounted directly to the lau-115. But if the amraam is compatible with sparrow launchers, why can't it mount direcly to the lau-115? Since the amrram can be rail launched or jettison launched. This is more info I found. LAU-115/A and LAU-115A/A are rail launchers designed for carriage and launch of AIM-7 missiles from F/A-18 aircraft. The launcher is suspended from the BRU-32 bomb rack on wing stations. The LAU-7 launchers or LAU-127 launchers may be attached to the sides of the LAU-115 for carriage of AIM-9 or AIM-120 missiles. The LAU-115 requires use of a jettison adapter (ECP-422) for safe separation of the LAU-115/LAU-127/AM-RAAM when jettison as a package.

By far the weakest link in any of the modules is lack of landing gear damage. I know they model broken gear from hard landings, but they don't do anything for overspeed and side-slip. I've heard real life pilots talk about not over speeding their gear when they have an issue. The only gear I've seen take damage from over speeding is the su-25, which also has tire damage if you apply too much sideways force. Seeing any jet drift at 100kn and not rip the tires clean off the rims is ridiculous. Maybe I'm just jealous that f-16s doing a full burner take off can raise their gear at 400kn with no repercussions.