nickos86

Thanks for clear communication! Appreciate that! Good luck with pushing it for Friday ;)

Hi, any plans regarding JDAM/JSOW loaded on a dual rack? How can they get different PP (not PP1/PP2 but rather that each will have a PP1 so they both can be fired simultaneously)? Thanks!

A video by NINELINE to show this change + returning the STEP option for JDAM/JSOW (without choosing more than one bomb in the QUANTITY). NINELINE - can you provide info regarding what's planed for the JDAM/JSOW carried on dual racks? Any plan for Station xa, Xb? Thanks!

Saw this thread on reddit - GREAT NEWS! "As I'm sure you were all aware, up until today, using the JDAM or JSOW in the Hornet required a 2:30min alignment process, and upon switching to A/A mastermode or switching to a different weapon, they would power down, lose their alignment and you would have to restart the process. I've been in touch with ED to get this fixed since it's not accurate and they were extremely receptive and quick to fix, and now the fix is in the today's open beta. The new power mechanics are: Selecting one JDAM or JSOW variant will power up and align all JDAM or JSOW variants on board, not only the selected one. This will run the usual 2:30 timer on all variants simultaneously. Selecting A/A master mode or switching to a different A/G weapon will not power down any JDAM or JSOW, they will remain powered up and aligned in the background To power down JDAM/JSOW, the procedure is to select (box) the appropriate variant in the STORES page, then click the same OSB to unbox it" link:

Hi, Let's say I've got the a number of SAMs displayed on the SA page. After destroying one of them, I'd like to declutter only him. In the F-16 (not implemented in DCS yet) you are able to do it by bringing the equivalent of the TDC to the SAM 'number' on the HSI and press TMS down (if I recall correctly). That keep the 'number' showing but remove the threat circle. Should it be possible in the F-18 using the HOTAS? Thanks.

Just for the clarification - the TWS will be introduced in this Friday's stable update? Thanks.

Yep. That's what I think is the code problem. No need to "re engage" - remove the joystick input OFF before bringing it back ON. The logic of that not robust enough in the current code. It make this switched useless

More precisely, engaging autopilot using a switch on the throttle (I use the PATH/ALT switch on the thrustmaster warthog) will keep the autopilot engaged regardless to G maneuvers.

Set DMPI for AI wingman in the flight. In addition an optional 'weapon' option - that way the AI will be instructed with which weapon to strike the target. If the option not selected - the AI will decide by it's own. When giving them the order of "engage target and rejoin" the AI will attack the predefined DMPI or DMPIs (primery/secondary).

Hi, Current AMPCD is very bright. It makes it hard to read the the screen without doing one of two things: 1. Remove the MAP overlay and going back to black screen - it's pity 2. Manually changing the code of the AMPCD_init.lua link in the thread below: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=222680&page=4 Problem with this solution is the code check when flying on online servers... So, First of all - can you make the GAIN and CONT buttons to work? Maybe it will help with the issue? Or - change the the default settings of the AMPCD so it will become less bright (it's like a neon right now) and more readable. Thanks. Attached pic of current status versus the A-10 (done great) and the real F/A-18 AMPCD as captured by the pilot

Not sure if it's a bug or not. the ALT AP won't disconnect even if I perform high G maneuvers. Is that correct?

For the DL pod - I guess there are coverage areas and it's impossible to transmit/receive at any angle. I guess the ANT A change the coverage area? Couldn't 'lose' connection with the bomb after it was released no matter what was my aspect angle in reference to her. Is it implemented? WIP?

Thanks for the quick answer!

In the game a destruction of a bridge won't stop moving ground units from crossing it. Can it please be fixed? Thanks.

Adding a 'Layer' feature that add 'tags' -automatic and custom made. For example, a friendly fighter unit who's mission was defined as SEAD will automatically get: 'friendly','fighter','SEAD'. In addition, the user may add other 'tags' like 'phase1', 'blablabla' etc. Moreover, you can tag a GROUP of units You can choose to show/hide items that belong a certain tags to de-clutter. For instance, choose to show only 'Friendly' or ('Friendly' AND 'SEAD ) or ('phase1','fighter', 'sam') etc. That way a user may keep on the map only well defined assets that he's currently interested in.

