ricnunes

Recently I've been playing with the F-5E (FC version) for the first time and I'm now trying to use the CBU-52 cluster bombs and was going to report an issue with these same bombs when I stumbled across this thread and so, I decided to post here instead of creating a new thread. Basically CBU-52s are unusable since targets hit by their bomblets don't seem to get any damage at all. It's as if the bomblets don't do any damage at all. For instance I attach here the results of a release of two (2) GBU-52 where some of their bomblets hit 3 vehicles (SA-6 TELs) but absolutely no damage was done to the vehicles/TELs. By the way, this bombing was done by releasing the bombs at 6,000 ft (dive bombing pattern) while the vehicles were located themselves at a locating with an elevation of only 33 ft (almost sea level) so the problem shouldn't be not having enough time to fuse and I do see the bomblets explode using external view camera or looking outside the plane's canopy.

First, adding a GBU-54 to the F/A-18C wouldn't be dragging into infinity since and afterall the GBU-54 and its functionalities are already modeled thanks to A-10C2. And regarding your points: 1) Perhaps having modeled a 2012 F-18 would have been better in order to go along with for the example A-10C2 which you mentioned. But on the other hand, there's probably not much diference between a 2005 F/A-18C and a 2012 one, this apart from very small diferences such as carrying GBU-54 which is what's being requested here. 2) I fully and totally disagree with you and I can't see the logic of that reasoning of yours. There's nothing that prevents a 2005 F/A-18 to be fitted in 2012 with a GBU-54. At the same time there's no way on Earth that a 2005 F/A-18 could go back to 1989 (unless someone invents Time Travel!) 3) This argument isn't nearly bad as the ones you gave ("If you want the GBU-54, just get the A-10C2". "If you want the GBU-54 on the F-18, just play a different game"), not even by a long shot! My argument doesn't force you to play like I would like to but your argument forces me to play like you want to. Get the diference? Besides, if I wanted to use the GBU-54 with the A-10C2, I wouldn't be here in this part of the forum (DCS F/A-18)!

I know there was a thread about this wishlist but and since that thread is now locked and I would really like to add my 2 cents about the subject which I believe are sound and somehow backs up this wish (GBU-54 Laser/GPS fitted to DCS F/A-18C), I took the "liberty" of creating this one. The other thread was locked because ED (backed up by a few members) believe this to be unrealistic because the F/C-18C modeled in DCS is from 2005 while the GBU-54 was introduced/integrated on the F/A-18C in 2012 (some sources indicates sooner but lets stick with 2012) but I fully disagree and here's why: The weapon (GBU-54) was introduced in 2012 which is only 7 years from the service date of 2005 of the F/A-18C modeled in DCS. As such it's not far fetched that 2005 F/A-18C's could or did have been fitted with the GBU-54 seven (7) years later, this without the same F/A-18C's having received any meaningful upgrades in the meanwhile. Which is far more realistic having a 2005 F/A-18 carrying GBU-54s OR having the same 2005 F/A-18C flying in a 1989 campaign (Task Force Challenger), the campaign that comes with DCS F/A-18C? This is obviously a rhetorical question because the answer is clear: It's impossible for a 2005 F/A-18C to fly in 1989 (unless someone invents time travel) but again it's not impossible for a 2005 F/A-18C to be fitted with a weapon that entered in service with the US Navy Hornets circa 2012 (or 7 years later). Yet, ED accepts the scenario of a 2005 Hornet flying in 1989 but not the one that the same Hornet uses a weapon (GBU-54) that came a few years after. Puzzling, I must say! Some users have backed up this ED decision because of the reason above (Hornet being from 2005 while GBU-54 from 2012) but the truth is that if the GBU-54 was integrated in DCS F/A-18C then these same users would still have the CHOICE of not using the weapon. The same applies to mission/campaign builders that have this same opinion. However, having the GBU-54 in DCS F/A-18C CATERS to everyone! Who wants to use the weapon will/could use and who don't, won't use it. Simple as that.

@silverdevil, Thanks for the reply! I just tried it and it seems it worked, thanks!

First of all, I'm not sure if this is the right location to place this topic but if it isn't then sorry (and feel free to change it). Anyway, the point is I believe quite straightforward: Recently I installed a new SSD drive in my gamming PC and my DCS is still installed in a mechanical HDD drive and so my question is, is it possible to easily chance DCS location to the new SDD drive without having to uninstalling and reinstalling DCS (or any other hassle)? And if yes, how? Thanks in advance

Thanks for the feedback @Smashy! After reading your post, I decided to try right away my example test mission with the Mig-29 shooting AA-11 at the player's F/A-18C from behind and at first I was disappointed to find out the the results were unchanged. However and since your post made me wonder, I decided to modify/edit this test of mine by removing/deleting the player's F/A-18C and replacing it by another/new player F/A-18C aircraft and Voilà! It worked! I tested this modified mission (with a new player F/A-18 aircraft) and my results were in 10 tries, I survived 8 times (80%) and died 2 times (20%) which is much, much better and acceptable than what we had before. Great work! However, there's a thing that is making me wonder: Due to situation that I experienced above, will the F/A-18 pilot survivability fix work in existing F/A-18 missions? I still didn't have time to test the existing missions (probably only on Monday, I'll have the chance to do this) and as such, I'll report later. Anyway, this is great news indeed!

