Joker328

You basically got it right here. This is all you can really do for now, but it's very high risk. The SA-19 is basically designed to kill low-flying helicopters, so you are better off avoiding them entirely if you can. Once we get the radar guided version of the hellfire (AGM-114L), it should be a bit more manageable. I believe the SA-19 in DCS mainly (only?) uses its optical tracking capability, somewhat unrealistically. So you don't get any warning unfortunately. If you stumble into its range and don't know it is there, you are toast.

You need a better joystick, friend

I don't even understand why it shows up on the monocle at all when you have the NVS mode switch set to off. Not being able to easily switch it off without losing the rest of the IHADSS symbology seems really clunky. I'm surprised this is how it works.

I think this is the way I'm going to go as well. I tried adding a bunch of curvature with the slider, but it's still really tough. The weird thing is that by default (zero deadzone or curvature), there seems to be this really non-linear jump at the slightest input, but then it ramps up more slowly from there. It's the opposite of what you want, and it is hard to be precise with a centering joystick even with a ton of curvature. I think a user curve (similar to the top one above) where it is super precise around center and then more linear after that is what is needed.

I've had weird things just like this happen to me with the A/A radar. It really needs some dedicated bug squashing time.

Can this thread be closed? It is completely useless. Inlet icing is not simulated in DCS. There is a longstanding bug that causes the sensor to go off in conditions when icing would never occur. Ignore it. It doesn't matter. Of course there is some minimal performance impact in real life due to use of bleed air, but it is irrelevant and not modeled in DCS.

This all shows what I think any of us who fly the Hornet could tell you, which is that the missile range cues are useless. My question is why they should be any different than the F-15 or any other aircraft that uses the AIM-120. If the cues are based on current state (i.e. speed, altitude, aspect) and missile performance, why don't ED just use info that is somewhat aligned with in-game performance (i.e. F-15 cues) for the Hornet while they theoretically improve both the cues and missile performance to better match reality?

I could be wrong, but I think in the future we will technically have 2 additional radios through the MIDS, one of which could be used for intraflight. Not sure if that is how it works or if that is even being worked on at the moment. In any case, is this a human wingman you are flying with? If so, I'd suggest some division of responsibility. Have your wingman monitor tactical while you communicate with the JTAC or vice versa. If AWACS is calling you or something, your wingman can let you know and you can switch over if needed.

It's a slow moving cruise missile. A handful of them are not going to take out a modern destroyer or cruiser. You are either going to need to take out their air defenses ahead of time somehow (i.e. getting lucky with HARMs) or completely saturate them with simultaneous harpoons from multiple launch aircraft (and potentially ships) preferably from multiple directions. One lone wolf with a few harpoons is not going to be successful against anything with modern air defenses or CIWS.

Assuming this is not how it functions IRL, my guess is that it's a performance issue. Every time it needs to update the display, it's going to take some CPU cycles to do the calculation of how each object should move based on the movement of the player aircraft (even if it's not updating the contacts). Multiply that across numerous contacts and multiple systems (SA, Radar, RWR, HUD) and it becomes more demanding. I assume the slow update rate is a way to mitigate this. Perhaps they will be able to optimize things in the future, but it may never be as smooth as we would like.

You could try playing with the volume mix in the settings. I think weapon tones are under helmet or cockpit (I haven't been in there in a while). Just do a little trial and error. It will probably make other things louder (e.g., RWR), but you can adjust them down in the cockpit.

Appreciate this analysis. It looks pretty reasonable except for the 4 AMRAAM singles at 591. I think that is probably just a bug/error.

I knew I recognized that guy from somewhere!

Does DCS actually simulate mission kill for ground units (i.e. the vehicle is not destroyed and maybe still maneuvers, but can't track/launch)? For well armored vehicles, this seems like the most likely result given the HARMs warhead/purpose, but I wasn't sure this was actually modeled.

I appreciate realism, but I'll stick to smooth air thank you very much. I can barely hit the basket as it is.

I had the same issue of Mav being unresponsive after rearming, though I had also repaired, so not sure if that was part of the issue.

I'm not sure what aircraft you are flying, but in general, that's not how aerodynamics works. At slower speeds, you need more deflection of the stick/surfaces for the same amount of response. At high speed, the force of the air moving over the surfaces is greater so you need to move the stick less. Modern flight control systems may even it out though, so there is less of a difference in control force required at different speeds. *Edited for clarification. I meant to move the nose a certain amount, you need more deflection at slower speed.

Maximum braking performance is not achieved by either skidding or by activating the ABS or anti-skid system. You will decelerate more quickly by braking just hard enough to keep the wheels from locking up. The reason ABS / anti-skid is needed is that this is sometimes difficult to judge, and on wet surfaces, you can hit a puddle or wet spot and suddenly lock up one wheel before you can react. The electronics can react faster than you and help maintain control. As for why you would turn it off on the boat, for one thing, it's not needed. The wire is what decelerates you, not the brakes. It's also possible the rapid acceleration or deceleration somehow trips up the system. Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Also it's not as clunky IRL. It just hasn't been fully developed yet. Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Oh FFS, check around before you post. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=234123&page=2 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=235193&page=2

Should there be a HUD designation for a target that is IFF'd as friendly? A circle perhaps? I haven't played latest OB, so not sure how it is now. Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

AACQ seems really bugged at the moment. I believe it is supposed to lock up the closest target to the brackets, but it seems to just pick anything at random, even things not in your selected range. Hopefully it is fixed soon, as it's a handy feature when you get jumped and need to get a shot off quickly. Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

My guess is that the declutter function will eventually enable you to hide SAM threat circles, but this has not been programed yet. Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

They really need to provide some kind of table or graphic on the usable/non-usable TACAN channels.

As far as I understand it, MIDS and Link 16 are elements of the same system. MIDS seems to be the communication equipment whereas Link 16 is the name given to the broader NATO network of data links. To answer your specific question, F-18s should be able to pass radar contacts to each other. The issue Wags was referring to was specific to the A-10, which is apparently not on the same system.