jwflowersii

@BIGNEWY Here is the link for the BUG. It's at the very end after I was trying to reach Mach 2.1. I managed Mach 2.12 and then was trying to land in field. As I was coming down, it just exploded when my fuel reached zero. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nue_zhlOZENyNzQEDitNFJruPYCAYWYr/view?usp=sharing

I would post a track file, but it's after a long multiplayer session. How do I send the track file that is too large?

Not sure if this has been reported but I ran out of gas in the 16 and exploded.

From my experience this is not the case and seems to happen almost every time off the rail even when it does track the target. So it's not working properly if that's the case. Also, I was in Growling Sidewinder and launched a missile beyond rMAX and it tracked target just fine and got a kill with it as well.

It's a long track and I apologize that it won't upload. However, we tested the radar and we found some weird bugs. In one case, the radar will lock onto something at 99.9NM even though we were the only assets in game. In another case, after switching into boresight mode, it refused to undesignate despite switching between different modes. I was only able to undesignate by hitting reset on DDI Radar page.

LOST means it lost communications, it has nothing to do with RMAX.

Thanks!

What about sampling rates?

It's more about the sensitivity of sensors. I'm not a radar expert, but has the sensitivity increased for radar returns. Power is only one factor, it's also the ability to discern minor differences.

Our squadron practices these procedures and this is actually from one of our trainings. We're trying to develop new tactics based on the current situation with the 18 radar and missile mechanics.

Prior to the recent changes to AIM-120 missile and issues with F18 radar losing track, this tactic worked wonderfully. It may not hit the target but it messes up their timelines and allows me a chance to get closer. I had a very high success rate and very few deaths when the missile tracked.

Regardless of range to target, the missile should be fed updated info from the Hornet. It shouldn't just go dumb after 5 seconds when it has 34 secs to active. That's the issue. My concern is the Lost message right after launch. That's what I'm trying to figure out here.

This is more in line with what I was thinking, but I'm not sure if that's realistic behavior or not. Are there limits to maneuvering when firing a missile. If that's the case, I can adjust.

No, this is a valid tactic and worked in the past when missiles actually tracked an aircraft. I've switched to using STT due to other issues with TWS.

Both shots were lost at launch. That is the issue. Why? I never lost STT lock, why do they go lost off the rails. If it's working the way it's intended why would it lose lock at launch. I even paused when I shot the first one. Shouldn't STT lose lock at that point as well, I'm just confused why the first two missiles go lost off the rails.

It is useful and it's called a defensive shot, to keep him busy. He's still fly into me and would be in range. The issue here isn't the tactics. The missile goes lost right after launch. Why? That's the issue.

Here you go. Regardless of the distance the missile should be guiding when being fed information from an STT lock. I didn't lose lock on target. Both missiles went dumb pretty early on. AIM120NotTracking.trk The missiles should be fed information from jet to steer at least to target. It seems they did not even track target from jet STT lock, they just went dumb.

In this video I launched two AIM-120s and they don't seem to track at all despite being in STT Tracking mode. Am I doing something wrong. These shots were meant to be more defensive to allow me to get closer and causing the enemy to have to evade and I realize not in best missile range. Thanks for any feedback.

I think the idea is that you don't have to use the same engines for the infantry combat and flight simulator aspects. It could be different game engines that share data and the same world. You could spawn in AI spots without having to return to base on different parts of the map. The infantry engine could have very specific areas they can participate in.

I would pay a good amount of money for a whole earth module. The ability to train and run missions anywhere in the world would be great. Procedural generation would be required, but just having the DEM and airports would be great as well. A partnership with Google Earth would be excellent. I sure hope this comes to fruition.

From NATOPs, maybe using speedbrakes and flaps?

I'm dying for a decent FFB HOTAS setup. I hope one is on the horizon. I would pay good money for it. If anyone has the Brunner and the Audrino setup and could give feedback on what's supported it would greatly help my purchase decision. My main concern is the time it can hold max force.

The problem we have here is a lack of imagination. The post I shared isn't necessarily developed by ED. The only thing that needs developed is the backend data sharing system between game engines all driven off a dynamic ongoing multiplayer campaign. As infantry, you could just hop in a battle with your friends as a squad or even control a squad that you're a part of. You don't need a 100 players in multiplayer to play against AI. Imagine a game such as ARMA linked into the shared data stream that shares unit movements to DCS. If you die because a jet blows you to smithereens, that's war and happens all the time. The great thing is you can just respawn unlike real life. You just need to think outside the box and it's entirely possible to join different game engines in a shared world. All you need is data on position and events to be shared and each game can handle the associated assets independently. The biggest investment is the shared data stream and they working on a dynamic campaign engine. Ideally, that's a modular component that could be split out to a central server running in the cloud. A message based system sends the events and data to any game or module that wants to participate. For scale, there are ways to handle that as well. Is it easy, hell no, but with enough thought and design, I believe it's possible. A player can dream.

We have a squadron of over 80 people and we train new people constantly. We have had to turn people away due to not enough instructor pilots. Trust me, people who have joined said it's made the game so much more enjoyable when the learn all the details and correct way to fly. We've trained complete novices to any flight sim to veteran flight simmers. We've built our training around the Primary and Advanced Flight Training Navy program. I think adding a squadron management system for players to connect with others for training would be an excellent idea for people who are trying to get into it. If you're only playing in single player, you're missing out.

Because not everyone is like you. IT is your opinion and only yours. You don't speak for everyone.