Here, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Speicher If you read carefully from the beginning you'll see that it's mentioned that the 100% player/pilot death issue happens when the aircraft is destroyed or if you will, goes totally out of control (with too much damage like losing wings). Or course when the aircraft gets hit in a way that the F/A-18 isn't destroyed but damaged and still controllable - which is extremely rare by way, when hit by missiles - that the pilot won't die, don't you think?

Thanks @BIGNEWY

If that's the case then why do we have a survival rate of 100% in the Mig-29 while in the F/A-18 is 0% when both the Mig-29 and F/A-18 are similarly sized? Actually that's the reason why I compared the F/A-18 with the Mig-29 and not with the F-15C or Su-27 which while having similar survival results as the Mig-29 are much bigger aircraft than both the F/A-18 and Mig-29.

That's not entirely correct or at least not the way to do a proper analysis. The shot down during ODS was the one where a F/A-18 was shot down by a Mig-25. During this event when the F/A-18 was shot down, it got hit by a large and powerful AA-6 (R-40) missile and the pilot actually survived the missile impact and managed to eject. It was only somewhere after the pilot reached the ground that he died and it's not know if he died from injuries or because of the elements (desert can be very cold during night which was the case) or due to both reasons which we don't know and will probably never know. But what is known is that the pilot survived the missile impact and successfully ejected. In the second situation this one during OIF, the F/A-18 was shot down by a Patriot (friendly fire) which is an extremely deadly missile where for example and also during OIF a Patriot also shot down a Tornado (also friendly fire) and both crewmen also died. So and regarding the F/A-18 it's actually 50% of the two only cases/samples. Moreover and during ODS, F/A-18s took direct hits from surface-to-air missiles and survived, something which is impossible with DCS F/A-18C. Source: https://www.military.com/equipment/f-18c-d-hornet

Oh and BTW, I just want to add the following to @BIGNEWY or any other ED member/dev: I'm willing and available to have a videocall with any ED member/developer in order to show what's happening here with the Hornet in whichever chat platform desired. Or alternatively, if you can provide me a contact of another ED member that I could present this issue such as Wags, I would also appreciate. I'm saying this because and again, I'm 100% sure about what I'm talking about here, which is not that often! (and of course, I paid for the module)

From what I'm seeing and testing, the missile will kill always kill the Hornet pilot independently of the angle that it impacts the Hornet. That's why my tests that I shared in this thread always involve the enemy aircraft shooting a heat seeking missile from exactly from behind and without me (player) doing any type of evasive maneuver (just flying straight), so that a rear missile impact is always ensured. But and independently of the reason (hit boxes or other) there's clearly a problem with the Hornet and that's why and like you, I don't play it in campaigns and only do one or two occasional missions with the Hornet, usually quick missions and all of them without using my main pilot profile (I have one created just to fly in the Hornet and "die" in it everytime I get hit by a missile). Actually I would like to watch the hit boxes of the Hornet compared with the Mig-29. BTW, I keep comparing the Hornet with the Mig-29 as their sizes and therefore pilot survivability should be very similar. The Su-27 and F-15C like the Mig-29 also don't have this problem but are quite or even much bigger aircraft and so it makes sense to compare the Hornet with the Mig-29 instead.

Thanks for both your replies @Lt.Turbo and @GeoS72! I fully agree with you assessments and if the values surrounding the Hornet pilot survivability are to be correct then they are clearly wrong! Moreover, I echo @GeoS72 words that's it's odd that the ED team considers the Hornet pilot values "correct" when in fact the chances of survivability of the Mig-29 pilot are much, much and much superior compared to the Hornet. All of this while in reality the likehood of a Hornet pilot surviving and ejecting after a missile impact shouldn't be any lower compared to a Mig-29 pilot. But currently in DCS, this is clearly the case!

@GeoS72, I'm not trying do any personal attacks here. Maybe I'm showing a bit of frustration which results in @BIGNEWY's constant reply of "I tested and everything is ok" which is clearly not the case as this is something that can be reproduced 100% and there's still no one else that concurs with Bignewy's "everything is ok" assessment. Actually 100% of all other users here reported the same that you and I are reporting here. This has little to nothing to do with the monumental task of supporting DCS. By the way, I also worked as IT support, supporting the software that the company develops and sells and if I replied to customers when they are all reporting the same issue/bug with Bignewy's "I tested and everything is ok" type of response, this in face of all and every costumer reports with evidence then I would have been fired on the spot! I also must remember that I paid for the DCS modules that I own, including the F/A-18 which is one of the most expensive that I own and as such I believe I'm entitled to not being satisfied with a simple "I tested and everything is ok" reply without any further evidence - for example no several tracks of the "I tested and everything is ok" were shown - and being left without any further support about the issue. And if you look at my post history, I rarely post/report issues here. I'm reporting this because I'm 100% sure (not even 99%, it's 100% all in!) about what I'm seeing here and I can reproduce this bug/issue 100% of the times (as well as you) which is quite rare with complex software suites like this. But yes, I agree to keep this in track in the hope that this eventually gets solved!

@GeoS72 and @Racoon-1-1, I'm experiencing this issue in single player (I always play single player) and I don't use VR. My framerates are good and even more so since most of my tests involve 1 versus 1 "F/A-18 versus Mig-29" or "Mig-29 versus Mig-29" without any other added objects. I also want to tank @GeoS72 for your extensive tests and examples. I concur with them and that's basically what I've been experiencing! @BIGNEWY Don't get me wrong but it's not ok! Are you ignoring all the posters here? Are you going to continue to ignore the FACT that there's simply NO-ONE else here - namely from the PLAYER crowd - that concurs with you?