Hardcard

@Frederf @Bunny Clark I think that the problem here is that you haven't scrutinized the armaments currently allowed on the inner pylons of the viper, in Mission Editor. From where I'm standing, you seem to be focusing on the fact that 2x gbu-12s aren't allowed on the inner pylons, therefore assuming that there must be a logical reason for it (physical or otherwise). If you scrutinized the currently allowed armaments on the inner pylons, you'd realize that the reason can't be physical. - Aerodynamic effects / safety of separation: A single gbu-12 or gbu-10 is allowed on the inner pylons. 2x or 3x cbu87/97 or dumb bomb racks are allowed too. Are you willing to claim that 2x gbu-12s have crazier aerodynamic effects on separation than the aforementioned? Just think about it. - Carriage stress: 2x cbu-97 = 2000lbs 3x cbu-97 = 3000lbs 370 gal tank = 3000lbs 2x gbu12s = 1000lbs Are you willing to claim that 2x gbu-12s put more stress on the inner pylons (and the viper in general) than the aforementioned? Just think about it. - Clearance: 3x cbu87/97 take more space than 2x gbu-12s. Just think about it and check it in ME's ordinance viewer. I'll say it again, guys: wouldn't surprise me if devs simply forgot to add the double gbu-12 rack ids for the inner pylons in the loadout tables for the viper.

@Frederf If you're talking about the inner pylons, keep in mind that they currently accept triple racks of dumb bombs and cbus, which are more draggy and take more space than a couple of gbu-12s would.

@Deano87 Who said anything about flying with 8x gbu-12s? I'm talking about a couple of gbu-12s mounted on either inner pylon (or both), to balance mixed loadouts and to carry one or two extra bombs when there's absolutely no reason not to. Besides, inner pylons currently accept triple racks of dumb bombs and cbus, which are more draggy than a couple of gbu-12s would be. Arguments about bomb aerodynamics make no sense either, since anything affecting a rack with 2x gbu-12s would also affect the triple rack bomb combinations that are currently allowed. Wouldn't surprise me if devs simply forgot to add the double gbu-12 rack ids for the inner pylons in the loadout tables for the viper. @Falconeer Like I said, inner pylons are wired (ie ready) for gbu-12 operation. But thanks for stating the obvious anyway

Inner pylons can carry gbu-10 (2000lbs) and TER-9A triple racks with either dumb or cluster bombs. I find it strange that multiple gbu-12 combinations aren't allowed in those pylons... they can obviously take the weight, have enough clearance and are wired for gbu-12 employment.

@Skyrat @Magic Man Homemade headtracking systems are cheap and work well, either get one or build your own. You don't have to buy an expensive TrackIR set in order to overcome the mouse limitation.

@IronMike Ok, I think I've spotted the main problem with my 29nmi shot @30k ft: https://streamable.com/1xzhrz It wasn't a matter of insufficient altitude and speed on my part, I simply took the shot from too close, forcing the phoenix to follow a narrow arc, which isn't efficient, and alerting the bandit with the smoke. Had I taken that same shot from 40-50nmi, the mk60 A would've stayed in thin air for longer, entering terminal phase at higher speed (and probably higher altitude), likely not alerting the bandit before pitbull. There's a chance the bandit would've still been able to defeat the missile, but at least the shot would've been more dangerous. Here's a dangerous mk60 A shot, taken at 56nmi with similar speed and altitude parameters as I had: https://streamable.com/wgvnem Sure, the bandit in this case was flying higher than my bandit, but still, the wider arc given by the longer range makes a big difference, this guy didn't see the smoke from 56nmi and the phoenix reached him in a much better energy state (again, this bandit was pretty high, though). So the key here isn't necessarily to climb to 40+k ft and burn like crazy, it's more a matter of optimizing the phoenix's arc (ie. taking longer shots). Doing that, it's possible to take mk60 A shots that are in line with the official reports I linked... although the energy bleeding above 20k ft seems a tad too much, maybe. The mk47 C, though...shouldn't it perform better than the rest of phoenixes? Don't you think it's underperforming? Cheers.

