Chaffee

I've been away for awhile, so I'm wondering if anyone has experimented with un-parking cores to solve stuttering in DCS, e.g: If this is a multithreading issue, I'd guess there's a decent chance turning your parked cores on permanently via the registry might solve the issue. I haven't tried it, as I have other problems to solve right now, but I'd like to hear about it if anyone wants to give it a shot.

Prefer ATFLIR always, b/c it will display on the AMPCD.

Interesting. I never see a symbology break on mine in my normal position.

The OP is sitting too high and looking down at the glass edge, which causes the HUD line. This video is taken from a lower angle, so it's not looking through the upper edge of the nearer glass. Absolutely correct as-is. You can test this yourself by lowering your view angle.

This^ NATOPS has a lot to say about how the Hornet is particularly susceptible to departing due to nose-slice. It also has a lot to say about the systems that prevent nose-slice departures. Is the described behavior correct? NATOPS isn't specific enough RE: what the FCS does to prevent nose-slice departures, but such departures have very hard positive roll associated with them, so for all we know, negative roll is the FCS fighting you to keep the aircraft out of nose-slice. The FCS already coordinates the rudder with stick input to prevent adverse yaw. The stick already gives you a great way to roll the aircraft. Kicking rudder for fun seems like the sort of thing the FCS would frown on, since it has all kinds of ways to prevent sideslip. Note: comparing the FBW system of the Hornet to that of the F-16 is a meaningless analogy, and there seem to be a lot of myths surrounding what FBW does. Read the NATOPS manual. FBW is not what most people seem to describe, and it certainly isn't the same thing in the Hornet as the Viper. Everything from performing a pirouette maneuver to rudder travel limits at various speeds or angles of attack are very specific and are also decidedly not simply "I'm telling the aircraft to yaw and now it has to figure out where to put the control surfaces to obey my will." If that were true, the ATFLIR (or simply dropping ordnance) wouldn't cause roll asymmetry, etc. FBW isn't magic. The Hornet's FCS hates sideslip. Physics still matter. NATOPS manual says if you yaw at 50-55 AOA, you should let go of the controls and wait for the aircraft to recover because life is about to get real interesting. This is likely not the result of the same cause that's happening at low AOA, not least because your rudder deflection limits and toe-in/out are completely different.

Congrats to the team! It's a great module. Looking forward to further development.

Have a look up on YouTube, mate: "DCS F-18 ATFLIR" or "DCS F-18 Litening" Lots of good stuff, and they'll even show you how to set up controls, ripple JDAMS, use mark points, etc: Tricker, Grim Reapers, Wags, Deephack, et al. Great stuff!

This is the only factual thing I've seen posted on the topic in any forum. Thank you. The amount of "I saw someone say something in a forum on the internet so it must be true" speculation is absurd.

Haven't had the time since I posted, but I'll see if I can replicate the BALT flip-out. I was pretty light in that AA loadout. Thanks for the responses. Minor, but annoying. I can "game" wing-rock by selecting HSEL on the heading of the CPL, then going back to CPL. I'll make some vids and report it over in bugs.

Well done!

Up at 45000, full burner, I encountered some interesting autopilot behavior: 1) Coupled mode is fine until it hits the selected heading, where it oscillates, making corrections in roll back-and-forth for more than a minute before gradually settling into the heading. 2) This behavior does not exist for Heading Select, where the autopilot behaves predictably, steering to its heading accurately without oscillating in roll 3) Engaging BALT at 3 degrees nose down causes such a severe vertical oscillation, centered on the horizon, that the aircraft nearly departs. I have not tested to see the effects if left on, but I will. Structural failure seems likely. It's that violent. 1 and 3 are so extreme that, if the real aircraft were to behave in such a manner, there'd be an ops bulletin in the latter case (like, "don't engage BALT at high altitude within normal parameters") and likely a software update in the former. Ship was at half fuel, 6 AMRAAMS, 2 Sidewinders. Anyone else tried these things with the new FM? Thoughts? I'll repeat this tomorrow and attach some vids if necessary

It's close to (but not) both PF Brummel and FF Enzo, with an italic majuscule A. Start there and see where it takes you.

