CaptPickguard

Just as radar trackfiles are not MSI trackfiles. I believe you are thinking about this wrong. MSI trackfiles can be built by both radar trackfiles AND FLIR trackfiles. While FLIR trackfiles aren't MSI trackfiles, neither are radar trackfiles. They BOTH build MSI trackfiles and MSI trackfiles can always be interacted with.

MSI is strictly an A/A system, so that does not play a part in this at all. The system that generates all the fancy symbology and powers the TOO mode is the HARM Command Launch Computer (CLC). Like the RWR, it lacks any form of inaccuracy and is bang on perfect all the time. Hopefully someday we can have a physics-based approach like the RWR in the upcoming MiG-29A. Maybe someday they'll take another look at it, maybe when HARM becomes a contributer in A/A with MSI.

What makes you think we can't L+S trackfiles just because they're angle only? If an MSI trackfile is created by FLIR or even HARM, sure it may end up being angle only for one reason or another, but there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to L+S it. Even in current DCS, an angle-only trackfile from the radar can be L+S'd. You are L+Sing an MSI trackfile that is angle only, in this case one which happens to have radar contribution. For FLIR, it should behave be the same if modelled properly, being just as L+Sable just without a radar contribution circle and with an F instead. The ONLY kind of trackfile you should not be able to directly L+S are CIT only trackfiles, and DCS does not even model those yet (currently only tracks already built by the radar show up with IFF responses when interrogated, which is another inaccuracy compared to even the F-16 in DCS). We need to stop this weird narrative that you can L+S some things and not some other things. Everything MSI can be designated as L+S, that is the point. The only thing you can't L+S are completely uncorrelated IFF responses (CIT-only trackfiles) which don't built a full MSI trackfile in the first place.

In my opinion this shouldn't even be wishlist. It seems to be a core part of the TOO mode that was implemented in software older than that of our jet. To me it clearly should exist in our simulation if ED has the documentation to implement it (which I believe they certainly do).

@AndrewDCS2005@Wroblowaty MSI video will be in August and hopefully included in the next patch. This patch it will not be included.

It's important to take SMEs in context. I don't think they flew our particular Hornet revision with the upgraded engines, and their F-16 experience I don't believe was with the Block 50, but with lighter, older blocks. These guys have some EXCELLENT experience, and their commentary is very much worth listening to, but this also is a complicated puzzle.

The Su-27 special options menu does not include a section to select a custom cockpit for the J-11 and there is no special options menu for the J-11 itself. Users that purchase the Flaming Cliffs pack will not encounter this issue as the special options for Flaming Cliffs does have this option. This issue impacts users that wish to apply a custom cockpit on the J-11 but only own the module individually. As it stands, there is no way to select a custom cockpit for the J-11 when the modules have been purchased individually. The solution to this would be adding a custom cockpit option for the J-11 under the Su-27's special options menu.

Sad to see the site down. Great product.

I can't help but notice the GBU-39 SDB is not named on the FAQ. Is the GBU-39 impossible to model given the information you have access to? It would be very nice to see that weapon in the game finally, especially after we were so close with the F-15E. Also, due to the F-35's limited internal bay, it would be a massive force multiplier.

ASRAAM is far from a given. Every time they spoke about developing the missiles for the game it has been IRIS-T and Meteor. Not one mention of ASRAAM directly. It would be cool, and they haven't explicitely said they will never do it, but don't expect it as a 100% confirmed item. I think it's as likely as PIRATE, maybe less because of extra CFD work.

I expect to see the plane in the video but don't expect to get your hands on it for another at least year or two. Still, very exciting!!!

Which springs does everyone use with the dampener installed? Low strength, high strength, or both?

TRDs are planned as far as I can tell for the Typhoon. Any specifics on air to ground weapons though is unknown at this time.

Bumping this topic as it seems considerable work is currently being put into fleshing out the Hornet. Would definitely like to see this be tracked internally and eventually added.

Outstanding work, everyone. Can't wait to hear more about the Eurofighter! ;)

WRCS seems to work decently in some conditions. Still need to test more. The small warhead really highlights the inadequacy of the current vehicle damage models though... I recall a change to ships that disabled their radars when hit with a HARM. Maybe ground vehicles can get this change too, permenantly disabling their radar when hit with an ARM.

@MrWolf The Hornet actually doesn't utilize its radar antenna for IFF interrogation (aside from NCTR prints of course but that's not what we're talking about). It is a separate antenna array mounted on top of the nose (the bird slicers as many call them). You can read up on the APX-111 here: https://www.baesystems.com/en-media/uploadFile/20230124201524/1434555671810.pdf I appreciate the contribution to this thread, but since the CIT is its own thing and not bound to the radar in any way, just like on the F-16 which is behaving correctly in DCS (https://www.baesystems.com/en-media/uploadFile/20210404040301/1434555677018.pdf), it just doesn't hold up.

This issue is still present in the latest version of DCS. Hornet still only picks up CIT returns from trackfiles with radar contribution.

Especially hoping for the offset behavior to by fixed someday. Cool to see the Kiowa with a similar feature. Can a staff member please confirm this is being tracked internally? BN has confirmed to me in Discord DM that the offset behaviour issue is being tracked internally. This is excellent news. Hopefully the ACQ box will be added too.

Would also be very interested in an F-4 version.

Does this mean you could fire from below 18000 feet downwards and it would activate guidance, or does it have to fly a bit over 18000 feet first for the guidance to activate? If the latter, for how long?

A moment of silence for the sea mines.

Just to comment on this, pretty much every module in DCS simplifies IFF and countermeasures. Flares and chaff are dicerolls (in most cases) and IFF is a simple game engine check (in most cases). There is nothing unprecedented about this. The difference is that Deka is mentioning this will be the case directly rather than just doing it without communicating their intentions.

It's mostly cursor stuff IIRC, so selecting things with the X/Y Controller kinda like how you can in the Hornet, just to another level.

I have seen nothing to indicate the Eurofighter's Litening implementations have any sort of full-colour features.