NoJoe

Also, just in case: The paddle switch on the stick disconnects the NWS. You might double check to make sure that paddle switch isn't being triggered continuously somehow (maybe assigned to a toggle switch, or similar).

Sweet, thanks for the update, and for keeping your eyes on this thread, BigNewy. Happy holidays!

I'm seeing mostly the same in the Hornet. If I turn the radar to SIL (or turn around so I'm facing the other way), the AMRAAM appears to initially loft normally, but it just keeps going up and up; it isn't continuing the loft trajectory to come back down to the target's initial calculated intercept point. It "feels" like this is the same issue as with the F-15. Track attached. I launch at long range on a MiG, and let the AMRAAM start its loft. Then I turn the radar to SIL. The AMRAAM never comes back down; it just appears to be trying to continue upwards. (I ended up launching a second AMRAAM at the target later at a closer range. I turned the radar to SIL before it went active, but it was a straight enough shot that it was able to go active and find the target on its own.) Expected result: I would expect the AMRAAM to loft itself up and back down to the initial calculated intercept point of the target, before the radar track was lost (?). And my apologies if I'm piling onto what ends up actually being a separate issue. Hornet AMRAAM loss of track test.trk [EDIT] Oh nuts, I'd missed this other thread. I think my post is the same issue as this other thread:

Actually there is one turning shot where you can briefly see the vanes retracting. My wife and I were watching Top Gun the other day and I saw that out of the corner of my eye, so OF COURSE I had to pause and go back to see if that's actually what I was seeing. Surprised that it was! :) I'll have to see if I can find it again. Anyway, not that this has any bearing on the discussion. IronMike's post nicely sums up the decision process.

I've been testing the new damage model against the AI, and it seems quite effective! I lit an A-20's engine on fire, and a while later the wing separated (without me hitting it again) and it spun to the ground. I think that's new. And I'm loving how fires will sometimes start and spread on their own after hits, and a damaged plane seems like it's draggier and has lower performance than before. It really helps make it feel like you can cripple an AI plane without having to outright destroy it. I have noticed missiles aren't very effective against the A-20 or Bf-109K (AIM-9s, AIM-7s, AIM-120s). The missile hit will have shredded the control surfaces and riddled the poor plane with holes, but it's able to fly on -- at least for a while. But I also recognize that's not, shall we say, a "normal" use case. :P The Hornet's 20mm Vulcan is EXTREMELY effective, though, as expected!

I also flew professionally, and had a job flying cargo at night (at low altitudes; around 10,000 feet). I agree that DCS World's depiction of night flying is spot on! On those nights where the moon was out I could see some details, but on moonless nights the world is indeed very very dark. I'm really impressed with how accurate DCS World is in this regard.

I'm just looking forward to blowing things up in an A-10, no matter what the module is called. ...though I do like "A-10C Thunderbolt II II". :D

I was simply replying to the OP's question: "So what is the intended or useful purpose of it?", giving an example of how it could be used. Cheers.

It probably depends on several factors, such as aircraft weight, how long it has been sitting (flat spots on the tires), and tire pressure, etc. As I understand it, tire pressure during carrier ops is generally set lower than airfield operations, which would require more thrust to start moving. I don't know whether the current behavior is right or wrong, but those are a few of the things to consider.

The way I read it is that I could have one target being lased for my first bomb (for instance, the first C-130 in the video). Then while that bomb is falling and being lased on the first C-130, I can use the offset to select the second C-130. As soon as the first bomb impacts, press Sensor Select Switch toward the FLIR display, and the pod (and laser) immediately moves to the second target, for the second bomb. Seems pretty straight forward; it gives an easy way to immediately switch from one target to another, without having to manually slew the pod.

I have a pair of buttons on my joystick assigned to Ctrl B and Shift B to retract/extend the speed brake. Notice here that I'm using the "RETRACT" command, rather than the "RETRACT/OFF" command. But I think Bobik2002 is correct: The buttons need to continuously sent the command, rather than sending it once. A single "press" will fully retract the brake, but you have to press and hold to extend. Also, moving the switch aft should extend the speed brake. Forward retracts it. (as far as I understand from the real Hornet).