Nonetheless, both of you have changed my experience for the better. These target-point/autopilot interactions are gold -- completely changed the way I'm approaching LGBs for the better. Helped me understand how Mavs work differently. It's very interesting how coupled autopilot needs a steering line to work with a target point. That's a useful understanding to have that fills the gap as to why it doesn't work with Mavs. Thank you both!

This is good to know. I was recently practicing Mavs and found that the -E is much easier to use against moving armor than the -F, even if these monsters seem a bit "overkill" for tanks. This was primarily an effect of using the TPOD with the -F... Even YouTube tutorials seemed pretty nuts in terms of getting the -F to do much of anything with the TPOD vs. armor. Not my favorite weapon in the F-18, which is just fine.

Thank you. Super good to know and very interesting. Honestly, it's why I paraphrase my understanding of the process in a forum, because if there's a subtlety that's missed, someone is likely to be helpful and correct any assumptions or omissions. (It's also exactly why I'd love to see this kind of thing documented in the manual). This isn't a criticism of the current manual... I've used it to give suggestions to YouTubers making very good tutorials (but who nonetheless missed something in the official documentation). Love the module. Love getting back into serious flight simming. Love the F-18 community in general.

Again, thank you. Your earlier post was clear. RE: your question about other autopilot modes, I got that from every attempt to re-establish autopilot (including BALT) on that flight resulting in a master caution A/P callout. However, the issue resolved itself on the next flight without problem, so it was likely an unrelated issue (cockpit misclick, RAM going bananas, pilot confusion/overload, etc.). I appreciate your time on this. I'd renew my request for the following sentence to be added to the official manual in the section on "Coupled Autopilot Mode," page 150f: "Designating a target with the TGP will disconnect coupled autopilot mode until the target is undesignated."

Huh. Okay. So any designation with the ATFLIR eliminates all autopilot modes, whether or not they are waypoint dependent, until no designations are logged, irrespective of mode or the pod even being powered. Thank you for this clarification. I have one other request: This behavior doesn't appear to be documented in the autopilot section of the ED manual, which is where I looked first. It honestly should be documented. Otherwise, there's no objective way to determine whether this behavior is intended. I'd recommend adding the sentence "Designating a target with the TGP will disconnect all autopilot modes until the target is undesignated."

Okay, so why is the autopilot gone forever? I literally unpowered designation sources, like the Mavs and the TGP. Does the jet have a one-way logic gate that says "once you've designated something once, autopilot is offline for the rest of the flight?" That's a serious question, because, if so, it's a major operational weakness to the extent that I'll ditch the pod permanently. Secondary question: if designation is overwriting a waypoint in CPL mode, why does that affect the BALT A/P mode, which doesn't require a waypoint?

Hello, This is my first bug post, and look, I'm a n00b, so maybe there's some bizarre, undocumented, Byzantine procedure here, but I don't think so. Hot start. 4x MavFs and ATFLIR. Master Arm on. A/G Mode. ATC active. GMT on RDDI. Mavs on LDDI. HSI on AMPCD: box SEQ1; box AUTO (OSB 15 and 16). Select CPL on UFC Select ATFLIR on AMPCD and make SOI with SCS aft. Cycle INR to Scene to AUTO with SCS aft. Autopilot quits with Master Caution notification as soon as AUTO mode is selected for ATFLIR. "So," I thought, "maybe the F-18 Autopilot sucks. Bummer." So, I did some testing, and here's the thing: Nothing I do ever allows me to rebox "Auto" in the HSI. I can reset the entire jet back to Nav mode, turn off the ATFLIR, clear the A/P completely with the paddle, etc.( To be fair, I haven't ejected the actual TGP from the ship). Still can't box "Auto" to get CPL to appear on the UFC. If I try to enter any kind of Autopilot mode, say "BALT," I get a Master Caution "AUTOPILOT" on the left DDI. None of this behavior has come up on any search, in this forum or elsewhere. None of this behavior is documented in any official or unofficial documentation. I can replicate this behavior 100% of the time, and I bet you can too. So, what's up? All of this made sense as some kind of F-18 bad-design limitation from McDonnell-Douglas, but the perma-break of the auto-pilot makes no sense unless somehow the ATFLIR is shorting the flight computer, which would be a major failure. Thanks for reading. Let me know if I'm missing something, but this system behavior is beyond bizarre.