1. An automatic 'flight' creator. The user choose the target to be attacked, the airplane, role and airfield - the system will create an automated route for takeoff to landing including PUSH, IP, target waypoints. Moreover, additional options can be added 'low/high egress', 'refuel', standoff attack/pop-up... 2. Create a 'package' - number of 'automatically created flights' that tied up using the same target. The system will synchronize the PUSH time. Possible options - "refuel en-route" will add a refuel aircraft prior to the PUSH way point and allocate time for refueling. 3. Not sure if it's under the scope of this thread but just having the certain ME abilities in MP would be a blast. At the moment there is no way to brief MP mission on the server nor change the flight plan in any way.

Hi, Above the RWR there is some kind of a metal part. It mask the RWRs 12 o'clock symbols. What is the purpose of this? Is there a way to move it in real life so it won't interfere? Any ideas to overcome this annoying thing with bringing the head lower every time?

jsr9597, can you properly read the RWR? Target at 12 o'clock not masked to you by the metal part on the left "eyebrow"?

BTW, there is a small metal part above the RWR that clutter part of the display in 'normal' view. Is that how it feels in real life or the POV is a bit incorrect?

Please add the option to check QNH

actually i think the master arm have to be ARM/SIM for it to cool.

Eventually a lot of the frustration here is due to our lack of ability as human beings to delay gratification. Damn, whenever my phone fail to upload a web page fast enough I'm getting angry at him :) Basically what ED done to us was to make us wait now for at least two weeks just for some bugs to flush out for the Viper...Not even new features probably... Just to make it work almost properly. Even worse with the Hornet -we probably need to wait at least a month for new features ... seriously?! Two weeks now?! A Month?!? Are you kidding me?! :) I want the thrill of a new features yesterday! I don't want to WAIT. I've WAITED too long now! Two months with almost zero new toys to play with. Objectively, even now, we got a thrilling experience of flying two super advanced fighter jets in a beautiful environment. That's crazy... When I was flying Janes F15E/F18 or USAF I couldn't even imagine this kind of graphics or details. But now - how dare you not to add the TGP symbol to move in the HUD?! :) I do blame ED for this frustration. They should have done a better job with communicating Hornet updates. Even keeping the Hornet mini-updates alive on "low fire" would make every one happier :) Damn, just post a screenshot once in a while... publish a mission... something to calm our appetite :)

AIM-9 should switch automatically from WARM to COOL when entering DOGFIGHT

Arctander, As long there'll be customers like Shimmergloom667 who'll regard the EA we got as "actually pretty fine" and be "chill" if the F-18's "EA takes 3 years"- we'll have to accept the status as is. I don't know what were the EA sales of the F-16 vs F-18. The F-18 went EA even in a worse condition... I guess that releasing the F-16 before the F-18 got some of it's major systems done - got many people to "wait on the sideline" with the F-16 and see in what state it will be released. Maybe I'm wrong and the F-16 sales bypassed the F-18. Honestly - not showing significant progress over the last few months with the F-18 and moving resources to the F-16... probably got the confidence of the customers to crack a bit (at least some of them). Although what I wrote - I've bought the F-16. I wanted to invest in ED and I still want to believe in them. That doesn't mean I or anyone else should not criticize them and say "thank you" for an unfinished job.

Dude, the F-16 was released not as an EARLY ACCESS but an EARLY EARLY EARLY ACCESS at best. I don't even bother to post bug reports... What they announced a few months ago was that they work on complex systems and therefore we should expect a slower rate of new feature addition. Does it mean it's an excuse not to fix bugs or polish existing features? Over the summer there was little progress on the Hornet. The TGP is an example of that. As a Hornet costumer - it make me a bit nervous. The focus can easily stay on the Viper for quite some time. It's not ready and the buyers will demand (rightfully so) progress. Progress = resources. Those resources will probably come on the expense of the Hornet.