SickSidewinder9

I think it means our pilot no longer blacks out stupidly easy. Definitely seems to turn better at higher altitudes too

It absolutely does not "trim itself" for asym loads and such.

"Feel"? I'm at a computer

As the title says. I use the control input window to regulate afterburner use and trim. The problem is, the input window is very small on a 27" 1440p monitor and hard to see the trim info on. Not only that, but the Viper and Hornet control windows are different. The Hornet's is harder to see the trim setting at all, but the Viper's is too when slightly off center, and I'm not sure on either of them that I really see yaw trim at all. Look at the A4 mod control window. It is larger, easier to read (including contrasting red and yellow) and contains more information (flaps, leading edge slats, nose wheel positioning, throttle position actual, engine rpm in-game, etc). I figured they got it from you guys, but maybe not? It's odd that it's not basically the same in every aircraft (with obvious exceptions for some vstol, choppers, ramps and doors, ok). The other problem is that even though I have show control window checked in game options, it doesn't come up unless I hit the key for it. Every single time. It's almost like I'm just allowing it to work. Am I the only one who uses it much? anyway, thanks in advance

+1 We have this with the Viper. Does DCS not use API's or some other kind of standardization that plugs into the different modules? If it works with the Viper, there aren't the exact same cockpit/mfd screen parameters for the data fields i the Hornet? Aren't we talking basic principles of Object Oriented Design? Otherwise, you'd be doing it the hard way. Which, actually might explain why the control input window is different between the Viper and the Hornet. Look at the A4 mod control window. Make it like that. Actually I always figured they got it from ED.

That sounds like a you problem.

Once again, a track isn't what's needed here. What's needed here is for a dev to check ALL the airport ILS info on the map, because a lot of it is jacked. Just like how the rest of the map is disappointing. (no Qatar or Oman).

F-16 if you want a sim. Good hotas controls. Hornet is a little too smart in certain ways. Can't comment on the others. I also find boom refueling easier than probe and drogue. Maybe I'm just biased because I started with the Viper. Hornet gives you the whole carrier ops thing which is cool, but I find the Viper easier to learn and use the features of. Plus it has the SFW. You'll see what I mean.

Set the BE to anything but 25. No track needed. I wonder if IRL, the BE is always 25. That's fine if waypoints can be set with various routes and all in various number ranges, but right now, that's not a thing, really. I suppose if I add waypoints 21 through 24 in game, it will create a route for those separate from 1 through 20, right? And then 26 through 28 are markpoints in game, and data points are 500s. However as of now, with the way the mission editor is, steerpoints just get added 1 and up so there is no reservation for BE or Markpoints or alt routes, divert fields, etc. Right now, if there are at least 25 waypoints from the editor, 25 gets over ridden no matter what, and assigning mark points will overwrite existing waypoints if they are 26 through 28 (is that the right number)? Maybe the editor will be updated to reserve those numbers, although that would cause confuse with people flying other jets. Another solution would just be to "gameism" the steerpoints and not necessarily reserve/overwrite certain numbers, or even make it optional in the editor for a given mission. This would make certain missions like Foothold or TTI look cleaner on the HSD and HAD. Not really sure what you need a track for. you got a whole video of freeze not working on the radar and didn't bother to look at it. Not very helpful.

Some of the ILS deals are broken on the PG map and have not been fixed. Mostly Al Dhafra (sp?). Kind of a let down of a map for several reasons. Also, keep in mind that if you turn the ILS volume all the way down, it turns off. Which ever runway ATC says to use is the ILS that will be on. If there's no ILS on that runway direction, well, no ILS for you.

Hawt. Thanks!

Not quite what I was looking for, but thanks. More like the one that comes in game. The real one also has an American flag on the speed brake.

Stupid question: vmfa-323 high vis?

I didn't realize that was a bug. It's pretty much all I've ever seen in MP. I just thought it was setup like that or incorrectly. It effects Hornet too.

I still don't think it's supposed to go off with the gear down. I know, I know, "down-up-down" Well, when you take off the gear is down, then you pull it up, then you put it down again before landing. Should be OFF when gear down, then.

I think the main problem is that we have no sun visor simulation, so both the HUD and JHMCS just get washed out when pointed into the sun, and there isn't really anything we can do about it. If you're having trouble with in-game contrast all the time, try messing with in game settings like gamma, your display settings, and then if you really need you can download, mess with/figure out Reshade. I stopped using it, so I can't be very helpful with it. I found I didn't need it with the sharpen and other settings in my gaming monitor.

I just taper off the Gs faster after the initial 1% pull. The initial pull and speed brake really bleed off the speed anyway. Oh yeah, op,.are you using the speed brake? That would make your pull taper more quickly too, even if you stayed bang on 1%.

Is it glitched or does it just not take water into account? How does one use the mav without the tpod? I thought I figured it out, but maybe not. Or I forgot.

The second part of that is the problem, though. It should read off the altimeter. If fact, above 18k the altitude should be reported as a flight level with a setting of 29.92, but obviously, calculating that isn't built in. And the military probably doesn't do it that way. Don't they use angles when not talking to civi ATC? Still annoying to hear my guy call his position to the carrier and not use the indicated altitude.

No, I didn't attach a track. Jump into a mission like Foothold or Pretense or TTI. Something with a few dozen preset waypoints. Assign the appropriate waypoint as Bullseye if available or 1 higher than all the preset ones if possible. Now look at waypoint 25. Yup. IIRC, this bug has been around a long while. It's not usually a big deal, because by chance, wp25 will likely not be your task, statistically, but sometimes it is, and then you realize its lat/long is wrong. TIA

Interesting. I figured with the engines off, the hydraulic pressure would release itself and there would be sag from the weight of the tail planes. I'll have to try it. I'm not an engineer, so I guess I don't quite understand how the system works.

What? How?

Bump, is there still nothing by default? There is in the Hornet. Again, I think the Hornet and Viper teams need to have some more meets about consistency between modules.

I was playing on a PVE server last night and was having a hell of a time getting the moving target I wanted in a convoy to be tracked by the T pod. The one that goes on the centerline, if it matters (LITENING?). Does the ATFLIR just do better for that? Should I use TDC depress instead of SCS several times. I could find the convoy in the GMT radar, but of course the T pod doesn't currently follow that. So, I was trying to slave it to the air defense vehicle and just got shot down instead of getting it to track the right one. There's gotta be a more reliable way to do it, right?

maybe I'm thinking of the 15.