Oh yeah, I took your post as not seeing a problem or seeing only a minor problem. Mine was supportive of that as much as anything and trying to suggest an explanation. I hadn't tried to over-g before, so did some testing, and yes, it's clear the pilot can overwhelm the flight control computer with wild maneuvering, and the results are different at different weights, likely because the airframe has a different instantaneous response that the FBW FCS is trying to react to. That makes sense to me, at any rate, and doesn't look like a bug but an expected response (if the FBW FCS is really like this: e.g. doesn't have a "clipping" limit on inputs). I have no real-world experience in the F-18 or data, so take that with a grain of salt. It reminds me a bit of something I saw over in the Huey forum with a recent complaint on mast-bump rotor separation: eventual video showed what I can only describe as insane flying -- profound abuse of the controls and any reasonable flight envelope; (your experiment was completely tame by comparison, FWIW, and this, apparently, is how the Huey guy normally flies, lol). It showed me why a track/video is always requested and hugely valuable. Again, thank you for that.

Then the flight control computer isn't keeping up with slamming the stick back, probably starting to enter an accelerated stall, and then catching up to keep the plane from departing. That's just a guess. It could be a bug. It also might not be a bug... If you can exceed the G-limit with the flight computer still on line, then you're giving it a whole set of problems to deal with to keep the plane airborne. Outside parameters is outside parameters. Anything can happen.

Fair enough. Apologies for mucking up the works.

Okay, thanks for the video. This is not a criticism of your flying, but I can't say that what's happening here is a bug. Here's why: 1) You start the turn in a 2.5-degree stable descent at 0.9G. So I'm not sure you're in good trim. Maybe you are, but there are some indications that you're not. 2) Your pull from 0.9 to 8.8G takes 0.95 seconds. That's a pretty severe pull. FBW flight computers aren't magic. Looks to me like it's doing everything it can to do what you're telling it to do without allowing the aircraft to depart into an accelerated stall. 3) 8.8G is beyond the operational rating of the aircraft. Are you hitting the paddle? I don't know what the flight computer starts thinking about when you do that, but I'm guessing, based on knowing something about such systems, that you're entering a flight control mode that's suspending certain safety parameters, again resulting in a near accelerated stall. If you didn't use the paddle, that just shows how behind the plane the flight computer was... In other words, the number of actual pilots who have done what you're doing here in real life likely approaches zero. Further, the extreme edges of the flight envelopes of any of these aircraft are likely not in documents that can be used by any content producer (like ED). I can't speak directly to that, but my thought is that simmers should have reasonable expectations at the extremes of any flight model. Part of this is framing. From my seat, I'm like "wow, the flight computer didn't allow the plane to depart when rolling 90 and pulling from 0.9 to 8.8Gs in less than 1 second." The wobble is a result of this. Is it accurate? I have no real idea. Is it likely under these conditions? I'd say yes.

BTW, this was the AIM-7F, from 1976, not some fancy-pants '80s tech My guess is that lots of Sparrow misses are based on the following factors: 1) User error. It's a difficult missile to use, and it requires you to put yourself in danger as well. 2) Server quality. I can't speak to this directly, but any amount of server fruit likely borks this thing and puts you into Flood Mode. For Flood Mode, see #1. 3) Humans are better at self-preservation (even virtual) than AI... none of my targets seemed particularly alarmed to get locked up and fired upon. They certainly aren't notching. One thing I'm testing is Sparrow advantages... it doesn't have any, officially, but there are 2 things that could be good: A) Your opponent is expecting AMRAAMs, which means a pitbull warning. SARH missile don't go pitbull. That's interesting. B) On the F/A-18C, the AIM-7 uses a different wing pylon mount. Looks lower drag to me, so I'll test it. C) A pair of AMRAAMs on the conformal mounts with a few Sparrows on the wings could make for a fast jet and a few surprises. Will test the drag and see. Anyways, I find the AIM-7 to be a fun challenge that obviously has historical significance. It's not underperforming my expectations.

Back to the original post... I just took out my handy F/A-18C against a variety of maneuvering targets, all hot, all AI. Generally launched at Mach 1.1 or so. Launched TWS L&S to auto-STT on AIM-7 trigger actuation. Loft, small target, inside parameters but not always inside the MAR. Used the steering cue 8 for 9 on kills. My only miss was due to losing lock at the gimble limit. Missile tracked and landed 100% of the time when I gave it the right support.