Vitormouraa

Some other engines use the main fuel to control the nozzles, imagine if that was the case here. It could make things even worse. Thanks for sharing that @mvsgas!

Very impressive.

Less guessing, more fidelity. That's what DCS is about. During the development, they said they were 'mimicking' a USN Hornet, so stick to that. And they did.

Oh, I see what you're trying to say, indeed. But I don't think they have a commercial license for that. Just guessing. ROTC at the Davis-Monthan air base has their own A-10C sim, you can check it out . So I'm actually surprised about the fact that they used DCS in this case, I thought they would have access to this sim I posted above as well, at least the software, but no, they used DCS, the entertainment version (which is pretty cool). :)

If they had, they would use it just like the FAA approved one.

That's sad, I hope you'll be able to bring it back! Great content you had there, Greg.

Please, if you don't have anything to add to the discussion about "why the G was on the Hornet" (which was the original topic of this thread), don't post unrelated and unnecessary questions. We've answered your questions already, yes the F can lock them up. If you're not satisfied with the answers provided in this thread, create your own and let's not pollute this thread with more unrelated questions.

Theoretically, the F (and all infrared Mavs) should be able to track ANYTHING (provided the targets are small enough), as long as you have a difference in contrast. But in DCS the Mavs lock onto objects, instead of contrast.

Where did you get that from? F is essentially a D missile with the warhead and propulsion of the E, same seeker as the D, optimized for sea strike roles, it aims at the waterline of the ship as Chicken said before. G is a penetrator version (670 lbs), optimized to track bigger targets using the force correlate, which the D does not have this feature. Only K and H models had, and they are CCD Mavs.

Congrats ED for taking a step back. That's the kind of attitude I like to see. Coherence. Keeping things like this as realistic as possible!

That's awesome! https://news.iu.edu/stories/2018/11/iub/inside/26-flight-simulator-air-force-rotc.html?fbclid=IwAR2vy9YxcYKZNj9UByi3Oi7iHzbi7Tuy0o1nvJbfNfWed34L3ee25oQoM_E

Are you flaring it off by the way?

I hear you guys! I have a huge performance drop in the Hornet. Especially if shadows are on.

What about this? From Fighter Pilot Podcast facebook page? They flew Hornets, since the 90s as you know.

Kev2go could you please point out some sources indicating that the G model was used by the U.S Navy with the exception of the post you linked above? What Chicken is trying to say is that there is no real evidence (that we can find available at least) that supports the idea that the G was used by those U.S Navy Hornets.

Glad to see this. [emoji106][emoji2532]

Read the thread. :doh:

I'd love to be able to turn on/off more graphics settings in-game, specifically the shadows. The reason is that I lose about half of my FPS when flying the hornet with the shadows on. I have no idea why that happens, but the loss of performance is too great when flying the hornet, so in order to get my performance back I always disable the shadows before I load up the mission, but this isn't the case in other modules, so I'd turn it on in case I want to fly other modules, and this becomes really annoying because I'd have to go to the main menu and change the options there. Is it possible to implement a feature which allows you to do this while you're playing the game?

Actually, we are not. According to Yo-Yo, in terms of thrust, we always have a brand new engine/aircraft when we jump into the cockpit of the aircraft, another detail that might be somewhat related to this is that back in 2009~ during the (sim) development, the Charlie model was still a "new" thing, although it was initially tested 4 years before. So I'm assuming our cockpit in the game also looks brand new because of the fact that the new Charlie cockpit was also "brand new" back when the DCS: A-10C was being developed, hence the lack of weathered cockpit (I'm not saying this has anything to do with thrust - just saying that this collaborates with the "brand new" argument I used). Back to the thrust, yes, the engines are supposed to perform like a brand new engine, which means the compressor efficiency is as good as it gets (or as it should...), turbine tip clearance is good, no dramatic changes in geometry etc... So in order to do an affirmation like that, you must at least prove that the performance is the "worst possible"...

On my 2D monitor I see green. Looks the same here. I'm worried about the brightness though, it looks very dim.

One question, how do you know the TF34s in DCS are underpowered?

Very cool!

It's a wonderful aircraft but you're not flying it because the cockpit isn't DS/PBR ready? :D

Very nice! I hope we are going to see more videos like this one!

By the way, just spoke to Mirage pilot from a french squadron, I asked him about the fuel flow at Mach 1.1 at 20k feet, he said "That matches". Nice. :)