@IronMike Thanks again for taking the time to reply. I expect DCS phoenixes to be true to official Navy reports, no more, no less. This isn't about personal feelings, it's not even about what either of us would wish, it's about current phoenix performance in DCS not matching official performance reports. From the Navy Air Systems Command: https://www.navy.mil/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/Print.aspx?PortalId=1&ModuleId=724&Article=2168381 This isn't my opinion, these are not my feelings, these are official test results from the Navy Air Systems Command. Also note that these tests were conducted using early phoenixes, which should perform worse than the mk47C. So, as I hope you'll understand, I notice conflicts between those official reports and some of your statements: I'm not the only customer who has noticed discrepancies between official reports vs DCS performance and HB statements. You can keep telling me that the poor phoenix performance is my noob ass' fault, but official reports like the ones I linked still indicate that DCS phoenixes are underperforming. (I totally accept that my noobness is preventing me from getting more kills, but that was never my point. Like I said, I don't care that people evade my phoenixes, I care that my phoenixes are struggling in situations where they shouldn't, if official reports are to be believed). Anyway, I don't enjoy having to come here to report such issues, much less having to argue about them, when there are publicly available reports backing what I'm saying. Finally, you might find this hard to believe, but the tomcat is my favorite module in many ways, you guys did an awesome job in several respects (that's why I bought it). My only gripes with the module so far have been Jester implementation, lack of AWACS IFF option and phoenix performance (maybe also the inability to remove glove pylons, but that can wait)... the rest is pretty much awesome. It's just odd how hard you seem to be fighting to defend a nerf that goes against official reports and customer satisfaction

@IronMike Thanks again for taking the time to reply. Here's what I see. My first shot was taken at an altitude that allowed the AWG-9 to pick up that viper. I was flying higher, initially, but vipers are tricky to pick up in situations like this, so I had to drop lower. Also, he was 6.7nmi away and notching when I fired, he wasn't cold, watch it again: https://streamable.com/wz43k9 Forget about the viper, just watch the phoenix. It craps itself at 6nmi and can't even reach mach 2... compare it to what his amraam did, reaching mach 2+ in a couple of seconds. I agree that phoenixes should experience more drag than missiles with smaller surface area, but not to the point of rendering the missile useless. Now, the 22nmi shot @23k ft: https://streamable.com/foq7u4 My mk47C barely reached mach 3, even though it was flying at 35k ft, not only that, but, again, the bleeding after the burn was insane. Unless we consider 20nmi to be long range, phoenixes can't be struggling in shots like this and still be considered long range missiles. Amraams and SD-10s are supposed to struggle in this kind of shots, but not the mighty phoenix, reported to be capable of hitting targets at 100nmi. I don't expect my phoenixes to reach 100nmi in this kind of shots, ofc, but I definitely expect more than 20nmi. Finally, the 28.7nmi shot @30k ft: https://streamable.com/1xzhrz Just so you know, the guy from the previous shot is way more aware and dangerous than this guy. The difference is that I gave that guy a smokeless mk47 C and I gave this guy a smokey mk60 A (since the mk47C has such appalling performance that I didn't even want to try). Besides, this guy was outnumbered 3:1, of course he turned. You seem to misunderstand me. I don't care about the fact that he evaded my phoenix, I care about the fact that even the mk60 A is struggling to reach 30nmi when given a trajectory of 50k feet. 30nmi still isn't long range. If your solution is "fly at 40+k feet, close to mach 2 and only expect to hit noobs", I hate to break it to you, but most medium range missiles in DCS become lethal long range missiles when shot in those conditions. Phoenixes aren't behaving like long range missiles, they're behaving like medium range missiles, that's all I'm saying.

@IronMike Hi Mike, thanks for spending the time to reply to us in this thread, I appreciate it. Now, I'm afraid I have negative feedback about the recent phoenix changes. mk47 C doesn't reach bandits within 7nmi or even accelerate to mach 2 at low altitude: https://streamable.com/wz43k9 mk47 C doesn't reach bandits ~20nmi with sufficient energy, regardless of loft angle and 30+k ft trajectory: https://streamable.com/foq7u4 mk60 A doesn't make it to 30nmi with sufficient energy, even when fired at 30k ft with a pretty nice loft angle and 40+k ft trajectory: https://streamable.com/1xzhrz Now, what was that about the phoenix being a long range missile? Did I dream it? As things stand, medium range missiles outperform this supposedly long range missile. You say that this is consistent with your data? Seems to me that either your data is wrong, you're not interpreting it correctly or you're missing something. Medium range missiles can't be putting long range missiles to shame like this. My tomcat will be gathering dust in the hangar, I'm afraid, until the phoenix becomes a long range missile again. I mean, I don't know what you guys expect us to do here... miraculously get within 5nmi of enemy jets armed with amraams, SD-10s, R-27s, etc., cross our fingers and hope that our phoenixes have enough energy to reach them? The current phoenix situation is simply surreal.

