Biggus

I tried it and did not have a positive experience. It absolutely will get you to the ground, but probably not the runway.

There's three pages, and none of them cover the Mk82s or some of the other weapons.

Good request. All of the mousewheel scroll items in the cockpit at a minimum need the shift modifier scroll acceleration added to them. The fuel quantity one is the worst, but the others really need it too.

I'm also experiencing comparatively poor performance in the F1. Other modules are fine but the F1 is quite jarring. Mirrors are definitely a resource hog in this module.

Weren't some of the French produced ECM pods the very best of the era? I recall stories of French F1s being escorted by USAF fighters where the US fighters were more interested in gathering data on the French ECM systems than they were interested in Iraqi fighters, and that the pods that the Iraqis had on their EQs were better than what the AdA were using at the time. That's probably a bit of a derail, but most of the secret is to not be shot at and to work as a team with other assets.

If you apply the user curve option, these are values for different segments of throttle travel. They're effectively a multiplier for the value assigned to each throttle position.

My experience is much the same with a Winwing Orion. I went for 0-20-36-47-54-60-66-73-81-89-100. I'm sure I'll need to tweak it a bit more, though. I also noticed there's no marker for 'detent' on the controls overlay.

I second this request. Winwing Orion has the same problem.

Not a problem. The link in the first post is to the Viper bug subforum, and there's a separate post in the Hornet and Warthog bug forums. Those include Caucasus tracks. The problem I've reached is that ED have marked this as "correct as-is" though, hence this thread. Will see whether ED decides to change the status of that bug report.

Unknown at this stage. I haven't tested with FC3 aircraft at all, as I do not own them. I've only tested with the Hornet, the Viper and the Warthog. Here's three quick tracks to demonstrate what I'm reporting. Note that in the player controlled Tomcat, the behavior is exactly as I would have expected (except perhaps that Jester is a bit quick to call out those launches, but that's debatable). These are on Persian Gulf, but I can supply tracks for other maps showing the same result. AIM54_RWR_Viper_PG.trk AIM54_RWR_Hornet_PG.trk AIM54_RWR_Tomcat_PG.trk

@Naquaii thanks for your input. So as per my original bug reports, the AI is using TWS to engage multiple targets and ED-developed aircraft get an active missile warning as soon as they leave the rail at any range. This behavior is currently marked "correct as-is". I've tagged BN in that thread, asking for a review. Failing that, I don't really know how to push this further. It's technically an ED problem and not really an HB problem beyond it impacting AI F-14s and human players in ED modules.

@BIGNEWY could we please take another look at this? This cannot be correct as-is. An RWR should not receive an active missile warning at dozens of miles away immediately upon launch.

From my somewhat flawed recollection, only the EQ-4/5/6/7 actually carried them, although I wouldn't be surprised if the CT, CR and perhaps the Moroccan F1M could too. If we did end up with the ability to add the Exocet, I'd like to have the ARMAT too.

Accepted. My understanding of your position is this: AI cannot perform TWS guided launches, so therefore ED has created a virtual-TWS by allowing AI to use a multiple STT method to appear TWS-like. Third party developers know about this behavior and coded their RWRs to hide the active-missile behavior until those missiles reach their activation distance, but ED has not. Is this correct?

As per @near_blind's response, check the post times. This thread was created only in response to a "correct as-is" tag being attached to the bug post title after almost no movement since May and no subsequent feedback until after I created this thread here because I wasn't 100% sure. Perhaps you can expand a bit on what you think the bug is? Because being in a Mirage 2000 four ship flight on the receiving end of four phoenixes from a single AI F-14 produces the expected results, nails from a 14 until the final few seconds when the missiles go active. In the ED modules, this does not happen. It's nails until launch at over 30nm and instantly active.

Maybe it's locked to skin nationality? But yes, probably test config or development for other versions.

That's a good sign.

You cannot STT four missiles simultaneously. @mettschnitte Yes, that's something I haven't been able to test yet.

That's the bug I'm reporting. A TWS shot should not trigger the RWR until the missile goes active. But right now, if you are in a Hornet, a Viper or a Warthog, you will get an active missile warning as soon as the F-14 fires, regardless of how far away it is. It could be 100nm and it'll still set off the Viper's RWR the moment the missile leaves the rail. Please read the first post carefully and look at the image and the tracks. The AI is absolutely firing in TWS. There's a matching bug report in the Hornet and the Warthog bug subforums, each with tracks.

I'll second @Hiob on this. Thermal protection kicking in will absolutely present itself as a stability issue. It's a good step in the diagnostic process.

Yes, this is in TWS. The image in the first post is an AI F-14 firing four missiles at four targets in rapid succession. Although in that image the range is quite low (but still outside the range where the missiles have gone active), I've had the RWR warn in the viper, the hornet and the warthog at much greater distances, as if the shot was active off the rail.

That's exactly what I thought. Thanks @near_blind. @IronMike, you might hold more sway than us with ED over this. They've marked that bug as "correct as-is", and I'm sure they're going to disregard the same bug report for the Hornet and the Warthog.

Hi guys, When a Phoenix is launched in TWS at around 40nm, what sort of warning should be picked up on the target's RWR? I'd always believed that the missile would go active depending on the target size at around 10nm or thereabouts, but apparently this is not the case, and that the missile launch is able to be detected immediately.. There's an explanation from a user in that linked thread, but I'm not sure I believe it.

Are you looking for this thread? I've been using it for a couple of weeks now and I quite like it.

I'm pretty sure that some modules populate the card with the preset frequencies.