CaptPickguard

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

bumping because of Hot Shots :p

Is this on by default? I'm interested to know why an improvement to AoA buffeting was added as an option rather than just a change to behavior

Servers like Hoggit have been forced into the pure scripts setting to prevent griefers exploiting weapons. I think it goes without saying that servers shouldn't have to block all manner of scripts (cockpit exports, countermeasure programs, etc.) just to prevent cheating.

AACQ takes the highest priority trackfile and STTs it. AACQ is not an ACM mode, it is the usual manner in which you gain an STT. This specific thing you are mentioning is intended and correct behavior.

Thanks for the track. Having replayed it, I just want to note that the datalink symbols would have returned to their correct place if the radar were turned to silent and stopped picking up the jamming signals, as shown in the video in the initial post.

Hi Bignewy, my evidence is that this is impossible. Datalink info comes in, jamming signals come in, there is no way for the plane to know the two are the same. In DCS right now, the moment someone starts jamming, their Datalink symbol warps under the jam symbol, when the plane cannot possibly have any idea that Datalink symbol is the same as the jamming symbol. Jamming comes in, Datalink comes in, two separate things entirely. Right now the jamming takes over all the info we have on the target, when it should only affect the radar itself. Sent from my SM-F711W using Tapatalk

When the DCS F-16 picks up a jamming target, the datalink symbol for that target warps under the jamming symbol and you lose all the ranging information your datalink had for the target. In the video linked below, you can see the effect of the jamming on the datalink symbol as I switch from NORM to SILENT and back. The datalink info has no business warping to under the jam symbol. It should be entirely separate, as the jet would have no idea that the jamming target is the same target as broadcast on datalink. The jet lacks ranging information due to the jamming, so it would not have enough data to correlate the two tracks. The datalink should continue to come in displaying the information from Link-16, and the jammer symbol should show at the top of the display. The current implementation is just not logical. I'm sorry I don't have a track right now, but I sure do have a video showing off the issue and I hope it is sufficient to demonstrate it. This is 100% reproducable, and all you need to do is pick up a jamming target from beyond burn through range and look at the datalink symbol.

I think so, but I'm a bit disappointed that everyone jumped on the "no evidence" train when it was already functioning this way in-game. Understandable mistake, I get these kinds of things mixed up in my mind all the time, but this was definitely a bit of a slip up.

Are you certain the helmet we're getting is the Striker II? What gives you that impression?

It is highly unlikely they have any specifics they can share with us, but Harker's contribution definitely deserves a closer look. Misinterpretations happen, and many sources need to be corroborated to come to an understanding of the big picture.

I believe so, however I think Hulk's comment was more about LGBs in general than just the GBU-24. You definitely do not need to lase immediately when employing these weapons. This is a great find and I think clears up some of the confusion around what PW3's improved guidance entails. By no means does it look like it requires a laser off the rail. If anything it seems like PW3 has more flexibility in this respect.

Setting countermeasures from the kneeboard seems to work properly, however when rearming, the greyed out sliders still seem to apply their values and override what I had entered in the kneeboard. I then need to turn my engine off again to correct my loadout. To reproduce: Setup countermeasures to something that is not the default for the mission Rearm a loadout of your choice Observe change in countermeasures even though the sliders are greyed out and should have no affect

Just to update from some testing I've done, this also affects the DTC update request. In missions with wind, a request for a DTC update will also not be replied to.

The J-11 is a fun little module to play around with. Hopefully someday the data will be there for the missing bits and pieces to be implemented.

Do you have any evidence that this is how it works in the Hornet or are you just assuming every plane works like in the Viper? If you look at the Tomcat, you'll see another way things can work. Only a momentary trigger pull is required, a short delay passes, then the missile is launched. This is how it should work in the Hornet, not some copy-pasted Viper logic. While you CAN hold the trigger until launch, you should not strictly have to. That is the bug here.

It is my understanding that while there correctly should be a delay from trigger pull to fire, you should absolutely not need to hold the trigger like as is the case with the F-16's Weapon Release. While this new addition was almost certainly added based on documentation, I think it could easily have been a misinterpretation with regards to if the trigger must be held for the duration of the delay. This is something an SME could definitely easily settle.

Please see attached two track replays. One in the Hornet, the other in the Viper for reference. In the two trackfiles, we can see what Harker has described above in action. The F-16, upon initiation of an IFF interrogation, shows CIT replies on the FCR with ranging information, while in the Hornet it seems they are incorrectly just painting the radar trackfiles green if they exist. The F-16 modelled in DCS does not correlate IFF returns with radar trackfiles (this is accurate to my knowledge), but in the Hornet this correctly DOES occur and they do correlate. The bug, to be specific, is that this only happens when radar contribution is present, even though the information is there to feed to the MSI system for creation of a trackfile if neccessary. IFF_Report_Viper_Example.trk IFF_Report_Hornet_Example.trk

So your take is you shouldn't be excited for the Typhoon because modern DCS has inaccuracies and it will never be fully accurate. Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are plenty of people out there who like modern DCS regardless. Not everyone wants to fly grandpa's jet fighter because at least all the rivets are in the right spot. If you want to rain on the Typhoon parade, at least wait until the module releases so your feedback can be constructive. Until then, as you said, there are other modules to discuss inaccuracies about.

The Typhoon for DCS will probably have the PIRATE available as an option, but I doubt it will be available immediately. Initial featureset will be reminiscent of a German Tranche 1 according to the FAQ. To be clear, it's not going to be strictly a German Eurofighter. It's just the initial release will likely be reminiscent of one. I think you are misunderstanding the whole MSI thing. In DCS, the F-16, F-14, and F/A-18 all correlate datalink with radar contacts. This is correct. The issue is the ability to set MSI trackfiles as launch+steering targets even when they are not contributed to by radar. In the discussions I've read on this forum, that seems to be the source of contention, as the Hornet and the Hornet alone is argued to have this enhanced capability. Since this is a Eurofighter thread, you may be wondering about the Eurofighter. Judging by what I've seen, it should be even more capable in this sense. This video heavily implies that radar, IRST (if it's mounted), and datalink all work together to create trackfiles, and you can use whichever source from your "toolbox full of tools" to provide guidance for your missile. This is an interesting article from the Eurofighter website on some practical applications of this capability. https://web.archive.org/web/20120319052436/http://www.eurofighter.com/media/news0/news-detail/article/unique-amraam-firing-with-eurofighter-typhoon.html

The Hornet is not finished yet. There is a lot that goes into simulating any aircraft, and the Hornet is exceptionally complex. Lots more to polish off before the plane can be fully released, but that does not mean that the module is bad even in Early Access.

Sure. Just put the target under your cursor and it will show on the right of the target icon (HAFU). You can also get a good feel for where the antenna elevation is set relative to the location of datalink contacts with the AZ/EL format, a very useful page available in A/A master mode.

This is fantastic to hear. I am interested in buying the kit if you are still selling them. Sent from my SM-F711W using Tapatalk

Assuming the documentation is clear, this will be excellent for building SA from the NAV mode. I hope this is followed up on. Sent from my SM-F711W using Tapatalk

Bump. These would be welcomed additions! Sent from my SM-F711W using Tapatalk