@IronMike Could you please share a link to the full tacview track?

@Flappie Happy new year, Flappie! Once again, thanks a million for looking into the issue Will the ability to switch between huey roles (and autopilot) in MP ever come back? Do you know what the devs are planning to do regarding this issue? Should I create a wishlist thread or something? Cheers

Solo players can't switch between the different huey roles in MP, even when "Solo Flight" option has been enabled in ME. Please, fix it. Solo players need to be able to jump to co-pilot and gunner roles in MP. I'd also like to have the autopilot function back, pretty please. Thanks.

@Hulkbust44 I was going to request the option to remove pylons, just like we have it in the hornet. @bkthunder I've noticed that the eagle's speed indicator (on HUD, at least) doesn't agree with the hornet's, which shows higher speed values for the same mach number. The eagle's mach meter seems to be giving relatively accurate indications, though, judging by TAS. Anyway, in straight flight @ 50% fuel, pylonless eagle accelerates faster and reaches higher TAS than pylonless hornet (except at 10k ft, where the eagle hits a wall @ mach 1.27, but the hornet keeps going a little further). Sure, @ 50% fuel, eagle still has higher T/W than hornet, but that's how it's supposed to be, with those engines. Giving the hornet minimal fuel just so it can have the same T/W as the eagle isn't representative of practical situations. I don't fight eagles when I'm past bingo . Besides, seems to me that the smaller hornet should generate less drag, so given the same T/W, I'd expect it to accelerate and climb faster... but the thing is that, in practical situations, it almost always has inferior T/W.

@bkthunder Sure, there's a way to stop ground crew from mounting the empty wing pylons on the eagle. 1- Select the "empty" loadout and let ground crew finish rearming (no wing pylons should be mounted when using that loadout profile) 2- Once they're done, open the rearming window again, add 4 missiles on the "cheek" stations and accept (you can add a centerline fuel tank if you want too) 3- When the ground crew has loaded the third missile, execute the engine start command (the one that starts both engines in sequence, not the individual engine start commands) 4- After that, the fourth missile will be loaded and you'll get the "unable to comply" message from the ground crew, preventing the empty wing pylons from being mounted 5- Enjoy your minimun drag, mach 2+ capable eagle with 4 missiles

@bkthunder When you perform those tests with the eagle, do you fly with wing pylons attached? I'm asking because they slow down the aircraft quite a bit. Sure, eagle is 5000lbs heavier (empty weight), but it also has 33% higher thrust, which is enough to still give it a higher T/W ratio at the end of the day. Unless there are aerodynamic penalties affecting the eagle way more, it should beat the hornet in terms of acceleration and climb rate. Anyway, I do fly both jets almost every week and I already know that the eagle is way faster in terms of top speed... I seem to recall that it's also faster in terms of acceleration, but I'm not prepared to bet on it, since my recollections aren't as reliable as tests. I'll run pylonless eagle vs pylonless hornet tests and see what kind of numbers I get.

Super hornet is about 8000lbs heavier than legacy hornet and its engines produce only marginally higher thrust. The result of this is lower TWR when compared to legacy hornet, which tanslates in even lower acceleration. If you're already unhappy about the sluggishness of the legacy hornet, super hornet would only disappoint you further... super hornet is slower, not faster. High speed and acceleration with little effort can be found in eagle, viper, tomcat, flanker, fulcrum, mirage and eurofighter (when it comes out), not hornet. If you want to put the hornet at mach 1.6, strip it down, burn half the fuel and spend several minutes afterburning at 30+k ft

@bkthunder Hornet doesn't climb as well as the eagle, viper, mirage, etc. Also, I think that the mirage still beats hornet (and all the rest) in the one circle.

@Harker I don't think it's the same problem, remember that my HARMs went for friendly EWRs (and one of them was behind me). In my case, seemed like HARMs went directly into self protection mode and didn't discriminate between friend and foe. I haven't been able to reproduce it in SP yet.

@BIGNEWY Like I said, my tracks get corrupted after 5-10 minutes into the replay (if I'm lucky). Even relatively simple missions generate corrupted tracks, where my aircraft decides to dive into the ground/sea, fire missiles without a lock / in the wrong direction, get hit by missiles that didn't hit me, etc. Until the track corruption issue is sorted, I can't provide usable tracks most of the time.

I haven't been able to reproduce the issue in SP yet. I'll keep trying, but it might very well be that this issue only rears its ugly head in MP... unfortunately, I can't produce usable tracks there, since sessions last for hours and tracks get corrupted after only a few minutes. I'll try to work it out with server admins as well, see if we can figure out what's going on.