What process did you go through to learn to fly the P-47 (in real life)? Are there any 2-seat P-47s out there so you can fly with an instructor, or if not, how did that work? Lots of ground training, then cross your fingers and hop in? And do you remember any impressions of your first solo flight in the Jug? Thanks!

Also keep in mind that the folks who reply to the poll will be a small minority of the total players of DCS, and may or may not be representative of the whole.

The two posts above are correct, but I've also noticed that sometimes the NWS is on by default after I complete a cold start, and other times I have to manually engage it before taxi. I'm not sure what conditions cause the difference.

Wait, how are you using the SLAM-ER already? I didn't think that was released yet. :P

It seems to be. Mach 0.9 at about 33,000 feet I'm getting Rmax indication at around 34nm on a head-on co-altitude target who's also at Mach 0.9. (in the Hornet). And the missile performance seems to be matching. Also I noticed the control fin deflections are animated. Is that new? It's pretty cool!

I'm intrigued by this line in the patch notes: "Introduced a new flight dynamics model of AIM-120 missiles. In contrast to the old missile dynamics model the new one includes revised lift and drag, revised induced drag and motor data. Added stability and control characteristics, velocity-altitude adaptive autopilot and modified lofting trajectories." I haven't finished downloading yet, but does anyone have more info on exactly what that is? Better AMRAAM guidance? Sounds exciting!

I grew up playing Graphsim's Hornet 1.1.1. Looking back on it, I never could have imagined at that age the level of detail that we have now in DCS World and the SuperCarrier module. A huge thank you, and very well done!!

I agree. I think this is what the bug is; not that the parachutes drift in the wrong direction. Hopefully ED will be able to get the wind indication in the briefing fixed. :thumbup: Though you might be right, Shadoh. The title and first page of this bug report are a bit misleading.

The first half of the video you posted shows the same thing: the parachutes are clearly drifting correctly with the dynamic wind, from west to east. In the second half of the video you set up some static weather, and set the wind to "239". Note that the editor indicates the where the wind is blowing to, rather than where it's blowing from. So setting "239" will cause the wind to blow from northeast to southwest. Which is also exactly what the parachutes did in the next drop. My guess is maybe the confusion is about the editor's wind settings? I flew professionally in the US, so I'm used to the wind indicating where it's blowing from, like you are I'd guess (for example, I'm used to "239" meaning the wind is coming from the southwest, blowing to the northeast). But DCS's editor uses the opposite format.

Weird. I just watched your track, and the parachutes appear to be moving correctly with the wind: The wind is coming from the water, blowing toward the land (so from the west, blowing to the east). The CBU-97 dropped slightly upwind of the targets (to the west), and deployed the parachutes. Watching from the point of view of the vehicles, the parachutes drifted from the west to the east (they were drifting away from the water). In other words they drifted downwind, as would be expected. So it looks like it's working correctly.

You say you're unable to hit radio towers, but your video shows you hitting the tower just about dead-center. I don't quite understand exactly what you mean? Is it that you started out aiming at the base, but that the bomb ended up hitting further up the tower? If so, keep in mind that as the jet continues flying along, the angle of the laser will get steeper. So even though you were aiming at the base of the tower when you dropped, by the time the bomb hits you're about over the top of it. Also I wonder if maybe the laser "spot" is considered to be in the center of the object, if it's illuminating an object? Which would be about halfway up the tower. Just a guess though.

Looking at shot #3, it looks like the missile is going so slow that it has no choice but to maneuver and move the target out of its seeker field of view. I'm not sure what the seeker FOV is supposed to be, but it looks like that's what's happening. If it maintained more of a nose-on attitude, it would fall behind the F-16. And that looks especially true with shot #4. The missile is just too slow compared to the Viper, especially once the Viper starts its turn away. Looks to me like the Viper pilot is simply maneuvering at the end to be out of reach of the missile. Not sure what happened with shots #1 and #2 though. That does seem odd that the missile maneuvered its nose away from the target and lost sight just as the Viper was jinking. Maybe the same thing, maybe not.

Awesome, I'm looking forward to the AG radar modes, and being able to adjust the countermeasures programs while on the ground. Plus the offset waypoints; that will be handy when working with a JTAC. Sounds good!

The sticky thread just above yours has info about what files to include in a bug report: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=210217