@BIGNEWY Sorry to ping you, but I think we need feedback from ED here. Is this working as intended or should I report it as a bug?

@draconus Sometimes there's no other option but to ask AWACS for a declaration... even that doesn't always work, but at least I can try to IFF that way, which beats being at Jester's mercy. One example: there's a furball ahead, TID won't help me make sense of things and I can't be looking down at the TID anyway. Jester won't always give me the IFF call when I get an STT lock and visual identification with TCS isn't always an option, so I need to have a plan C for IFF (which is available when I fly hornet and viper, like I said). Preemptively, I'll clarify that I don't intend to shoot missiles into the furball (not without the verbal consent of the buddy via SRS, anyway), I just need to lock the bandit as soon as possible, hopefully force a mistake, be ready to shoot in case my buddy dies or run in with guns. Also preemptively, I'll say that TCS doesn't always give me a clear image (smoke, clouds, etc.), or the target might simply be outside of the camera's FOV. Another example: unknown contact popup close, I need my IFF declaration, I need it soon and I need it to be correct. Again TID won't help me here, I have to get my STT lock and IFF call asap. Like I said, Jester won't always declare it (or he might declare it too late / incorrectly), TCS isn't always an option, so I need my plan C for IFF, pretty please. Another example: unknown contact that remains unknown, no matter what. Jester won't IFF it, TCS might not be an option, I need my plan C (even if it doesn't work either, at least I can try my luck) Finally, like I said in the previous post, I can ask AWACS for IFF declaration when I fly the other full fidelity fighters I own, tomcat shouldn't be any less.

@IronMike Sorry for pinging you, but need to make sure HB is aware of this issue (I wouldn't know, since this thread hasn't been labeled yet). We can ask AWACS to declare our STT locks when we're flying hornet, viper, FC3 fighters, etc., but tomcat doesn't have this option available. I think this is a tomcat specific issue, which is why I reported the bug here instead of the general DCS bug section. It's kind of a big deal, since Jester doesn't always give IFF calls (and sometimes he messes them up).

@Drac HARMs can't be fired in PB mode unless a code is given. Code for 1L13EWR is 101, I was using that. @Foka Always do that. Like I said, I did the same Wags did in the video, except I didn't set my EW page to manual.

I don't have DCS tracks, since this happened in long MP sessions, but I made tacview track recordings, showing the issue. In both instances, I used PB mode with HRM pullup, following the steps given by Wags in this video: According to Wags, HARMs shouldn't be "going active" off the rails when fired in PB mode, but looks like my HARMs were. I didn't set my EW page to manual, like Wags did, though, is that required for proper PB mode operation? Here's the first tacview recording: https://streamable.com/ssp8ju I had created a first waypoint just south of that neustrashimy (indicated in the video with my cursor). There used to be 3 enemy 1L13 EWRs around that first waypoint, but were no longer there, I didn't know that at the time. I had also created a second waypoint north of that neustrashimy, where the active 1L13 EWR was. My first 2 HARMs were supposed to be going towards the first waypoint (south of the neustrashimy), but immediately went towards the active EWR to the north (at my second waypoint). I did switch waypoints after firing... but that shouldn't change the coordinates for the HARMs already in the air, right? Seems like those HARMs "went active" off the rails and tracked the first EWR source they could find, regardless of designated coordinates. The third HARM was fired towards the second waypoint, but since the EWR had already been destroyed by the previous HARMs, didn't track anything (which is kind of what I'd expect, except that it kept flying straight instead of going for the given coordinate). The fourth HARM was fired towards the first waypoint (south of the neustrashimy), looks like it also "went active" off the rails and tracked the first EWR source it could find... which was a friendly EWR way out to the east, nowhere near the designated waypoint. Here's the second tacview recording: https://streamable.com/g3gjuo Similar situation. I designated a coordinate where an enemy 1L13 EWR was supposed to be (it had already been destroyed, but I didn't know). My HARM "went active" off the rails, turned almost 180º (completely ignoring the designated coordinates) and went for friendly EWR behind me... Unless I'm doing something wrong here, looks like PB HARMs are acting like SP HARMs (only difference is that they loft). I'm used to doing this kind of coordinate-based SEAD strikes with the viper (using EOM), so I expect my HARMs to fly to the designated coordinates, even if they can't find a radar source... isn't this how PB in the hornet is supposed to work? Or is it some kind of RUK mode, but without the 20nmi limit?